OF BAPTISM. The heads and order of such things as are especially insisted on, you will find in the table of chapters.  
Printed in the Year 1646.   

THE PREFACE.  
THE Author of these following thoughts professeth, that he was necessitated to them, partly in duty to himself, that he might discover what was the good thing of that ordinance, which the Scripture magnifyes so greatly, and himself understood so little; but particularly by reason of a controversal scruple, which a providence of God put him to conflict with, and all the present light he had, could not manage to satisfaction; to which also may be added as another just reason, that the desires of a few friends, who have a real interest in him, engaged his endeavours also in their respect, and contributed to the production of these meditations, which last reason was necessary to be known, in regard that they, whose desires were accessary to the drawing forth of this discourse, have been principal in the publishing of it, and have offered a kind of violence, partly by importunities, and partly by venturing upon the community and liberty of friendship, to make it public without any order obtained from the Author to that purpose, who needs no fuller witness than God & his own conscience, and a few friends, with whom he hath more particularly conversed, how little he hath delighted to engage his thoughts in the controversal parts of truths, and how in a constant tenor, his meditations have formed otherwise. But since it is done, & certainly with no ill will to the public. The Author finds good to accompany these papers with these good wishes, That they may by no means be the occasion to any of angry or quarrelsome disputes; that blood, which was shed for us, and which this ordinance exhibites as a fountain to bathe in, should qualify our heats, and correct that Chagrin & distemper, which often manifests itself in the agitating of things diversely apprehended; Particularly, that they may escape the unhappiness of the censures of idle men, who because they say nothing public enough for an answer, think they may say any thing, and having found an easy way to religion, to wit, the suffrage of learned men, and the practice of the most, judge them vain and impertinent that take a greater bout.  
To which he adds also this wish, that they may be delivered from such who triumph in discovering some lesser mistakes, and place a great part of their abilities in critisizing upon a word or phrase, not so well placed, or pertinently expressed; such, not to mention their charity, as their talon is commonly very little, so that which is, seems fitted not so much for argueing as wrangling (with which he would have nothing to do) and is levissimus fructus ingenij, which you may english, The froth or scum of wit. And lastly he desires that any who shall examine them more seriously and particularly, and shall not in every thing be of the same mind (for light is not administered to all by the same measure) would be content that men should enjoy their judgement (since nothing is more our own) till cause be given to alter them, & would in the mean time be so friendly to him, who professes to be greatly a friend to truth, in order to the truth jesus Christ, that in the difference of opinions, there might be a just simphathy and unanimity of the Opiners.   

These escapes the Reader is desired to correct, before he read the ensueing discourse.  
Page Lyne Error Correct 11 4 us as 30 14 offence offence 31 3 terrify can terrify 33 4 blot out; after the word death  17 discharge discharge 50 14 obliging obligeinge 56 14 or our 58 14 proceeding preceading 87 9 or as 88 17 which with 98 12 hnit hint 101 14 opposite apposite 113 19 Christ Christ's 128 13 put out That  133 8 chain claim 135 11 forner former 144 15 recte una 156 13 host haste 171 16 anquietnes an acuteness 177 15 to two 181 18 rational national 185 14 infaithfullnesse unfaithfulness 186 16 oath each  19 rationality nationallity 187 9 blot out the; at sin 189 1 yoke yoke 195 11 a beginning our beginning 198 3 gave have 210 3 antientnes ancientness  12 we workers coeworkers 224 4 come came 226 6 john john 1. 240 5 typising typifieing 274 20 pole pale 293 17 woe woe 324 6 ●●ite ●int 328 10 differing deferring 329 10 differing deferring 348 16 provooke provoke 369 3 beautiful beautiful  
The table of chapters the Reader will find at the end of the book.   

OF BAPTISM.  

CHAP. I. Wherein, of the first and great end of that ordinance, the sealing up of our union with Christ, and more particularly, of the most illustrious type of Baptismeall sealing, in the Baptism of Christ.  
THE Scripture holds forth no point with more glory and certainty, than the oneness which we have with jesus Christ, which union is the rise and ground of all that is good and happy in us: this therefore is the first and great thing that is made ours by Baptism, we are baptised into the name of Christ; for we, though we be baptised into the name of the Father and Holy Ghost likewise, and have an union with them, yet the Father's love is made good to us through Christ, and the Spirits efficacy is derived through and for Christ, who is the Mediator, the middle person, the bond, between God and us, so Rom. 6.3. Ye are baptised into jesus Christ. And Gal. 3.27. For as many of us as have been baptised into Christ. This therefore is the great ordinance, assuring and sealing up; If God had kept his mind to himself touching our eternal estate, there had been a sureness in it, but there had not been a sealing to us; but when he tells us his heart, and his mind, and bids us believe it, doubting nothing, & when he shall yet speak more sensible to us, to our sight and to our touch, and engage almost all our senses, when he shall mark us with sensible signs and seals, and speak visible words also, this must needs assure; and of all assurances there is none so great as this first piece of our union, to have this sealed and signed, to be baptised into Christ, to be engrafted into, and made one with him, how great a matter is it: Now God is not wanting to our faith, in the truth of the representation, between the sign and the thing signed, between the seal and the thing sealed, & therefore Abraham in his believing, received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of his faith, Rom. 4.11. that is, the righteousness which he had by faith, the acceptation he had, was sealed up to him by the sign of Circumcision, by that mark; now what Abraham had by circumcision, that the Saints have by Baptism; for so the Apostle intimates in Coloss. 2.11.12. (which place we shall have occasion to open hereafter) where he shows the use of Circumcision, which was a figure of things to come; so when Cornelius and his company were baptised, the holy Ghost fell upon them, as that to which the seal immediately was to be set, Act. 10.47.48. But the most illustrious sealing of all others was, as it became it to be, in our head jesus Christ, when he was baptised, Matth. 3.16.17. And jesus when he was baptised, went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he see the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. There the whole Trinity appeared, to make the Triumph and ratify that affair; never any ordinance was graced, with such a presence. And as Baptism is a visible seal to our faith, so here the Trinity, in whose name we are baptised, made themselves visible together; the Father by a voice, the Son in his body, the Holy Ghost like a bird. First there was the Heavens opened, but to him, so are the words Mark 10. it's said, he see the heavens opened or cloven or rend; that is, he saw a cleaving or rending, some great Hiatus; now this was for Christ himself, for it was as Luke says, as he was praying, Luke 3.21. which was, that so the voice & the spirit might be known to come from heaven, it being a great evidence of the presence of God there. Then he saw the spirit like a dove, lighting upon him; as the multitude in the Acts, saw the spirit as it were in cloven tongues like sire, the spirit took upon him the shape of a dove, and rested and abode on him; that sealing spirit, that seals us all, sealed Christ and abode with him, for so says john, Upon whom thou seest the spirit descending and abiding, that is he. And then there came a voice, and that admirable and considerable; this represented God the Father to his ear, as the dove represented the spirit to his eye, so while the spirit sat upon his head, the Father spoke from heaven, the great sealing word, This is my wellbeloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: This, that is, this man jesus whom I show and point out, by my spirits abiding upon him, Is, this is he whom I have promised, now ye have him, or, thou art, (speaking to Christ) my Son, we cannot be sealed to such a Sonship in all respects; we are adopted children, he was the natural and proper Son, the only begotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that beloved, many are beloved, but he was only beloved, as only begotten; we are sons, because we are beloved, but he was loved, because he was a Son, In whom, not in any other who ever he be unless by this One; I am well pleased; In whom I am contented, in whom my mind rests, that is, who only and singularly pleaseth me, and in whom there is nothing that displeaseth me; therefore I delight wholly in him, and rest in him so as every thing will be acceptable to me that he doth, by whom I shall be pleased with others, & by whom others may please me; for the Father here intimates, that his love so rests in Christ, as it deffuseth itself to others, so as beholding him, he puts of all offence, and anger towards others, whom he beholds in him, opposing him to every thing.  
All these things were to his person, but respected also his office, which was unseparable from his person. Therefore first, to him the heavens opened, whose office it was to open heaven, and to make an entry for us thither, again to open heaven, and to draw down the great mysteries of it to us, the doctrine of the Trinity was here declared, and truth came by him also, what he had seen of the Father, that he revealed.  
Secondly the spirit came in the shape of a dove, as to seal us before, so to show that he should converse here up and down in a dovelike manner; should have neither weapons without nor gaul within, to offend withal, although his condition was not greatly to please, therefore such passages as these, fell sometimes from him, Learn of me that I am meek and lowly; Ye know not of what spirit you are. This abiding and this use of the spirit, is that prophesied of him Esay. 61.1, 2. The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me, to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound: To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and to comfort all that mourn; and he was to be filled with the spirit, that it might descend upon us his members, and that we might be baptised with the holy Ghost.  
Thirdly for the voice, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; it was then the office of Christ to execute and manifest the well-pleasing of God in himself, to the redeeming, reconciling and renewing of the world that should believe in him, and the restoring of all things. This is that expression that is to be opposed to that other Gen. 6.7. It reputes me that I have made man; God can never repent him more that he hath made man, when he is so well pleased in the man Christ jesus, so abundantly satisfied & contented, and in him with all his. This Baptism of our Saviour was the Epoch or term, whence they reckoned Acts 1.22. etc. Beginning from the Baptism of john, unto that same day that he was taken up from us.  
I have been the larger in opening this illustrious type of Baptismal sealing, that the nature and way of it may be seen in the highest pattern.  
We shall be sealed also, with our difference of younger brothers; the heavens in Baptism opens upon us; and the Father, the Son & Holy Ghost, who are visibly present here, are present also to our sealing, and ready to give us the same witness, but with its distinction as before, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; and as we are then visibly united to Christ, who sanctifies this ordinance for us; so the spirit is ready to seal us up; and God by the spirit, to witness every good thing to us, let us therefore put a value and a price upon this ordinance, more than we have done; and after being once baptised into Christ, let us know and be assured, that we have a right to what he hath, and to what he had, & to what he is; for what ever he was or is, as Mediator, he is for us: with the great difference of elder brother, and having that in his own right, which we have in his; and therefore the sealing of his Baptism, belongeth also to our baptism, as his dying and rising again, doth to us, who die and rise again with him in Baptism.  
To add a word or two of the seal, Paul hath two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Signum & Sigillum; a statue, a representation may be a sign, but it cannot be a seal; we seal those things which we would keep with the greatest security, and have remain untouched, therefore letters and evidences are sealed, that no man might doubt of the truth and authentiquenes of them.  
Again, two considerations more there is in a seal; first things sealed, and marked, are kept for their master's use, My beloved is a fountain sealed up, Cant. 4.12. kept only for the use of the spouse; so their wells and springs were shut up in Israel, they were not for every body: Amongst the Persians they had fountains of which only the King and his eldest son drunk, under capital punishment to all others; in Spain they have also one of the same sort; so as we are marked and sealed for Christ's use our husband, we must not make ourselves common therefore to the world, & lie exposed to every lust, to every love, since God hath impropriated us.  
Secondly, we seal or mark things precious, as coin, gold or such things, as we set a price and value upon; God by his sealing lets us know, what a value he puts upon us, how he separates us from refuse & base things, therefore we should not defile ourselves.   

CHAP. II. Wherein of the second great use and end of Baptism, assuring us of our justification in the remission of all our sins, together with certain corollaries and enforcements.  
HAving told you that Baptism is the great ordinance of Christ, to confirm & seal up to us our union with himself, whom having, we have all things, that we may further see how considerable an ordinance this is, we will beat it out, as far as the Scripture gives light, in the point of Communion, and so we shall find, that as it seals and confirms our union with him; so it also seals and confirms to us, the most  thing in the world, which is the pardon of all our sins. It is safe giving ordinances that notion the Scripture gives them, which while you do, you will get the true juice they afford, and you shallbe sure not to err from the true nature of them: This you have Acts 2.38. Repent and be baptised every one of you for the remission of sins. As if he should say, you are now pricked at the heart, & you see yourselves in a lost condition, and therefore cry out what to do, as men amazed and at astand, saith he there is hope for you, God hath made an ordinance to relieve you in this strait, Repent and be baptised for the remission of sins; This jesus whom I preach, and whom God hath made Lord and Christ, can remit sins (for that is it which gauls you when light comes in) now for this God hath form an ordinance on purpose to confirm and ratify unto us the remission of sins, and that is Baptism, therefore be not amazed, but repent and be baptised: So Acts 22.16. when Paul was in an ill condition, being humbled with a witness (it is the greatest representation of the humiliation of a sinner that we have,) and Ananias was sent to raise him; saith he, Why tarriest thou, arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins; what can be said more comfortably to a distressed soul, than this, that God hath set and instituted an ordinance on purpose, that thou mayst be acquitted of every sin, to witness and seal up what is done by faith: Therefore do not languish in this condition, why tarriest thou? arise & be baptised, and wash away thy sins; so 1. Pet. 3.21. The like figure whereto Baptism doth now save us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience; We know that salvation lies, especially in justification and discharging all our sins; Baptism doth this, it doth now save us, that is, this signs and seals your salvation to you, which lies in justification and discharge of smne; but you must not think that it is only the washing away of the filth of the flesh, not a carnal ceremony only, but the answer of a good conscience; that is, it is that confidence and assurance which we have before God of his reconciliation to us; which this ordinance outwardly doth seal & exhibit: it is the stipulation of a good conscience, when a conscience appeased and pacified with the discharge of sin, can cry Abba Father, with a holy security, can speak to God himself; now, saith he, this stipulation of a good conscience, this is that which is the effect of Baptism, and which Baptism seals up to you; for what Baptism finds it seals, although it doth also exhibit more of the same kind; Baptism and so all the ordinances of Christ, those we call Sacraments, seal up what is already, else how could it be a seal, but doth also convey more of the same.  
This stipulation of a good conscience Beza saith; clearly refers to the answer of the Catechists of which there is a pattron 8. Acts 37. when Philip told the Eunuch the condition of Baptism, which was to believe with all his heart, and he gave the answer of a good conscience, that he did believe; that which he desired baptism should seal up to him, here was a plain stipulation, for so the word signifies; now that supposeth one ask or demanding, & another answering and making the bargain, or contract; as when one asks do you do this? can you believe with all your heart; and a conscience void of fraud, speaks clearly and evidently what it can do and doth, then comes Baptism.  
This they were used to do in the primitive Churches, & in the same manner we find, some do in this age, to infants, who understand them not, which is not very wisely done, for surely what ever they can do, they cannot give the stipulation of a good conscience: If they intent the infants which they say speak by others, they may well retain the old form, but not with any good understanding. It is the same Baptism that saves us, that did then, that acquits and dischargeth us, as the ordinance of God appointed for that end, though it supposeth especially the inward works, He that believes & is baptised shall be saved; belief must go before, this is that which on God's part seals us, and ingrafts us into Christ, & conveys Christ to us; and on our part it is the stipulation of a good conscience answering clearly and boldly to the intent of the ordinance: Thus you have another great use of this ordinance, it seals the remission of sins, & it seals to us the remission of the sins of our whole life, for it ingrafts us into Christ, and seals him up to us for the remission of sins; and therefore it must ever be considered for that purpose, & when it is so considered, we must look upon it, as the discharging and acquitting ordinance, which seals up, not only sins passed, but all sins, past, and to come; which some not understanding, and finding that those places for remission of sins were great and comfortable, have refused to be baptised till death, as is affirmed of Constantine and others, mistaking the true use of it, which is to seal up the pardon of sins, and respects all sins, in all times.  
You see what the nature of Baptism, coral. 1 what the intention of it is in this particular; Consider therefore the greatness of this ordinance, to which, as to the sign and seal, remission of sins and reconciliation with God is annexed: What say you, I beseech you? you that are sensible of the guilt of sin, that know the wages of sin is death, would you not be glad of something to discharge you & ease you; would you not be glad of all means that should assure you, that iniquity should not be your ruin? would you not be glad, to be baptised for the remission of sins, to have your sins washed away by baptism; to be saved by baptism in the stipulation of a good conscience, answering the sign and seal. This I think is no question to them that are stung with sin, and pricked in their hearts; then bless God for this ordinance, value it much, let it not be an empty ordinance to you, since there is fullness in it, let it not sleep & be a dead thing to you, since there is life in it, it being the ground of all our life & good; but improve it to its advantage, get the marrow and sweet of it, for there is much in it.  
Secondly, let us understand by this that hath been said, and by the nature of this ordinance, God's heart, and mind, for the remission of sins; he who is Lord of all, and able only to give all, he is so free of nothing as of pardon, because that is the first step to good & happiness; if he will us any good, if he would have us in any proportion happy, the first step is by pardon of sin, & therefore he is so free of nothing as that; when the law condemns a man, and when a man's conscience condemns him, he needs no word to carry him to hell, he hath that within him, will do that fast enough, guilt makes us run from God, as Adam did, and when we run from God, we run to death; God therefore in goodness and mercy, hath made the way to pardon so open and exposed, as nothing more. The very name of pardon and remission of sins, ordinarily implies offence against some lawgiver, some state, some great person, & implies guilt which needs that pardon: Now guilt abaseth & greatness terrifieth; what can there be more therefore to set us at a mighty distance from God, than guilt, which lays so low, and what greatness terrify us more than his; But God hath provided that we may come boldly, and he hath done it by two things; first by setting up a throne of grace, instead of a throne of majesty and justice. Secondly he helps us, by giving us a tender and sensible high Priest, who shall usher us in, and plead our cause at this bar and dispatch the business with his Father, that we may obtain mercy, 4. Heb. 15.16. And to show his heart the more in this work, he hath not only a throne of grace, & a high Priest to manage this affair; but he hath invented this ordinance of Baptism, that we might have an abundant entrance; In this you may see God's heart for the pardon of sin, for as Baptism doth it, so it is by God's appointment; Therefore know the mind of God, and labour not anxiously about sins, and the pardon of them, which is a great impediment to the comfort & holiness of our life. Now, that Baptism doth this, you have heard from several places, so as it is a great end of that ordinance, to remit and pardon sins, and assure that to us.  
But if you ask how it doth it? Answer, by your being baptised into jesus Christ; by being baptised into his death, by being visibly engrafted into his death; & condition, that as he did conflict with the wrath of God, it brought him to the cross, carried him to the grave, kept him there, and laid him low, but at last he get out, we being interested in what he did, as in a common person, who did all for us, and in our names might by the help of this ordinance (which visibly and sensibly represents our communion with him, in that which gains the discharge of our sins, which is his death, into which we are baptised) have full assurance that nothing remains us of the guilt of sin; nothing remains us, undischarged, since Christ, who was as we were, that is, made guilty of sin, that we might be as he is, that is, discharged from sin, hath broken the cords of death, having made a full satisfaction, death having no more dominion over him, because there is no more guilt upon him; so that baptism doth it this way, and as many as are baptised into jesus Christ, into his death, are put into that condition, that he was after his death, and rising again; and this must of necessity be, because he was as a common person, wholly in his death and resurrection; therefore they that makes themselves of that community, for whom he acts and trades, and by this visible sign and institution of his, submit themselves to that way of salvation, they put themselves into that state and condition that he is in after his death and rising again. If any ask, why did Christ die? he died for our sins, saith the Apostle; and why did he rise? for our justification, we being baptised into his death, partake of the end of it, which is the discharge of our sins, & our justification; it is certain therefore, our sins made him die, and it is as certain, that his righteousness made us just and righteous. Therefore what should keep any man under the power of death and subject to bondage, since if Christ be any thing to him, the great thing, & which the first Christian institution, Baptism, holds out, is, that he is pardon to him, and that he hath died & risen with Christ, and therefore may go boldly with Christ unto the throne of grace; and it is well called a throne of grace, because it is not we, that have done this for ourselves, but it is Christ that hath wrought all this good for us, so as it is grace to us, even the grace of Christ, who personally suffered what we do mystically, and by way of communion.  
Secondly it is a throne of grace, because it was not we that did or could make the terms but God, for he might have required from us, the personal payment of our own debt: Now that God would make this the terms, to take that at Christ's hand, which lay upon us, as a personal debt, it makes it a throne of grace to which we may go with all boldness and liberty of speech, and with the same assurance, that Christ himself did, because by virtue of his own contract sealed to us by his own ordinance; we are what he is, and have done what he did.   

CHAP. III. Wherein of a third great use and end of Baptism, whereby is sealed our communion with Christ in his holiness, to wit, a death unto sin, and a rising to newness of life.  
We come now to another great use and end of Baptism, which is holiness of life, consisting of two parts, dying to sin, and rising to holiness, and this is especially held out Rom. 6. I shall therefore briefly open & analise these words, not intending a large discourse, but so much as suits with the nature of this ordinance.  
First therefore in answer to that unsavoury objection vers. 1. Shall we sinne that grace may abound? The Apostle reasoneth vers. 2. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein; as if he had said, those that are dead to sin, should not live in sin, but you are dead to sin, therefore you should not live in sin; contraries destroy their contraries, death destroys life, as the privation doth the habit; a man cannot live & die together.  
But now it rests to be proved that we are dead to sin, v. 3. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptised into jesus Christ, were baptised into his death? This he proves from our Baptism, which is the seal and expression of our faith: If Christ be dead to sin, than those that are baptised, are dead to sin; But Christ is dead to sin, therefore those that are baptised, are dead to sin.  
That Christ is dead to sin, and how, you shall hear v. 10. For in that he died, he died unto sin once. But the proposition that those that are baptised, are dead to sin, because Christ is dead to sin, he shows you from the end of baptism, which is to witness & confirm to you your union and communion with Christ: And first of all with his death, which both discharges you from the guilt of sin, and destroys and kills sin in you.  
Now that this is the particular end, he shows you from the general, vers. 3. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptised into jesus Christ, were baptised into his death; ye are baptised into Christ, therefore into his death; hence vers. 4. We are buried with him by baptism into death; ye are so surely dead with Christ, that ye are buried also, to be sure he is dead that is buried. In this verse he proves further this communion in holiness, by the contrary to death, namely our rising again, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newnesses of life. For as Baptism witnesses to you that you are dead with Christ, so the same Baptism witnesses that ye are risen with him, so that as we are dead to sin by virtue of the death of Christ, so we are alive to holiness by virtue of the rising of Christ, that as Christ was raised from the dead to a new glorious and heavenly life, so we are raised to a life, new and holy: Now the reason of this witness ariseth from the analogy and proportion that the sign hath, with the thing signified, that Baptism hath with the thing witnessed: Those that are baptised, they are drowned and buried, and brought again alive out of the water; so by our union with Christ, we have the communion of being crucified & buried with him, and of rising again to a new life. Vers. 5. If we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. This word planting shows the reality of these signs & seals, this ordinance witnesses our planting and grafting into Christ, who is the stock with whom we live and die; as we feel death with him, so life also, this is the great stay, the great comfort, we are planted into Christ the true vine, by God the Father, and now we shall run his fortune in life or death, as the plant & stock die and live together. ver. 6. Knowing this that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin: Here he insists in the former argument, namely our communion in the death of Christ, which death he declares by the kind of it, namely crucifixion, & shows that as Christ for our sins died, so the body of sin in us by the death of Christ is crucified, the power and force is abated, that we should not serve sin, and live to sin.  
Vers. 7. For he that is dead, is freed from sin. He that is free from sin, is no longer obliged to sin, but believers baptised, are freed from sin, because they are dead to sin; dead with Christ therefore we are free from sin.  
Vers. 8. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. This is to show the communion still, and to usher in the next verse of our communion with the life of Christ.  
Vers. 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over him. Here he illustrates the life of Christ, from the perpetuity of it, that from thence he might gather, the condition of the Saints, in their persuance of holiness, which should be evermore.  
Vers. 10. For in that he died, he died unto sin once; that is, to blot out sin, but in that he lives, he lives to God; a glorious life and to the glory of God the Father.  
Vers. 11. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, through jesus Christ our Lord.  
There is the conclusion of all that went before, reason your sealnes, therefore to be dead to sin once, when Christ died to destroy the power of it, therefore sin hath nothing to do with you. On the contrary, you are as Christ, alive to God, to that glorious and new life, & all this through Christ, whose union and communion is notified to you in Baptism.  
This is for holiness, which consists in mortification and newness of life, which Baptism both signifies and seals to us. It signifies it, by the analogy & proportion, which is between the sign and the thing signified, and in that it signifies a thing past, it seals it to us, for when God will give you a sign and resemblance of a thing, it is but to confirm it to you, and assure you of it.   

CHAP. IU. Wherein is showed the report which the ceremony of Baptism hath, to the forementioned ends and uses of that ordinance; also some Corollaries.  
HAving spoken of the use & ends of Baptism, it will not be unmeete in the next place to discourse something of the Ceremony, that we may show the report which the sign & ceremony hath to the thing signified and represented.  
Now the signification is most apt; for the external form or Ceremony of Baptism lies properly in three things, Immersion, or Drowning, or Burying, by putting under the water; some stay under it, and emersion, or rising out of it.  
First the element which is used, is water, extremely fit & proper to represent our cleansing, both from the guilt and stain of sin. Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, says Ananias to Paul Acts 22.16. So Christ gave himself for his Church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, Eph. 5.26. So Tit. 3.5. According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration. So as this washing of water represents our cleansing, that is our justification and sanctification. The jews had many sprinklings with blood, fit for their gross capacities, but which indeed rather serve to make spots, then to cleanse them.  
First therefore the dipping or drowning in the water, signifies the great depth of divine justice, with which Christ for our sakes was swallowed up; & so we are dead and buried with him, reaping in a ceremony the fruit of that which he suffered indeed, partaking of his death for sin, and thereby obliging ourselves to death to sin.  
Secondly the stay under the water, though never so little, represents unto us, Christ's descending to hell, that is, the lowest degree of his abasement, when he was sealed up and watched in the grave, and was as it were cut of from amongst men; of this abasement we reap the fruit by Baptism, & are hereby secured against that abasement, and everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord; to which sin would have brought us; & therefore sin as it is destroyed in us in respect of the guilt, and cut of by this abasement of Christ, so it should be apprehended by us for our justification, and it should be utterly dead & mortified to us, in respect of its power and vigour; dead and buried to sin.  
Thirdly the Emersion, or rising out of the water, is a representation to us of that victory, which Christ being dead and buried, got over death, and in his rising, triumphed over it, with whom also we rise triumphing over sin & death, and all evil whatsoever, clearly above the guilt of all sin, and secure against the evil of sin, rising up to holiness & newness of life. And thus there is a sweet and excellent proportion, between the ceremony and the substance, the sign, & the thing signified, and we are confirmed to be of the union and communion with Christ in every thing that is for our good and comfort.  
Now having showed the several ends of Baptism, & how the ceremony makes them all good to us, I shall gather some Corollaries from the main notion of this ordinance, which is our being dead with Christ, and rising again, according to the forementioned place of Rom. 6.11. Reckon yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God through jesus Christ our Lord. Reckon, that is, build upon this; this is a thing exceeding sure.  
First if we be dead to sin, 
Coral. 1.  and sealed up to this death by Baptism into the death of Christ, then let us be in the world as dead men in that respect; let us not understand the reasonings of sin, nor hearken to the persuasions of sin, nor look upon the baits of sin; the Apostle made this an argument in a better thing, If you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, touch not, taste not, handle not, Col. 2.20. These things had once a good being, but were become old, but sin was never of any worth or account. Barzillai 2. Samuel 19 thought it reason to refuse the King's table, because his appetite and senses were decayed, he was eighty years old; but our senses are not decaying, but dead, and sin is not old, but dead; it is dead in a mystery, it is dead in Christ, and we have the Sacrament upon it; therefore if lusts tempt, turn not only a deaf, but a dead ear to them; persuasions should not work on a dead man, objects should not take or affect a dead man.  
Secondly if we be risen and alive with Christ, & Baptism seal that also; then act not only as a living man, but as a risen man, move and walk, & reason, & conclude, as a man raised from the dead, have your senses and your reasonings as quick to God, as taking of spiritual things, as they are dull and shut up to things below; breath in the air of another life, hasten after the full and real possession of another life; let God and Christ & heavenly things be great unto you, though they be little to the world, and what ever is great to the world, let it be little to you, proportionating your object to your life; love those ordinances, those times that feed your life.  
Thirdly the work of this ordinance or dying and rising, is advanced much by holy reasonings, both in the time of communicating & afterwards, for we are apt to forget ourselves and our conditions, as he that would have forgot that he was an Emperor, if he had not been remembered of it by others. Think therefore much on these things, what you have done in this ordinance, what are the consequences & results of it, which will be a mighty not only help, but engagement to faith & holiness, it is a seal on both sides, we seal to God as well as he to us, it is in our own choice no more, we are engaged by our own act; we have subscribed and can recall no more, and certainly this as it engages much, so it helps much: to act an act of faith in thought is much, but to speak it is more, but to sign & seal it in an ordinance, by professing subjection, by going down into the water, by suffering yourselves there to be drowned, or buried, by rising or coming out again, all as a ceremony or ordinance for such an end, is both a great engagement and a great help to us in believing.   

CHAP. V In which the proper ceremony of Baptism is vindicated by the force of the word, Scripture practice, the suffrage of learned men, and the use of ancient times.  
IN the proceeding discourse we have taken it for granted, that the ancient and usual form of Baptism, hath been by dipping or plunging the whole body under the water, according to which notion we have found what great proportion the ceremony hath to the substance, and the sign to the thing signified: But because the possession which the Churches have had of a long time of sprinkling, is become a strong argument in the thoughts of many for that ceremony, it will be necessary to speak something more particularly to this point, and to show that as the ceremony of dipping, suits with the ends and use of Baptism, so it agrees perfectly with the force of the word, the Scripture practise, and the use of ancient times.  
First therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies properly mergo, seu immergo, that is, to drown, or sink in the water, to dip, to overwhelm, to plunge, so mergere aliquem sub aequore, or in undis, to drown them; so Chamier says that immersion expresses the force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: it signifies also tingo, to die, or colour, quoth fit immergendo: which is done by dipping into the colour, overwhelming and drowning in it. So Walleus, a learned Professor of these parts, says that the ancient Latins expressed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per tinctionem & inundationem; inundatio is an overflowing. This therefore is the proper and natural force of the word, we will see in the next place what aspect the Scripture bears in several passages to the acceptance of the word in this sense.  
First in the story of Christ's baptism, the greatest and fairest example of the kind, as ye read it Mat. 3.13. Then cometh jesus from Galilee to jordan unto john to be baptised of him; ye see he went to john, who baptised in the river jordan, a place proper for immersion & dipping, where at last he was baptised, that is, dipped or plunged in the water, for so ye have it vers. 16. He went up straightway out of the water: that is, as the word is translated generally, he ascended out of the water. Now if any one, saith Maldonat, ask why the Evangelists use the word rather of ascending, then going out, they seem to be ignorant that the earth is higher than the rivers; so as Christ ascended or went up out of the water, in the which he had been dipped or drowned. Lucas Brugensis, upon the place, says this, Christ ascended upon the land, for he had descended into the river (after the manner of others that were baptised) as deep as his thighs, or his navel, for the rest of his body (says he) was dipped by john, not sprinkled only with water. Others have thought that it was the custom of john to hold the people up to the neck in water, till they confessed their sins.  
The learned Cajetan upon the place, says, Christ ascended out of the water, therefore Christ was baptised by john, not by sprinkling, nor by pouring water upon him, but by immersion, that is, by dipping or plunging in the water. Besides the evidence of the thing, many more testimonies might be brought to this purpose, of men that for the present content themselves with sprinkling for their infant baptism, but these shall suffice.  
The next place we shall consider, shall be that of john 3.23. And john was baptising in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there. The reason why he pitched upon this place is given, because there was much water there, which was not ever found in that country, & much water was needful to his Baptism. Piscator upon the place says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies many rivers, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular number signified the river jordan, this, says he, is mentioned to signify the Ceremony of Baptism which john used; immergens scil. totum corpus hominis in fluvio stantis; dipping, or plundging the whole body of the man standing in the river, whence, saith he, Christ baptised of john in jordan, is said to ascend out of the water, Mat. 3. the same manner Philip observed Acts 8.38. And in his observations upon the place, says, that the ancient manner of Baptism was, that the whole body was plunged into the water, & thence drawn out again; the one signifying the mortification of the old man, and the other the vivification of the new, as Rom. 6.3.4. thus Piscator. Cornelius a Lapide, upon the place, From hence (saith he) you may gather that john so baptised, as he washed not only the head in water, for a little water would have served for that, but the whole body. Many Authors might be quoted for this purpose, but the place speaks so clearly for itself, that I shall add to what I have said already only the judgement of Calvin upon these words: From this place, saith he, you may gather that john & Christ administered baptism by plundging the whole body into the water, although he adds also his opinion; Ye need not be much careful, saith he, of the outward Ceremony, so it agree with the spiritual truth, and the ordinance and rule of our Lord; and so say I also.  
You see what light this place affords to the clearing of the primitive practice for dipping or plundging in baptism.  
The third place we will examine shall be that of Acts 8.36.37. etc. where you have the story of the baptising of the Eunuch by Philip; As they went on their way, they came unto a certain water, & the Eunuch said, See here is water, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, as Piscator interprets it, fluvium, vel amnem, vel stagnum some river, or a pool, or pond; after this discovery of a fit place for Baptism, the Eunuch desires it, and Philip having taken an account of his faith, which was to give him his qualification for that ordinance, it is said in the 38. verse, that they went both down into the water. So Beza translates it, Descenderunt ambo in aquam, they descended both into the water: So the French, Descendirent enl'eau, as Deodat. and the baptism being done, vers. 39 they came up out of the water, in the which they had been before. So Beza, Quum autem ascendissent ex aqua, when they had ascended out of the water; the French, Quand ils furent remontez horse de l'eau; when they were remounted or ascended out of the water; all which express not a going to the water only, as some would have it, but a going down into the water for Baptism, and a coming out of it again. Lorinus upon the words, quotes Carthusianus, saying, Eunuchus magnam familiam habuit, nec tamencoram illis se nudare ac lavari erubuit, dum coram Deo de proprijs verecundabatur peccatis: The Eunuch had a great family, and yet he blushed not before them to make himself naked, and to be washed, whilst he was ashamed of his sins before God. By which, saith Lorinus, they are confounded, that reverence and fear the presence of men more than God: And adds also, That this descent, going down, signified by all means immersion, that is, plundging, or dipping, and it is probable, that by what means it most conveniently could, & was most expressly washing, the Eunuch was baptised.  
There will not need to be said more to this place, I shall only conclude it with the words of Calvin, as I did the other, which I am enforced to give you in his french, because his latin edition is not by me. Nous voyons icy qu'elle faconles anciens avoyent d'administrer le Baptesme; car ils plongeoyent tout le corps dedans l'eau: L'usage est maintenant que le Ministre jette quelques gouttes d'eau seulement sur le corpse, ou sur le teste: We see here, says Calvin upon the place, what fashion the ancients had to administer Baptism, for they plunged the whole body in the water; the use is now, says he, that the Minister casts a few drops of water only upon the body, or upon the head. Whereby you see both what his opinion was for the practice of the most ancient and primitive times in general, & how clear he was that the Baptism administered here to the Eunuch, was by dipping, or plundging.  
The fourth and last place I shall consider to this purpose shall be that of the 6. Rom. and the beginning, where the Apostle elegantly alludes to the ceremony of Baptism in our death, and resurrection with Christ, but having handled this before largely, and by itself, I shall only give you the sense of expositors about it for our present end.  
The learned Cajetan upon the 4. verse (we are buried with him by baptism into death) saith; By our burying he declares our death, from the Ceremony of Baptism, quia, scil. qui baptizatur sub aqua ponitur; because he who is baptised is put under the water, and by this carries a similitude of him that is buried, who is put under the earth: Now because none are buried, but dead men, from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism, we are assimulated to Christ buried, or when he was buried. Thus Cajetan.  
Estius upon the place, having said out of Austen, that what ever was done in the cross of Christ in his burying and resurrection, etc. was so done, that to those words and actions, the life of a Christian should be conformed; Adds, the like mystery the Apostle puts in the Ceremony of Baptism, for the immersion (that is dipping) of Christ, represents to us burying, and so also death; for the sepulchre is the Symbol of death, and the emersion (or rising out again) which follows that dipping, hath the similitude of the resurrection; therefore in Baptism we are conformed, not only to the death of Christ, but also to his sepulchre and resurrection. Where you see he clearly places the ceremony of Baptism, both of Christ's, and ours, in immersion, or putting under the water, & emersion or rising up again, exactly conformable to what is to be signified to us by it, namely our dying and rising again with Christ. So Cornelius Alapid. upon the place ℣ 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in mortem, id est, in similitudinem mortis Christi baptizati sumus; qui enim baptizantur & aquis immerguntur Christum mortuum, & sepultum representant allegoricè, etc. Into his death, that is, we are baptised into the similitude of the death of Christ; for they who are put under the water, represent Christ dead & buried allegorically.  
I shall add but one or two quotations more in a thing so evident, Deodati in his annotations upon the place vers. 4. hath these words, Ce qu'au Baptesme nous sommes plongez dedans l'eau (selon l'ancienne ceremony) nous est un signe sacré qu'il faut que le peché soit estouffe en nous par l'Esprit de Dieu, comme c'est un seau du lavement de nos ames devant Dieu. That in Baptism we are plunged into the water (according to the ancient ceremony) it is a holy sign to us, that sin should be stifled in us by the Spirit of God, as it is a seal of the washing of our souls before God.  
I shall conclude with the judgement of Piscator upon the place vers. 4. Sepulti igitur sumus, videtur (inquit) respicere ad veterem ritum, quum toto corpore in aquam mergebantur, atque ita quasi sepeliebantur, ac mox rursus extrahebantur, tanquam è sepulchro. The Apostle (says he) seems here to have respect to the ancient ceremony, when as the whole body was dipped into the water, and was by and by again drawn out, as out of a grave. So Piscator.  
Having thus fare carried on this notion for dipping, or plundging in the ceremony of Baptism, which we have found to have its rise from the natural & proper force of the word, & to have accorded fully with Scripture practise and example, which is the copy to which we must conform, I shall consider a little to discharge myself more abundantly to this point, what hath been the practice of the times we commonly call primitive, that is, those after the times of Christ and his Apostles, and what the judgement of the Fathers and ancient writers have been to this purpose.  
And first the Apostolical constitutions, which are of great antiquity, being attributed to Clement the 4. from Peter in the order of Bishops, according to the Roman account, they enjoin the office of Diaconnisses, or sheedeacons, to be to assist for the unclothing of women at Baptism; the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To minister to the Presbyters whilst the women were baptised, for comeliness sake. Const. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 32. this I find quoted by Chamier lib. de Baptist. cap. 2. p. 240. who brings it to prove, that from the beginning, as he says, it was the custom to dip the whole body, which expresses (says he) the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence it was (says he) that john baptised in a river, and he affirms that it is uncertain, when or why the change began, to baptise by sprinkling, saving that he adds that it would seem that 3000 could hardly be baptised in one day, by so few Apostles, if they were all dipped, or that the jailor had not perhaps a vessel at hand, big enough for dipping the whole body. But first you see that his opinion is clear, that Baptism in the beginning was by dipping or plundging the whole body, to prove which he brings the force of the word, the example of john, and after the Apostolical constitutions: only he knows not how so well to accommodate these two instances, but that sprinkling also might be used: I shall take therefore this occasion, to answer once for all to these considerations. First that when we have a clearness of Scripture practise, agreeable as is confessed to the force of the word of institution, and expressing it, which also accords, as we have already shown abundantly, with the use and end of the ordinance, which is the scope and intent of it, and apparently conformable to the most evident ancient practice, it were a boldness (to say no more) to leave or desert that practice, which upon the former grounds, we know to be safe and warrantable, for another, which we have little reason to believe was used, but because we see not how in some instanced particular circumstances it could be well otherways; And as it is ever dangerous, to departed from known & approved Scripture practise in the matter of ordinances, upon our own surmises, so it can be no where of worse consequence then in such ordinances (of which Baptism & the Lords Supper are) the being, and good of which lies much in the right administration of a ceremony.  
It would be safe to follow the clear & assured way, and for the other, unless they employed a simple impossibility, (which the practices instanced in will by no means be found to do) not to be much troubled about them.  
But truly I am jealous that those who find sprinkling most commodious for infants, and are not willing to departed from the notions of infant Baptism, trouble themselves more with the objections mentioned, than they would find cause to do, if they did not find it needful to raise objections from these places for the patronising of baptising by sprinkling, which as was said before is so proper for their infant Baptism: For the thing itself, to instance, first in that of the jailor, how easily may it be conceived, that in those eastern and hotter countries (this being at Philippy in Macedonia, Acts 16.12. where bathing was of great and continual use) this keeper of the prison might be provided with some vessel fit for bathing and washing the whole body, which might serve for the use of Baptism, as the Christians afterwards, when they came to enjoy fixed places of meetings for worship, had their vessels affixed to their temples, which vessel they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bucan. p. 666. being of a great continent filled with water for the use of Baptism, which the Latin calls piscina, or lavacrum, a vessel proper to bathe in, or font, from whence the custom of our little diminutive fonts in Churches hath come, since sprinkling (more proper for children as Chamier affirms) hath been the ceremony used in Baptism, with exclusion to dipping or plundging the whole body: I say it is easy to suppose that the jailor might be thus provided for his Baptism, and safe to suppose this or any other way that doth not imply a contradiction, then to think that the Apostles altered the usual ceremony for Baptising used to Christ and by Christ and his Apostles, as (appears evidently & clearly) and which so much accords with the intent & scope of the ordinance in that which the Ceremony signify and exhibits to us, namely our being buried with Christ, and rising again, as we showed already.  
As for the other objection, that it would seem difficult for three thousands to be baptised in one day by so few Apostles, if dipping the whole body, not sprinkling were the ceremony used; I answer it will not appear much less difficult if sprinkling were the ceremony, and it is the objection that Bellarmine & the Papists bring against our Divines, to prove that in certain cases the Laycks may baptise; This Chamier answers by Salmeron the jesuite, one of their own, tract. 15. in Acta, who says it is no way impossible, and brings for proof one Franciscus Xavier, who baptised in one day amongst the Indians 15000, now if one man could baptise fifteen thousand, twelve Apostles could baptise three thousand, besides if they want Ministers, and will not admit of the assistance of Brethren out of office (whose ministry to some will not seem so improper for assistance in certain cases of public affairs by public authority) we can furnish them with more help, namely the seaventy Disciples, whom our Divines will by no means admit at that time to be Laycks, since Christ had called them before to the ministry of the Gospel, and had constituted them as public workmen in his harvest, and had sent them with a public and particular commission, saying, Those that hear you, hear me, Luke 10. so that according to this account, the number of regular & lawful Baptizers, will be 82, namely 12 Apostles & 70 Disciples. Thus fare we are helped by our Protestant Divines in their opposition against Lay-Baptisme. Now if you distribute the baptising of 3000 to the work of 82 persons, there will fall under 40 to the share of every one, as might be easily reckoned, so as the baptising of that number either way, by dipping or sprinkling, might be accomplished in one day, though the Baptizers were not endued with the dexterity of Franciscus Xavier, and why not as well by dipping or sprinkling (for all that can be said to the contrary, by the number of those, who were baptised) since we suppose those that were baptised, to offer themselves willingly to come into the water, and present themselves ready, and the ceremony of dipping requiring very little time more by him that administers it, then that of sprinkling, and which by so many hands might easily be dispatched.  
It was necessary to speak something to this, since it is all which I have met with (and that all you see how little it is) which might give the show of a reason from Scripture practise, for baptising by sprinkling, and that only too by way of objection, which you see accommodated.  
Thus you have a clear proof brought by Chamier, for the ancient manner of Baptising, by dipping, from the Apostolical constitutions, which that also considered as an objection, why at any time it might seem to be varied, and you see, that as the objection to the general rule was but conjectural, so the solution is very easy, and the other practice, to wit, by dipping, most clear and evident.  
In the second place, Walleus de Baptiz. p. 84. (a reverend Author, whom we have formerly mentioned) showing that the ancients Baptised by an immersion of the whole body, says, That anciently the days of Baptism (for they used some solemn days, as we show in another piece of this tract) had their name, from the ceremony, therefore it was called Dominica in albis, the Dominical or the Lord's day in whites, because being unclothed for their Baptism, which was as before by dipping or plundging, they put on white or linen garments, with which they went into the Baptisterion, a vessel as we have formerly said, fitted for that ceremony of immersion: and therefore the Papists at this day, who retain every thing of ancient ceremony, though they corrupt the use of it, give a white garment to the baptised child in one part of their ceremony, which Bellarmine says they are to wear a Sabbato sancto usque ad Dominicam in albis, from the holy Sabaoth, to the Dominical in whites, Tom. 3. p. 83. That is that Dominical, which Walleus mentions, when those who were baptised for comeliness sake, clothed themselves with white linen garments, whence the same Author says, That those who were to be baptised, were called Candidati Christianismi, Candidates of Christianity, with allusion to the clothing in white, with which they were accommodated for Baptism by immersion.  
In the third place I find the opinion of Bonaventure, quoted by a late and learned writer, who though he allows sprinkling, yet more commends immersion, or dipping, either of the whole body, when there is water enough, or if there be but a little water, of the head and breast, or of the head alone, or of the face only, because there are all the senses, and there doth especially flourish the operation of the soul, and we take the image or picture of a man especially from his face; which several reasons he gives to that purpose, so as if you will sprinkle, ye must fall upon a new question, which may for aught I know be much disputed, and that is, what part is to be sprinkled; or if you will sprinkle the whole man, which cannot be done exactly, to be sure not easily, it were better to follow the ceremony of immersion; but by what reason, aspersion, or sprinkling, came into use in the world, instead of immersion, or dipping, ye shall find fastened upon two considerations; of charity to sick and weak persons, and charity to tender children, although as the same Author affirms, mersion was more usual even for children, to the days of Gregory (who was Bishop of Rome Anno 590) and Isiodor. For Gregory giving an account of the threefold dipping, hath these words,  dum tertiò infans ab aquis educitur, resurrectio triduani temporis exprimatur; whilst the child is drawn out of the water three times, the resurrection after three day's burial may be signified. Epist. Greg. lib. 1. Epist. 41. An account of this charity for sick persons, ye have expressed in an epistle of Cyprian to Magnus lib. 1. Epist. 6. In the times of Cyprian there was a question moved concerning Baptism, by aspersion or perfusion, that is, powering water, to wit, how they were baptised, who in respect of infirmity, or sickness could not be dipped, whether such sprinkling were to be accounted for true baptism; by which demand you may perceive, that in Cyprians time, immersion or dipping was so much the usual and received form for Baptism, as it was made a great question, whether they were rightly baptised, who desired Baptism, and yet by reason of infirmity, could not receive it, but by sprinkling or aspersion: Cyprian answers modestly and says, He would not have his opinion be a prejudice to any other man's either opinion or practice, but his charity extends rather to think, that in such cases, Baptism may be received by sprinkling; it were to long to quote his expressions wherein he is large.  
But to conclude all, you see by a current of authority from Scripture especially, and after by Authors ancient and modern, that dipping, or immersion hath been the old way of Baptising, even for children in the days of Gregory, a reason of the alteration I have in part shown you, from the quotation out of Cyprian. A more particular account jacobus Pamelius shall give you, as you may read in his annotations upon the 76 Epist. of Cyprian, his words are these pa. 215. Quum propter aegritudinem immergi sive intingi (quod propriè Baptizari est) aegri non possent, aqua salutari perfundebantur, sive aspergebantur; eademratione ab Ecclesia occidentali primum observari caepisse consuetudinem adspertionis, qua nunc utimur, existimo, ob teneritudinem nempè infantium, quum jam rarissimus esset adultorum baptismus: When in respect of weakness those who were sick, could not be dipped, or plunged (which is properly to be baptised) they had water poured upon them, or were sprinkled with it; from the same reason I suppose the custom of sprinkling, which we now use, to have been first observed by the western church, to wit, for the tenderness of infants, when as now the baptism of those of age was very rare; then he goes one, Olim certè tum in occidentali, tum in orientali Ecclesia immergi solere veteres suis scriptis manifestum faciunt, & Romae id adhuc usitatum aetate Gregorij manifestum sit ex ipsius Sacramentorum libro: idque apud Anglos etiamnum observari ad marginem adnotavit Erasmus. Certainly, that of old time, in the eastern and western church, they were used to dipp, the ancient make manifest by their writes; and that it was used at Rome, in the time of Gregory, is manifest, from his book of the Sacraments, and that it was yet used amongst the English, Erasmus hath noted in the margin. So Pamel.  
I have been large in this subject, but I hope it will be of use to us, both for the assuring of our practice in this particular, & the answering of such, whose peremptory persuasion the other way (for some there are so persuaded) give themselves, and their friends trouble.  
I shall take a knit from this, to observe (with which I shall conclude) what a tyrant custom is, that dares stand up & contradict a thing so evident in itself, so agreeable to the reason of the ordinance, to the clear phrase and expression of Scripture, to the practice of ancient times, in so much that in Cyprians time, it was a question moved in the Church, whether those that in respect of infirmity, could not receive baptism, the ancient and usual way, and yet earnestly desired it, might be rightly baptised, by sprinkling; whether such (as Cyprians words are to Magnus) might be accounted lawful Christians, that is, whether their Baptism so administered, were right, or a nullity; I say, you see here the tyranny & boldness of custom, that having shaped (as it is apt to do) our minds to one way, dares now pretend for that alone, with the exclusion of others, and would persuade us, that nothing should be, but what we have seen to be, and counts every thing error, that hath not fallen under our sense or experience: In things civil and indifferent, I can be content that custom shall be my guide, & shall take that for good coin, that the world stamps, but in matter of ordinances, and things sacred, the rule of which lies in institution, and not in our liberty, or choice, and the blessing of which lies in conforming to the rule, and institution: I beseech you let us be wairy to judge with righteous judgement, and not by that appearance, which the customs of this world, upon their worldly and carnal, though seeming wise considerations, hold forth to us.   

CHAP. VI Wherein is showed the agreements and differences that the word preached hath with the Sacraments, together wïth certain Corollaries giving light to the present controversy.  
HAving out of the Scripture considered the use & ends of Baptism, to which the ceremony appears to be extremely proper and opposite, we will now to bring further light to this ordinance, and in order to a discourse of the proper subject of Baptism, and of the controversy thereabout consider the agreements that are common to it, with the administration of the word, and that wherein these two ordinances seem to differ.  
They agree first in the efficient cause: Baptism and the other Sacrament, have the same author and institutor that the word hath; scil. the King, Priest, and Prophet of his church; and as the same efficient, so the same administering causes, those that were to teach had order to baptise, Mat. 28.19. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, etc. And 1. Cor. 4.1. Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.  
Secondly they are both instruments in the hands of the Holy Spirit for edification and salvation, the word is a dead letter without the Spirit, and so also is Baptism, it speaks no more than it is bid; the blessed Angels that are so fare above sin and corruption, have no quickening virtue in themselves, the flesh of Christ hath no virtue but from his Godhead: Now if there be no virtue in the flesh of Christ, but by the personal union, how shall bodily actions about bodily elements confer grace, but by the mediation of the Spirit.  
Thirdly they agree in the principal matter, for the same Christ with all his benefits is offered and confirmed to us in the word and Sacraments, the same union, the same communion in the death & the resurrection of Christ, and they which look for more in the Sacraments, than the word promises and holds out, makes an Idol of them.  
Fourthly they agree in the end, for God by them builds up and edifies his Church till it come to be perfect.  
Fifthly they agree in the instrument, which renders both profitable to us, both word and Sacrament are ineffectual without faith, 3. john 36. He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life.  
Sixthly they agree in the effects, They are the savour of life unto life, or the savour of death unto death, etc. So, He that believeth & is baptised, shall be saved.  
From the first you learn, coral. 1 not to departed from the institution, but as to preach the Gospel according to the analogy of faith, so to administer the Sacraments according to Gospel institutions, for it is alike sin to transgress in the administration of the one, as in the preaching of the other, since they both hold of the same Lord & institutor; and as he which in preaching the Gospel shall add works to faith, in the point of justification, perverts the word and preaches another Gospel, and therefore is accursed, Gal. 1.1. So he that shall alter in the administration of the Sacraments, but in a ceremony, since the ordinance lies in a ceremony, and shall be bold to enlarge the subject of this ordinance, or contract it, will be found a breaker of God's bounds, & be found guilty of the curse that is the portion of such as add or detract, so as what we do herein is of great moment and consideration.  
coral. 2 From the second to expect success from the Spirit, to be in the Spirit, that you may receive it: Secondly the Sacraments work not Phisically.  
From the third, coral. 3 to be lead by all administrations into the knowledge of Christ, to judge them best that hold out most of Christ, and most purely. Secondly to magnify Christ the head and end of all institutions.  
coral. 4 From the fourth to be comforted and confirmed in this way of salvation, wherein we are, for we have enough till we come to God, and need no more.  
coral. 5 From the fifth not to rest in the work done, to think it enough when you have heard or communicated, if it be not mingled with faith, it profits not, without faith it is impossible to please God.  
coral. 6 From the sixth then play not with these tools, it is a great matter you have in hand, when you meddle with the ordinances of Christ, and when you are under them, it cannot be without much good or hurt to you, it is a blessing or a curse to the persons upon whom it falleth, even the greatest: light & means are the greatest agravations of sins, Heb. 2.1.2.3.  
We come now to the difference of these ordinances, which will contribute more of light to what we have proposed.  
They differ first in the manner of the administration of the same Gospel. The one is an audible word, the other is a visible word, the word signifies according to such expressions as men have given a value unto, to signify things by, but the Sacraments represents by such similitudes and proportions as the signs have with the things signified; therefore we read the word and hear the word, but we see & feel the Sacraments: In a word they are Hierogliphics; it was the custom of the Egyptians to teach by visible representations, which signify such and such things, these are of that nature, that whereas the word strikes the ear only, which is the usual and ordinary sense of discipline, those signs and visible elements affect the senses outward and inward, the senses convey the object to the understanding, there the Holy Ghost takes them, and brings us into the present enjoyment of things, as if we saw Christ with our eyes, touched him with our hands, felt him by our taste, and enjoyed him with our whole man: all this in a rational and discursive way, raising an analogy & proportion between the sign and the thing signified.  
Secondly they differ in the measure of their signification, the word especially teacheth, the Sacraments especially seal and confirm: the word indeed signifies and applies spiritual things, but the Sacraments more efficatiously represent & apply.  
Thirdly the word is simply necessary to actual believers, and so to the salvation of believers, and sufficient, as in Cornelius; for faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; but the Sacraments are not absolutely necessary to all, nor without the word are they sufficient to salvation, for to what purpose are seals without the writing.  
Fourthly (for I will not trouble you with many) the word belongs to all mankind, the Sacraments belong only to believers; therefore for preaching, ye have, preach the Gospel to every creature under heaven; But for the Sacraments, teach them, saith Christ, that is, disciple them, and he that believes and is baptised, shall be saved; so for the other Sacrament, let a man examine himself, and so let him eat and drink; and the people were baptised in jordan, confessing their sins, of which they repent; and after the Eunuch was taught, there was faith required before he was baptised; if thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest; and no Baptism or Sacrament find we administered otherways in the new Testament, the reason is evident, because the word begets faith, the Sacraments confirms it, the word is the writing, the Sacraments is the seal, for it carries this with it, and speaks this language; as certainly as thou usest this ceremony, and eats this bread, so assuredly Christ dwells in thee, and as thou interest this water, and art therein buried, so assuredly thou art made one with Christ, planted into his death, & thou art buried with Christ, and thou risest with Christ, as thou risest out of the water; every thing speaks this, thou art Christ, and Christ is thine, and therefore supposes faith, which is the tye and the union on our part, and you see how curious Paul is Rom. 4. to prove, that Abraham was justified by faith, before he received the sign of circumcision, which was to him a seal of his faith, & his righteousness thereby, ℣. 10.11. How was it reckoned when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision, and he received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised, etc.  
We come now to deduct Corollaries from these differences.  
From the first, coral. 1 Then to the participation and use of the Sacraments, the use of reason is necessary; our reason must be most busy & active whilst our senses are engaged, the hearing of the tone or sound of the word spoken doth no good, therefore we preach it not to children or fools, so the seeing of the colours of things, to feel the water cold or hot, the touch or taste is not the thing, but what the elements and ceremonies about it teach us, which must be discerned by the use of reason, in comparing the thing signified according to the Scripture application, & the proportion it holds, so as here is a knowledge of things already laid in, and reason in the act required. So the teaching by similitudes or resemblances, doth not require less reason, or less the use of reason, but the advantage it brings, is, that by the mediation of several senses, it strikes our reason differently & more strongly; and God descends to that way of teaching, that he might more forcibly work upon our reason, & speak to it all manner of ways.  
From the second, coral. 2 it is supposed the word should go before, for that is the way of teaching by things of lesser representation to things of fuller; when jacob heard of josephs' message, he was moved, but when he saw the Chariots, that affected him exceedingly, that spoke a clearer language; it was fit the message should go before the chariots, so the word before the Sacraments.  
From the third, coral. 3 see one prerogative the word hath, men may be saved by hearing without the Sacraments, to comfort those that want them, but slight them not: Secondly see the order, first the word must be, as first the writing, for the Sacraments are but the appendix.  
From the fourth, coral. 4 Then the word hath much a larger compass of motion than the Sacraments, and as the word may be where the Sacraments are not, so the Sacraments cannot be but where the word hath been; for the word supposeth nothing, but comes at aventure to every creature under heaven, but the Sacraments supposeth faith wrought already by the word; to make this plainer, we must know that men are by nature children of wrath, by the disobedience of Adam all were made sinners, Rom. 5.19. And the Lord looked down from heaven, and see that all were gone out of the way, we neither perceive nor know the things of God, 1. Cor. 2.14. And though the light shine in darkness, the darkness comprehends it not, and our carnal mind is enmity against God; our whole soul is filled with all unrighteousness, Rom. 8.7. and 1.29. Now while men are in their infancy, they lie only exposed to God's inward and secret works, if they belong to the election of grace, he knows how to deal with them, and work wonderfully in ways we know not, nor can conceive of; so long we cannot communicate ourselves to their souls at all, nor can reach them any otherways then by our prayers, for all things are here secret, if there be a change wrought, it is more than we know, or can conceive the manner of it. But when they come to years of understanding, and to be capable of ordinances, the first thing we do to them, is to bring them under the ordinance of the word, and to lead them into a right knowledge of themselves, to convince them of their natural estate, to preach to them conversion, repentance & faith in jesus Christ, that they may have life; when we find this operate, and that by their profession and by their works, which is the only way of evidencing their faith to others, they make it appear they believe, than we gladly go one, and lead them into further ordinances, give them the Sacraments to confirm them: & thus we make things run parralel as they must do: There is an outward preaching of the word, there is a conversion and change of heart, made visible by works, and so a faith evidenced, and the visible and outward seals and marks are given them, to seal them up to themselves and to others. Thus you see a naturalness, a coherency, and a comeliness in things thus laid and stated, by which also as by a right rule, you may be helped in discerning errors.   

CHAP. VII. In which is laid down the relative and personal qualifications by which infants are usually entitled to Baptism, by our most considerable Protestant Divines.  
BY what hath been said, we have fully shown the nature of Baptism, what is the proper and adequate subject of this ordinance, namely a believer, one qualified by the use of faith and reason, for the confirmation & sealing up to him by this great ordinance, his engrafting into Christ and union with him by faith; secondly as an immediate fruit thereof, his justification, of which we largely spoke, and also his adoption, by being consecrated to the Father, Son and holy Ghost, and baptised in their names. Thirdly his sanctification, consisting in the death of sin, & the life of holiness, & as a fruit of that, and which cannot be separated from it, his glorification, Rom. 6.8. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe we shall also live with him: To which on the other side, the party baptised puts his seal, and makes his sponsion, to be to God and Christ in all those relations.  
But now because it hath for a long time, and almost generally obtained, that children should be baptised, we must consider how they can pretend to these qualifications, what right they have, or by what title they hold it.  
The right which the world gives them to it, is a right imputative, a right derivative from Father to Son, a right of succession, a birthright, this is that which they call a federal holiness. Nor do children only claim by this derivative imputative title, but also those who are adopted by Christian parents, for as by adoption in Christ we are rendered the children of God; so by the adoption of Christian parents, such are to be accounted for their children, as some argue. Ger. p. 582. Also those who by lawful means, as just war, bargain, gift, fall into the hands and government of believers, and whom Christians will answer for, that they shall for the future be instructed in the Christian faith, and this appears by divine institution, they say from the parallel of circumcision, since not only Abraham's children, but his servants, & those bought with his money, were circumcised, Gen. 17.12. And he that is eight days old, shall be circumcised among you, every manchild in your generations, he that is borne in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed. This also some illustrate, & apply more particularly from that place Acts 2.39. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar of, even as many as the Lord our God shall call; where they say Peter witnesseth that the divine promise belongs to those, which by reason of their birth are fare of; but by the wonderful providence of God, are called to that ordinance by lawful means, such as these before named, and Chamier, the great protector of our religion against Bellarmine (not to trouble you with what the Papists say) affirms, that if our servants were truly servants, such as abraham's were, they then drawn a right from their masters for Baptism; for we read, says he, that Abraham circumcised all his servants, but such servants as for the most part we have now a days; because indeed they are free men, he thinks should not be so handled; in the same capacity he thinks to be also such as by the right of war are subjected to Princes, for such kind of subjects also remain free; which if it be true, and that that exception only lies against their Baptism, with all the great things it seals and conveighes to us, I should much bewail the loss of slavery to the Christian world, since one good man by that tenure might have made a hundred and a hundred infidels, by being subjected to one man, might have been Christians in a moment. Thus you see how fare they make the covenant extend, & indeed the parallel of circumcision, carries it strongly, and for one as well as another; you see therefore that which qualifies for infant Baptism, is some good and pertinent relation to a believer; but if you ask me now what denominates this believer, and qualifies him for communicating this Christian qualification. Chamier sayeth, we allow not all infants to be baptised, but those only of believers, that is of baptised persons; So that as the Baptism in the parent qualifyes for baptism in the infant, Tom. 4. p. 270. Not to enlarge in this, the charity of the world is very great, and if Mr. Davenport mistook not in his complaint in his writing to the Classis of Amsterdam, he saith that there was required of him an unlimited baptising of all infants, which were presented in the church, of what nation or sect soever, although that either of the parents were Christians, were not otherways manifest, then by answering, Yea, at the reading of the liturgy of Baptism publicly, or by nodding their head, or some other gesture, they seemed to be willing; Book of complaints 1.2.  
And that you may see this further clear in the authority of a learned man, who speaks not only his own judgement, but the judgement of other orthodox with him; Walleus a reverend Professor of Leyden, in his treatise De Baptis. infant. p. 494. saith thus: Quaeritur ergo de infantibus eorum quorum parentes sunt impij, etsi nomine Christiani, etc. It is demanded concerning the children of them, whose parents are wicked, although Christians in name, or whose parents are excommunicated, or whose parents are heretics, or Idolaters, as the infants of Papists, Anabaptists, etc. By way of answer he allows all such children to be baptised; We think (saith he) that Baptism is not to be denied to those, qui ex stirpe sunt Christiana, which are of a Christian stock, and which without an interruption of a public Apostasy from the faith, may refer their kindred to the faithful, such as in Christian commonwealths are those procreated of Christian and baptised parents; only he would not have them baptised against their parent's consent, because they be their goods and possession, and he would have their parents, or those which offer them to baptism, answer that they will bring them up in the Christian profession; which if they do, we judge, says he, that all infants, which come from a Christian stock, should be baptised, if they be offered to baptism, according to the order of the Church, although their next parents should labour with unholiness of life, or heresy, or the crime of idolatry. And this he goes on to prove strenuously (as well he may) from the manifest & perpetual practice of the whole Church of Israel, in the administration of circumcision, which as in a main proportion it helps to the baptising of infants, so it will help also to several such consequences as those are; from this opinion so stated of the learned, and orthodox, you may see that it is no such great honour to be able to entitle infants to baptism, which is common to you with unholy persons, with excommunicate, and with Idolaters: And secondly that it is an effect of great charity, to entitle the children of such a parentage to regeneration, and the Holy Ghost: For to proceed;  
Though now in the derivative title for the chain of Baptism, they all agree, that what ever title the child hath, comes by virtue of the father's covenant, yet the immediate qualification is inherent in the infant; for they affirm that Christian infants have repentance, faith and regeneration: The Lutherans are so much of this opinion, if you will believe Bellarmine Tom. 2. p. 294. f. that they believe that infants, whilst they are baptised, use reason, hear the word of God, believe, love, which as he affirms, was publicly determined in the Synod of Wittenbergh An. 1536. Which as he saith doth so openly repugn to the truth, as it doth injury to humane sense; for how is it credible (saith he) that an infant, which cries, and resists what he can when he is washed, or sprinkled, should understand what he doth.  
The Calvinists and more orthodox Divines receive it generally and assuredly, that infants bring to baptism, as their immediate qualification, regeneration, faith, repentance, etc. though not actual, or by way of declaration to others; they argue thus, If infants naturally are some way capable of Adam's sin, & so of unbelief, disobedience, & transgression, than Christian infants supernaturally and by grace, are someway capable of Christ's righteousness, and so of faith, obedience, and sanctification; but the forner is true, therefore the latter: The consequence they prove hence, that else they would not see the kingdom of God, john 3.5.6. jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be borne of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; that which is borne of the flesh is flesh, and that which is borne of the spirit is spirit; but Christian infants dying in infancy, shall see the kingdom of God, and not be damned; therefore they are borne again of the spirit, and so must needs in some measure have repentance, faith and holiness.  
Again they say, that if we cannot object Gods work in nature, but do believe that our infants are reasonable creatures, and are borne not bruit beasts, but men, though actually they can manifest no reason nor understanding more than beasts; then neither can we justly object God's work in grace, but are to believe that our infants are sanctified creatures, and are borne believers, not infidels, though outwardly they can manifest no faith or sanctification to us; Ainsworth pag. 49.50. whom I quote, as being by all acknowledged a learned man, & in this opinion wherein he concurres as we shall see with the stream of our Divines, not to be suspected.  
The like to this saith Walleus de Bapt. Infant. p. 493. Infants are to be reckoned amongst believers, because the seed or spirit of faith is in them, which some call a habit, others an inclination; from whence by degrees, through the hearing of the word, actual faith is form, sometimes sooner, sometimes later. This in the next pag. 494. he proves, Because else they would not be saved, Rom. 8.9. If any have not the spirit of God, he is none of his. And john 3.5. No unclean thing shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but infants by nature are unclean, & are purged by the blood of Christ, the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, & they please God, etc.  
This is laid for a ground amongst the Calvinists concerning Baptism: That Baptism is only a sign and seal of regeneration already wrought; Oecolamp. de verb. Dom. cap. 3. Aqua mystica in Baptismo non regenerate, nec efficit filios Dei, sed declarat; the mystical water in Baptism doth not regenerate, nor make men sons of God, but declares.  
So Zwinglius, Baptismus non aliter Ecclesiae Christi signum est quam exercitus aliquis signatur, non quod signum hoc conjungit Ecclesiae, sed qui jam conjunctus est, publicam tesseram accipit. Baptism is the sign of the Church, as the ensign of an army, it doth not join you to the Church, but it declares you joined.  
So Beza, Nihil obsignatur, nisi quod jam habetur; nothing is sealed, but what is there already; of this opinion is Calvin fully, as it were easy to quote him, saving that in answering the Anabaptists, he saith; This objection is answered in a word, by saying that children are baptised into faith and repentance to come; actual he means (for he adds according to the first opinion quoted) of which though we see not the appearance, nevertheless the seed is planted there by the secret operation of the holy Spirit; so as he would have faith and repentance there in the habit, that God may not seal to a blank, nor give a lying sign: The like saith Pemble, a late and able Divine, That which is signified in our baptism, is our justification by the blood of Christ, and our sanctification by the Spirit of Christ; Baptism is the seal of both unto us, and infants may be partakers of both, being washed from the guilt of sin by the blood of Christ, in whom they are reconciled to God, and actually justified before him, and also purified in part from the uncleanness of sin, by the infusion of grace from the Holy Ghost; what then should hinder, why those infants should not be washed with the water of the Sacrament. So also Davenant in his comment upon the 2. chapped. of the Colossians to quote no more, where conflicting with the Anabaptists, he saith, As for infants because they are not sinners by their own act, but by an hereditary habit, they have the mortification of sin, and faith, not putting forth itself, but included in an habitual principle of grace: Now that the Spirit of Christ can and doth ordinarily work in them an habitual principle of grace, no wise man will deny. From all those testimonies we may observe, that the clear reason of the thing enforces men to allow as necessary to Baptism in general, the qualification of regeneration, faith, etc. how this now will fit infant's Baptism, we shall consider hereafter; for the present we join issue with them in these three things.  
First that a personal holiness, not derivative, or imputed only, must be the ground of Sacraments.  
2 That this holiness must be regeneration.  
3 That the habits of faith and repentance, are to be esteemed such, I prove not these things, because they are clear in themselves, and taken for granted by those already quoted, only in these things we join with them, and so fare agree together.   

CHAP. VIII. In which are contained several queries and considerations, raised from the premises, declaring what little ground there will appear from their own principles and concessions to conclude for Infant Baptism.  
THese things thus supposed, I make these doubts about the baptising of the infants of believers.  
First I would ask whether all infants of believers have necessarily and assuredly those habits, which must of necessity be concluded, since it is their personal qualification for Baptism, and therefore you must have good grounds to judge that they have it, one as well as another. First of all Peter Martyr says, that, I will be the God of thee, and of thy seed, is not an universal promise, but hath place only in the predestinate; and therefore upon 1. Cor. 7.14. else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, he saith, Promissio non est generalis de omni semine, sed tantum de illo in quo rectè consentit electio, alioquin posteritas Israelis, & Esau fuerunt ex Abraham. And therefore affirms, that the children of the saints are borne holy, when they are predestinate; and this agreeth with reason, for if you make that holiness, as before, the infusion of gracious habits, ye must suppose election without which such gracious habits are never infused, unless to make good this opinion, you will allow falling from grace, which I am sure ourselves, and those we desire to satisfy, will not do.  
This being said, I would ask upon what ground the Saints can suppose all their children to be elected, or why they should deny any infant's baptism, since experience tells us, that the children of many unbelievers (if we will judge by the fruits and effects, which is the surest judgement) are elected, and many children of believers reprobated; especially now since the sluice is taken up, & the Gospel preached to every creature under heaven.  
Again consider how cold a ground this is for infant's baptism, your children are holy by being borne of you, that is, regenerated, and so qualified for ordinances, if at least they be elected, and I seal to them their holiness & the kingdom of heaven, if they be elected; as if a King should say, I confirm this town to you and yours, if at least it hath pleased me, or shall please me, to give it you.  
But if you say, we have reason to hope well of them, according to that, else were your children unholy, but now are they holy, for so saith Peter Martyr upon that place, Bene sperantes quod ut sunt secundum carnem semen sanctorum, ita etiam sunt electionis divinae participes, & Spiritum Sanctum, & gratiam Christi habeant; Hoping well, that as they are according to the flesh, the seed of the Saints, so they are also partakers of Divine election, and have the Holy Spirit, and the grace of Christ.  
I answer, that if you will hope of them, you need despair of none, especially where the sound of the Gospel is, and it is but stretching the line of your hope and charity a little farther, and you may baptise all.  
Secondly it is not a hope you must go upon for the giving of ordinances, holy seals, but a judgement. Paul called the saints positvely faithful and elect, and said it was meet for him to judge and think so of them all; and when we come to admit members, if they give but only ground of hopes, we let them stay for their own profit, and the discharge of our duty, till they can give us ground of a judgement.  
Thirdly the Apostle says positively they are holy, and therefore what ever holiness it is, it is no longer the subject of your hopes, but your judgement; ye ought to judge them so, & to assure yourselves they are so.  
If therefore by a general consent the infusion of holy habits depends upon election, we must consider upon what election depends, before we can make up a judgement; for the infusion of habits, if that depends upon the holiness of the parents, you say some thing, but surely every honest heart will grant, that as holy parents themselves, are both loved & elected for Christ's sake, so God loves and elects their infant children, not for their sakes, but both them and their children for Christ alone: and to make God consider (as the object of children's election) the faith of their parents, is worse than the opinion of the Arminians, who make faith & works foreseen the object of every particular man's election; so as if election must precede the infusion of holy habits, which must qualify for infant baptism; & experience shows ordinarily (by the rules which Christ hath left us to judge by, the fruits and effects) that the children of godly parents prove not ever holy, and that the election of God for the child, depends not upon the holiness or faith of the parent, but upon his own free grace in Christ: Then the judgement will seem to rise up very coldly and lamely for the Baptism of infants of holy parents, which must, as themselves confess, be first qualified with the infusion of holy habits.  
But secondly, I would know of these men, why for the making good of their infant Baptism, they should determine God, ordinarily to an extraordinary way of working & converting (which is the infusion of gracious habits in that age) for faith in the ordinary way comes by hearing; but this way of being borne Christians, that is, charged and qualified with holy habits, is not by hearing, but by an immediate revelation, and in a way so extraordinary and strange to us, that though we find cause to assent that it is sometimes done, yet how it is done is a mighty mystery, & altogether unknown to us.  
And if you object that though this may be extraordinary to men of age, yet it is a way of converting, ordinary to children, who are not capable of the other way.  
Answ. I am sure that all men of age were children once, and we find by the effect it is not ordinary to such, for we find them so fare from being borne again, though borne of Christian parents and baptised, that a great part of their life is often spent in an unregenerate estate, and their conversion proves very visible & evident to themselves and others, so as it appears not to be the ordinary way of conversion, but at the best the extraordinary and particular way to such infants, as fall under election, and come not to that use of reason and understanding by which they might receive faith, by hearing: now certainly an extraordinary way of working, must never prove to be the ground or qualification of an ordinary administration. But than thirdly, I would ask why this holiness, that is, this faith and conversion in infants, being wrought (if it be at all) in a hidden secret and invisible way, we should seal it and confirm it to them, and convey also more of the same, by a sensible & intelligible ordinance; That it is so, we are forced to reason ourselves into it, because no unclean thing shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, and therefore how it can be cleansed, and sanctified, though we know it not, yet we suppose it is, if it be saved: Now it seems strange that that faith which we know not how to go about to work, or to begin, yet we know how to seal, and how to confirm; we use to say things are preserved and nourished as they are made, the way supposed to convert, is immediately from God, the way used to seal and confirm, this is mediate by an ordinance; the way of conversion is invisible, mystical, secret; the way to seal it is evident, visible and teaching; for the Sacraments convey to us, more concionis, after the manner of a sermon. Now the understanding cannot be moved, but by understanding, nor the eye but by seeing, nor the ear but by hearing; to say therefore that faith is sealed, or faith is increased, by an outward teaching ordinance, which shall neither strike our sense nor our understanding, is very hard to receive; a man must have his understanding & his ears paved to hear such a saying, and must of necessity have accustomed himself to digest many incongruites and contradictions, before he can bear so notable and visible an one.  
Fourthly I would ask what needeth this leaping over hedges, what needs all this host; why cannot this child supposed to be elected, and converted in a secret invisible way (for without that you will not pretend to baptise him) rest quietly in that state, in the arms of God, who only can, and only hath administered unto him, till he shall come in a due season, and to his best advantage, to have that sealed to him, which shall be discovered to be in him; how long do those who are of age and are qualified for them, stay often without Sacraments, because they would miss nothing of the order, either for want of a church state, or a lawful minister? We all know assuredly our children have reason, because the rational soul is the form of a man, (I would we could be as assured of their grace) and we all pretend so much love to them, as to improove this principle, and instruct them timely in things for their good, for the use of this life and a better, and yet we should account him a fond father that would lie lowing in his children's ears, and lose his sweet words before the time of the use of reason come; I beseech you consider whether it be not the same thing: If therefore we could be assured, that all children had that grace so timously infused, which we can scarce hope for, yet how much better were it for the ordinance sake, which seems otherways to be profaned (as much as if you should preach a sermon to a child) and for my child's sake, to stay till he understand what he doth, and what he receives, that that ordinance which ought to be administered but once, and is of so great an use and influence, may be received to his best advantage, whilst in the interim, he is in the hands of God fit, and exposed to receive the preservation of his spiritual being in the same way, in which it was wrought, and by those unalterable bonds of election, & conversion, safe enough till he shall be capable of setting his seal and receiving Gods visibly, to that, which in a secret and unknown way was wrought in him.   

CHAP. IX. In which entrance is made into the consideration of the great argument for Infant Baptism, drawn from the circumcision of Infants, by way of answer whereunto five particulars are handled, the first whereof is treated on in this Chapter, namely what circumcision was to the jews, and whether the qualification requisite to it was regeneration, or the infusion of gracious habits.  
HAving thus laid down the state of Baptism, and considered several things about it, sufficient for my own satisfaction, and clearly also designed the right subject of that ordinance, I come now (in order to a more full discharge of myself to this controversy, & for a more general satisfaction) to consider the particular reasons, by which the patrons of Infant Baptism would enforce it: The first whereof (& which seems to be a great one) is that the seed of Abraham, with whom and whose seed God was in covenant, received ordinances, and particularly circumcision, by virtue of their birth, and that we being engrafted into that stock, have power to derive a capacity of ordinances to our children, else the privileges of Christians, & the New Testament would be less than those of the jews & of the old Testament; which is not to be imagined; I take this to be the sum of that argument, which seems to carry the greatest weight, & to speak loudest for Infant Baptism of any other.  
Here divers things by way of answer are to be considered, first what circumcision was to the jews, & whether the qualification required to it was regeneration, or the infusion of gracious habits; for if not, then there will be found to be this great and essential difference, namely the qualification of the subject.  
Secondly, what ever that should prove; how far the ordinances of the old Testament should regulate & determine, by way of rule and institution those of the New; if not, than the parallel of circumcision is not fit to bear the weight of an institution.  
Thirdly how we are engrafted into Abraham's covenant, and by what tittle we are called Abraham's children; for we are not to claim the same things by different tenors.  
Fourthly how far the jews, by virtue of their being Abraham's seed, could pretend to New Testament ordinances, and if they by their birthright could not, than neither can we by any such birthright, or carnal generation.  
Fifthly whether though Infant Baptism, should not be; the privileges of Christians & their churches might justly be said to be as great or greater, than the privileges of the jews and their Churches and state.  
For the first, I must profess I am not jew enough to understand the full drift of that ordinance, and although men are bold in commenting and interpreting all types and ceremonies of the old covenant, after their own apprehensions, yet it is safe to be sober, and to advance no further than the Scripture guides. This I am persuaded of, that as they were form particularly to that state of the jewish church, so they had means to understand them, for their comfort & edification, to better advantage than we have, but it would not be hard to tell you, what some have thought, and perhaps to as much purpose as those who are of a different opinion, for this notion received that the parallel of circumcision must be the pillar of infant Baptism, hath (I am afraid) to much determined & straightened the interpretation of that ordinance, & the places which speak concerning it; Ambrose upon the 4. of the Rom. saith, Circumcisio aliquid habet dignitatis, sed signum est tantum, quod signum ideo accipiebant filij Abraham, ut scirentur ejus filij esse, qui credens Deo, hoc signum acciperet, ut aemuli essent paternae fidei. Circumcision hath something of dignity, but it is a sign only, which sign the children of Abraham did therefore receive, that they might be known to be his seed, who believing in God, received this sign, that they might be emulators of their father's faith.  
Jerome upon the 3. of the Gal. saith, Because Christ was to spring from the seed of Abraham, and many ages were to pass from Abraham to Christ; the wise God, lest the seed of beloved Abraham should be mingled with other nations, and should by degrees be joined more familiarly, distinguished the flock of Israel by a certain mark, or circumcision; then for 40. years together in the wilderness none were circumcised, because they were out of the danger of such mixtures, being alone; but assoon as they were past the banks of jordan, circumcision prevented the error of mingling with others, whereas it is written that they were circumcised that second time by joshua, it signifies that circumcision ceased in the wilderness, which was rationally used in Egypt.  
The Apostle Rom. 4. doth not call circumcision a seal of the covenant or promise, but of the righteousness of faith, which says Origen upon this place, was to seal shut up, the righteousness of faith, which in its time was to be revealed; that is, under the figure and types of that carnal circumcision was secretly signified and veiled, the circumcision of the heart, which is the true justification that Christ was to bring, or as chrysostom, Theophilact and others, it was called a seal of the righteousness of faith, because it was given to Abraham as a seal and testimony of that righteousness, which he had acquired by faith; Now this seems to be the privilege of Abraham alone, & not to be transferred to others, as if circumcision, in whom ever it was, were a testimony of divine righteousness: for as it was the privilege of Abraham, that he should be the father of all the faithful, as well circumcised as uncircumcised, and being already the father of all uncircumcised, having faith in uncircumcision, he received first the sign of circumcision, that he might be the father of the circumcised; now because he had this privilege in respect of the righteousness which he had acquired by faith, therefore the sign of circumcision was to him a seal of the righteousness of faith, but to the rest of the jews, it was a sign they were Abraham's seed, but not a seal of the righteousness of faith, as all the jews also were not the fathers of many nations. This appears first, because Paul joins these two together, he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, that he might be the father of all that believe, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, ver. 11.12. Therefore all circumcised have not the seal of the righteousness of faith, as they are not the father of all that believe.  
Secondly, this the Apostle may seem to intimate, by distinguishing between a sign, and a seal, to show that circumcision was to all a sign, but to Abraham alone a seal of the righteousness of faith.  
Thirdly though the Scripture speak often of circumcision, yet it never calls it a seal, but here where it speaks of Abraham, which intimates that it was only a seal to him, else when Paul asks, what advantage hath the jew, and what profit is there of circumcision, and says, much every way, Rom. 3.1.2. He should (one would think) have mentioned this great advantage, that it should be the seal of the divine promise, but this he mentions not at all; nor will it answer this (though that be the best I know given) that Aquinas seems here to find a double question, one, what advantage hath the jew, which is handled in this Chapter; the other, what profit is there of circumcision, which is handled in the 4. chapter; this hath to great an quietness, rather as Musculus says upon that place, It is no danger to which member ye apply the answer, for the same thing is asked in both, for by circumcision he comprehends in general all judaisme, for as much as the inauguration into judaisme lay in circumcision; So as what ever force there is in this probable reason (for it is no more) may stand good notwithstanding this exception.  
Fourthly, if circumcision had been the seal of the righteousness of faith to Infants, than an account of the righteousness of faith should have been required in those of years; to whom it was administered, but that such faith was required or found in all, we read not; Abraham the same day circumcised all, whether borne in his house, or bought with his money without any such declaration, or demand that we read of; and Ishmael, who was thirteen years old, & judged not within the covenant of grace, was also circumcised; Of the Sechemites also there was required no profession of faith to their circumcision, which as a form at least would have been required, if it hath been judged necessary to that seal, and used by converted Proselytes, though simeon and Levi, brethren in iniquity, were the ministers of it.  
To illustrate this consideration, let us see the great difference in the institution of Baptism and Circumcision, when Christ instituted Baptism, Go teach, says he, and baptise, make Disciples and baptise; and in the administration of the ordinance, they confessed and were baptised, they believed and were baptised; but not a word of infants, who were not capable of this believing and confession: But when the precept of Circumcision was given, not a word of teaching, or faith, nor in the example find you any such thing; but of infants you find the command most expressly, for the time, for the age, for the sex.  
To conclude, whereas holiness is required to Sacraments, the household of Abraham, whether natural, or adopted, were holy, but not so as to include regeneration, or cleanness of heart, which is our holiness; but there was of use among them an Ecclesiastical, levitical, and typical holiness, which amongst us obtains nothing; of creatures for food some were clean & some unclean, and the land was holy and so was the fruit, the trees therefore were holy and to be circumcised, Levit. 19.23. in such a time and state of the church, when things & actions took their denomination of sinful or holy, from such outward and typical considerations, when circumcision was predicated of trees, as well as men; no wonder though infants were circumcised.  
The sum of all is this, that it is not easy for us to determine distinctly of the nature and scope of the ordinances of the other covenant, that some have judged circumcision only a sign of the jews, didst inguishing and admonishing to good, but a seal to Abraham only, who had righteousness of faith (as the Scripture calls it) to be sealed, and who was of capacity to receive it. Though there be them, who have doubted, whether it sealed any thing to Abraham, but his fatherhood of the faithful.  
And then again, it is wondered, that the profession of this faith should never have been required of those of years, if it had qualified for this ordinance, and lastly it is showed, that there was another kind of holiness then of use & esteem in the church of God, namely, typical, ecclesiastical and levitical, which gave right and tittle to ordinances, which amongst us hath no place, and therefore there will be found to be this great difference between these to ordinances the qualification of the subjects, which will farther appear, in handling the third particular in this answer; to all which I shall add only this one thing more, that if that be true which I have formerly discoursed about Infant Baptism, that it cannot be necessarily concluded that they have Baptismal qualifications, namely regeneration, and that if they had, yet there were no just haste for the ordinance of Baptism, but the contrary, then much less can any such qualifying regeneration and conversion be predicated of the infants of the jews in the old covenant; and therefore if that be the only way, as it is, to pretend to Baptism, & our infants cannot pretend that way, than the jews infants must needs have some other qualification for circumcision, than regeneration, and therefore the subject of these ordinances differ greatly, namely in that which respectively qualifies them to be capable of those administrations.   

CHAP. X. In which is handled the second particular, proposed in answer to the argument drawn from Circumcision, to wit, how fare the ordinances of the old Testament should reg●late and determine by way of rule and institution those of the New.  
QVest. the second, what ever should become of the first question, the next is, how fare the ordinances of the old Testament should regulate & determine by way of rule and institution those of the New.  
I answer nothing at all, especially in the essentials of it, amongst which the subject of ordinances in the main qualification of it, must needs be accounted: Because things become ordinances to us by virtue of a word of institution, forasmuch as the efficacy & energy of ordinances, hangs upon the will of God, not the reason of them.  
There are certain necessary circumstances about ordinances that common reason will suggest, though the institution should not, as time and place, but by the same common reason, to add other circumstances, which in themselves are not simply necessary, or by consequences drawn from the ordinances of another covenant, is to set our posts by God's posts, & to be wise above what is written, and to be guilty of adding to the will of God, in that which is most purely his will, the ordinances of institution; And I beseech you consider whither this way of working hath not brought in, if not all, yet as great & considerable errors into Popery as any: That a church is a foundation ordinance of the new covenant, we all grant, but says the Pope as that of the old Testament was rational, and but one in all the world, the truths of God being then confined to a narrower compass, so now since the Gospel is preached to every creature under heaven, by just consequence the Church of God should be universal and Catholic; and as than though there were many subordinate Priests and Levites, yet there was one high Priest, who sat in power and place above all the rest; so by just consequence there should be now a Summus Pontifex, a high Priest, a Bishop of bishops, who should be the last object of appeals upon earth, and the great moderator under Christ, who both than was, and still is, the invisible head of the church. And if you shall object now that the New Testament gives no such extension to the Church, nor power to an universal Bishop, that those things were typical and proper to that Testament or covenant (which is the same that is said by those who oppose the Baptism of Infants) they will not fail as well as the patrons of Infant Baptism, to tell you, that besides some little footsteps they find in the new Testament, this is par ratio, a like reason, a due consequence, and good reason may be showed that it is for the honour and safety of the Church, that things should be so administered; Hence comes the ornaments and vestures of Priests, the holiness of Temples, and for aught I know the baptising of bells from the circumcision of trees, or what ever else a bold and presumptuous heart may, under the title of just consequence, intrude into the worship of God; I confess there are some things of common equity, the rule of life was the same than that now, and the same Christ that now is, was the salvation of the elect, such things therefore as are of such a common nature, may be illustrated and inferred from one Testament to another, especially amongst those that doubt of the new Testament, and the light of it, as the jews did, with whom our Saviour and the Apostles had to do.  
But in instituted ordinances, the reason of which lies in nothing else, but a particular will of the institutor, it is bold and unsafe to institute above what is written in the new covenant, at least in any essential thing, concerning either the parts of the ordinance, the manner of administration, and the subject of them, and it is further to imply an infaithfullnes, and an unclearenes in the new Testament, in things essential and necessary to the worship of it.  
The sum is, that it is unsafe arguing from one institution to another, because the inferrences and consequences cannot be drawn from our reason, as not falling under the judicature of common light, or spiritual reason in the general, but of a particular distinct & independent will in Christ, from whence, not from the reason of the thing they draw all their virtue and efficacy, the reason that makes it good to us, being only the impression of his will upon it; but especially this will take place in ordinances of differing covenants, for the ordinances of oath covenant are fitted to the meridian of that covenant.  
The rationality of that church, the typicallnes of that which was called holiness and uncleanes amongst them, the generality of the subjects, which were not only men, women & children, but beasts, birds and trees, their very garments, their very land, to what alone is called holiness and sin; now with the subject of it, shows a great boldness & presumption to force institutions in the subject or any of the parts of them by a par ratio, or consequence from this old, worst, first, vanishing covenant, as the Apostle styles it Hebr. 8. to this new, better, second covenant, as he styles that under which we live, in the same place.  
Now that circumcision (though of use before the law, as Baptism was also before Christ) was the great ordinance of the Mosaical law, as I could bring many places, if any doubt of it, so I will content myself with one or two, Acts 21.21. They are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs; where the prime instance of forsaking Moses, was not to be circumcised; that place more shall suffice Gal. 5.3. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole la: The yoke of circumcision they could bear, not the debt to which it obliged them, therefore that was the leading ordinance of another covenant, namely the law; Now to make this main ordinance of the law, institutive to us, as touching a great essential in our Christian Baptism, namely, the subject of it, is to make not only one ordinance institutive to another, of which no good account can be given, but infinite and visible inconveniencyes follow, as we have seen; but to send us to school to the old covenant, in that which was the leading, main & distinguishing ordinance of it, which no good Christian, I hope, will consideringly admit of, especially since we are so assured of the sufficiency and saithfullnes of our Lawgiver Christ jesus, by whom we have grace and truth and who is the way▪ the truth and the life to us, as well in the matter of his ordinances, as in any other thing that concerns our duty, as that we need not turn aside to other guides and teachers.   

CHAP. XI. Wherein is discussed the third particular in answer to the argument drawne f●om circumcision; s●●. H●w we are engrafted into Abraham's covenant, and by what title we are called Abraham's children.  
A Third consideration is, how we are engrafted into Abraham's covenant, and by what title we are called Abraham's children.  
In the 4. Rom. 16. you have this affirmed, that Abraham is the father of us all; That place seems to be understood of all believers, and therefore when he saith in the same verse, the promise is of faith, to the end that it might be sure to all the seed; he makes a distribution, Not to that only which is of la but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; as if he should say, this whole seed, to whom the promise is sure, is either the believing jews, or the believing Gentiles, which have no other pretence or claim to the promise, but by a like faith, even as the jews also pretend to this fatherhood, no other way but by their faith; for so verse 12. And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumcised. It is not enough to be of the Circumcision, but they must walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham, that is, believe as he did, if they would pretend to the sonship we speak of, so as in this 16. verse, the opposition is only between the faithful under the Law, & the faithful under the Gospel, so as the law and faith are not opposed here simply, but as circumcision was an adjunct, or no adjunct to faith, that is, as true believers were either of the jews or Gentiles, and so these words are not to be taken as the 14. vers. If they which are of the la be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Here you see one fatherhood, Abraham is the father of all believers, whether jews or Gentiles; So in another consideration you have Sarah said to be the mother of all good & obedient women, who are called her children, 1. Pet. 3.6.  
But besides this, Abraham may be considered under the notion of another fatherhood, of which the jews were apt enough to brag, namely a carnal generation, that they had Abraham to their father, as appears by the reproof that john gave them, Mat. 3.9. Think not to say within yourselves we have Abraham to our father. Now in opposition to this fatherhood, considered alone, is that added verse 17. of 4. Rom. where the Apostle quoting the promise Gen. 17.5. I will make thee a father of many nations, adds this, before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, etc. As if he should say, Abraham is the father of us all, not in respect of his carnal paternity, but of his spiritual, which is before God, whom he believed; it is said to be before God, because founded in faith, by which we are commended to God.  
He adds also, Who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which are not, as though they were; by which we have all a pattern or glass of our vocation, by which is proposed a beginning or entry, not into our first birth, but into our hope of life to come, to wit, that when we are called by God, we go out of nothing, as not having the least spark or seed of good in us, which may render us capable of the kingdom of God; but on the contrary must die to ourselves, that we may be proper for Gods call, whose call is so effectual, as a simple will of his or sign thereof, produceth the greatest and highest existencies.  
The like distinction of a double paternity & sonship, to wit, after the flesh, and after the spirit, that is, by carnal generation & by faith, ye have Rom. 9.6.7.8. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect, for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called, that is they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Where the Apostles intention is to make it appear, that notwithstanding the great defection of the jews, yet the truth of the divine promise is not diminished, For they are not all Israel, says he, which are of Israel, because they are not the children of the promise, but of the flesh, and can pretend title only to Israel their father by a carnal generation, vers. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they children, that is, the like may be said also of Abraham; It is not their carnal generation (of which they are apt to boast) that gives them a true notion of sonship, in respect of the spiritual promises made to Abraham (for so only by faith they gave the title of Abraham's seed as before;) But in Isaac shall thy seed be called; this he explains vers. 8. that is they which are the children of the flesh, those are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.  
The sense is, That promise of God made to Abraham, by which he made so great a difference amongst his children, that, Ishmael laid aside and rejected, only the posterity of Isaac should be called his seed; saying in Isaac shall thy seed be called; teacheth us thus much, that neither they all, nor only, are to be reputed for the true seed of Abraham, which according to the flesh are issued from Abraham, but those which are the sons of the promise, that is, which are regenerated according to the spirit by faith, according to that promise, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.  
Here you have a distinction as it were of two abraham's, a begetting Abraham, and a believing Abraham, and also of two seeds, the children of the flesh, that is by carnal generation only, and the children of the promise.  
This allegory hath its foundation in that which the Apostle saith Gal. 4.22.23. For it is written, Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman; but he who was of the bondwoman, was borne after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise; where he affirms that Ishmael was borne according to the flesh, but Isaac according to the spirit; that is, he only by a natural power of generation, but Isaac not so much according to the flesh, but miraculously as it were, by the restoring of a generative virtue to Abraham, for the making good of the promise.  
Now, saith he, those only, which according to that of which Isaac was a type, are borne by promise, those and those only are counted for the seed, Rom. 9.8. They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. According to which is that which is affirmed Gal. 3.7.9. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham; and vers. 9 So then they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham.  
In the first of those verses, out of the former reasonings, he bids them conclude & take it for granted, that not those which are of works, which hold by that tenure, but those which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.  
Again he perstringeth the jews, who gloried in their carnal generation, that they were Abraham's sons according to the flesh; the 9 verse is a reason of the 8. where he says, that the Scripture (that is, the spirit that writ the Scripture) foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed; that is, either in thy seed which is Christ, who only is apprehended & made ours by faith, or (as many of the ancients expound this place, and Calvine is of the same judgement) In thee, that is, according to the imitation and after the similitude of thee: he being, as Calvin says, in this the pattern & rule of us all, and therefore is called our father, as being the primitive pattern made by God; and this interpretation the words of the 9 verse seem to imply, So then they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham; which is an illation or inference of the foregoing reason: in this verse the principal Emphasis lies in the word faithful, where the former mentioned distinction is again intimated, there is a begetting Abraham, and a believing Abraham, it is with the believing Abraham, the faithful Abraham, that all nations are blessed by being as he was of faith; the word blessing however diversely taken in the Scripture, yet here it is taken as Calvin expounds it for our adoption into the inheritance of life eternal.  
Having therefore at large opened those places, which give light to this consideration, & made good out of the Scripture, that double fatherhood of Abraham, the one carnal by his begetting, the other spiritual by his believing, there remaineth nothing to add, but this in a word, that we can pretend nothing of sonship to Abraham, by the first tenure, scil. of begetting, by which tenure the jews partooke of circumcision, but by the other of believing, that is, after the example and imitation of Abraham, who, for that he so anciently and so eminently believed in God, carries the title of the father of all believers, who do the like, as Sarah his wife doth of the mother of good women; and this faith, not carnal generation, is that that entitles us to Christian ordinances.  
And to make this last which is the sum of all, a little plainer, I shall add this, that by virtue of the parallel of circumcision, that only qualifies for ordinances that is derivable from parents to their children by generation; for neither was Isaac circumcised, because he was borne after the spirit, nor Ishmael debarred from it, because as a type he was borne after the flesh, but both the one and the other had it by virtue of their natural and carnal generation, by which they were made of the household and family of Abraham: Now we pretending to be Abraham's children by faith, not by carnal generation, cannot pretend to ordinances by carnal generation as the others did.  
And secondly, forasmuch as by carnal generation, we our selves cannot derive faith, which is that which qualifies for our ordinances, therefore no fatherhood of ours can derive a right for ordinances, unless we understand such a fatherhood as Paul pretended to, when he calls Onesimus his son, saying, He had begotten him in his bonds, Phile. 10. Or when he tells the Corinthians 1. Corinth. 4.15. Though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers, for in jesus Christ I have begotten you through the Gospel; and so we may be the father as well of other men's children as of our own: Now than if we cannot pretend to be Abraham's children, and so consequently to partake of ordinances, by the way which the jews did, which was carnal generation, but by a way quite of another kind, namely a way of personal believing.  
And secondly, if we cannot pretend to a fatherhood to others in deriving by carnal generation, the qualification of ordinances, which is faith, it must then of necessity remain, that the jews partaking of circumcision by virtue of having Abraham to their father, and deriving that title to their posterity, by the same way of carnal generation, is no precedent or pattern to us, of either being Abraham's children, & so qualified for baptism, in such a way, or of our deriving to our posterity any such qualification, either for that or any other ordinance by the like way of carnal generation.  
And indeed in the Gospel's notion we all are children, and there is no father but Abraham; for to gain the title of father, there must be either a generative power, which remains only in the spirit, of whom as Christians we are borne, Not of flesh, nor of blood, nor the will of man. Or there must be the eminency of an example or copy, and so we use to say the first in every kind is the rule of the rest. Now it hath pleased God to give this honour to Abraham, who for the eminency and antientnes of his faith, is styled by God, and will carry that title to the world's end, of the father of us all.  
Let us be content therefore to be children, and glory in that, and let Abraham enjoy his privilege; or if we will needs be fathers also, let us imitate Paul, and be we workers with God, and labour in jesus Christ to beget men through the Gospel.   

CHAP. XII. Wherein is handled the fourth Question, proposed to answer the argument drawn from Circumcision, to wit, How fare the jews by virtue of their being the sons of Abraham, could pretend to new Testament Ordinances, wherein also, besides several others, that much agitated place is opened & considered of, Acts 2.38.39.  
FOurth Question: How fare the jews, by virtue of their being the sons of Abraham, could pretend to new Testament ordinances; and if they by any such birthright could not, then nor we, by any such birthright or carnal generation.  
First we will show how fare they might pretend.  
Secondly where the stop lay, and where they went equal with others. They had this great honour & advantage, that the Gospel was first offered to them; the jews were brought nearer God than others, and therefore the advantage of the jew and circumcision was much every way, because to them were committed the oracles of God, Rom. 3.1.2. And this kind of dispensation God pleased to continue in the promulgation of the Gospel, & therefore Christin his first mission charged the Apostles, Not to go into the way of the gentiles, nor into any city of the Samaritans (which were as gentiles to them) but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and preach the Gospel to them, Matth. 10.5.6.7. This priority and advantage Paul mentions Rom. 2.10. Glory, honour and peace to every man that worketh good, to the jew first, and also to the Gentile; and after the ascension of Christ in Peter's effectual sermon, which was crowned with the conversion of 3000 souls, he keeps this method Acts 2.38.39. Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost, for the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar of, even as many as the Lord our God shall call: In the way he took to raise those which were cast down, he bids them, Repent and be baptised, that was the thing to be done on their parts, for their restoring and raising, of which he tells them the effects; first the great and main one, that they should receive remission of sins, and as a consequence and earnest as it were of this, proper for those first times, they should also receive the gift of the holy Ghost, that is, whereas they were amazed and wondered to see this befall the Apostles, why, saith he, it is not to us alone, but to you also, that the prophecy and promise of joel forementioned ℣. 16.17.18. is to be accommodated, yea to all who ever God shall call; but with this difference & by these degrees, that it is first to you which are jews, which are night, & then though you may wonder at it, to the gentiles also which are afar of; and that you see in the event proved a wonder, for it is said Acts 10.45. that they of the circumcision which believed were astonished as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also were poured out the gifts of the holy Ghost. Now these gentiles are called afar of, suitable to the expression of Ephes. 2.13. Ye, that is, the gentiles, who sometimes were fare of, are made night by the blood of Christ; where the same expressions of nigh & fare of, are used that are here; now he makes mention particularly of their children, (under which also he intends the children of the gentiles, when by calling they should be made nigh) to accommodate to them more fully the mentioned place of joel; as if he should say, those are the last days, when this promise vers. 16.17.18. is to be fulfiled, both to jew and gentile, as a consequence of their faith in the Messiah, that they shall receive that eminent gift of the holy Ghost, as a badge of their profession, & the glory of God, by which they shall be able to do such things as we have done, but with this difference, that according to what is foretold, the spirit will accommodate and vent itself proportionable to their states and capacity; some things are proper to old men, they shall dream dreams, others to young men, they shall see visions, and according to the manner of their revelation, shall their gift be, and the venting of it by prophecy. But all, you and your children shall receive gifts of the holy Ghost, and so be made partakers of that illustrious promise: here therefore ye have that which might first and especially comfort them, the remission of their sins, so as no man can object against Peter, for comforting them only with gifts.  
Secondly as a consequence of this, and as Christ elsewhere saith, a sign of them that believe, they shall have the same gift of the holy Ghost, both jews & Gentiles (in their order) that the Apostles had, & this should be just accommodated according to the prophecy of joel to fathers and children, to young men & old, according to their proportions and capacities for prophecy.  
Now that by the gift of the holy Ghost, and so consequently the promise of joel, is meant ability of speaking tongues & prophecies, as it is clear by the context in itself, so according to the judgement of Calvin, who says clearly, that this ought not to be understood of the grace of sanctification, but of those primitive gifts, which though we now receive not, yet we have something analogical and proportionable to them.  
Now as the gift was not the grace of sanctification, so neither the promise by which it is made ours, for all gifts are ours by promise, this is the general judgement of expositors, Protestant and others, and is most clear by Acts 10.45.46. where says he, they of the circumcision which believed, were astonished, because that on the gentiles also was poured out the gift of the holy Ghost, for they heard them speak with tongues etc. where the gift of the holy Ghost (the same words used that is here) is described by speaking with tongues. Peter therefore calleth them that were pricked at their hearts, & were weary and heavy laden to repentance, and Baptism in the name of the Lord jesus, that they might receive and have sealed up to them the remission of sins, which was the great thing they desired, as a symbol and sign of which they should partake also of the effect of that illustrious promise made in joel, and mentioned formerly, that they should receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost; so as nothing could be spoken more to the hearts of distressed men then this, nor nothing could more encourage them to repentance and Baptism, than the remission of sins sealed to them in that ordinance, and yet more & further signified and sealed by that famous promise of extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, which for that time, Christ himself made a sign and effect of believing to them that were nigh and fare of, that is, both to jews and Gentiles, and so you see the jews encouraged to repentance and Baptism, upon great, and noble, and most considerable grounds, with this distinction & difference, that the offer of all those great things according to the way of God and the Gospel, comes first to them, and after to them which are afar of, that is, to the gentiles, who indeed were afar of, being aliens and in the estimation of Peter, so fare, that God was forced to give him a particular vision, as you shall hear Acts 10. to persuade him to look upon them as those nigh.  
And thus we have what the jew as a natural son of Abraham may pretend to Baptism, and new Testament ordinances, to wit, a priority in respect of the offer, whereby the way we have taken occasion to clear that place that some have endeavoured to bring to prove infant Baptism by, than which truly nothing seems to be less properly raised out of it.  
The next considerable thing is, where the stop lies, & where the jews go equal with others. Now for that we will consider that place of Matt. 3. chap. Vs. 7.8.9. When he see many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves we have Abraham to our father, for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. The Pharisees and Sadduces, men (especially the Pharisees) strict in their religion, come many of them to john's Baptism, upon this pretence and claim, that they were descended from Abraham and were his children; that they come in this confidence and pretence, was manifest by what john said unto them: Luke hath it Luk. 3.8. Begin not to say within yourselves, that is, do not take this subterfuge, to oppose to repentance, & change of heart, which only qualifies for Baptism, that you have Abraham to your father, Matthew says, think not to say within yourselves, which notes a persuasion of a prerogative of carnal generation, that you have Abraham to your father; such carnal and birth prerogatives stand you in no steed in this covenant, for of these stones God can raise up children to Abraham; that as when Isaac was borne, who was the son of promise, Abraham's body and Saraas womb were dead as a stone; so those which are now to be accounted the sons of Abraham, God can raise from nothing, even from stones, from the gentiles, which you despise, and for their hardness, and distance, not in place, but in the knowledge of God, are as stones; of such can God raise children to Abraham; for the ordinances I pretend to are not bottomed upon carnal generation, or privileges, but things of another nature, namely true holiness, which is seen and manifested by the fruit it brings forth; Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance.  
The next place considerable to this purpose is that john, where he shows that this excellent person the son of God, that came to bring life & light, was rejected by the world, and after by his own, not only the world which he had made, and in which he had showed great & sufficient evidences of himself, known him not, (by which the miserable blindness of corrupt nature appears, they can do nothing spiritual, but by a light of another kind than theirs is, to wit, spiritual and divine) But when he came to his own they received him not. The people of the jews were his peculiar; he was in the world, but he came to them, that is, first he presented himself to them, they received him not, that is, though he were offered and showed, they took him not to them, which shows a great deal of malice joined to blindness, by which they resisted the holy Spirit, offering to enlighten them by words and miracles; But lest Christ should suffer as a person generally neglected and slighted, he tells you Christ came not in vain, there were those that received him, and made much of him, As many as received him; for now the hedge was pulled up, the partition wall broken down; those he magnifies wonderfully, they had this power, that is, this dignity, this privilege, as in the margin, given them to become the sons of God; that is, though they were strangers, and afar of naturally, yet the honour of adoption was given them, to be made, & be the sons of God. If you ask now, but what was this receiving, or how came this about? He tells you this was effected by faith, by believing in his name.  
But now whereas the fashion of this world in adopting children, is to respect either the greatness of their birth, or the excellency of their parts, or some glory of their actions, he tells you, nothing of all this moved God, but his mere grace and will; which provoked him to do this great good to the vildest and unworthiest, for says he, those were borne not of bloods.  
The jews pretended the dignity of their race, that they were the seed of Abraham, & because they drew their original from Abraham, by a series of many successions, & so they were more noble by their antiquity, therefore he says, bloods; this blood (saith he) did them no good, and by consequence the carnal generation from godly and just parents, will do no good (simply considered) to entitle us to become the sons of God, or consequently to the ordinances, which seal up that sonship; therefore they were borne not of bloods, nor of the will of flesh, nor of man, that is, no freewill, no resolutions, no moral endeavours, though they should engage never so much, can effect this birth; Nor the will of man, no heroïcall works, no excellency or dignity can effect this adoption, this title, but only God; this proceeds only from the will of God, james 1.18. Of his own will bégate he us, by the word of truth, which (by the way) should cause us to love God, who finding nothing in us, hath so freely loved us.  
Here you see in the second place, that in respect of adoption and sonship to God, of which baptism is especially & in the first place a seal, the birth of bloods, the descending of such parents, whether jews or gentiles (saving for the order of the offer as before) doth no good, but we all in that matter lie open & exposed to the free will and grace of God, so as when a jew comes to baptism, he must come even as we, and bring other characters with them, then of having Abraham to his father, if he will pretend to this, or any new Testament ordinance.  
The equality in this respect will appear by that place also of Acts 10.34.35. Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. God seemed formerly to have been a respecter of persons; some men, as some meats, were borne clean, insomuch as circumcision & other ordinances were their due as a birthright, those which were jews by nature were holy, and those that were gentiles, that is by birth, were accounted sinners; now this acception of persons, was not a vice in God, contrary to distributive justice, because God was not obliged to dispense his ordinances as in any certain manner, so nor to any certain men, or to all in general, because no man had right to them, or could merit them at his hands; but he is free, as a rich man at a dole to give to whom he will, or a King to his subjects, so as the acceptance of persons in this sense was once just and according to the will and pleasure of God; But now Peter was taught by God, by the means of the vision he had seen, to admit men to ordinances upon other considerations, then legal denominations of clean, or unclean, namely, upon fearing of God, and working righteousness, and no other, which is a thing not generated and conveyed by birth, but by the new birth, and the spirit of the living God: Now this Peter expresses, I perceive of a truth, the word signifies, to gather or collect by reasons, signs and conjectures, as Calvin expounds it, to wit, the signs he saw before, viz. that of the vessel vers. 11. Now than you see new qualifications to denominate a man accepted of God, & qualified for ordinances, & this in this covenant and way of worship was common to both, without any difference, for so you have it Acts 15.9. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith; the purity is not by birth as formerly. Thus you see the jews come to Baptism, and be called the sons of God, not by their pretention to Abraham for their father, nor for the honour and advantage of their descent and blood; And the Gentiles they were admitted without any consideration of persons, or personal prerogatives in respect of their birth, but upon their fearing God, & working righteousness, and having their hearts purified by faith; therefore the old way & advantage of birthright, and in that respect of accepting of persons, is ceased long ago on both sides alike.  
To conclude in a word, all birth privilege is by the title of Abraham's covenant, if therefore the natural seed of Abraham could not at all pretend to new Testament ordinances a right by that title, much less the adopted seed by any such way of natural generation; but if you speak of the spiritual seed and heirs according to promise, than they and we pretend both alike in new Testament ordinances, with this difference only, to the jew first and then to the Gentiles.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Wherein is handled the fifth and last question in answer to the argument drawn from circumcision, scil. whether Infants not proving the subject of Baptism, the privileges of Christians and their state, may not justly be said to be as great as the privileges of the jews and their state.  
Question 5. Though infants should not prove to be the subject of Baptism, yet whether the privileges of Christians and their state, may not justly be said to be as great and greater than the privileges of the jews and their state.  
No man is willing to lose by change, and our children are so great a piece of us, as that what they lose, we feel.  
It must first be affirmed that the jews had this peculiar honour proper both to their persons, and the land of their habitation and dwelling, their Temple also & other ordinances, that they were types of things to come, and in that respect were many things performed by them, and many things predicated of them, which else would not have been, as the land was holy but typically, and the Temple holy but typically, and all the inhabitants of all ages and degrees, unless under a particular defilement and uncleanness, were denominated holy, but typically also.  
Now what ever was a type in that wherein it was a type, whether persons or ordinances, etc. of all such things as types, it may be affirmed.  
First that they are inferior to their antitypes, that is, to the thing figured, or shown by them.  
Secondly that they are not true in themselves, being a shadow of things to come, but in the body or truth, which they figure or type out.  
Thirdly that when the antitype, or truth is fulfiled, or performed, the type ceaseth; now it seems to be agreed by all hands, that not only places and persons, ceremonies and events, were types, but the Sacraments of the jews and former times, were types and shadows of our Sacraments, not to instance in any but in circumcision, as relating to & typising out Baptism, which is agreed on all sides to be a type of our baptism, yea, so far some urge it as a type, that they would therefore have infants baptised, because infants were circumcised, the antitype being to answer the type; but upon how great a mistake they so urge it, we shall show hereafter, when we shall make that manifest, that a great reason of the difference and not baptising infants of believers, ariseth from the consideration of the typicalnes of circumcision: for the present though it be generally granted, yet we further make it manifest to be a type of Baptism by examining that place Coll. 2.11.12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting of the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. In this second chapped. Paul seems to contend with divers impugners of Christian religion, us. 1. For I would that you know what great conflict I have for you; and first vers. 4. he contends against oratory and enticing words, by which their hearts might be led away and seduced; And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words, etc. then vers. 8. he argues against Philosophers, as a vain deceit; who would judge of the things of Christ by the elements or rudiments of the world, for none of those things extend themselves to the mysteries of Christ, which we hold by faith, and therefore Philosophical demonstrations any farther than they are proportionable to the analogy of faith, are extremely deceitful, and to be bewar'de of.  
In the third place he contends against those who laboured to retain jewish ceremonies and types, vers. 10.11.12. And ye are complete in him which is the head of all principalities and power, in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting of the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him, etc. For here he shows that circumcision, which was the profession of the whole Law, was fulfiled as a type or figure to Christians by Christ in Baptism, and therefore that was to vanish away, as types ought to do, when they were fulfiled; therefore he shows how we are circumcised in Christ, which is sealed and effected by Baptism; first it is without hands, which the legal circumcision was not, as Baptism in some sense may be said also to be, God being the great Baptizer.  
Secondly this circumcision doth not deprive you only of a little skin of the flesh, which was typical, but of the whole body of sin.  
Thirdly this is not the circumcision of Moses, or of the fathers, but of Christ, for only Christ can effect this.  
Lastly all this is sealed to us and made ours by Baptism, by Baptism is effected this circumcision, in which we are assimulated to Christ, buried & risen again, and are sealed one with him in our death to sin and life to holiness, so as Baptism is Christian circumcision, and then we are said to be circumcised with the circumcision of Christ, when we are rightly baptised.  
Now therefore if circumcision be a type of Baptism, as it is acknowledged and proved, then examine it by the former properties of a type.  
And first if circumcision be a type of Baptism, than it is inferior to Baptism, as types are to their antitypes, of which they are shadows and figures; But if Baptism be to be administered for a seal and sign in infancy, as circumcision was to teach and instruct hereafter, then on the other hand their privilege was far above ours, who carried a mark in the flesh, visible and sensible, by which they knew assuredly they were circumcised, whereas that any of us have been sprinkled or dipped in infancy, we must receive by a humane faith, having never ourselves seen it, nor no marks to show it us, or convince us of it; and it may well fall out, that no body may be able to assure us of it neither; so as that ceremony may well not work upon us with any power, of which we have so little assurance, whether it have been administered to us or no.  
Besides that a man had a jew to his father, was the assured qualification for circumcision, which a man might know as well as his own father; but for Baptism I must believe my parents was godly, if I will be assured of my qualification, which ariseth from the faith (as they say) of one parent, (for it will not now go down so easily as it hath done, that a profession of Christianity only at large will qualify for deriving right to Baptism) now this is a thing which possibly may be very hard for me to ascertain from my own knowledge, or the knowledge of any others, but perhaps I must be put to dispute as well my right to baptism, as the matter of fact that I had it, which yet according to the right notion of that ordinance, is to be the rise of much comfort and instruction to me.  
After all this consider how weakly will the operation of such a ceremony or sign fall upon me, where in there will be need of faith to believe that I had right to it, or that I had it at all. Now than if the type be inferior to the antitype, we must never allow it great and essential superiorities, as it would certainly have, if infants were to be baptised, as formerly they were circumcised; this therefore according to what hath been said, not being possibly to be avoided, that if infants be to be baptised, they will fall below in such Baptism the privileges and advantages of circumcision, which is contrary to the nature of a type, it must then follow that therefore they are not to be baptised, and therefore baptism was never intended them; this being most assured, that it fare excels that of the jews, as the antitype doth that which typifies it, and figures it out.  
Secondly it is affirmed of types that they were not true in themselves, being a shadow of things to come, but in the body or truth which they figure or type out, so the escape goat, the Pascall lamb, etc. apply this from circumcision of infants the type to the antitype baptism, with its subject; the infants generally of the jews no more than the land were not truly and properly holy and saints, but types of such, the administering it to males of such an age, and to males only, shows as much, when as it might have been administered to women, as Peter Martyr affirms out of Ambrose, the Egyptians do, and the jacobites, a certain sect of Christians inhabiting Cyprus, Syria, etc. in great numbers, & others do to this day; Now had it not been for the types sake, what probable reason can be given, why women, who must be acknowledged within the covenant as well as men, should not be circumcised, which they were capable of, as appears by what is recorded of fact, for what is done by whole nations & people, might have been done by God's command, or the Lord could have pitched upon another ceremony, which would have fitted women in the administration of it, if that would not; But as it is acknowledged that circumcision typified Baptism, so the subject of the one the subject of the other, to wit, a male a believer, or one who is in Christ the son of God: Therefore baptism is better then circumcision, and our state better than theirs, though infants have it not; nay the betterness lies in this, that by baptising believers, so known and received, we have the substance of what they had but in the shadow & type, to wit, a male infant, the subject of that ordinance, we a believer the subject of ours.  
The third thing predicated of types is, that when the antitype or truth is fulfiled and performed, the type ceaseth: Apply this to the case of circumcision and baptism: The Lord now making up his churches of saints really so and no other (as fare as we can judge by the rules he gives us to judge by) those who by virtue of their typeship were accounted holy, and the subject of ordinances, to wit, a certain generation of men and their infants are now no more to be esteemed so, nor is any thing to succeed, or come in place of such an administration, but that which is the truth & substance of it, to wit, believers, and such as in whom Christ is form, which the other seemed to typify and shadow; and to do otherways, were to bring yourselves to the beggarly administrations of types and shadows, when you have the substance and antitype, out of a desire to go equal with the jews in privileges, whereas in this way propounded, ye are infinitely above them.  
To conclude out of what hath been said, their state had the honour of the type, ours of the antitype, they of the shadow or figure, but we of the body; our children no more than our land or temples, hold out shadows of things to come: In the mean time we have Christ amongst us, and are his temple; we have the body, Coloss. 2.17. others were a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. And Heb. 10.1. The la had a shadow of good things to come, and not so much as the image of them. And our condition being not to hold out types and figures, our infants have no such administration used to them, as formerly the jews had in an age when it can profit them no otherwise, but in making them types. And if this be an unhappynes, ye may as well count it an unhappynes that our land is not typical, or our temples or days of worship: But we have Christ amongst us for our seed, as well as for ourselves. And consider this that by all that is said, we reject no promises made to the children in consideration of God's love, or affection to their parents; but we embrace them, and expect, & pray for the fullfilling of them, only we do not by precipitating the administration of an ordinance to our children, beyond the institution and before the time of it, render that which is intended for so much comfort and use, both unproffitable & uncomfortable to them, and assimilate them to the pedagogy and similitude of types.  
And lastly that we may look upon this in the glass of other things, no man holds the condition and state of our Ministers less blessed, then that of the jewish church, yet the Priests & Levits than had this peculiar, that their state was successive, and derived from father to son, which ours we know is not. And not only so, but their church state also was successive, a man was borne a member of the jewish church, & by his birthright had a title to all church ordinances, as his age made him capable of them, but the children of Christians however they are baptised at aventure, yet not only many churches we take notice of now a days, as pretending to a more strict reformation, require also a personal & particular admission, for the instating them into the Church as members, but others also (and those particularly of the united Provinces) do the like, not only in relation to the children of Christians, strangers to them, but to those borne of their own members; Since therefore neither our ministry, nor our church state suffers, in wanting the power of deriving ministers or members, by way of succession, it should less stick with any that they cannot derive a right to Baptism to their children that way; on the other side, we should glory in our privileges, and think our selves more than recompensed, that in steed of the honour of types, which is a thing common to men, with beasts and countries, we have the body & substance of that, of which in old time they had but the shadow, and not so much as the image, Heb. 10.1.   

CHAP. XIV. In which is considered that famous and much urged place of 1. Cor. 7.14. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.  
HAving thus largely vindicated this great Gospel ordinance, from those objections that the parallel of Circumcision seem to make against it, in the administration of it to an actual believer only, and by the way cleared divers places that use to be debated in this argument, & particularly that of 2. of the Acts 38.39. Reason & good manners require, that that famous and much urged place of 1. Corint. 7.14. should have its turn for consideration, to it therefore we now address our discourse, the words are these, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.  
The great drift of this place seems to be to exhort believers to abide in that calling or condition, wherein religion finds them, & to inform them, that that laid no law or necessity upon them, of a change, vers. 20. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called; art thou called being a servant, care not for it, etc. In which verses he gives an account and satisfaction to servants, which he had done before to married persons, concerning the communion of man and woman for the use of the bed; there were two things which seemed especially to render it unclean and unholy, both in respect of the parties themselves, and of the issue of their bodies, one was the polluting of the marriage bed by adultery; therefore God made one man and woman, that there might be a holy seed, when he had abundance of the spirit, and could have made more, that the converse might be holy, that is, within those bounds & limits, and their seed holy, that is, not spurious and bastardly, Mal. 2.15.  
The other was the being unequally yoked with unbelievers and Idolaters, which amongst the jews rendered the marriage and the fruit of the womb so unclean and unholy, that there was to be a separation and devorce between the husband and the wife, and the children also of such births were to be put away as unholy, as appears Ezra 10.2.3.  
And that the course of the Apostles doctrine was against this unequal yoking with unbelievers, appears by what he says 2. Cor. 6.14. Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers, which intends particularly though perhaps not principally marriage, as some would have it; it was but therefore needful to enlighten & clear this great objection, which would lie as a bar in their way, to the comfortable enjoyment of that relation, in regard of their yoake-fellowes and children; to those people therefore that seem to fall under such a capacity and condition, the Apostle speaks vers. 12. to the rest speak I, etc. that is, to these which are of a different religion and worship (having considered others before) & what says he to them? he relieves them against a great evil, that they might fear would fall upon them, which is that they must part with their wives, or husbands, that are unbelievers, and by consequence also with the births of such a bed: He tells them there is no necessity of such a parting, but that they may abide in the condition wherein they were called, Vs. 20.21. Religion breaks no bonds, no civil contracts, ties or subordinations, which in themselves are not simply, and by the law of nature unlawful. Adultery were a state out of which religion would call you, as being simply unlawful, and against the law of nature; but the state of marriage, which is honourable amongst all men, and holy in itself, is not dissolved, or rendered unholy, by the conversion of any party, but on the other side, it still remains a holy and sanctified state, to the believer (for to the pure all things are pure, that are not naturally and by themselves sinful or impure) as on the contrary, even lawful marriages, and the most justifiable things, are impure to the unbelievers, to whom nothing is pure, their minds and consciences being defiled, therefore says he, the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, or to the wife: Sanctification being here opposed to that which is impure & unclean, that is, contrary to the law of God; so that the whole marriage converse, is by the faith of the believer rendered pure and clean, as also are their children, though borne of an unbeliever on one side, which if the marriage converse were unclean, would be unholy or unsanctified, they also are holy, for so it follows, Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.  
Here seems to be two arguments, though very much alike and near of kin, why there should not be a putting away of the man's side, or a leaving on the woman's, if either of them be a believer, the one is from the holiness of the unbelieving yoke-fellow, the other from the holiness of the births of such a bed, which are both rendered so, that is sanctified or holy to their use, by the faith of one party: where mark that the question is not here of infants only, but of children in general, though of age, which are as capable of being sanctified by the believers faith, and to the believer, though themselves were unbelievers, as the unbelieving wife, or the unbelieving husband is; And as the word children, extends itself beyond infants to all children, so the word holy (which is of the same kind with that which in this verse is attributed to the husband or wife) is as appliable to a child of years, & not believing as to an unbelieving husband or wife; And of such a holy child there will be no great cause to boast, as of a fit subject for Baptism.  
This I take to be the genuine interpretation of this place, which seems to exhort as much as may be, to an abiding in the condition, wherein religion finds them, as appears by the 17.18.19.20. verses, and answers the great objection, which might arise from unequal matches in respect of their yoake-fellowes and their children.  
Another interpretation there is, which you may consider also, which seems to take its rise from the words before, And she be pleased to devil with him, Vs. 12. And he be pleased to devil with her, Vs. 13. So as the reason why the believer sanctifies the unbeliever not simply, but in respect of marriage, is from the pleasure and willingness of the unbeliever to cohabite with the believing husband or wife; for the Apostle would seem to intimate, that such a kind of consent to cohabite, by which the unbeliever seems not to abhor the faith of Christ, and a spiritual life in the believing wife or husband, will cause or effect, that he shall not abominate also the Christian education of their children, so as in this respect the unbeleevinge husband or wife, and the children also though themselves for the present unbelievers, by reason of the willingness of the one to cohabite, and the subjection of the other to Christian education, may in that sense be said to be sanctified, or made holy, being as it were deputed to it, and in the way of preparation for it, so as the unbelieving parent & the children of that mixed birth, may be called as Tertullian says, Candidati timoris; and as afterward by others, Candidati fidei, Probationers or compettitors, for fear and faith; the words following vers. 16. seems to favour such an interpretation, For what knowest thou O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband, or how knowest thou O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife; there being already wrought a good pleasure, or willingness to abide and cohabite on the unbelievers part, husband or wife, and the children in that respect being subjected to Christian education, and to the beholding of holy examples, true conversion and faith, which brings them into estate of salvation, may be in time accomplished in them, to which they seem in some sort destined by the providence of God, in such a yoke-fellow, or such parents. So sanctification is predicated of those who are destined, or prepared to such an end; so God says of the Medes and Persians Esay. 13.3. I have commanded my sanctified ones, that is, such as I have prepared, for so Calvin upon that place says, that sometimes sanctification is referred to regeneration, which is peculiar to the elect of God; sometimes it signifies to prepare or destiny to a certain end; so those unbelieving parents by their willingness to abide with believers, & their children in regard of the opportunity of a holy education, seem to be as it were destined or prepared for regeneration, and for that state which accompanies salvation; and in that respect as in a large sense, may be called sanctified or holy. Which consideration, if it may give them a greater access to ordinances proper for them, or stir up others to lay out themselves in a more peculiar and particular manner for their conversion, I shall not hinder it; but on the contrary think that such providences speak much, and that as they give grounds of hope, and so of endeavour, so there may be much of duty towards them, in regard of the opportunity that families and churches, that parents, masters & ministers have to do good to such, who though strictly they may not be called church members, no more then strictly sanctified, that is, regenerated by the holy Spirit, yet so fare as in the respects before mentioned, they may be termed sanctified, that is, by a providence destined as it were and prepared for God, so fare the church within whose pole they seem by a providence to live, and to be cast, aught to have a more especial eye after them, and care of them, by virtue at least of that general injunction, As you have opportunity do good to all men, especially to the household of faith; under the shadow of which these are come.  
But whether you take either of these senses, or both, for they may both stand in several respects, and regarding the text with a different aspect, you will surely find nothing to engraft Baptism upon.  
For whether the children are sanctified to the believing parents use, as all other things are (not unholy in themselves) which to the unbeliever are not, or whether in the second sense they are sanctified, that is, as it were destined for holiness, of which by virtue of a great providence, in respect of their education, they are made Candidati, that is, probationers or competitors, as when men stand for a place or office, and as the Catechumini of old were called, yet can they by no means in either of these respects be qualified for, or made the subject of Baptism, which presupposeth, as hath formerly been showed, another kind of holiness' proper to, and inherent in the party, namely regeneration and newnesses of life; not such an one as is compatible to an unbeliever, either parents, or children.  
It was but necessary to speak something to this place, which bears amongst many the weight of so great a building as infant Baptism, though if I could find here such a holiness for infants, as we all wish to ours, namely justifying faith & regeneration, yet I should no more judge it meet to baptise them, then to preach to them, or to administer the Lords supper to them, they being as capable of the word as baptism, and of one mysterious ceremony as well as another; which hath been a reason, I doubt not, why many formerly, and many at this day do administer the Lords supper to infants, by virtue of a parallel ordinance to Baptism: Nor do I know the reason why the one should be refused, where the other is deemed a due. But enough I hope for this, which truly the contests of others, rather than any scruple, which hath fallen upon my spirit from these words, hath made me say so much of.   

CHAP. XV. In which the authority of the Fathers, and the practice of antiquity, touching the subject of Baptism, is considered.  
THe authority of the Fathers, and the practice of ancient times, is to many a great argument for the Baptising of infants; to me that look upon such argumentations, as not of the first magnitude, collateral, and such as may truly and as often be brought, for the patronising of errors as truth, they are of no great consideration, yet to satisfy others more than myself, there must be something spoken to this head.  
In which I shall consider especially these two things, first whether by the witness of story, Infant Baptism have enjoyed a quiet and peaceable possession in the church, from the Apostles times downward, till of late it was interrupted by some few evil spirits in the times of Luther, as some men would give us to believe.  
Secondly upon what grounds those Fathers, which are alleged for the chief patrons of Infant's Baptism went; for if they have erred in the reason of the foundation, it will be easilyer believed, that they did also in the building.  
We will consider first of this latter.  
I will give you their grounds, either as I have read them myself, or as I find them quoted by Bellarmine Tom. 3. lib. cap. 8. whose quotations I shall take for truth, till I find the contrary, for here he hath to do with the Anabaptists, enemies in this point alike common to him, with most of those that are termed Protestants.  
First he quotes the testimony Dionisij Areop. qui lib. Eccles. Hier. c. ult. part ult. ab Apostolis traditum affirmat, ut infantes baptizentur. justi. five quicunque est auctor earum quaest. qu. 56. parvulos baptizatos salvari alios non item; That infants baptised are saved, others not.  
Orig. lib. 5. in cap. 6. ad Rom. Ecclesia inquit ab Apostolis traditionem accepit, etiam parvulis dare Baptismum. The Church says he received a tradition from the Apostles, to give Baptism to infants. Cypr. lib. 3. Ep. 8. ad Fidum scribit, Non solum sibi, sed etiam integro consilio visum esse parvulos baptizariposse: That it seemed good, not only to himself, but to a whole council that infants might be baptised, even before the 8. day. In other places the same author affirms, Baptism simply necessary to salvation, & that it washes away original sin, so as it is never more to be imputed. page 470. a.  
Hierom. lib. contr. Pelag. Infants baptizari dicit, & tum ommpeccato career: That infants are to be baptised, and then they are without all sin.  
Aust. lib. 10. de Gen. cap. 23. Consuetudo inquit matris Ecclesiae Baptizandis parvulis, nequaquam sparnenda est, nec illo modo superflua deputanda, nec omnino credenda, nisi Apostolica esset traditio. The custom of our mother the church in Baptising little children, is not to be despised, nor to be judged superfluous, nor to be believed at all, unless it were an Apostolical tradition.  
The same Austin, As for the authority of infant Baptism, he flies to tradition, so for the reason of it he bottoms it upon this, that they neither have faith to save them, nor a Sacrament instead of faith without Baptism, and therefore judges them to eternal death, unless they be taken out of the world by martyrdom, as the learned Forbes hath observed in his 10. book Instruct. Histor. in Theol. cap. 5. lib. 7. only Austin says, they shall be in damnatione omnium mitissima multum autem fallere & falli, qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros; They shall be in the easiest damnation of all others, but he much deceives himself and others that teaches they shall not be condemned, lib. 1. de peccat. meritis & remissione cap. 16. & lib. 5. contra julian cap. 8. but as gentle or as easy as damnation is, it is such as the wrath of God remains upon them, lib. 3. de peccatorum meritis & remissione cap. 20. They go into the second death, lib. de bono perseverantiae cap. 12. And they are children of wrath, lib. 6. contra julian cap. 3.  
Bernard also was of this same mind Epist. 77. Sanè, inquit, omnes infantes qui hanc prohibente aetate non possunt habere fidem, hoc est, cordis ad Deum conversionem, consequentè nec salutem, si absque baptismis perceptione moriuntur. Certainly, saith he, all infants, who their age hindering them, cannot have this faith, that is, the conversion of their hearts to God, neither consequently can they have salvation, if they die without the partaking of Baptism.  
More of this and of the same kind might be alleged, but these shall suffice.  
Before we go any farther, we must consider here, what is meant by traditions, which in the former quotations you hear so often mentioned.  
The name of Tradition in itself is general, and signifies all doctrines, either written, or not written, as 2. Thess. 2.15. Hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.  
But the name Tradition is accommodated by Divines, to signify only a doctrine not written, so Irenaeus is quoted lib. 3. cap. 2. Evenit, inquit, neque Scriptures, neque traditioni consentire eos. They would neither consent to Scripture, nor tradition.  
So Tertull. lib. de corona militis, Si legem postules Scripturam nullam invenies, traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix: If you look for a la, ye shall find no Scripture, but tradition is pretended, as that which authoriseth.  
Now that is called a doctrine not written (saith Bellarmine) not which is not where written, but which is not written by the first author, and he gives the instance of infant Baptism: It is called an Apostolical tradition not written, because it is not found written in any Apostolical book, although it be written (as he affirms) in the books of almost all the ancient Fathers. Tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 2. b.  
And by the way, why Bellarmine could not find Baptism written in the Apostles writings, if there it were, as well as other men, I know not; for he wants no accutenes in his sight, but when he is corrupted by his ends, and it suits with his end abundantly to prove infant Baptism as strongly as he can, because none judge it so necessary to the world as he, and those of his religion do.  
You see therefore by traditions here, meant things not found written in the Scripture, yet for their antiquity supposed to be Apostolical, which if they were allowed & received, what a miserable confusion should we be brought into in matters of religion, and how under the notion of ancient traditions should we worship God in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, Matt. 15.9. Matth. 16.6. Christ bids us take heed of the leaven of the Pharises, which was their unwritten traditions, and we are commanded to obey God not men, Acts 5.29. And if any man bring us any other doctrine, he is to be accursed, Gal. 1.9. This hath been the opinion of holy men in all ages. Luther on the first of the Galat. There ought not other doctrine to be delivered, or heard in the church, besides the pure word of God, that is, the holy Scriptures; let other teachers and hearers with their doctrine be accursed. So Calv. lib. 4. Inst. cap. 8. s. 8. Let this be a firm axiom, nothing is to be accounted for the word of God, to which place should be given in the church, but that which is first contained in the Law and the Prophets, and after in Apostolical writes.  
But because we are in a way of quotation, it will not be amiss to give you the judgement of some more ancient concerning this matter; and we will give them as they are given by Chemnit. in his exam. of the counscell of Trent, and quoted also by Bellarmine in order to his confutation of them, I shall give but a few. One is of Origen in cap. 3. ad Rom. etc. Necesse nobis est, inquit, Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare, sensus quippe nostri & enarrationes, sine his testibus non habent fidem. It is necessary for us to call the holy Scriptures to witness, because our senses and narrations without those witnesses, have no credit.  
So Constantin the Emperor, who in the Counscell of Nice, as Theodoret witnesss lib. 1. cap. 17. saith thus, Euangelici & Apostolici libri & antiquorum Prophetarum oracula plane instruunt nos, quid de rebus divinis sentiendum sit; Proinde hostili posita discordia in verbis divinitus inspiratis sumamus quaestionum explicationes. The Evangelicall and Apostolical books, and the oracles of the ancient Prophets, plainly instruct us what we should think of divine things; Therefore all hostile discord laid aside, let us take the explication of questions from words divinely inspired.  
Then Athanasius lib. contragent. Sufficiunt divinae, & divinitùs inspiratae Scripturae ad omnem instructionem veritatis; The holy & divinely inspired Scriptures, suffice to all instructions of truth.  
Then Basil. in serm. de fidei confess. Infidelitatis argumentum fuerit, & signum superbiae certissimum, si quis eorum quae scripta sunt, aliquid velit rejicere aut eorum quae non scripta introducere. It would be an argument of infidelity, and a most certain sign of pride, if any man should reject things written, or should introduce things not written.  
Also Cyril. lib. de recta fide. Necessarium nobis est divinas sequi literas, & in nullo ab eorum praescripto discedere. It is necessary for us to follow the divine letters, and in nothing to departed from their prescript.  
So Theoph. lib. 2. Paschali. Diabolici spiritus est, aliquid extra Scripturarum sacrarum auctoritatem putare divinum. It is the part of a diabolical spirit, to think any thing divine without the authority of holy Scriptures.  
So Tertull. lib. contra Hermogenum, Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem, scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina, si non scriptum est, timeat vae illud adjicientibus, vel detrahentibus destinatum. I adore the fullness of the Scripture, let Hermogenes show that it is written; if it be not written, let him fear the woe destined to those which add or detract.  
The end of all that hath been said amounts to this, that those Fathers, or Churches, that took up and practised Baptism as an Apostolical tradition, that is, a thing not written, nor found in the word, but for the antiquity sake called Apostolical (as those forequoted did, and most will be found to have done, that being their best plea) are justly to be reputed ours, and of our side, for they judge it not from Scripture, and therefore are forced to fetch the rise of it from tradition; which tradition, because it will not bear the weight of an institution, as you have heard, therefore the whole building is to fall, which is falsely bottomed, and their authority upon that ground is nothing, saving that by flying for a bottom, and refuge to tradition, they do with us affirm, that there is no better ground for infant Baptism then humane tradition, which is indeed none at all. So as you find how all these testimonies & authorities, and many of the same kind become ours. And here by the way I am not ignorant, that some of ours, whofeele themselves pressed by the Papists, as if they admitted of a tradition in this ordinance of Baptism, which they refuse in others, and being loath to lose the authority of the Fathers in this point, who put it upon tradition, as upon its proper basis, would fain wrest their neck out of this noose, and therefore show you also how the Fathers fastened it upon some Scripture ground, so Chemnit. in his answer of Lindan. Exam. Concil. Tridentin. de Trad. p. 69. To which I answer according to truth, that the forequoted Fathers fastened Baptism upon tradition, as upon its own ground and basis, being no more able than other men to find a word of institution for that which had none, and for the credit of the tradition, calling that Apostolical, which they found ancient, which as the same Chemnitius acknowledgeth was an ordinary practice in other things, but withal some of them give some ground of Scripture of their own framing for the colour of such a tradition; so Origen, Iraeneus, Cyprian and those others, quoted by Chemnitius to this purpose, which reach not to any word of institution, but to the reason of it, as Origen says, That the Apostles known that there were in all the stain of sin, which ought to be washed by water and by the spirit. So Cyprian, When the Lord saith in the Gospel, he came not to destroy the souls of men, but to save, we also should prevent as much as may be, that no soul be lost. For God as he accepts not the person, so nor the age. I shall give you no more, this only for a taste. Now those I said are no words of institution, but some general reason as they conceive, and doth not at all hinder, but that Apostolical tradition, as they call it, bears the weight of the institution; I deny not but that there hath been such a thing as the tradition of Christ, and Apostolical tradition, which are of the highest and greatest authority, but they were such things as afterwards were committed to writing by the Evangelists and Apostles, as Chemnitius well observes p. 61. and other traditions of Christ & his Apostles, we avow none, but esteem them all Apocryphal.  
Again for those Fathers and ancient writers, together with the Papists & Lutherans, that judged Baptism simply necessary to salvation, and some of them condemning infants to eternal damnation without it, as Austin, Bernard &c. (unless they were happily rescued by martyrdom) you see what necessity lay upon them to deffend infant Baptism, but upon a most false ground, namely the necessity of it to salvation, which failing as we know it doth, we may see both how they might be tempted & necessitated to such an opinion, & what good reason there is, why their foundation and building should fall together. And if any man shall here object as before in the case of traditions, that this peremptory necessity to salvation, was indeed a false hypothesis, or supposition, not fit to bear the weight of infant Baptism; but that the Fathers also might possibly have other mediums, by which to prove this, as those before instanced in. I answer, that the weakness of those mediums or any other I have met withal in this particular, as alleged by them, declare plainly that there was some other great thing, which enforced them to it, namely the necessity of it to salvation, as when we see wise men contend earnestly for that, for which they give no good visible or apparent reason; it may well be conceived, that there is something of interest, which supplies to them the want of reason, and this interest of the salvation of our children sits so near us, as it may bear the weight of many reasons, and cause us to admit conclusions, though of great moment and concernment upon very easy considerations. So as we have fully examined this head, namely upon what grounds the Fathers, which are alleged for the chief patrons of infant baptism, went & have found that so many as build it upon tradition, as generally all do, are of our side, for, avouching that, for their best authority they acknowledge there is no better, to wit, the Scripture; and so conclude with us, that Baptism of infants is not an institution of God, which hath the Scripture for its foundation.  
And those which give it to infants, because it is simply necessary to salvation, will be of no authority against us, nor of no credit to their cause, because the building must be levelled according to the foundation, & that being false, they are necessitated to the mistake of their building.  
To conclude, if there were any force left in these authorities for infant Baptism, as I conceive there is not, why should it not regulate our practife in the other Sacrament, to give that to infants, which was ancient, and of use in many churches, as well as the other, as it remains also in some to this day, and it is like would in more, had not Popish superstition given the supper the start of Baptism, to such a degree as to make it not so much the sign and representation of Christ, as Christ himself, and the very Protestants themselves, are so respective to this Sacrament of the Supper above the other, as to give it as a reason, why it should not be administered to infants, lest it should fall in contempt. Hosp. Hist. Sacram. p. 60.  
We shall produce some testimonies that the Supper was administered to infants as well as Baptism, as necessary to salvation, & if antiquity be to be esteemed a great argument for the administering of one Sacrament, why not of the other.  
For this Hospinian in his second book Histo. Sacram. pa. 59 quotes Cyprian Se. 5. de lapsis, and affirms also that Jerome, Aust. and other Father's witness, that those which were baptised not only of age, but also infants without any delay received the holy mysteries under both signs.  
So Jerome against the Luciferians, Non potest, inquit, Baptima tradere sine Eucharistia. Baptism must not be given without the Eucharist.  
And Aust. lib. de Dogm. Eccles. cap. 52. Siparvuli sunt (ait) vel hebetes qui doctrinam non capiant, respondeant pro illis qui eos offerunt, juxta morem baptizandi, & sic manus impositione at Chrismate communiti, Eucharistiae mysteriis admittantur. If they be little (says he) or dull, which are not capable of doctrine, let those answer for them, which offer them according to the custom of baptising, and so being fortified by Chrism, and imposition of hands, let them be admitted to the mystery of the eucharist.  
Also Epist. 107. he speaks thus, Infant's si in illa parva aetate moriuntur, utique secundum ea quae per corpus gesserunt, id est, tempore quo in corpore fuerunt, quando per corda, & ora gestantium crediderunt, vel non quando baptizati, vel non baptizati sunt, quando carnem Christi manducaverunt, vel non manducaverunt, quandò & sanguinem biberunt, vel non biberunt, secundum haec ergo quae per corpus gesserunt, non secundum ea quae si diu hic viverent gesturi fuerant judicantur. Infants if they die in that young age, are judged according to that which they have done by the body, that is, in the time in the which they were in the body, when by the hearts and mouths of those that carried them, they believed or not believed, when they were baptised, or not baptised, when they did eat the flesh of Christ, or not eat it, when they drunk his blood, or not drunk it; according therefore to those things which they did by the body, they are to be judged not according to those, which if they had lived long, they would have done. So lib. 5. Hypognosticôn count. Pelag. Quomodo, inquit, vita regni caelorum parvulis promittitur, non renatis ex aqua & Spiritusancto, non cibatis carne, atque non potatis sanguine Christi, qui in remissionem peccatorum fusus est? How (saith he) is the kingdom of heaven promised to children, not renewed by water and the holy Ghost, not fed with the flesh, and made to drink of the blood of Christ, which is shed for the remission of sins.  
This custom received of old, so fare prevailed afterwards, especially in the time of Charles the Great, that not only the Eucharist was communicated to infants, in the public assembly of the church after Baptism, or at other times, when they were wont to come together for the Lords Supper, but also the bread of the Supper was kept to be communicated and given to sick children, as well as to those of years: for this Hospinnian quotes Canonem Carolinum lib. 1. de legib. Francorum in these words, Presbyter Eucharistiam semper habeat paratam, ut quando quis infirmatus fuerit, aut parvulus infirmus fuerit, statim eum communicet, ne sine communione moriatur: Let the Presbyter have the Eucharist ever ready, that when any is weak, or when a little child shall be weak or sick, he may presently communicate him, lest he should die without communion.  
Amongst the Aethiopians as Osorius witnesseth in his 9 book de gestis Emmanuelis, Infants in the same day that they are initiated to holy things, take the Eucharist in a bit of bread: Hospinian also affirms, that not many years ago, there were relics of this custom in Lorraine, and the places adjoining; for when an infant was to be baptised, the Priest, who baptised him, brought a little box in which was the Sacrament to the Altar, and shown one Host, as they call it, to the people; then he put it in the box again, and reatches forth his two fingers, with which he had touched it, to be washed with wine by the Clerk or Churchwarden, and distils of that wine into the mouth of the baptised Infant, saying, The blood of our Lord jesus Christ profit thee unto eternal life.  
Also at this day, as Brerewood in his learned inquiries, touching the diversity of Religion, affirms, The Supper is admninistred to Infants immediately after their Baptism in both kinds by the jacobits, a people called by that name, which are in great numbers in Syria, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Babylon and Palestine; for the Patriarch of jerusalem, who keepeth his residence still in jerusalem, in which City there still remain ten or more churches of Christians, is also a jacobite. Also the Cophty (which are the Christians in Egypt, for it is a name of their nation, rather than of their religion) do the same, namely give the Sacrament of the Eucharist to infants presently after Baptism.  
The like do the Christians termed Habassines, which are the midland Aethiopians.  
As also the Armenians, Christians dispersed for trade through the Turkish Empire, but inhabiting especially Armenia the greater, and the lesser, and Cylicia.  
More might be quoted and are by Brerewood in those his collections.  
Now the reason why the Papists have quitted this practice (out of whose rubbish we drew our reformation, as being once involved in that lump & confusion) seems to me to appear out of their Tridentine constitutions, Trid. Concil. sec. 5. where it is affirmed; Parvulos usu rationis carentes nulla obligari necessitate ad Sacramentalem Eucharistiae communionem, si quidem per Baptismi lavacrum regenerati, & Christo incorporati, adeptam suam Filiorum Dei gratiam, in illa aetate amittere non possunt. That children, which want the use of reason, are by no necessity obliged to the Sacramental communion of the Eucharist; for as much as being regenerate by the laver of Baptism, and incorporated into Christ, in that age, they cannot lose that state of sonship already obtained; so that grace being necessarily conferred to them, according to their opinion by baptism, which they cannot lose if they would in that age, they think they need not the other till they come to be capable of sinning and falling away. Besides the high & transcendent notion they have put upon the Lord's Supper, by making it to be the very body and blood of Christ, may justly apologise for them that they make it not children's play.  
And even that differencing of those two Sacraments by way of preferrence, sticks close still to our fingers, of which there are undoubted characters in the greatest part of reformed Churches.  
All this hath been to show, that if you will take primitive practice, and antiquity for your guide, that will lead you as well into the administering of the Supper to infants as Baptism, and if it fail by your own judgement in the one, you may very well suspect it in the other; for my part, I see not why the Sacrament of the Supper should be of a greater mystery than the other, or the ceremony more significant, or that the duty of examining should need more the use of reason, then believing, repenting and confessing our sins. And since it is as natural & proper to infancy to be nourished, as to be borne, I see not but why they should be as capable of the ceremony of their nourishment, as of their birth, and so of one Sacrament as well as the other. You see how needful it is to examine the reasons, as well as the opinions of men, an immoderate veneration of antiquity hath well nigh undone the world, the Fathers with some fare fetched Scripture allusion or gloss, hath been enabled to establish ordinances of institution, and enforce practise apparently very divers from reason, and Apostolical precedent, and which since by consequences have stuffed books with so many ridiculous disputes in this point, as forsooth, whether the child being wholly in the womb, and no part appearing it may be baptised, or whether if any part appear without, it may be baptised, especially if it be the head, or the hand, or the foot, whether if it be borne with the after birth, or whether if it be a monster, it may be baptised, with several of the like nature, which have miserably tormented the Schoolmen, and are the births of such a premises, it being the nature of error to be fertile, and if you grant one fundamental absurdity, a thousand will follow.  
And so much for the first head I propounded in this argument of authority, namely upon what grounds the fathers that are alleged, for the chief patrons of infant Baptism, went.  
The second wherein I shall be brief (for we build not much upon this bottom) was, whether infant Baptism have enjoyed a quiet and peaceable possession in the Church from the Apostles time downward, till of late it was interrupted (as is affirmed) by certain unquiet spirits in the days of Luther.  
Though no prescription will lie good against God, yet I am of opinion, that if the possession of infant Baptism hath been very ancient (which I doubt of) yet the enjoyment hath not been anciently so peaceable, as some would make us believe.  
Let them who list or can confute Ludovicus Vives, who affirms in cap. 27. lib. 1. de civitate Dei; Neminem olim consuevisse baptizari nisi adulta aetate, & qui per se peteret baptismum, & intelligeret quid sit baptizari. None of old (by which it seems he meant very old) were want to be baptised but in a full or grown age, and who desired Baptism for themselves, and understood what it was to be baptised. I find also Rupertus Tuitiensis in his 4. book of divine offices cap. 14. quoted to have said, In former times the custom of the primitive Churches was, that they administered not the Sacrament of regeneration, but only at the feast of Easter & Pentecost, and all the children of the church, which throughout the whole year, through the word were moved, when Easter came gave up their names, and were the following days till Pentecost instructed in the rules of faith, rehearsed the same, and by their Baptism, and dying thus with Christ, risen again with him.  
So the famous Erasmus, as I find him quoted in his annotations upon the 5. of the Romans, affirms, that baptising of children was not in use in Paul's time. And our Doctor Field in his learned Treatise of the Church p. 729. affirms, that many very anciently, who were borne of Christian parents, besides those who were converted from Paganism, put of their Baptism a long time, insomuch as some were elected Bishops, before they were baptised, as we read (saith he) of Ambrose; to prove which he quotes Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 11. But to come more particularly to a few ancient and authentic proofs, with which I shall content myself.  
He that shall read justin Martyr, who lived about Anno 150. and is believed to have been converted to Christ within 30. years after the Apostle john, when it is credible also very many were living, who had been frequent auditors of the Apostles, he, I say, who should consider in secunda pro Christianis Apologia, the description he makes of the manner of Christian Baptism, would surely not pick out of it the Baptising of Infants, as the most usual and ordinary practice of those times; its worth the relating at large, being of so great Antiquity; I will now tell you, says he, how we dedicate ourselves to God, being renewed by Christ, lest if we should have passed by this, we should seem to deal malignantly, and dissemblingly in this discourse; who ever have been persuaded, & have believed that those things are true, which are delivered and spoken by us, and have engaged themselves to live accordingly, they are taught to pray with fasting, and to beg of God the remission of all their past sins, we also praying and fasting with them, than they are brought to us, where there is water, and in the same manner of regeneration, with which we are regenerated, they are regenerated; for in the name of our Lord God the parent of all things, and of our Saviour jesus Christ and of the holy Spirit, they are then washed with water. Nor is it any prejudice to this testimony (by which as by way of Apology, the regular and ordinary way of Baptism is declared) that I find him quoted by some as owning infants Baptism, for as much as they say in a treatise which goes under his name (which whether it be his or no is doubted by all men, and particularly by Bellarmine himself, who yet is willing enough to make use of it, and therefore not of that authority as the quotation I bring) he gives a knite of infant Baptism by considering in a word or two the condition of those children, who die baptised, and of them who die unbaptised, since it is not my part here to prove that infant Baptism, as well as many other unwarrantable practices, crept not in betimes, but to show by story, what was the most usual and authentic practice of the administration of this ordinance, or what was the opinion and judgement of the most ancient and learned men about it.  
The next authority I shall bring is of Nazianzen, another Greek Father, a man of great esteem & authority, he plainly counsels, that Baptism should be differred, Donec pueri de fide sua aliquid possint respondere; till children should be able to answer something of their faith, and therefore counsels to defer Baptism at least till the third year of their age. Wherein although he made haste, not being altogether perhaps free from the superstition of the danger of dying without Baptism, which crept in betimes, yet overcome by the truth and the reason of the ordinance, he judged it fit to defer it till such time as they were capable of having & manifesting actual faith. This famous authority of a man so great and learned, Bellarmine answers only thus, That other Fathers were of another mind, and that the commodity is very little, but the danger (to wit, according to his opinion of the necessity of Baptism to salvation) is very great.  
The next and last authority I shall bring, shall be that of Tertullian, who flourished about 203. years after Christ, the most famous of the Latin Fathers, of him Hierom in an epistle of the Christian writers, affirms, that nothing was more learned, or acute, a man of that authority, with the famous and ancient Cyprian, that he called him his master, and as Hierome affirms of him, he never passed a day without the reading of Tertullian.  
This Tertullian in a treatise that he hath of Baptism towards the end, hath these expressions; first in the general, Baptismum non temerè credendum esse, sciant quorum officium est. That Baptism is not slightly or rashly to be committed to any, let them know whose duty it concerns. To give to every one that asketh belongs to alms; rather consider this, Give not that which is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls to swyne. And lay hands suddenly on no man, lest you partake of their sins; then he apologizeth why the Eunuch & Paul were so soon baptised, & then goes on; Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione, ac dispositione, etiam aetate cunctatio baptismi utilior est, praecipue tamen circaparvulos. Therefore in regard of the condition and disposition of each person, the differing of Baptism is more profitable, especially for young children; for what necessity is it, saith he, for the witnesses to expose themselves to danger, etc. It is true the Lord saith, do not forbid them to come to me, let them come therefore when they growolder, when they learn, when they are taught why they come; Fiant Christiani quum Christum nosse potuerint; Let them be made Christians when they can know Christ. Then he tells them, They deal more warily in secular things, that divine things are given, where they would not betrust earthly. And lastly concludes, that they who understand the weight of Baptism, will rather fear the attaining then the differing of it: adding that, Fides integra secura est de salute; An intier faith is secure of salvation. Thus the excellent & ancient Tertullian.  
Nor can that stand to any purpose, which some (who are loath to have so great and ancient an authority against them in the point of infant Baptism) allege, that perhaps Tertullian speaks here of the Baptism only of those infants, whose parents were unbelievers, because he speaks of the danger of the witnesses, or sureties, for where the parents are Christians, there the witnesses seem not to be exposed to that danger? To which I answer, that the witnesses were not freed from danger, though the parents were Christians, for though the parents may help with the witnesses, to the education of the child, yet they cannot secure themselves nor others, that they shall stand to that covenant which is made for them.  
Besides the reason of his assertion against infant Baptism, runs upon principles common to all infants, of what ever parents they be borne, for he would have none come, till they be capable of learning, & being taught why they come; he would have none declared Christians by that ceremony, till they can know Christ, and concludes that he would not have divine mysteries be trusted with infants, whom we would judge it improper & uncomely to be trust with earthly and secular affairs.  
I shall content myself with what hath been said already to this head, having neither the desire, nor the commodity to make a large and general search; besides that a few of the most authentic, & most ancient writers after the Scriptures, aught to be of more authority than many hundreds (if there could so many be found) of latter times, it being my undertaking to prove that most anciently, beginning with Christ and the Apostles times the subjects of Baptism, were persons professing faith and repentance, not infants, and that the most authentic and primitive Fathers were of this mind and judgement.  
We have done therefore with this head, wherein if the most authentic & ancient authority be ours, and the rest necessitated to their opinions by false premises and principles by no means to be received, or allowed, and which also as rationally produce other consequences, which in these times men are loath to admit of; no men I hope will blame us for our present belief, concerning the subject of Baptism, nor object hereafter as an argument against us, the authority of the fathers.   

CHAP. XVI. In which is handled, whether Baptism be to be repeated; but more especially, whether such as were baptised in infancy, should be accounted baptised, or are to have that ordinance administered to them.  
HAving given the due bounds to the ordinance of Baptism, in respect of the subject of it, and said what I judged convenient to that purpose, there is a very considerable question yet remaining, and which cannot be left out in this discourse, and that is, If infants ought not to be baptised, whether such as were baptised in infancy should be baptised again?  
Wherein first will come to be considered, whether Baptism be to be repeated or no?  
I answer, there have been some of that opinion, as Mertion and his followers, who had their first, second and third baptism: Also a religion called the Hemerobaptistae, that is, the every day baptizers, that avowed, because we sinned every day, therefore we should be every day baptised, and practised accordingly.  
Secondly according to the received opinion, that I conceive it is not to be repeated.  
First because the covenant of grace is but once made, and struck with every man, & this is the seal of the Covenant, it is the Sacrament of regeneration, initiation and incorporation; but these things are not capable of being reïterated, therefore the seal and sign thereof should not be, to this agrees that place Heb. 6.4.5.6. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, & the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance, etc.  
The Apostle speaks not here of theft, perjury, adultery, or any sin in particular, but of an entire revolting and falling away; when a sinner offends not God in any particular, but renounces wholly to his grace, bids him adieu for ever; Now he falls thus, who revolts from the word of God, who extinguisheth the light of it, & who deprives himself of the taste of the heavenly gift, and quits the communion of the spirit, in the participation of its grace, which cannot be without the sin against the holy Ghost, and a total falling from God: Now it is impossible, says he, those should be renewed by repentance, having sinned against the holy Ghost, they have a heart that cannot repent; now they having broken covenant with God in the highest manner, and being uncapable of repentance, which is to precede Baptism, they are incapable of Baptism; for others though they sin, the same covenant, repentance, & Baptism stands good for ever.  
Secondly because the signification, the fruit & use of Baptism, is not for a moment, or respecting the time past only, but respects the future also, and the whole life of the baptised person, as appears Rom. 6.2. So as the Baptism of repentance once received for remission of sins, remains as a pledge by us of the covenant of God, and that perpetual washing which we have by the blood of Christ, Mark 14. john did baptise in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; which is to be often thought of, for the full assurance of our pardon, for that promise is of perpetual use and influence, He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; and Gal. 3.27. As many as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ.  
But thirdly the greatest reason why Baptism is not to be repeated, is because neither in precept or example we find it repeated, which is the word of our institution. But on the other side, There is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, which is one, Vnitate usus legitimi, in the unity of the lawful use, as well as in other respects; so as there is no thought of leaving Christ, as if there were to be expected a new regeneration, and a new Baptism: The Fathers also were of this opinion, Tertull. lib. de Baptis. Semel lavacrum inimus, semel dilicta diluuntur. So Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 3. Baptisma semel sumitur, nec rursus iteratur. Baptism is once received, nor is it repeated again.  
The question than will be, what shall become of those that have been baptised into a false name by heretics that err about the Trinity, as the Arrians, Marcionites, & c.?  
The received answer is that they are to be baptised aright, with the baptism of Christ, & in such cases, Baptism is not to be said to be repeated, the former being no baptism or a nullity, and this according to the decree of the Counsel of Nice cap. 19 as Bucan quotes it p. 635. The like decree also hath a Counsel of Carthage, Two sunt baptizandi, de quibus incertum est, an fuerint baptizati necne, Concil. Carth. 50. cap. 6. They are to be baptised, of whom it is uncertain whether they were baptised or no. The like also saith Cyprian in his epistle 71. ad Quintum fratrem. Here was some difference in opinions, Cyprian and his Bishops were of opinion that Baptism in an heretic church was null, and therefore those who came to them were baptised, as supposing that vain and nothing: others have thought that those only were to be baptised again, who had been formerly baptised by such a church and in such a manner as the essentials of Baptism were wanting, so the Arrians baptised, which rendered that ordinance vain and null.  
The same may be affirmed more fully of infant Baptism, that it is null and nothing, and therefore that the party so supposed to be baptised, is indeed still unbaptised, and therefore aught to be baptised according to the institution of Christ, which Baptism, when he hath once received, he can in no way (as is before shown) be said to be rebaptised; for those things which cannot be shown done, no reason allows that they should seem to be reïterated.  
To proceed therefore, The Sacraments in general, & particularly Baptism, is that by which we pledge ourselves to God, or in which a formal covenant is made, in which we promise obedience, and God protection & defence to be our God, and therefore 1. Pet. 3.21. it is styled a stipulation, or covenanting; also the word Sacrament, is from sacring, making holy, dedicating, or initiating, as juramentum, an oath, is à jurando, from swearing.  
In the civil law it signified an oath, Sacramenti praestatio, & recusatio, the taking or refusing an oath: The word Sacrament also is taken for a mystery, for the visible sign of an invisible grace. In a word Baptism seems to be nothing else, but the ceremony of a mystical & spiritual marriage, for it is a dedication, a covenant, and a mystery; and as in marriage besides the words, there hath been usually some ceremonious sign, as the giving of a ring, or money, or a kiss, or the taking by the hand, so here, etc.  
To examine this therefore by that similitude and resemblance, that which is the first and principal ingredient into marriage, is consent, Nam nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit; Not the bed, but consent makes marriage; for otherways that joining, which is fornication, or adultery, would be marriage: This stands by virtue of the first institution, A man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, Goe 2.24. How? By covenant and consent.  
This is so essential an ingredient, as Beza calls it the formal cause of marriage, others the efficient cause; therefore the lawyers say, Solus consensus matrimonium facit; Only consent makes the marriage. But then this consent must be expressed outwardly, Nisi quatenus consentiunt, & consensum suum exterius exprimunt; because the covenant & contract is external.  
But than lastly and especially, it must be the proper consent of the parties married, for the consent of the parents, who have some & the greatest power besides, cannot do it; hence an error of the person, makes the marriage also null and invalid, as if I marry one, & another be put in the place, by the same reason, if one of the parties be mad constantly, because they cannot consent, because that supposes not the consent of the marryers', so as here is a formal or efficient fail in respect of the consent, and a material fail in respect of the persons married, which is as it were the subject matter of marriage.  
Let us see what help this similitude will give us to the notion of infant Baptism.  
First the great business of marriage is consent of the parties married, this is the efficient or formal cause of it, so in our mystical marriage, Baptism, the covenant struck between God and us, implies especially the consent of parties; But by infant Baptism the infant is not bound, for he consented not; again consent must be expressed, but the child wants the just ripeness and formation of organs inward and outward for such expressions, that cannot be, neither he cannot will it, because he cannot understand it, nor can he express that which within he hath not.  
But may not my friends do it for me?  
Personal consent is required to carnal marriage, when much depends upon the parents, much more to this mystical; therefore as a mad man cannot consent nor express it, for the trouble & distemper of his understanding, so nor an infant for the want of the use of it; and for parents, and Godfathers & Godmothers, as they call them, they provooke to duty, incite, and encourage, and teach; but as the covenant is made with us, so it must be made by us: A child may lawfully marry himself to Christ, without the consent of his parents, which in the other marriage he cannot do; here is therefore no covenant, no bond, because no consent on one party, founded on a present impossibility, for a covenant is between two consenting parties.  
It is not therefore the dipping of the child in water, giveth baptism, no more than the bed gives marriage, where consent is wanting.  
Here you see then a fail of the great matter in the business of the covenant, namely the formal, or as some will have it the efficient cause; you will find a great fail also in the subject matter, for here is an error of the person; Christ looks for a believer, he makes his covenant in Baptism only with such, the institution is terminated upon them; but here is a poor infant as uncapable for the present of believing and repenting, as a mad man is of reasoning, which yet he may have in the habit, & therefore of covenanting & consenting, which is a fruit of that faith; and therefore as a marriage made with a man mad, were null, so were it much more a madness to bring to Baptism such an one; and see whether it may not be thought to hold of the same distemper, to offer a child to that sacred fountain, that in the matter of reasoning and covenanting can do no more than a mad man: Ye see therefore the great and essential fail of such a Baptism, so essential as it makes it a nullity, as the like in marriage renders it null and void.  
Now then to go on, if there be no bond, no covenant in this infant Baptism, no obligation, which is the main of it, than there is no sealing, for a seal serves but to ratify & confirm a bond and covenant. Again, as there is no bond, nor sealing, so there is no exhibition, or conveyance of any thing from Christ, for there are no pipes to receive it, that is, as an ordinance, there is no reason in the use of it, no faith, no sense; you may speak aloud, and say, this signifies the death of Christ, & this his resurrection, by this you are buried and mortified, and by this quickened; but the child is asleep, or dead, or as good; here is no receptive faculty, proportionable to the ordinance, in the manner of conveying it.  
When Christ will speak in an invisible, secret, unknown and unconceavable way, he doth it without the help of an outward & visible ordinance; when john was sanctified in the womb, he needed no word or sign to convey it to him; but here, if Christ conveighes not himself Sacramentally by words & signs, and representations, he conveys not himself at all by virtue of the Sacrament. So that as there was a fail in the form of contract, or covenant, and in the subject matter of this ordinance, there is an error of the person, so also in the ends of this Sacrament on Christ's part, of which you have heard, namely, sealing up to us our union with Christ, and every good thing, and exhibiting & conveying himself to us, in the use of this ordinance; and for us who by this means should form a formal contract with God, and should give a testimony of our piety and obedience to God, john 4.1. And secondly should distinguish ourselves by this badge, or character of our profession, from the profanes of the world, with some more of that kind, we are capable of doing nothing, in a business so active, no more then of receiving, so as upon the whole matter, & as the sum of this discourse Infant Baptism is a nullity, as much as the marrying of infants, or the ordination of infants, which latter in some parts of the world is also in use, which all men will judge a nullity; the ordinance hath been profaned to such, out of a well meaning ignorance, and he that will partake of that great ordinance, as it is our duty and privileges, must knowingly & beleevingly be baptised in the name of the Lord jesus; which ordinance, when we have once received aright, it is, as I said in the beginning, not to be repeated.  
If any man shall say, that consent afterwards may make up the defect, and that there be many things which were ill done, which yet stand good when they are done? I answer, There may be many great fails in an action, which may not make it null or nothing; as for one to marry one of another religion, or without some due consents, makes it an ill or an unlawful marriage, but it doth not make it no marriage; but those essential fails, which may be said to nullify it, can never be repaired by any act afterwards; now such are the fails of infant Baptism, as I have proved, such as enter into the very essence of it, namely the formal and material causes, so as if you ask what I lay to the charge of infant Baptism, I say that it is nothing, as the Scripture saith that an Idol is nothing, not but that there is a great deal of business made of it, as if it were something, which all can contribute or confer nothing to the essence or being of it, so as he that will affirm that after consent may make that pretended Baptism real & true, must prove first that it hath not failed in its essentials, which I have already proved Baptism to have done. To conclude, a man may receive many wounds, and be miserably disfigured, lose many members or parts, and yet remain a man, but let out the rational soul, which is his form, but by the prick of a pin, and that which remains is no more a man, but a carcase, because the constitutive essential, which is his form, is gone, and it must be an Almighty power that must give him his being, and denomination of a man again; of what act soever ye may justly say this is a nullity, that no after act can repair to give it a being, it may now take upon it such a being as that pretended to, but to that it can give no being.  
But secondly, to urge the former objection a little farther, you will say perhaps, That that which is given, cannot be ungiven, but to Infant's Baptism is given already. I answer, It is true that which is given cannot be said to be ungiven, but to Infants the Sacrament of Baptism is not given, but only a certain external washing, with certain external rites & ceremonies: And the patrons of infant Baptism, I hope, will pardon me, if what Chamier affirm of Baptism, not given by a right Minister; I with much more equity and reason affirm here, that it is not a Sacrament, but a rash mockery or deceiving, by no means to be endured in the Church, Temerariam ludificationem nullo modo tolerandam in Ecclesia. Tom. 4. Panstratiae lib. 5. cap. 14. s. 8. The Imperial Constitutions carry,  ea quae contra leges fiunt non solum inutilia, sed etiam pro infectis habenda sunt; That those things which are done against law, are not only unprofitable, but are to be accounted for not done, which rule they say is to be understood of those things where the cause of the prohibition is perpetual, as for example, Ne filius contrahat cummatre, the son should not contract with his mother; now the perpetual cause of prohibition is the standing law of God, not changed by God himself, and in which God himself hath not dispensed, as is urged by a late & learned Author. So as that which contradicts the standing rules of God, in the determination & regulating of his ordinances (as Baptism given to infants hath largely been proved to do) must by no means be accounted an administration or giving of that ordinance, but as before, a rash and unadvised mockery of it, or playing with it.  
In the third place you may possibly object, That Baptism requires for the subject a true believer, suppose an hypocrite profess faith, and submit himself to the ordinance, will not here be by the same reason cause of Baptism, the former being also a nullity in respect of the true intent of Baptism. Answ. How fare such a case may require another Baptism, I shall not need to determine, if it should, that makes nothing against the other, but that that doth also and more. But here I shall put a clear distinction, and help myself by the former similitude of marriage. There be some essential fails, as I told you, that make marriage a nullity, no subsequent act can relieve that, as to give it the denomination of a being then, when it was a nullity; as for example, consent afterwards cannot make the no consent of infants to be a marriage, but it gives form or being to a marriage, when the consent is given, the like is true of Baptism.  
But in marriage between persons of years, there may be a formal marriage with an hypocritical consent, a man may profess faith in marriage to such a woman, but may intent only to gain her estate by that pretence & leave her; now the great ingredient unto consent, should be truth and reality, but the fail of that shall by no means nullify the marriage, he shall be ever bound to the duty of a husband, though he should profess to have dissembled his consent, nor shall there be any need of a new marriage, or expressing of consent to tie him to it, which the former doth sufficiently, what ever his intents were. Because that to the reason and being of marriage, there is nothing requisite, but that there be a due external performing of the essentials of it. The like may be avowed of Baptism, if a man repenting and confessing his sins, believing and professing subjection, be baptised according to the right form and ceremony of Baptism, I see not the ground of repetition, what ever the internal fails may seem to be either of true righteousness on man's part, or of present influence on God's part, which are  to the happy being of Baptism, else so often as men find not that present influence on God's part, which to him is free, or doubt of their former state and condition, so often there must be a repetition of Baptism, which I see no ground for; the ordinance which is an external ceremony, having all its external essentials to the true being of that ordinance; and as the remaining form produces its effect, when the impediment is taken away, as for example, heaviness in a stone carries it down, when the impediment is taken away the hand that held it up, so Baptism externally rightly administered, may attain his end, when God takes away the impediment.  
The like may be said of ordination, or admission into church fellowship, which cannot be called a nullity, though the persons should prove hypocrites or unholy, as appears by this, that such persons are capable of excommunication, which implies them members, and the ordinance duly administered, notwithstanding that there may be great internal fails, but would be certainly a nullity, if such admission or ordination were in infancy, in sleep, or in the time of madness, as I said before; But what ever the case of the Baptism of hypocrites may prove (of which notwithstanding I have told you my opinion) it makes not much to this question, for if it prove not a nullity, it is because they fail not in the essentials, if they should require Baptism a new, than Baptism in infancy much more, in whom it is most clear the fails of Baptism were essential.  
And it is not my part so much to prove, that there are no other causes of repeating of Baptism, as that in this there is cause full and sufficient, to give them a true real Baptism, whose pretended Baptism, in respect of its essential fails, proves void and nothing.   

CHAP. XVII. In which is considered the time and rank that Baptism is to hold in the order of Ordinances.  
THere are but two things, which I shall farther consider, upon this subject, the one is the time & order of Baptism, the other is the Minister of Baptism.  
That there is an order in all the worship of the New Testament, no man will deny that hath learned with Paul, to joy in beholding the order and faith of the Saints, Col. 2.5. and none will acknowledge this more than they, who deny themselves of some very considerable ordinances, for want of coming to them in the right order, as the Lords supper for want of church fellowship: Every thing is seasonable and beautiful in its time, out of which it is disorderly and evil, to find the order & time of Baptism, will I conceive be the easiest thing in all this inquiry, whether you consider Scripture rule, Scripture example, or example of the primitive Church, and indeed of all that ever was, or the reason of the thing.  
For Scripture rule ye have, Teach all nations, and baptise them, Mat. 28.19. make disciples and baptise. Mark 16.16. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved: You see here the rank of Baptism immediately after teaching, after believing, it holds the first place of ordinances properly Christian; ye may see it again in the rule in Peter's preaching, Repent and be baptised, Acts 2.38. which was instantly put in practice, which is our second head of proof, namely Scripture example, for they that gladly received his word, were presently baptised, to the number of three thousand, ver. 41. after which they continued constantly in the liturgical works of the Apostles doctrine, and breaking bread, & in prayer, ver. 42. In the example of the Eunuch you have the same, assoon as ever jesus was preached, and he discovered water, what hinders me, saith he, to he baptised? nothing, saith Philip, if thou hast faith, so he was instantly baptised, Acts 8.38. The like ye have of Cornelius, who upon the first preaching of Christ, before the assembly was dissolved, was baptised he and his, Acts 10.48. The like you have of the jailor Act. 16. to whom at midnight (being astonished by a miraculous action) the word was preached, and to all in his house, and he and all his believing, were forthwith all of them baptised. Here was no loss of time, and for the order, it was after faith, and before any other administration; more examples might be brought of this kind, out of which that which I conclude is, the order and time of Baptism, namely the next ordinance to believing, not but that I would have fit time allowed for the trial of faith, wherein to be sure the Apostles were not negligent of their duty.  
For the primitive times we can have no better instances then what we hear of the Catechuminy, who were excluded not only from the Eucharist, but from the very sight thereof; and therefore after the word, Sancta Sanctis, they went out, not because they were without faith, for there were two sorts, audientes, & competentes, or electi, the first were beginners, which heard sermons, & had a desire to Christ, the other were such as desired Baptism, and had given up their names for it, as Austin mentions in libro de cura pro mortui cap. 12. and others also.  
Now these were supposed to have faith, and waited only a fit time for the administration of Baptism, during which time they were fare enough from being admitted to the Lords Supper, though believers judged, but on the other side, assoon as ever they were baptised, they had Baptism, confirmation, or laying on of hands, and the Lords Supper on the same day.  
And of this the Fathers give a reason. In all respects the order of the mystery is kept, that first by remission of sins a medicine be prepared for their wounds, and then the nourishment of the heavenly table be added. Ambrose etc. And as this was observed strictly to the catechuminy, so every body will grant me that to infant Baptism, this order is surely maintained.  
If you pass from precept & example of all times to reason, there you will find that what ever makes for the not repeating of Baptism in the ordinary use of it, makes also for this as fully or more that it should be the first.  
For first, if it be not to be repeated, because this is the seal of initiation, regeneration, and incorporation, then by the same reason this must be first, as initiation, admission, incorporation, and regeneration, are the first internal acts in us, & upon us, by which we are made Christians.  
Secondly if the signification and use of Baptism be for ever, and of constant & perpetual use, than this ordinance is to lie as the bottom stone in the building of ordinances, which is to have a durable and constant influence into the whole edifice.  
Or thirdly if this be not to be repeated, because neither in precept nor example you find it so, then must this be the first, because in precept & example you find it so, and never otherwise, or if the ends of Baptism on our parts (not to mention further those on Christ's) be, that there should be a formal external contract passed with God, by which we are visibly handfasted in this mystical marriage, or secondly to distinguish ourselves by this badge and character of our profession from the evil world, which we renounce with all its works, then certainly this piece is to be first administered before we go further, and the Sacrament of our spiritual life and birth, is to be given before that of our nourishment and growth: In a word Baptism hath been called of old, & not without reason, Sacramentorum janua; and is for all these considerations, which are as many as can concur to any one thing, to keep that name & nature still, which is to be the first and primitive Sacrament, in which a converted person, man or woman, is to communicate. Now then if the timeing and order of instituted worship be any thing, as it is of great moment, a great part of it lying in nothing else, but the right and orderly administration of ceremonies, and if the Scripture rule and example be any thing, which is all we have to show for any practice, than Baptism is to be the first Sacrament after believing.  
Besides the reason of the thing, that which makes it unlawful to baptise before teaching is, because the Scripture hath ranked it otherwise, that says, teach and baptise, not baptise and teach, as the Papists and others do; the same reason will hold for the giving it its preference in time to any other ordinance, because it is ranked immediately after teaching, & before any other thing, again you have the fullest concurrence of all example & reason also, for the timeing and ranking of this ordinance, as for any thing can be thought.  
To what hath been said in this laste point, I shall only add by way of caution, with which I conclude it, that when I give Baptism the first place in the rank of ordinances, after believing, I intent not such expressions to the prejudice of church-fellowship, which I conceive is properly the state for instituted ordinances, and the subject of them, as will more fully appear by what will be said in the following chapter.   

CHAP. XVIII. Wherein by way of conclusion, is treated of the Minister of Baptism, and shown where that power rests, which is to convey to us that blessed Ordinance, which hath been all this while the subject of our discourse.  
WE have found out the subject of Baptism to be a believer only, (that is) one professing faith in Christ, and subjection to his ordinances; upon which consideration we have found cause to reject the Baptism of infants as a vanity of men's invention, and our own received then, as void & null; we have also found in the order of Sacraments Baptism to be the first; the next thing we are to speak of is the Minister of this Sacrament, that we may know whence, and how to receive it. And here to omit many things which might be considered under this head more generally, & also not to trouble ourselves with the handling of this controversy, as it is stated between us and the Papists, who putting a more simple and absolute necessity upon this ordinance than is its due, expose it in case of such necessity, to the administration of all sorts of people, of what condition or sex soever they be, we shall only take those two things for granted, or at least deny them not; first, That the error of the Minister doth not enter the essence of Baptism, nor is of those things that can destroy it, and make it null: And secondly that by the opinion of antiquity, and learned men, there were certain necessitous & extraordinary cases, wherein others might be used for Baptism, than such as were the ordinary Ministers of it.  
But now because it is one thing to be, and another thing to be rightly, or well, in relation to ourselves, and the ordinary and orderly administration of Baptism, we shall consider whether Baptism be a thing of public or private cognisance, and to what predicament it belongs, and whether it pretends, which will be the bounds of this discourse, and show us whence it is to be fetched and derived.  
That it is a thing of public cognisance, appears to me both by the primitive commission, and primitive practice, the commission lies Matt. 28.19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost.  
In the 18. verse Christ tells his Disciples, that all power is given to him in heaven & earth, these were his letters patents, by which he shown he did nothing without power and good warrant; now he goes into heaven as into one part of his kingdom, which was quiet and at peace, and sitting there at the right hand of his Father, gives an Apostolical commission for all the earth, so Mark 16.15. Go into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature; here he opposes the whole earth to the bounds and limits of judea (by which the Prophets of old were bounded in their administrations) That, he had by an hereditary right, he sent therefore to them, first with this caveat, that they should not go into the way of the Gentiles, nor enter into any city of the Samaritans, Matth. 10.5. But now by his death & resurrection, having acquired a right of reigning over all men, he gives a commission for all the world, this is Apostolical, for he bids them go forth into all the world, which is properly the word of Apostolical commission, whose diocese had no bounds, and if not here, where can any Apostolical commission be found? And he tells them their great works, which was to preach and baptise, for although Paul says 1. Cor. 1.17. that he was sent by Christ not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel, that must be understood with a limitation, that he was not sent especially to baptise, because the administration of the Sacraments, which are the appendices and seals, though it need as much power, yet a less gift than the preaching of the word.  
And behold I am with you to the end of the world. Here is a word of great encouragement & comfort, Christ had told them before, he was Lord of heaven & earth; he sends them to manage a great work, but says he I will be with you, that is, who ever is publicly deputed for such a service, as they need more especially assistance, so they shall have it, and here he makes a plain difference between the makers of Disciples, & Disciples to be made; He will be with them especially as they need it most, to whom the charge of teaching and baptising is deputed; for the Apostles were not to continue always, as the world was to be gone through but once, and institutions to be set up but once, but a public power was still left, which succeeded this Apostolical, which in the next place we come to consider of, that so finding where the commission rests, we may address ourselves thither for ordinances, and expect the blessing of Christ's being with it unto the end of the world, for this is a state continuing to the end of the world, to the change of all things.  
Now this clearly is the Church, which is the subject of Ecclesiastical policy and power, as the commonwealth is of civil power, so as Ecclesiastical and Church power, is essentially and primarily in the Church as in the subject, Mat. 16. ver. 18.19. And I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc. So as though the use of the keys be divers, according to the variety of callings, and conditions in the Church, yet the power of the keys originally and primarily is given to the Church, for Peter here bears but the person of the Church, as in other places in which he answers for others, and Christ also speaks to him as adressing himself to the Church by him. This is a thing so commonly avowed and defended by Protestants against Papists, as I shall not need here to prove it. Also that other known place of Matth. 18.17. Tell the Church, where both Church state, and Church power are clearly spoken of: Now where the power of admitting, receiving and casting out is, there is the power of administering and communicating all ordinances to the edification of the same body; and they which have power of administering the kingly office of Christ, consisting in casting out and receiving in, have also power of administering his Prophetical office, of which the Sacraments are a part, & therefore to the Christian churches, as to the jews of old, pertaineth the public dispensations and services of God. Rom. 9.4.  
And hence it follows, that such as were deputed by the church for their Ministers and officers, were called overseers, made by the holy Ghost, and were to be imitators of the Apostles, to whom ordinarily in the executive part they succeeded, Acts 20.17.18.19.28.  
Hence Peter calls himself a fellow Elder, with the ordinary Elders, 1. Pet. 5.1. The Elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder, etc.  
To conclude this head, a man becomes a Prophet and able to teach, by virtue of a gift, namely of knowledge and utterance, 1. Cor. 1.5. But no gift renders a Baptizer, but a call, as being a thing of public cognisance & commission. Teaching out of a gift hath its foundation in nature, which ariseth from a personal gift and grace of the spirit. But Baptism, censures, ordination and the like, depend not upon a special gift, but are acts of power, conferred authoritatively upon a special person. And thus much for the primitive commission for Baptism, which falls under a public cognisance, upon persons qualified by public authority for the administration of it.  
Next we consider in this discourse, primitive practice and example, for according to this power & commission, you will find it run in the example.  
The first Baptizer who introduced that ordinance, & from thence drew his name, john the Baptist, to be sure had commission for that and all other parts of his ministry, according to the prophecies went on him in Esay and Malachy, He came in the spirit and power of Elias, was the great restorer of Israel, this no man will deny. Then Christ in the 4. of john is said to baptise (but by his Disciples) who received commission for that administration from his person & presence, himself either intending to the greater works of miracles, or teaching, or else might abstain purposely that those baptised by him, might not vaunt of a greater privilege than others. In like manner it is probable Peter the Apostle communicated of his authority to those who were with him, for the baptising of Cornelius and his family, for it is said vers. 48. of Acts 10. He commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord; unless it were either that of those brethren there were inferior officers, or that by commanding is meant, the warrant he gave to Cornelius, & his company for Baptism, of which notwithstanding he himself might be the Minister.  
Of the Apostles commission you have heard already, you may find it in the execution in divers passages.  
For others who baptised (saving those who drew their commission from Church power, of whom we shall speak afterward) we read of Philip and Ananias, the one, to wit Philip, was an Evangelist, an order as it is taken of a public authority and commission, as the Apostles were. Besides he had an especial authority and provocation from the spirit at that time, for the ministry he had to perform about the Eunuch, by which spirit also he was miraculously taken away after the work done, as you may read Acts the 8. And for Ananias of whom we read in the 9 of the Acts, that he baptised Paul, he was also deputed in an extraordinary manner to that ministry by the Lord, who spoke to him in a vision; And such extraordinary and peculiar manner of workings, where the ministry of conversion lay in a miracle, and the Ministers were men acted to it, as appears by divine revelation, must not be drawn into ordinary examples, and here we find also particular commission: but thus fare in the example it makes clear for what we say, that the administration of Baptism is a thing of public cognisance & commission.  
That it hath been since the Apostolical times so, is as clear out of all story, of which the notion of the Catechuminists will give an assured witness; Christians in the Church were anciently distinguished by three degrees, Catechumini, Fideles and Poenitentes; the Catechumeni, or such as were principled in the Christian religion, the faithful & the penitents; the faithful were such as being past the form of Catechists, were admitted to all ordinances, & the penitents were such as had fallen into some scandal, & were under censure.  
The Catechumeni were such (as Origen count. Cells. lib. 3. says) who were newly admitted into some degree of communion, but not yet baptised; of these mention is made in the most ancient writers Ireneus, Clemens Alexand. Tertullian. Of these Clemens saith, Sine catechismo nulli datur credere; without catechising no body can believe.  
Of this number some (as I have formerly had occasion to speak) were called Audientes, some Competentes. The Audientes were such as submitted themselves to teaching by the hearing of the word, and being instructed in the principles of religion, which by their submission and pretence to farther ordinances, got the name of Catechists, for otherwise neither jew nor Gentile, nor any were excluded from hearing the word. Conc. 4. Carth. Can. 84.  
The competentes, or competitors, were such as being well instructed in the Christian religion, desired Baptism, and gave up their names, of these Austin says, Post sermonem fit missa Catechumenis, manebant fideles. Ser. de Temp. 137. After the sermon the Catechumini were dismissed, the faithful remained, to partake of the Supper & other ordinances, which partained to full membership.  
Out of all this, besides the purpose for which I especially bring it, two things may be observed by the way.  
First that of old men were not lightly admitted to the communion and fellowship of the Church, but after due instruction and examination.  
Secondly that it was usual of old to stand as competitor for Baptism, as a Candidate, as we call them, to seek and desire it before they had it.  
But the end for which I especially bring this here, is to show that in all times of the Church Baptism hath been a thing of public cognisance, and the commission for the administration of it hath rested, since the times of the Apostles, no where but in Church power, nor hath been no where else sought, nor never by any otherwise pretended to it I know, saving of late years by those upon whom the name of Anabaptists was primitively and properly fixed, who erring greatly in many other things of as great consequence, might easily be mistaken in this.  
These two things in a word I suppose out of this discourse is evinced, which will directly point out the Minister of Baptism.  
First that Baptism is a thing of public cognisance & commission.  
Secondly that as of old since the Apostles times, so now and always till Christ come, the Church is the dispenser of such commissions and administrations.  
That which remains now therefore is to find out what a Church is, wherein I hope we are not to seek.  
A Church in a word may be said to be an assembly of saints, knit together to a fellowship with Christ their head.  
I intent not here a discourse of this subject, it is enough to my purpose that this be considered and allowed, that believing and saintship, gives a qualification for Church fellowship, and Church fellowship for acts of power, & that Baptism doth no more enter the definition of a church, as if a church state could not be without Baptism, than the communion of the Lords Supper doth, or officers, Pastors, Elders and Deacons. All these are but certain acts, by which they make good their fellowship with Christ, and one another, & are church ordinances, and church deuce, things they have power for, & may justly pretend to. Though it will ordinarily be, that a church will consist of baptised persons, for what should hinder them who have assembled for the enjoying of ordinances, and who have power for all ordinances, from administering to themselves in a way of order that ordinance, which is as it were the gate of the rest, and as we may call it (for aught I know according to the old name) the ordinance of initiation, since it is the first of church ordinances, the Church covenant & assembling being more properly called the state for enjoying of ordinances, and the subject of all ordinances; so as ordinarily a church will be an assembly of baptised Saints, though the word Baptism be no part of the definition, nor doth Baptism contribute more to the being of a church, than other ordinances, which for a time they may want. So as ye see clearly where to fetch Baptism, namely where a company of Saints are gathered together in Christ's name, that is, in his power, there is authority amongst them for all commissions, for acts of church fellowship, for the deputing and ordaining of officers, and for the administration of all ordinances.  
But here it may be perhaps objected, to which I will speak a word, that Baptism not being the ordinance of admission into the Church, nor perhaps necessarily to follow after, but may be before it, how appartaynes it to the Church? Answ. The rule will hold universally true, that all instituted ordinances (of which Baptism is one) will fall under the cognisance and power of an instituted body, whether therefore Baptism be administered after admittance, which in an ordinary way seems better, or whether it may precede it, it will be all one in the issue, since it is in order to church fellowship, and a full church communion; Now what ever is in order to it, as well as that which follows it, falls under church cognisance and power, and therefore catechising, taking account of faith, yea and preaching the word by way of power in order to the conversion of others, especially if they offer and submit themselves, falls under Church power; now no man is baptised with a privilege to go about the world at large, but to live in all the ordinances of Christ, and to receive nourishment as well as birth, and the seals of both from the church: And therefore as before, I like well for Baptism the title of the ordinance of initiation, as which in the order of ordinances is the first, & pretends to further.  
Lastly this rightly stated & considered, it cannot reasonably be objected, that he that baptizeth should necessarily be himself a baptised person, for though ordinarily it will be so, yet it is not necessary to the ordinance, no more than it is simply necessary to a church state, that the members be baptised, for not the personal Baptism of him that administers, but the due commission he hath for baptising, is alone considerable to make him a true Minister of Baptism; And here that expression holds not, one cannot give what he hath not, as a man cannot teach me that wants knowledge himself, because no man gives his own Baptism, but conveys as a public person, that which is given us by Christ: A poor man that hath nothing of his own, may give me gold, that is the money of another man, by virtue of being sent for that purpose; so if any man can show his commission, the writing & seal of him that sent him, it is enough here, else what would become of the great Baptizer john the Baptist, who had a fair commission to baptise, but was not himself baptised that we read of, or if he should be, which cannot be affirmed, yet the first Baptizer, who ever he was, must at the time of his first administration of that ordinance be unbaptised.  
To conclude, in this discourse of the Minister of Baptism, we have showed especially these particulars.  
1 That the due administration of Baptism hath been always, and is an act of power and commission.  
2 That the Churches of Christ are now the only subject of this power, and are betrusted with dispensing all commissions for the administrations of ordinances, of which Baptism is one, whether it be administered after admission into Church fellowship, (which perhaps will be the usual way) or before, (but as other things) in order to it.  
3 That Baptism doth not enter the definition of a church, as Saintship professed and manifested doth, nor is it simply necessary to the Minister of Baptism that he be himself baptised, since his qualification for that work, ariseth from his commission, not from his Baptism.  
FINIS.    

The heads of the Chapters.  
CHAP. I. Page 1. 
Wherein, of the first and great end of that ordinance, the sealing up of our union with Christ, and more particularly, of the most illustrious type of Baptismeall sealing, in the Baptism of Christ.  CHAP. II. Page 18. 
Wherein of the second great use and end of Baptism, assuring us of our justification in the remission of all our sins, together with certain corollaries and enforcements.  CHAP. III. Page 38. 
Wherein of a third great use and end of Baptism, whereby is sealed our communion with Christ in his holiness, to wit, a death unto sin, and a rising to newness of life.  CHAP. iv Page 48. 
Wherein is showed the report which the ceremony of Baptism hath, to the forementioned ends and uses of that ordinance; also some Corollaries.  CHAP. V Page 58. 
In which the proper ceremony of Baptism is vindicated by the force of the word, Scripture practice, the suffrage of learned men, and the use of ancient times.  CHAP. VI Page 101. 
Wherein is showed the agreements and differences that the word preached hath with the Sacraments, together with certain Corollaries giving light to the present controversy.  CHAP. VII. Page 121. 
In which is laid down the relative and personal qualifications by which infants are usually entitled to Baptism, by our most considerable Protestant Divines.  CHAP. VIII. Page 143. 
In which are contained several queries and considerations, raised from the premises, declaring what little ground there will appear from their own principles and concessions to conclude for Infant Baptism.  CHAP. IX. Page 160. 
In which entrance is made into the consideration of the great argument for Infant Baptism, drawn from the circumcision of Infants, by way of answer whereunto five particulars are handled, the first whereof is treated on in this Chapter, namely what circumcision was to the Jews, and whether the qualification requisite to it was regeneration, or the infusion of gracious habits.  CHAP. X. Page 179. 
In which is handled the second particular, proposed in answer to the argument drawn from Circumcision, to wit, how fare the ordinances of the old Testament should regulate and determine by way of rule and institution those of the New.  CHAP. XI. Page 190. 
Wherein is discussed the third particular in answer to the argument drawn from circumcision; scil. How we are engrafted into Abraham's covenant, and by what title we are called Abraham's children.  CHAP. XII. Page 210. 
Wherein is handled the fourth Question, proposed to answer the argument drawn from Circumcision, to wit, How fare the jews by virtue of their being the sons of Abraham, could pretend to new Testament Ordinances, wherein also, besides several others, that much agitated place is opened & considered of, Acts 2.38.39.  CHAP. XIII. Page 237. 
Wherein is handled the fifth and last question in answer to the argument drawn from circumcision, scil. whether Infants not proving the subject of Baptism, the privileges of Christians and their state, may not justly be said to be as great as the privileges of the Jews and their state.  CHAP. XIV. Page 259. 
In which is considered that famous and much urged place of 1. Cor. 7.14. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.  CHAP. XV. Page 278. 
In which the authority of the Fathers, and the practice of antiquity, touching the subject of Baptism, is considered.  CHAP. XVI. Page 333. 
In which is handled, whether Baptism be to be repeated; but more especially, whether such as were baptised in infancy, should be accounted baptised, or are to have that ordinance administered to them.  CHAP. XVII. Page 368. 
In which is considered the time and rank that Baptism is to hold in the order of Ordinances.  CHAP. XVIII. Page 380. 
Wherein by way of conclusion, is treated of the Minister of Baptism, and shown where that power rests, which is to convey to us that blessed Ordinance, which hath been all this while the subject of our discourse.