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 tipe of Baptismeall sealing, in the Baptisme of Christ.

THE Scripture holds forth no point with more glory and cer­tainty, then the one­nes which we have with Iesus Christ, which union is the rise [Page 2]and ground of all that is good and happy in us: this therefore is the first and great thing that is made ours by Baptisme, wee are baptized into the name of Christ; for wee, though wee be baptized into the name of the Father and Holy Ghost like­wise, and have an union with them, yet the Fathers love is made good to us through Christ, and the Spirits efficacy is derived through and for Christ, who is the Mediatour, the middle person, the bond, betweene God and us, so Rom. 6.3. Ye are baptized into Iesus Christ. And Gal. 3.27. For as ma­ny of us as have beene baptized into Christ. This therefore is the [Page 3]great ordinance, assuring and sealing up; If God had kept his minde to himself touching our eternall estate, there had beene a surenesse in it, but there had not beene a sealing to us; but when he tells us his heart, and his minde, and bids us beleeve it, doubting nothing, & when hee shall yet speake more sen­sible to us, to our sight and to our touch, and ingage almost all our sences, when hee shall marke us with sensible signes and seales, and speake visible words also, this must needs as­sure; and of all assurances there is none so great as this first peece of our union, to have this sealed and signed, to be [Page 4]baptized into Christ, to be in­grafted 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, betweene the signe and the thing signed, be­tweene the seale and the thing sealed, & therefore Abraham in his beleeving, received the signe of circumcision, a seale of the righteousnes of his faith, Rom. 4.11. that is, the righteousnes which he had by faith, the ac­ceptation hee had, was sealed up to him by the signe of Cir­cumcisiō, by that marke; now what Abraham had by cir­cumcision, that the Saints have by Baptisme; for so the Apostle [Page 5]intimates in Coloss. 2.11.12. (which place wee shall have occasion to open hereafter) where hee shewes the use of Circumcision, which was a fi­gure of things to come; so when Cornelius and his com­panie were baptized, the holy Ghost fell upon them, as that to which the seale 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 Iesus Christ, when he was baptized, Matth. 3.16.17. And Iesus vvhen hee vvas baptized, vvent up straight­vvay out of the vvater: and lo, the heavens vvere opened unto him, and he savv the Spirit of God descending [Page 6]like a dove, and lighting upon him; and lo, a voyce from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in vvhom I am vvell pleased. There the whole Trinity appeared, to make the Triumph and ratify that affaire; never any ordi­nance was graced, with such a presence. And as Baptisme is a visible seale to our faith, so here the Trinity, in whose name wee are baptized, made themselves visible together; the Father by a voyce, the Son in his body, the Holy Ghost like a birde. First there was the Heavens opened, but to him, so are the words Marke 10. its said, hee savv the heavens opened or cloven or rent; that is, hee saw a clea­ving [Page 7]or rending, some great Hiatus; now this was for Christ himself, for it was as Luke saies, as he vvas praying, Luke 3.21. which was, that so the voyce & the spirit might be knowne to come from heaven, it being a great evidence of the pre­sence of God there. Then hee 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 tooke upon him the shape of a dove, and rested and abode on him; that sealing spirit, that seales us all, sealed Christ and abode with him, for so sayes Iohn, Vpon vvhom thou seest the spi­rit descending and abiding, that is [Page 8]hee. And then there came a voyce, and that admirable and consi­derable; this represented God the Father to his eare, as the dove represented the spirit to his eye, so while the spirit sate upō his head, the Father spake from heaven, the great sealing word, This is my vvellbeloved Sonne, in vvhom I am vvell pleased: This, that is, this man Iesus whom I shew and point out, by my spi­rits abiding upon him, Is, this is hee whom I have promised, now ye have him, or, thou art, (speaking to Christ) my Sonne, wee cannot be sealed to such a Sonneship in all respects; wee are adopted children, hee was the naturall and proper Sonne, [Page 9]the only begottē [...], that beloved, many are beloved, but hee was onely beloved, as one­ly begotten; we are sonnes, be­cause wee are beloved, but hee was loved, because hee was a Sonne, In vvhom, not in any other who ever he be unles by this One; I am vvell pleased; In whom I am cōtented, in whom my minde rests, that is, who onely and singularly pleaseth me, and in whom there is no­thing that displeaseth mee; therefore I delight wholly in him, and rest in him so as eve­ry thing will be acceptable to me that hee doth, by whom I shall be pleased with others, & by whom others may please [Page 10]me; for the Father here inti­mates, that his love so rests in Christ, as it deffuseth it self to others, so as beholding him, he puts of all offence, and anger towards others, whom hee 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 opē hea­ven, and to make an entry for us thither, againe to open hea­ven, and to draw downe the great misteries of it to us, the doctrine of the Trinitie was here declared, and truth came [Page 11]by him also, what he had seene of the Father, that he revealed.

Secondly the spirit came in the shape of a dove, as to seale us before, so to shew that hee should converse here up and downe in a dovelike manner; should have neither weapons without nor gaule within, to offend withall, although his condition was not greatly to please, therefore such passages as these, fell sometimes from him, Learne of me that I am meeke and lovvly; Yee knovv not of vvhat spirit you are. This abiding and this use of the spirit, is that pro­phecied of him Esay. 61.1, 2. The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anoynted [Page 12]me, to preach good tidings unto the meeke; hee hath sent me to bind up the broaken hearted, to proclaime li­berty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound: To proclaime the acceptable yeare of the Lord, and to comfort all that mourne; and hee was to be filled with the spirit, that it might descend upon us his members, and that we might be baptized with the holy Ghost.

Thirdly for the voyce, This is my beloved Sonne, in vvhom I am vvell pleased; it was then the of­fice of Christ to execute and manifest the wellpleasing of God in himself, to the redeem­ing, reconciling and renewing of the world that should be­leeve [Page 13]in him, and the restoring of all things. This is that ex­pression that is to be opposed to that other Gen. 6.7. It repents me that I have made man; God can never repent him more that he hath made man, when hee is so well pleased in the man Christ Iesus, so aboundantly satisfied & contented, and in him with all his. This Baptisme of our Saviour was the Epoche or terme, whence they reckoned Acts 1.22. &c. Beginning from the Baptisme of Iohn, unto that same day that he vvas taken up from us.

I have beene the larger in opening this illustrious tipe of Baptismall sealing, that the na­ture and way of it may be seene [Page 14]in the highest patterne.

Wee shall be sealed also, with our difference of younger bro­thers; the heavens in Baptisme opens upon us; and the Father, the Sonne & Holy Ghost, who are visibly present here, are present also to our sealing, and ready to give us the same wit­nesse, but with its distinction as before, this is my beloved Sonne, in vvhom I am vvell pleased; and as wee are then visibly united to Christ, who sanctifies this or­dinance for us; so the spirit is ready to seale us up; and God by the spirit, to witnes every good thing to us, let us there­fore put a valew and a price up­on this ordinance, more then [Page 15]wee have done; and after being once baptized into Christ, let us know and be assured, that we have a right to what hee hath, and to what he had, & to what he is; for what ever he was or is, as Mediator, hee is for us: with the great difference of elder brother, and having that in his owne right, which wee have in his; and therefore the sealing of his Baptisme, belongeth also to our baptisme, as his dying and rising againe, doth to us, who dye and rise againe with him in Baptisme.

To add a word or two of the seale, Paul hath two words [...] and [...]. Signum & Si­gillum; a statue, a representation [Page 16]may be a signe, but it cannot be a seale; we seale those things which wee would keepe with the greatest security, and have remayne untoucht, therefore letters and evidences are sea­led, that no man might doubt of the truth and authentique­nes of them.

Againe, two considerations more there is in a seale; first things sealed, and marked, are kept for their masters use, My beloved is a fountayne sealed up, Cant. 4.12. kept onely 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 fountaines of which [Page 17]onely the King and his eldest sonne drunke, under capitall punishment to all others; in Spayne they have also one of the same sort; so as we are markt and sealed for Christs use our husband, wee must not make our selves common therefore to the world, & lye exposed to every lust, to every love, since God hath impropriated us.

Secondly, we seale or marke things precious, as coyne, gold or such things, as we set a price and vallew upon; God by his sealing lets us know, what a vallew he puts upon us, how he separates us from refuse & base things, therefore we should not defile our selves.

CHAP. II. Wherein of the second great use and end of Baptisme, assuring us of our Iustification in the remission of all our sinnes, together with certain corollaries and inforcements.

HAving told you that Bap­tisme is the great ordi­nance of Christ, to confirme & seale up to us our union with himselfe, whom having, wee have all things, that wee may further see how considerable an ordinance this is, wee will beate it out, as far as the Scrip­ture gives light, in the point of Communion, and so wee shall find, that as it seales and con­firmes our union with him; so it also seales and confirmes to us, the most desireable thing in the world, which is the pardon [Page 19]of all our sinnes. It is safe gi­ving ordinances that notion the Scripture gives them, which while you doe, you will get the true juyce they afford, and you shallbe sure not to erre from the true nature of them: This you have Acts 2.38. Re­pent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sinnes. As if he should say, you are now prick­ed at the heart, & you see your selves in a lost condition, and therefore cry out what to doe, as men amazed and at astand, saith hee there is hope for you, God hath made an ordinance to relieve you in this straight, Repent and be baptized for the re­mission of sinnes; This Iesus whom [Page 20]I preach, and whom God hath made Lord and Christ, can re­mit sinnes (for that is it which gaules you when light comes in) now for this God hath for­med an ordinance on purpose to confirme and ratify unto us the remission of sinnes, and that is Baptisme, therefore be not amazed, but repent and be bapti­zed: So Acts 22.16. when Paul was in an ill condition, being humbled with a witnesse (it is the greatest representation of the humiliation of a sinner that wee have,) and Ananias was sent to raise him; saith he, VVhy tarriest thou, arise and be baptized, and vvash avvay thy sinnes; what can be said more comfortably [Page 21]to a distressed soule, then this, that God hath set and institu­ted an ordinance on purpose, that thou maist be acquitted of every sinne, to witnesse and seale up what is done by faith: Therefore doe not languish in this condition, why tarriest thou? arise & be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes; so 1. Pet. 3.21. The like figure vvhereto Bap­tisme doth novv save us, not the put­ting avvay the filth of the flesh, but the ansvver of a good conscence; We know that salvation lyes, espe­cially in justification and dis­charging all our sinnes; Bap­tisme doth this, it doth novv save us, that is, this signes and seales your salvation to you, which [Page 22]lyes in justification and dis­charge of smne; but you must not thinke that it is onely the vvashing avvay of the filth of the flesh, not a carnall ceremony onely, but the ansvver 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 seale & 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 speake to God himself; now, saith hee, this stipulation of a good con­science, this is that which is the [Page 23]effect of Baptisme, and which Baptisme seales up to you; for what Baptisme findes it seales, although it doth also exhibit more of the same kind; Bap­tisme and so all the ordinances of Christ, those we call Sacra­ments, seale up what is already, else how could it be a seale, but doth also conveigh 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 Baptisme, which was to be­leeve with all his heart, and he gave the answer of a good con­science, [Page 24]that hee did beleeve; that which hee desired bap­tisme should seale up to him, here was a plaine stipulation, for so the word signifies; now that supposeth one asking or demanding, & another answer­ing and making the bargaine, or contract; as when one askes do you do this? cā you beleeve with all your heart; and a con­science voyde of fraude, speaks clearly and evidently what it can doe and doth, then comes Baptisme.

This they were used to doe in the primitive Churches, & in the same manner wee find, some doe in this age, to infants, who understand them not, [Page 25]which is not very wisely done, for surely what ever they can doe, they cannot give the sti­pulation of a good conscience: If they intend the infants which they say speake by o­thers, they may well retaine the old forme, but not with any good understanding. It is the same Baptisme 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 workes, He that beleeves & is baptized shall be saved; beleefe must goe be­fore, this is that which on Gods part seales us, and ingrafts us into Christ, & conveyes Christ [Page 26]to us; and on our part it is the stipulatiō of a good conscience answering clearly and boldly to the intent of the ordinance: Thus you have another great use of this ordinance, it seales the remission of sins, & it seales to us the remission of the sins of our whole life, for it ingrafts us into Christ, and seales him up to us for the remission of sins; and therefore it must ever be considered for that purpose, & when it is so considered, wee must looke upon it, as the dis­charging and acquitting ordi­nance, which seales up, not onely sinnes past, but all sinnes, past, and to come; which some not understanding, and find­ing [Page 27]that those places for remis­sion of sinnes were great and comfortable, have refused to be baptized till death, as is af­firmed of Constantine and o­thers, mis-taking the true use of it, which is to seale up the pardon of sinnes, and respects all sinnes, in all times.

You see what the nature of Baptisme, coroll. 1 what the intention of it is in this particular; Consi­der therefore the greatnes of this ordinance, to which, as to the signe and seale, remission of sinnes and reconciliation with God is annexed: What say you, I beseech you? you that are sen­sible of the guilt of sinne, that know the vvages of sinne is death, [Page 28]would you not be glad of something to discharge you & ease you; would you not be glad of all meanes that should assure you, that iniquity should not be your ruine? would you not be glad, to be baptized for the re­mission of sinnes, to have your sinnes vvasht avvay by baptisme; to be sa­ved by baptisme in the stipulation of a good conscience, answering the signe and seale. This I thinke is no question to them that are stung with sinne, and pricked in their hearts; then blesse God for this ordinance, value it much, let it not be an empty ordinance to you, since there is fullnes in it, let it not sleepe & be a dead thing to you, since [Page 29]there is life in it, it being the ground of all our life & good; but improve it to its advantage, get the marrow and sweete of it, for there is much in it.

Secondly, 2 let us understand by this that hath bene said, and by the nature of this ordināce, Gods heart, and mind, for the remission of sinnes; hee who is Lord of all, and able onely to give all, hee is so free of nothing as of pardon, because that is the first steppe to good & hap­pines; if hee will us any good, if hee would have us in any pro­portion happy, the first steppe is by pardon of sinne, & there­fore hee is so free of nothing as that; when the law condemnes [Page 30]a man, and when a mans con­science condemnes him, hee needs no word to carry him to hell, hee hath that within him, will doe that fast enough, guilt makes us runne from God, as Adam did, and when we runne from God, wee runne to death; God therefore in goodnes 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 implyes offense a­gainst some lawgiver, some state, some great person, & im­plyes guilt which needes that pardon: Now guilt abaseth & greatnes terrifieth; what can there be more therefore to set [Page 31]us at a mighty distance from God, then guilt, which layes so low, and what greatnes terrify us more then his; But God hath provided that wee may come boldly, and he hath done it by two things; first by setting up a throne of grace, insteed of a throne of majesty and justice. Secondly he helpes us, by gi­ving us a tender and sensible high Priest, who shall usher us in, and pleade our cause at this barre and dispatch the busines with his Father, that wee may obtaine mercy, 4. Heb. 15.16. And to shew his heart the more in this worke, hee hath not onely a throne of grace, & a high Priest to manadge this [Page 32]affaire; but hee hath invented this ordinance of Baptisme, that wee might have an abun­dant entrance; In this you may see Gods heart for the pardon of sinne, for as Baptisme doth it, so it is by Gods appointment; Therefore know the mind of God, and labour not anxiously about sinnes, and the pardon of them, which is a great impe­diment to the comfort & holi­nes of our life. Now, that Bap­tisme doth this, you have heard from severall places, so as it is a great end of that ordinance, to remit and pardon sinnes, and assure that to us.

But if you aske how it doeth it? Answer, by your being bap­tized [Page 33]into Iesus Christ; by being baptized into his death, by being visibly ingrafted in­to his death; & condition, that as hee did conflict with the wrath of God, it brought him to the crosse, carried him to the grave, kept him there, and layed him low, but at last hee get out, we being interested in what hee did, as in a common person, who did all for us, and in our names might by the helpe of this ordinance (which visibly and sensibly represents our communion with him, in that which gaines the discarge of our sinnes, which is his death, into which wee are bap­tized) have full assurance that [Page 34]nothing remaynes us of the guilt of sinne; nothing remayns us, undischarged, since Christ, who was as wee were, that is, made guilty of sinne, that wee might be as hee is, that is, dis­charged from sinne, hath bro­ken the cords of death, having made a full satisfaction, death having no more dominiō over him, because there is no more guilt upon him; so that bap­tisme doth it this way, and as many as are baptized into Ie­sus Christ, into his death, are put into that condition, that he was after his death, and rising againe; and this must of neces­sity be, because hee was as a common person, wholy in his [Page 35]death and resurrection; there­fore they that makes them­selves of that community, for whom hee acts and trades, and by this visible signe and insti­tutiō of his, submit themselves to that way of salvation, they put themselves into that state and condition that hee is in af­ter his death and rising againe. If any aske, why did Christ dye? hee dyed for our sinnes, saith the Apostle; and why did hee rise? for our justification, we being baptized into his death, par­take of the end of it, which is the discharge of our sinnes, & our justification; it is certain therefore, our sinnes made him dye, and it is as certain, that his [Page 36]righteousnes made us just and righteous. Therefore what should keepe 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 institutiō, Baptisme, holds out, is, that hee is pardon to him, and that hee hath dyed & risen with Christ, and therefore may goe 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 our selves, 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 [Page 37]we doe mistically, and by way of communion.

Secondly it is a throne of grace, because it was not wee that did or could make the termes but God, for hee might have required from us, the per­sonall payment of our owne debt: Now that God would make this the termes, to take that at Christs hand, which lay upō us, as a personall debt, it makes it a throne of grace to which wee may goe with all boldnes and liberty of speech, and with the same assurance, that Christ himself did, be­cause by vertue of his owne contract sealed to us by his owne ordinance; wee are what [Page 38]he is, and have done what hee did.

CHAP. III. Wherein of a third great use and end of Bap­tisme, whereby is sealed our communion with Christ in his holines, to wit, a death unto sinne, and a rising to newnesse of life.

WEe come now to another great use and end of Bap­tisme, which is holines of life, consisting of two parts, dying to sinne, and rising to holines, and this is especially held out Rom. 6. I shall therefore breef­ly open & analise these words, not intending a large discours, but so much as suites with the nature of this ordinance.

First therefore in answer to that unsavoury objection vers. [Page 39]1. Shall vvee sinne that grace may abounde? The Apostle reason­eth vers. 2. Hovv shall vve that are dead to sinne, live any longer therein; as if he had said, those that are dead to sinne, should not live in sinne, but you are dead to sinne, therefore you should not live in sinne; contraries destroy their cōtraries, death destroyes life, as the privation doth the habit; a man cannot live & dye together.

But now it rests to be prooved that wee are dead to sinne, v. 3. Knovv yee not that so many of us as vvere baptized into Iesus Christ, vvere baptized into his death? This hee prooves from our Baptisme, which is the seale and expres­sion [Page 40]of our faith: If Christ be dead to sinne, then those that are baptized, are dead to sinne; But Christ is dead to sin, there­fore those that are baptized, are dead to sinne.

That Christ is dead to sinne, and how, you shall heare v. 10. For in that hee dyed, hee dyed unto sinne once. But the proposition that those that are baptized, are dead to sin, because Christ is dead to sinne, he shewes you from the end of baptisme, which is to witnes & confirme to you your union and commu­nion with Christ: And first of all with his death, which both discharges you from the guilt of sinne, and destroyes and kills [Page 41]sinne in you.

Now that this is the particu­lar end, he shewes you from the generall, vers. 3. Knovv ye not that so many of us as vvere baptized into Iesus Christ, vvere baptized into his death; yee are baptized into Christ, therefore into his death; hence vers. 4. VVee are buried vvith him by baptisme into death; yee are so surely dead with Christ, that ye are buried also, to be sure he is dead that is bu­ried. In this verse hee prooves further this communion in ho­lines, by the contrarie to death, namely our rising againe, that like as Christ vvas raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so vve also should vvalke in nevvnes of [Page 42]life. For as Baptisme witnesses to you that you are dead with Christ, so the same Baptisme witnesses that ye are risen with him, so that as wee are dead to sinne by vertue of the death of Christ, so wee are alive to holi­nes by vertue of the rising of Christ, that as Christ was rai­sed from the dead to a new glorious and heavenly life, so wee are raised to a life, new and holy: Now the reason of this witnesse ariseth from the ana­logie and proportion that the signe hath, with the thing sig­nified, that Baptisme hath with the thing witnessed: Those that are baptized, they are drowned and buried, and [Page 43]brought againe alive out of the water; so by our union with Christ, wee have the commu­nion of being crucified & bu­ried with him, and of rising a­gaine to a new life. Vers. 5. If vve have bene planted together in the likenes of his death, vvee shall be also in the likenes of his resurrection. This word planting shewes the reality of these signes & seales, this ordinance witnesses our planting and grafting into Christ, who is the stock with whom wee live and dye; as wee feele death with him, so life also, this is the great stay, the great comfort, wee are planted into Christ the true vyne, by God the Father, and now wee shall [Page 44]runne his fortune in life or death, as the plant & stock dye and live together. ver. 6. Knovv­ing this that our old man is crucified vvith him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth vvee should not serve sinne: Here he in­sists in the former argument, namely our communion in the death of Christ, which death hee declares by the kind of it, namely crucifixion, & shewes that as Christ for our sinnes dyed, so the body of sinne in us by the death of Christ is cru­cified, the power and force is abated, that wee should not serve sinne, and live to sinne.

Vers. 7. For hee that is dead, is freed from sinne. Hee that is free [Page 45]from sinne, is no longer obli­ged to sinne, but beleevers bap­tized, are freed from sinne, be­cause they are dead to sinne; dead with Christ therefore we are free from sinne.

Vers. 8. Novv if vve be dead vvith Christ, vvee beleeve that vve shall also live vvith him. This is to shew the communion still, and to usher in the next verse of our com­munion with the life of Christ.

Vers. 9. Knovving that Christ being raysed 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 hee might gather, the condition of the Saints, in their persuance of [Page 46]holines, which should be ever­more.

Vers. 10. For in that he dyed, he dyed unto sinne once; that is, to blot out sinne, but in that hee lives, hee lives to God; a glorious life and to the glory of God the Father.

Vers. 11. Likevvise reckon yee also your selves to be dead indeed un­to sinne, but alive unto God, through Iesus 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 sinne hath nothing to doe with you. On the con­trary, you are as Christ, alive to God, to that glorious and new [Page 47]life, & all this through Christ, whose union and communion is notified to you in Baptisme.

This is for holines, which consists in mortification and newnes of life, which Baptisme both signifies and seales to us. It signifies it, by the analogie & proportion, which is betweene the signe and the thing signi­fied, and in that it signifies a thing past, it seales it to us, for when God will give you a signe and resemblance of a thing, it is but to confirme it to you, and assure you of it.

CHAP. IV. Wherein is shewed the report which the cere­mony of Baptisme hath, to the forementio­ned ends and uses of that ordinance; also some Corollaries.

HAving spoken of the use & ends of Baptisme, it will not be unmeete in the next place to discourse something of the Ceremony, that we may shew the report which the signe & ceremony hath to the thing signified and represen­ted.

Now the signification is most apt; for the externall forme or Ceremony of Baptisme lyes properly in three things, Im­mersion, or Drowning, or Bu­rying, by putting under the water; some stay under it, and [Page 49]emersion, or rising out of it.

First the element which is used, is water, extreamely fit & proper to represent our clean­sing, both from the guilt and stayne of sinne. Arise and be bap­tized, and vvash avvay thy sinnes, sayes Ananias to Paul Acts 22.16. So Christ gave himself for his Church, that hee might sanctifie and cleanse it vvith the vvashing of vva­ter by the vvord, Eph. 5.26. So Tit. 3.5. According to his mercy hee sa­ved us by the vvashing of regenera­tion. So as this washing of water represents our cleansing, that is our justification and sanctifi­cation. The Iewes had many sprinklings with blood, fit for their grosse capacities, but [Page 50]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, pertaking of his death for sinne, and thereby obliging our selves to death to sinne.

Secondly the stay under the water, though never so little, represents unto us, Christs des­cending to hell, that is, the lo­west degree of his abasement, [Page 51]when hee was seald up and watcht in the grave, and was as it were cut of from amongst men; of this abasement wee reape the fruit by Baptisme, & are hereby secured against that abasement, and everlasting destru­ction from the presence of the Lord; to which sinne would have brought us; & therefore sinne 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 sinne.

Thirdly the Emersion, or ri­sing [Page 52]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 sinne & death, and all evill whatsoever, clearly a­bove the guilt of all sinne, and secure against the evill of sin, rising up to holines & newnes of life. And thus there is a sweete and excellent propor­tion, betweene the ceremony and the substance, the signe, & the thing signified, and wee are confirmed to be of the union and communion with Christ in every thing that is for our good and comfort.

Now having shewed the se­verall ends of Baptisme, & how the ceremony makes them all good to us, I shall gather some Corollaries from the mayne notiō of this ordinance, which is our being dead with Christ, and rising againe, according to the forementioned place of Rom. 6.11. Reckon your selves to be dead to sinne, but alive to God through Iesus Christ our Lord. Rec­kon, that is, build upon this; this is a thing exceeding sure.

First if wee be dead to sinne, Coroll. 1. and sealed up to this death by Baptisme into the death of Christ, then let us be in the world as dead men in that re­spect; let us not understand the [Page 54]reasonings of sinne, nor hear­ken to the persuasions of sinne, nor looke upon the baites of sinne; the Apostle made this an argument in a better thing, If you be dead vvith Christ from the ru­diments of the vvorld, vvhy as though living in the vvorld, are ye subject to ordinances, touch not, tast not, handle not, Col. 2.20. These things had once a good being, but were become old, but sinne was never of any worth or ac­count. Barzillai 2. Samuel 19. thought it reason to refuse the Kings table, because his appe­tite and sences were decayed, hee was eighty yeares old; but our sences are not decaying, but dead, and sinne is not old, [Page 55]but dead; it is dead in a miste­ry, it is dead in Christ, and wee have the Sacrament upon it; therefore if lusts tempt, turne not onely a deaf, but a dead eare to them; persuasiōs should not worke on a dead man, ob­jects should not take or affect a dead man.

2 Secondly if we be risen and alive with Christ, & Baptisme seale that also; then act not one­ly as a living man, but as a risen man, moove and walke, & rea­son, & conclude, as a man rai­sed from the dead, have your sences and your reasonings as quick to God, as taking of spi­rituall things, as they are dull and shut up to things below; [Page 56]breath in the ayer of another life, hasten after the full and reall 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.

3 Thirdly the worke of this ordinance or dying and rising, is advanced much by holy rea­sonings, both in the time of communicating & afterwards, for wee are apt to forget our selves and our conditions, as he that would have forgot that he [Page 57]was an Emperour, if he had not bene remembred of it by o­thers. Thinke therefore much on these things, what you have done in this ordinance, what are the consequences & results of it, which wil be a mighty not onely help, but ingagement to faith & holines, it is a seale on both sides, wee seale to God as well as he to us, it is in our owne choyce no more, wee are inga­ged by our owne act; wee have subscribed and can recall no more, and certainely this as it ingages much, so it helpes much: to act an act of faith in thought is much, but to speake it is more, but to signe & seale it in an ordinance, by professing [Page 58]subjection, by going downe in­to the water, by suffering your selves there to be drowned, or buried, by rising or coming out againe, all as a ceremony or ordinance for such an end, is both a great ingagement and a great help to us in beleeving.

CHAP. V. In which the proper ceremony of Baptisme is vindicated by the force of the word, Scrip­ture practise, the suffrage of learned men, and the use of ancient times.

IN the proceeding discours wee have taken it for graun­ted, that the antient and usuall forme of Baptisme, hath bene by dipping or plonging the whole body under the water, according to which notion we [Page 59]have found what great propor­tion the ceremony hath to the substance, and the signe 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 speake something more particularly to this point, and to show that as the ceremony of dipping, sutes with the ends and use of Baptisme, so it agrees perfectly with the force of the word, the Scripture practise, and the use of antient times.

First therefore the word [...] signifies properly mergo, [Page 60]seu immergo, that is, to drowne, or sinke in the water, to dip, to overwhelme, to plunge, so mer­gere aliquem sub aequore, or in undis, to drowne them; so Chamier sayes that immersion expresses the force [...]: it signifies also tingo, to dye, or coulour, quod fit immergendo: which is done by dipping into the coulour, over­whelming and drowning in it. So Walleus, a learned Profes­sour of these partes, sayes that the antient Latines expressed the word [...] per tinctionem & inundationem; inundatio is an overflowing. This therefore is the proper and naturall force of the word, wee will see in the next place what aspect the [Page 61]Scripture beares in severall passages to the acceptance of the word in this sence.

First in the story of Christs baptisme, the greatest and fay­rest example of the kind, as ye read it Mat. 3.13. Then cometh Iesus from Galilee to Iordan unto Iohn to be baptized of him; yee see he went to Iohn, who baptized in the river Iordan, a place pro­per for immersion & dipping, where at last hee was baptized, that is, dipt or plundged in the vva­ter, for so ye have it vers. 16. He vvent up straightvvay out of the vva­ter: that is, as the word is trans­lated generally, hee ascended out of the vvater. Novv if any one, saith Maldonat, aske vvhy the Euange­lists [Page 62]use the vvord rather of ascen­ding, then goeing out, they seeme to be ignorant that the earth is higher then the rivers; so as Christ ascended or went up out of the water, in the which he had bene dipt or drown'd. Lucas Brugensis, upon the place, sayes this, Christ ascen­ded upon the land, for he had discen­ded into the river (after the manner of others that vvere baptized) as deepe as his thighes, or his navell, for the rest of his body (sayes he) vvas dipt by Iohn, not sprinkled onely vvith vvater. Others have thought that it was the custome of Iohn to hold the people up to the neck in water, till they confest their sinnes.

The learned Cajetan upon the [Page 63]place, sayes, Christ ascended out of the vvater, therefore Christ vvas bap­tized by Iohn, not by sprinkling, nor by povvring vvater upon him, but by immersion, that is, by dipping or plunging in the vvater. 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 baptisme, but these shall suffice.

The next place we shall con­sider, shall be that of Iohn 3.23. And Iohn vvas baptizing in Aenon neere to Salim, because there vvas much vvater there. The reason why he pitcht upon this place is given, because there vvas much [Page 64]vvater there, which was not ever found in that country, & much water was needfull to his Bap­tisme. Piscator upon the place sayes, [...], signifies many rivers, as [...] in the singular num­ber signified the river Iordan, this, sayes he, is mentioned to signifie the Ceremony of Baptisme vvhich Iohn used; immergens scil. totum corpus hominis in fluvio stantis; dipping, or plundging the vvhole body of the man standing in the river, vvhence, saith he, Christ baptized of Iohn in Iordan, is said to ascend out of the vvater, Mat. 3. the same manner Philip ob­served Acts 8.38. And in his ob­servations upō the place, sayes, that the antient manner of Baptisme vvas, that the vvhole body vvas plund­ged [Page 65]into the vvater, & thence dravvn out againe; the one signifying the mortification of the old man, and the other the vivification of the nevv, as Rom. 6.3.4. thus Piscator. Corne­lius a Lapide, upon the place, From hence (saith he) you may ga­ther that Iohn so baptized, as hee vvasht not onely the head in vvater, for a little vvater vvould have served for that, but the vvhole body. Many Authors might be quoted for this purpose, but the place speaks so clearly for it self, that I shall adde to what I have said already onely the judgement of Calvin upon these words: From this place, saith he, you may gather that Iohn & Christ administred bap­tisme by plundging the vvhole body [Page 66]into the vvater, although he adds also his opinion; Yee need not be much carefull, saith he, of the out­vvard Ceremony, so it agree vvith the spirituall truth, and the ordinance and rule of our Lord; and so say I also.

You see what light this place affoords to the clearing of the primitive practise for dipping or plundging in baptisme.

The third place we will exa­mine shall be that of Acts 8.36.37. &c. where you have the story of the baptizing of the Eunuch by Philip; As they vvent on their vvay, they came unto a certain vvater, & the Eunuch said, See here is vvater, [...], that is, as Piscator interprets it, fluvium, vel amnem, [Page 67]vel stagnum some river, or a poole, or ponde; after this discovery of a fit place for Baptisme, the Eunuch desires it, and Philip having ta­ken an account of his faith, which was to give him his qualificatiō for that ordinance, it is said in the 38. verse, that they vvent both dovvne into the vvater. So Beza translates it, Descenderunt ambo in aquam, they descended both into the vvater: So the French, Descendirent enl'eau, as Deodat. and the baptisme being done, vers. 39. they came up out of the vvater, in the which they had bene before. So Beza, Quum au­tem ascendissent ex aqua, vvhen they had ascended out of the vvater; the French, Quand ils furent remontez [Page 68]hors de l'eau; vvhen they vvere re­mounted or ascended out of the vva­ter; all which expresse not a going to the water onely, as some would have it, but a go­ing downe into the water for Baptisme, and a coming out of it againe. 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 hee blusht not before them to make himself naked, and to be vvasht, vvhilst he vvas ashamed of his sinnes before God. By which, saith Lorinus, they are confounded, that reverence and feare the presence [Page 69]of men more then God: And adds also, That this discent, going dovvne, signified by all meanes immersion, that is, plundging, or dipping, and it is probable, that by vvhat meanes it most conveniently could, & vvas most expresly vvashing, the Eu­nuch vvas baptized.

There will not need to be said more to this place, I shall onely conclude it with the words of Calvin, as I did the o­ther, which I am inforced to give you in his french, because his latine 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 [Page 70]d'eau seulement sur le corps, ou sur le teste: VVe see here, sayes Calvin upon the place, vvhat fashion the antients had to administer Baptisme, for they plundged the vvhole body in the vvater; the use is novv, sayes he, that the Minister casts a fevv dropps of vvater onely upon the body, or upon the head. Whereby you see both what his opinion was for the practise of the most antient and primitive times in generall, & how cleare hee was that the Baptisme administred 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 [Page 71]elegantly alludes to the ce­remony of Baptisme in our death, and resurrection with Christ, but having handled this before largely, and by it self, I shall onely give you the sence of expositers about it for our present end.

The learned Cajetan upon the 4. verse (vvee are buried vvith him by baptisme into death) saith; By our burying he declares our death, from the Ceremony of Baptisme, quia, scil. qui baptizatur sub aqua ponitur; be­cause he vvho is baptized is put under the vvater, and by this carryes a simi­litude of him that is buried, vvho is put under the earth: Novv because none are buryed, but dead men, from this very thing that vve are buryed [Page 72]in Baptisme, vve are assimulated to Christ buried, or vvhen he vvas buri­ed. Thus Cajetan.

Estius upon the place, having said out of Austen, that vvhat ever vvas done in the crosse of Christ in his burying and resurrection, &c. vvas so done, that to those vvords and actions, the life of a Christian should be conformed; Ads, the like mistery the Apostle puts in the Ceremony of Baptisme, for the immersion (that is dipping) of Christ, represents to us burying, and so also death; for the se­pulcher is the Symbole of death, and the emersion (or rising out againe) vvhich follovves that dipping, hath the similitude of the resurrection; therefore in Baptisme vvee are con­formed, not onely to the death of [Page 73]Christ, but also to his sepulcher and resurrection. Where you see hee clearly places the ceremony of Baptisme, both of Christs, and ours, in immersion, or putting under the water, & emersion or rising up againe, exactly conformable to what is to be signified to us by it, namely our dying and rising againe 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, &c. Into his death, that is, vvee are baptized into the similitude of the death of Christ; for they vvho are put under [Page 74]the vvater, 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 ceremonie) 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 Baptisme vvee are plundged into the vvater (according to the an­tient ceremony) it is a holy signe to us, that sinne should be stiffled in us by the Spirit of God, as it is a seale of the vvashing of our soules before God.

I shall conclud with the judge­ment [Page 75]of Piscator upon the place vers. 4. Sepulti igitur sumus, vide­tur (inquit) respicere ad veterem ritum, quum toto corpore in aquam mergebantur, atque it a quasi sepelie­bantur, ac mox rursus extraheban­tur, tanquam è sepulchro. The Apo­stle (sayes he) seemes here to have respect to the antient ceremony, vvhen as the vvhole body vvas dipt into the vvater, and vvas by and by againe dravvne out, as out of a grave. So Piscator.

Having thus farre carried on this notion for dipping, or plundging in the ceremony of Baptisme, which wee have found to have its rise from the naturall & proper force of the word, & to have accorded ful­ly [Page 76]with Scripture practise and example, which is the coppy to which we must conforme, I shall consider a little to dis­charge my self more abun­dantly to this point, what hath bene the practise of the times wee commonly call primitive, that is, those after the times of Christ and his Apostles, and what the judgement of the Fa­thers and antient writers have bene to this purpose.

And first the Apostolicall 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 in­joyne the office of Diaconnis­ses, [Page 77]or shee-Deacons, to be to assist for the unclothing of wo­men at Baptisme; the words are [...]. To minister to the Presbyters vvhilst the vvomen vvere baptized, for comelines sake. Const. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 32. this I find quoted by Chamier lib. de Baptist. cap. 2. p. 240. who brings it to proove, that from the beginning, as hee sayes, it vvas the custome to dip the vvhole body, vvhich expresses (sayes he) the force of the vvord [...], vvhence it vvas (sayes he) that Iohn baptized in a river, and hee affirmes that it is uncertain, vvhen or vvhy the change began, to baptize by sprinkling, saving that he addes that [Page 78]it vvould seeme that 3000 could hardly be baptized in one day, by so fevv Apostles, if they vvere all dipt, or that the Iaylor had not perhaps a vessell at hand, big enough for dip­ping the vvhole body. But first you see that his opinion is cleare, that Baptisme in the beginning was by dipping or plundging the whole body, to proove which hee brings the force of the word, the example of Iohn, and after the Apostolicall con­stitutions: onely he knowes 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 [Page 79]when wee have a clearnes of Scripture practise, agreable as is confest to the force of the word of institution, and expres­sing it, which also accords, as wee have already showne a­boundantly, with the use and end of the ordinance, which is the scope and intent of it, and apparently conformable to the most evident antient practise, it were a boldnesse (to say no more) to leave or desert that practise, which upon the for­mer grounds, wee know to be safe and warrantable, for ano­ther, which we have little rea­son to beleeve was used, but be­cause wee see not how in some instanced particular circum­stances [Page 80]it could be well other­wayes; And as it is ever dange­rous, to depart from knowne & approoved Scripture practise in the matter of ordinances, upon our owne surmises, so it can be no where of worse con­sequence then in such ordinan­ces (of which Baptisme & the Lords Supper are) the being, and good of which lyes much in the right administration of a ceremony.

It would be safe to follow the cleare & assured way, and for the other, unlesse they im­plyed a simple impossibility, (which the practises instanced in will by no meanes be found to doe) not to be much trou­bled [Page 81]about them.

But truly I am jealous that those who find sprinkling most commodious for infants, and are not willing to depart from the notions of infant Baptisme, trouble themselves more with the objectiōs mentioned, then they would find cause to doe, if they did not find it needfull to raise objections from these places for the patronising of baptizing by sprinkling, which as was said before is so proper for their infant Baptisme: For the thing it self, to instance, first in that of the Iaylor, how easily may it be conceaved, that in those easterne and hot­ter countryes (this being at [Page 82]Philippy in Macedonia, Acts 16.12. where bathing was of great and continuall use) this keeper of the prison might be provided with some vessell fit for bathing and washing the whole body, which might serve for the use of Baptisme, as the Christiās afterwards, when they came to injoy fixt places of meetings for worship, had their vessells affixt to their tem­ples, which vessell they called [...], Bucan. p. 666. being of a great continent fild with water for the use of Baptisme, which the Latine calls piscina, or lavacrum, a vessell proper to bath in, or font, from whence the custome of our little dimi­nitive [Page 83]fonts in Churches hath come, since sprinkling (more proper for children as Chamier affirmes) hath bene the cere­mony used in Baptisme, with exclusion to dipping or plund­ging the whole body: I say it is easy to suppose that the Iaylor might be thus provided for his Baptisme, and safe to suppose this or any other way that doth not imply a contradiction, then to thinke that the Apostles al­tered the usuall ceremony for Baptizing used to Christ and by Christ and his Apostles, as (appeares evidently & cleare­ly) and which so much ac­cordes with the intent & scope of the ordinance in that which [Page 84]the Ceremony signifyes and exhibits to us, namely our being buried with Christ, and rising againe, as wee show'd al­ready.

As for the other objection, that it would seeme difficult for three thousands to be bap­tized in one day by so few Apo­stles, if dipping the whole bo­dy, not sprinkling were the ce­remony used; I answer it will not appeare much lesse diffi­cult if sprinkling were the ce­remony, and it is the objection that Bellarmine & the Papists bring against our Divines, to proove that in certain cases the Laycks may baptize; This Cha­mier answers by Salmeron the Ie­suite, [Page 85]one of their owne, tract. 15. in Acta, who sayes it is no way impossible, and brings for proofe one Franciscus Xavier, who baptized in one day a­mongst the Indians 15000, now if one man could baptize fifteene thousand, twelve Apo­stles could baptize 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 seeme so impro­per for assistance in certain ca­ses of publike affaires by pu­blike authority) wee can fur­nish them with more helpe, na­mely the seaventy Disciples, whom our Divines will by no [Page 86]meanes admit at that time to be Laycks, since Christ had called them before to the mi­nistry of the Gospell, and had constituted them as publike workemen in his harvest, and had sent them with a publike and particular commission, say­ing, Those that heare you, heare me, Luke 10. so that according to this account, the number of re­gular & lawfull Baptizers, will be 82, namely 12 Apostles & 70 Disciples. Thus farre wee are helpt by our Protestant Di­vines in their oppositiō against Lay-Baptisme. Now if you di­stribute the baptizing of 3000 to the worke of 82 persons, there will fall under 40 to the [Page 87]share of every one, as might be easily reckoned, so as the bap­tizing of that number either way, by dipping or sprinkling, might be accomplished in one day, though the Baptizers were not indued 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 baptized) since wee suppose those that were baptized, 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 [Page 88]which by so many hands might easily be dispatcht.

It was necessary to speake 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 shew of a reason from Scripture pra­ctise, for baptizing by sprink­ling, and that onely too by way of objection, which you see ac­commodated.

Thus you have a cleare proofe brought by Chamier, for the antient manner of Bapti­zing, by dipping, from the Apo­stolicall constitutions, which that also considered as an ob­jection, why at any time it might seeme to be varyed, and [Page 89]you see, that as the objection to the generall rule was but conjecturall, so the solution is very easy, and the other pra­ctise, to wit, by dipping, most cleare and evident.

In the second place, VValleus de Baptiz. p. 84. (a reverent Au­thor, whom we have formerly mentioned) shewing that the antients Baptized by an im­mersion of the whole body, sayes, That antiently the dayes of Baptisme (for they used some so­lemne dayes, as vvee shevv in another peece of this tract) had their name, from the ceremony, therefore it vvas called Dominica in albis, the Domi­nicall or the Lords day in vvhites, be­cause being unclothed for their Bap­tisme, [Page 90]vvhich vvas as before by dip­ping or plundging, they put on vvhite or linnen garments, vvith vvhich they vvent into the Baptisterion, a vessell as we have formerly said, fitted for that ceremony of immer­sion: and therefore the Papists at this day, who retaine every thing of antient ceremony, though they corrupt the use of it, give a white garment to the baptized child in one part of their ceremony, which Bellar­mine sayes they are to vveare a Sab­bato sancto usque ad Dominicam in albis, from the holy Sabaoth, to the Dominicall in vvhites, Tom. 3. p. 83. That is that Dominicall, which VValleus mentions, when those who were baptized for come­lines [Page 91]sake, clothed themselves with white linnen garments, whence the same Author saies, That those vvho vvere to be baptized, vvere called Candidati Christianis­mi, Candidates of Christianity, with allusiō to the clothing in white, with which they were accom­modated for Baptisme by im­mersion.

In the third place I find the opinion of Bonaventure, quoted by a late and learned writer, vvho though hee allovves sprinkling, yet more commends immersion, or dip­ping, either of the vvhole body, vvhen there is vvater enough, or if there be but a little vvater, of the head and brest, or of the head alone, or of the face onely, because there are all the [Page 92]sences, and there doth especially flou­rish the operation of the soule, and vvee take the image or picture of a man especially from his face; which severall reasons he gives to that purpose, so as if you will sprinkle, ye must fall upon a new question, which may for ought 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 fastned upon two conside­rations; [Page 93]of charity to sicke and weake persons, and charity to tender children, although as the same Author affirmes, mer­sion was more usuall even for children, to the dayes of Grego­ry (who was Bishop of Rome Anno 590) and Isiodor. For Gre­gory giving an account of the threefold dipping, hath these words, Ʋt dum tertiò infans ab aquis educitur, resurrectio triduani temporis exprimatur; vvhilst the child is dravvne out of the vvater three times, the resurrection after three dayes buriall may be signified. Epist. Greg. lib. 1. Epist. 41. An ac­count of this charity for sicke persons, ye have exprest in an epistle of Cyprian to Magnus lib. 1. [Page 94] Epist. 6. In the times of Cyprian there was a question mooved concerning Baptisme, by asper­sion or perfusion, that is, powe­ring water, to wit, hovv they vvere baptized, vvho in respect of infirmity, or sicknes could not be dipt, vvhether such sprinkling vvere to be accounted for true baptisme; by which de­maund you may perceave, that in Cyprians time, immersion or dipping was so much the usuall and received forme for Bap­tisme, as it was made a great question, whether they were rightly baptized, who desired Baptisme, and yet by reason of infirmity, could not receive it, but by sprinkling or aspersion: Cyprian answers modestly and [Page 95]sayes, Hee vvould not have his opi­nion be a prejudice to any other mans either opinion or practise, but his cha­rity extends rather to thinke, that in such cases, Baptisme 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 antient and mo­derne, that dipping, or immer­sion hath bene the old way of Baptizing, even for children in the dayes of Gregory, a reason of the alteration I have in part shewed you, from the quota­tion out of Cyprian. A more par­ticular account Iacobus Pamelius [Page 96]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: VVhen in respect of vveakenesse those vvho vvere sicke, could not be dipt, or plundged (vvhich is properly to be baptized) they had vvater povvred upon them, or vvere sprinkled vvith it; from the same rea­son I suppose the custome of sprink­ling, [Page 97]vvhich vve novv use, to have bene first observed by the vvesterne church, to vvit, for the tendernesse of infants, vvhen as novv the baptisme of those of age vvas 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 easterne and vvesterne church, they vvere used to dipp, the antient make manifest by their vvritings; and that it vvas used at Rome, in the time of Gregory, is manifest, from his booke of the Sacra­ments, and that it vvas yet used [Page 98]amongst the English, Erasmus hath noted in the margent. So Pamel.

I have bene large in this sub­ject, but I hope it will be of use to us, both for the assuring of our practise 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 cu­stome is, that dares stand up & contradict a thing so evident in it self, so agreable to the reason of the ordinance, to the cleare phrase and expression of Scrip­ture, to the practise of antient [Page 99]times, in so much that in Cy­prians time, it was a question mooved in the Church, whe­ther those that in respect of in­firmity, could not receive bap­tisme, the antient and usuall way, and yet earnestly desired it, might be rightly baptized, by sprinkling; vvhether such (as Cyprians vvords are to Magnus) might be accounted lavvfull Chri­stians, that is, whether their Baptisme so administred, were right, or a nullity; I say, you see here the tyranny & boldnesse of custome, that having shaped (as it is apt to doe) our mindes to one way, dares now pretend for that alone, with the exclu­sion of others, and would per­suade [Page 100]us, that nothing should be, but what wee have seene to be, and counts every thing er­ror, that hath not fallen under our sence or experience: In things civill and indifferent, I can be content that custome shall be my guide, & shall take that for good coyne, that the world stampes, but in matter of ordinances, and things sa­cred, the rule of which lies in institution, and not in our li­berty, or choise, and the bles­sing of which lyes 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 customes of [Page 101]this world, upon their worldly and carnall, though seeming wise considerations, hold forth to us.

CHAP. VI. Wherein is shewed 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 Baptisme, to which the cere­mony appeares to be extrea­mely proper and opposite, wee will now to bring further light to this ordinance, and in order to a discours of the proper sub­ject of Baptisme, and of the controversy thereabout consi­der [Page 102]the agreements that are common to it, with the admi­nistration of the word, and that wherein these two ordinances seeme to differ.

They agree first in the effi­cient cause: Baptisme 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 administring causes, those that were to teach had order to baptize, Mat. 28.19. Goe therefore and teach all na­tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, &c. And 1. Cor. 4.1. Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ, and stevvards of [Page 103]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 Baptisme, it speakes no more then it is bid; the blessed Angels that are so farre above sinne and corruption, have no quickning vertue in them­selves, the flesh of Christ hath no vertu but from his God­head: Now if there be no ver­tue in the flesh of Christ, but by the personall union, how shall bodily actions about bodily elements confer grace, but by the mediation of the Spirit.

Thirdly they agree in the [Page 104]principall 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 looke for more in the Sacraments, then the word promises and holds out, makes an Idoll 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 ineffectuall without faith, 3. Iohn 36. Hee [Page 105]that beleeveth on the Sonne, hath everlasting life.

Sixthly they agree in the ef­fects, They are the savour of life un­to life, or the savour of death unto death, &c. So, He that beleeveth & is baptized, shall be saved.

From the first you learne, coroll. 1 not to depart from the institution, but as to preach the Gospel ac­cording to the analogie of faith, so to administer the Sa­craments according to Gospel institutions, for it is alike sinne to transgresse in the admini­stratiō of the one, as in the prea­ching of the other, since they both hold of the same Lord & institutor; and as hee which in preaching the Gospel shall add [Page 106]workes 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 lyes in a cere­mony, and shall be bold to in­large the subject of this ordi­nance, or contract it, will be found a breaker of Gods boūds, & be found guilty of the cursse that is the portion of such as add or detract, so as what wee doe herein is of great moment and consideration.

coroll. 2 From the second to exspect successe from the Spirit, to be in the Spirit, that you may re­ceive [Page 107]it: Secondly the Sacra­ments worke not Phisically.

From the third, coroll. 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.

coroll. 4 From the fourth to be com­forted and confirmed in this way of salvation, wherein wee are, for wee have enough till wee come to God, and need no more.

coroll. 5 From the fifth not to rest in the worke done, to thinke it enough when you have heard or communicated, if it be not [Page 108]mingled with faith, it profits not, vvithout faith it is impossible to please God.

coroll. 6 From the sixth then play not with these tooles, 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 cursse to the persons upon whom it fal­leth, even the greatest: light & meanes are the greatest agra­vations of sinnes, Heb. 2.1.2.3.

Wee come now to the diffe­rence of these ordinances, which will contribute more of light to what wee have propo­sed.

They differ first in the man­ner of the administratiō 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 vallue un­to, to signify thinges by, but the Sacraments represents by such similitudes and proportions as the signes have with the things signified; therefore we read the word and heare the word, but we see & feele the Sacraments: In a word they are Hierogli­phicks; it was the custome of the Egyptians to teach by visible representations, which signify such and such things, these are of that nature, that whereas the [Page 110]word strikes the eare onely, which is the usuall and ordina­ry sence of discipline, those signes and visible elements af­fect the sences outward and in­ward, the sences conveigh 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, toucht him with our hands, felt him by our tast, and injoyed him with our whole man: all this in a rationall and discour­sive way, raysing an analogy & proportion betweene the signe and the thing signified.

Secondly they differ in the measure of their signification, [Page 111]the word especially teacheth, the Sacraments especially seale and confirme: the word indeed signifies and applyes spirituall things, but the Sacraments more efficatiously represent & apply.

Thirdly the word is simply necessary to actuall beleevers, and so to the salvation of be­leevers, and sufficient, as in Cor­nelius; for faith is by hearing, and hearing by the vvord 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 seales without the writing.

Fourthly (for I will not trouble you with many) the [Page 112]word belongs to all mankind, the Sacraments belong onely to beleevers; therefore for prea­ching, ye have, preach the Gospell to every creature under heaven; But for the Sacraments, teach them, saith Christ, that is, disciple them, and hee that beleeves and is baptized, shall be saved; so for the other Sacrament, let a man exa­mine himself, and so let him eate and drinke; and the people vvere baptized in Iordan, confessing their sinnes, of vvhich they repented; and after the Eunuch was taught, there was faith required before hee was baptized; if thou beleevest vvith all thy heart, thou mayest; and no Baptisme or Sacrament find we administred otherwayes in the [Page 113]new Testament, the reason is evident, because the word be­gets faith, the Sacraments con­firmes it, the word is the writ­ing, the Sacraments is the seale, for it carries this with it, and speakes this language; as certainly as thou usest this ce­remony, and eates this bread, so assuredly Christ dwells in thee, and as thou entrest 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 speakes this, thou art Christ, and Christ is thine, and therefore supposes [Page 114]faith, which is the tye and the union on our part, and you see how curious Paul is Rom. 4. to proove, that Abraham vvas justi­fied by faith, before hee received the signe of circumcision, which was to him a seale of his faith, & his righteousnes thereby, ℣. 10.11. Hovv vvas it reckoned vvhen hee vvas in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncir­cumcision, and he received the signe of circumcision a seale of the righteous­nes of the faith, vvhich hee had yet being uncircumcised, &c.

We come now to deduct Co­rollaries from these differēces.

From the first, coroll. 1 Then to the participation and use of the Sa­craments, the use of reason is [Page 115]necessary; our reason must be most busy & active whilst our sences are ingaged, the hearing of the tone or sound of the word spoken doth no good, there­fore wee preach it not to chil­dren or fooles, so the seeing of the coullors of things, to feele the water cold or hot, the touch or tast is not the thing, but what the elements and ce­remonyes 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 layd in, and reason in the act required. So the teach­ing [Page 116]by similitudes or resem­blances, doth not require lesse reason, or lesse the use of rea­son, but the advātage it brings, is, that by the mediation of se­verall senses, it strykes our rea­son differently & more strong­ly; and God descends to that way of teaching, that he might more forcibly worke upon our reason, & speake to it all man­ner of wayes.

From the second, coroll. 2 it is suppo­sed the word should go before, for that is the way of teaching by thinges of lesser representa­tion to things of fuller; when Iacob heard of Iosephs mes­sage, he was mooved, but when he saw the Chariots, that affe­cted [Page 117]him exceedingly, that spoke a clearer language; it was fit the message should goe be­fore the chariots, so the word before the Sacraments.

From the third, coroll. 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, coroll. 4 Then the word hath much a larger com­passe of motion then the Sacra­ments, and as the word may be where the Sacraments are not, [Page 118]so the Sacraments cannot be but where the word hath bene; 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 playner, we must know that men are by nature children of wrath, by the disobedience of Adam all vvere made sinners, Rom. 5.19. And the Lord lookt dovvne from heaven, and savv that all vvere gone out of the vvay, vvee neither perceive nor knovv the thinges of God, 1. Cor. 2.14. And though the light shine in darknes, the darknes comprehends it not, and our carnall mind is emnity against God; our vvhole soule is filled vvith all un­righteousnes, [Page 119]Rom. 8.7. and 1.29. Now while men are in their infancy, they lye onely expo­sed to Gods inward and secret workes, if they belong to the election of grace, hee knowes how to deale with them, and worke wonderfully in wayes wee know not, nor can con­ceive of; so long wee cannot cōmunicate our selves to their soules at all, nor can reatch them any otherwayes then by our prayers, for all things are here secret, if there be a change wrought, it is more then wee know, or can conceive the manner of it. But when they come to yeares of understan­ding, and to be capable of ordi­nances, [Page 120]the first thing wee doe to them, is to bring them under the ordinance of the word, and to leade them into a right knowledge of themselves, to convince them of their natu­rall estate, to preach to them conversion, repentance & faith in Iesus Christ, that they may have life; when wee find this operate, and that by their pro­fession and by their workes, which is the onely way of evi­dencing their faith to others, they make it appeare they be­leeve, then we gladly goe one, and leade them into further ordinances, give them the Sa­craments to confirme them: & thus wee make things runne [Page 121]parralel as they must doe: There is an outward preach­ing of the word, there is a con­version and change of heart, made visible by workes, and so a faith evidenced, and the vi­sible and outward seales and markes are given them, to seale them up to themselves and to others. Thus you see a natural­nes, a coherency, and a come­lines in things thus layd and stated, by which also as by a right rule, you may be help'd in discerning errours.

CHAP. VII. In which is layd downe the relative and per­sonall qualifications by which infants are usually intituled to Baptisme, by our most considerable Protestant Divines.

BY what hath bene said, wee have fully shewed the na­ture of Baptisme, what is the proper and adequate subject of this ordinance, namely a be­leever, one qualified by the use of faith and reason, for the con­firmation & sealing up to him by this great ordinance, his in­grafting into Christ and union with him by faith; secondly as an immediate fruit thereof, his justificatiō, of which we large­ly spoke, and also his adoption, by being consecrated to the Father, Sonne and holy Ghost, and baptized in their names. Thirdly his sanctificatiō, con­sisting in the death of sinne, & the life of holynes, & as a fruit [Page 123]of that, and which cannot be separated from it, his glorifica­tion, Rom. 6.8. Novv if vvee be dead vvith Christ, vvee beleeve vvee shall also live vvith him: To which on the other side, the party baptized puts his seale, 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 baptized, wee 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, [Page 124]a right derivative from Father to Sonne, a right of succession, a birthright, this is that which they call a foede­rall holynes. Nor doe children onely clayme by this deriva­tive imputative title, but also those who are adopted by Chri­stian parents, for as by adop­tion in Christ wee are rendred 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 lawfull meanes, as just warre, bargaine, gifte, fall into the hands and governement of be­leevers, and whom Christians will answer for, that they shall [Page 125]for the future be instructed in the Christian faith, and this appeares by divine institution, they say from the parallell of circumcision, since not onely Abrahams children, but his servants, & those bought with his money, were circumcised, Gen. 17.12. And hee that is eight dayes old, shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your genera­tions, hee that is borne in the house, or bought vvith money of any stranger vvhich is not of thy seede. 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 afarre of, even as many as the Lord our God shall call; where [Page 126]they say Peter witnesseth that the divine promise belongs to those, which by reason of their birth are farre of; but by the wonderfull providēce of God, are called to that ordinance by lawfull meanes, such as these before named, and Chamier, the great protectour of our reli­gion against Bellarmine (not to trouble you with what the Pa­pists say) affirmes, that if our ser­vants vvere truely servants, such as Abrahams vvere, they then drevv a right from their masters for Bap­tisme; for vve read, sayes he, that A­braham circumcised all his servants, but such servants as for the most part vve have novv a dayes; because indeed they are free men, hee thinkes should [Page 127]not be so handled; in the same capa­city hee thinkes to be also such as by the right of vvarre are subjected to Princes, for such kind of subjects also remaine free; which if it be true, and that that exception onely lyes against their Baptisme, with all the great things it seals and conveighes to us, I should much bewayle the losse 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 bene Christians in a moment. Thus you see how farre they make the covenant extend, & indeed the parallell of circumcision, carryes it [Page 128]strongly, and for one as well as another; you see therefore that which qualifies for infant Bap­tisme, is some good and perti­nent relation to a beleever; but if you aske me now what deno­minates this beleever, and qua­lifies him for communicating this Christian qualification. Chamier sayeth, vvee allovv not all infants to be baptized, but those onely of beleevers, that is of baptized per­sons; So that as the Baptisme in the parent qualifyes for bap­tisme in the infant, Tom. 4. p. 270. Not to inlarge in this, the charity of the world is very great, and if M^r. Davenport mis­tooke not in his complaint in his writing to the Classis of [Page 129]Amsterdam, hee saith that there was required of him an unlimited baptizing 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 otherwayes manifest, then by answering, Yea, at the reading of the litur­gie of Baptisme publikely, or by nodding their head, or some other gesture, they seemed to be willing; Booke of com­plaints 1.2.

And that you may see this further cleare in the authority of a learned man, who speakes not onely his owne judgement, but the judgement of other or­thodoxe [Page 130]with him; VValleus 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, &c. It is demaunded concer­ning the children of them, whose parents are wicked, al­though Christians in name, or whose parents are excommu­nicated, or whose parents are hereticks, or Idolaters, as the infants of Papists, Anabap­tists, &c. By way of answer hee allowes all such children to be baptized; VVe thinke (saith he) that Baptisme is not to be denyed to those, qui ex stirpe sunt Christiana, which are of a Christian stock, [Page 131]and which without an inter­ruption of a publike Aposta­sy from the faith, may referre their kindred to the faithfull, such as in Christian common­wealthes are those procreated of Christian and baptized pa­rents; onely he would not have them baptized against their parents consent, because they be their goods and possession, and hee would have their pa­rēts, or those which offer them to baptisme, answer that they will bring them up in the Chri­stian profession; vvhich if they doe, vve judge, sayes he, that all infants, vvhich come from a Christian stock, should be baptized, if they be offered to baptisme, according to the order of [Page 132]the Church, although their next pa­rents should labour vvith unholines of life, or heresy, or the crime of ido­latry. And this hee goes on to proove strenuously (as well he may) from the manifest & per­petuall practise of the whole Church of Israel, in the admi­nistration of circumcision, which as in a maine propor­tion it helpes to the baptizing of infants, so it will help also to severall such consequences as those are; from this opinion so stated of the learned, and or­thodoxe, you may see that it is no such great honour to be able to intitle infants to bap­tisme, which is common to you with unholy persons, with ex­communicate, [Page 133]and with Idola­ters: And secondly that it is an effect of great charity, to intitle the children of such a paren­tage to regeneration, and the Holy Ghost: For to proceed;

Though now in the deriva­tive title for the chayne of Bap­tisme, they all agree, that what ever title the child hath, comes by vertue of the fathers cove­nant, yet the immediate quali­fication is inherent in the in­fant; for they affirme that Christian infants have repen­tance, faith and regeneration: The Lutherans are so much of this opinion, if you will beleeve Bellarmine Tom. 2. p. 294. f. that they beleeve that infants, vvhilst they [Page 134]are baptized, use reason, heare the vvord of God, beleeve, love, vvhich as hee affirmes, vvas publikely determi­ned in the Synode of VVittenbergh An. 1536. Which as hee saith doth so openly repugne to the truth, as it doth injury to hu­mane sence; for how is it cre­dible (saith he) that an infant, which cryes, and resists what he can when hee is washed, or sprinkled, should understand what he doeth.

The Calvinists and more or­thodoxe Divines receive it ge­nerally and assuredly, that in­fants bring to baptisme, as their immediate qualification, rege­neration, faith, repentance, &c. though not actuall, or by way [Page 135]of declaration to others; they argue thus, If infants naturally are some way capable of A­dams sinne, & so of unbeleefe, disobedience, & transgression, then Christian infants super­naturally and by grace, are someway capable of Christs righteousnes, and so of faith, obedience, and sanctification; but the forner is true, therefore the latter: The consequence they proove hence, that else they would not see the king­dome of God, Iohn 3.5.6. Ie­sus ansvvered and sayd unto him, Ve­rily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be borne of vvater and of the spirit, hee cannot enter into the king­dome of God; that vvhich is borne of [Page 136]the flesh is flesh, and that vvhich is borne of the spirit is spirit; but Christian infants dying in in­fancy, shall see the kingdome of God, and not be damned; therefore they are borne a­gaine of the spirit, and so must needs in some measure have re­pentance, faith and holynes.

Againe they say, that if wee cannot object Gods worke in nature, but doe beleeve that our infants are reasonable creatures, and are borne not bruit beasts, but men, though actually they can manifest no reason nor understanding more then beasts; then neither can we justly object Gods worke in grace, but are to beleeve that [Page 137]our infants are sanctified crea­tures, and are borne beleevers, 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 hee concurres as wee shall see with the streame of our Divines, not to be suspected.

The like to this saith Walleus de Bapt. Infant. p. 493. Infants are to be reckoned amongst beleevers, because the seede or spirit of faith is in them, vvhich some call a habit, others an inclination; from vvhence by degrees, through the hearing of the vvord, actuall faith is formed, sometimes sooner, sometimes later. [Page 138]This in the next pag. 494. hee prooves, Because else they vvould not be saved, Rom. 8.9. If any have not the spirit of God, he is none of his. And Iohn 3.5. No uncleane thing shall enter into the kingdome of hea­ven; but infants by nature are uncleane, & are purged by the blood of Christ, the kingdome of heaven belongs to them, & they please God, &c.

This is layd for a ground a­mongst the Calvinists concer­ning Baptisme: That Baptisme is onely a signe and seale of re­generation already wrought; Oecolamp. de verb. Dom. cap. 3. Aqua mystica in Baptismo non regenerat, nec efficit filios Dei, sed declarat; the mysticall vvater in Bap­tisme [Page 139]doth not regenerate, nor make men sonnes 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. Baptisme is the signe of the Church, as the ensigne of an army, it doth not joyne you to the Church, but it declares you joyned.

So Beza, Nihil obsignatur, nisi quod jam habetur; nothing is seald, but vvhat is there already; of this opinion is Calvin fully, as it were easy to quote him, saving that in answering the Anabaptists, he sayth; This objection is ansvvered in a vvord, by saying that children are baptized into faith and repen­tance [Page 140]to come; actuall he meanes (for he addes according to the first opinion quoted) of vvhich though vvee see not the appearance, neverthelesse the seede is planted there by the secret operation of the holy Spirit; so as hee would have faith and repentance there in the habit, that God may not seale to a blanck, nor give a lying signe: The like saith Pemble, a late and able Divine, That vvhich is signified in our bap­tisme, is our justification by the blood of Christ, and our sanctification by the Spirit of Christ; Baptisme is the seale of both unto us, and infants may be partakers of both, being vvasht from the guilt of sinne by the blood of Christ, in vvhom they are reconciled to God, [Page 141]and actually justified before him, and also purified in part from the un­cleannesse of sinne, by the infusion of grace from the Holy Ghost; vvhat then should hinder, vvhy those infants should not be vvashed vvith the vva­ter of the Sacrament. So also Da­venant in his comment upon the 2. chapt. of the Colossians to quote no more, where confli­cting with the Anabaptists, he saith, As for infants because they are not sinners by their ovvne act, but by an hereditary habit, they have the mortification of sinne, and faith, not putting forth it self, but included in an habituall principle of grace: Novv that the Spirit of Christ can and doth ordinarily vvorke in them an habi­tuall principle of grace, no vvise man [Page 142]vvill deny. From all those testi­monies wee may observe, that the cleare reason of the thing inforces men to allow as neces­sary to Baptisme in generall, the qualification of regenera­tion, faith, &c. how this now will fit infants Baptisme, wee shall consider hereafter; for the present wee joyne issue with them in these three things.

First that a personall holynes, not derivative, or imputed one­ly, must be the ground of Sa­craments.

2 That this holynes must be regeneration.

3 That the habits of faith and repentance, are to be estee­med such, I proove not these [Page 143]things, because they are cleare in themselves, and taken for graunted by those already quo­ted, onely in these things wee joyne with them, and so farre agree together.

CHAP. VIII. In which are contained severall queries and considerations, raised from the premisses, declaring what little ground there will ap­peare from their owne principles and con­cessions to conclude for Infant Baptisme.

THese things thus supposed, I make these doubts about the baptizing of the infants of beleevers.

First I would aske whether all infants of beleevers have necessarily and assuredly those habits, which must of necessity [Page 144]be concluded, since it is their personall qualificatiō for Bap­tisme, and therefore you must have good grounds to judge that they have it, one as well as another. First of all Peter Mar­tyr sayes, that, I vvill be the God of thee, and of thy seede, is not an uni­versall promise, but hath place onely in the predestinate; and therefore upon 1. Cor. 7.14. else vvere your children uncleane, but novv 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 affirmes, that the children of the saints are borne holy, vvhen they are predestinate; and this agreeth [Page 145]with reason, for if you make that holynes, as before, the in­fusion of gratious habits, yee must suppose election without which such gratious habits are never infused, unlesse to make good this opinion, you will al­low falling from grace, which I am sure our selves, and those we desire to satisfy, will not do.

This being said, I would aske upon what ground the Saints can suppose all their children to be elected, or why they should deny any infants bap­tisme, since experience tells us, that the children of many un­beleevers (if we will judge by the fruites and effects, which is the surest judgement) are ele­cted, [Page 146]and many children of be­leevers reprobated; especially now since the sluce is taken up, & the Gospel preached to eve­ry creature under heaven.

Againe consider how cold a ground this is for infants bap­tisme, 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 seale to them their holynes & the kingdome of heaven, if they be elected; as if a King should say, I confirme this towne to you and yours, if at least it hath pleased me, or shall please me, to give it you.

But if you say, wee have rea­son to hope well of them, ac­cording [Page 147]to that, else vvere your children unholy, but novv 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 vvell, 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 neede dispaire 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 baptize all.

Secondly it is not a hope you must goe upon for the gi­ving of ordinances, holy seales, but a judgement. Paul called the saints positvely faithfull and elect, and said it vvas meete for him to judge and thinke so of them all; and when we come to admit mem­bers, if they give but onely ground of hopes, wee let them stay for their owne profit, and the discharge of our duty, till they can give us ground of a judgement.

Thirdly the Apostle sayes positively they are holy, and therefore what ever holynes it is, it is no longer the subject of your hopes, but your judge­ment; yee ought to judge them [Page 149]so, & to assure your selves they are so.

If therefore by a generall consent the infusion of holy ha­bits depends upon election, we must consider upon what ele­ction depends, before wee can make up a judgement; for the infusion of habits, if that de­pends upon the holynes of the parents, you say some thing, but surely every honest heart will graunt, that as holy pa­rents themselves, are both lo­ved & elected for Christs 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 [Page 150]object of childrens election) the faith of their parents, is worse then the opinion of the Arminians, who make faith & workes foreseene the object of every particular mans electiō; so as if election must precede the infusion of holy habites, which must qualify for infant baptisme; & experience shewes ordinarily (by the rules which Christ hath left us to judge by, the fruites and effects) that the children of godly parents proove not ever holy, and that the election of God for the child, depends not upon the holynes or faith of the parent, but upon his owne free grace in Christ: Then the judgement [Page 151]will seeme to rise up very cold­ly and lamely for the Baptisme of infants of holy parēts, which must, as themselves confesse, 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 Bap­tisme, they should determine God, ordinarily to an extraor­dinary way of working & con­verting (which is the infusion of gratious 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, [Page 152]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 mi­stery, & altogether unknowne to us.

And if you object that though this may be extraordinarie 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 wee find by the effect it is not ordinary to such, for wee find them so farre from being borne againe, though borne of Chri­stian parents and baptized, that [Page 153]a great part of their life is often spēt in an unregenerate estate, and their conversion prooves very visible & evident to them­selves and others, so as it ap­peares 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 proove to be the ground or qualification of an ordinary administration. But then third­ly, I would aske why this holi­nes, that is, this faith and con­version [Page 154]in infants, being wrought (if it be at all) in a hid­den secret and invisible way, we should seale it and confirme it to them, and conveigh also more of the same, by a sensible & intelligible ordinance; That it is so, wee are forc't to reason our selves into it, because no uncleane thing shall enter into the kingdome of heaven, and therefore how it can be clean­sed, and sanctified, though wee know it not, yet wee suppose it is, if it be saved: Now it seemes strange that that faith which we know not how to goe about to worke, or to beginne, yet we know how to seale, and how to confirme; we use to say thinges [Page 155]are preserved and nourisht as they are made, the way suppo­sed to convert, is immediately from God, the way used to seale and confirme, this is mediate by an ordinance; the way of conversion is invisible, mysti­call, secret; the way to seale it is evident, visible and teaching; for the Sacraments conveigh 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 eare but by hearing; to say therefore that faith is sealed, or faith is increased, by an out­ward teaching ordināce, which shall neither stryke our sence [Page 156]nor our understanding, is very hard to receive; a man must have his understanding & his eares paved to heare such a saying, and must of necessity have accustomed himself to disgest many incongruites and contradictions, before hee can beare so notable and visible an one.

Fourthly I would aske 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 baptize him) rest quiet­ly in that state, in the armes of God, who onely can, and onely [Page 157]hath administred unto him, till hee 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 doe those who are of age and are qualified for them, stay often without Sacra­ments, because they would misse nothing of the order, ei­ther for want of a church state, or a lawfull minister? Wee all know assuredly our children have reason, because the ratio­nall soule is the forme of a man, (I would we could be as assured of their grace) and wee all pre­tend so much love to them, as to improove this principle, and instruct them timely in things [Page 158]for their good, for the use of this life and a better, and yet we should account him a fond father that would lye lowing in his childrens eares, and loose his sweete words before the time of the use of reason come; I beseech you cōsider whether it be not the same thing: If therefore we could be assured, that all childrē had that grace so timously infused, which wee can scarce hope for, yet how much better were it for the or­dinance sake, which seemes otherwayes to be profaned (as much as if you should preach a sermon to a child) and for my childs sake, to stay till hee un­derstand what hee doth, and [Page 159]what he receives, that that or­dinance which ought to be ad­ministred but once, and is of so great an use and influence, may be received to his best advan­tage, whilst in the interim, hee is in the hands of God fit, and exposed to receive the preser­vation of his spirituall being in the same way, in which it was wrought, and by those unalte­rable bonds of election, & con­version, safe enough till he shal be capable of setting his seale and receiving Gods visibly, to that, which in a secret and un­knowne way was wrought in him.

CHAP. IX. In which entrance is made into the considera­tion of the great argument for Infant Bap­tisme, drawne 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 Iewes, and whether the qualification requisite to it was regene­ration, or the infusion of gratious habits.

HAving thus layd downe the state of Baptisme, and cōsidered severall things about it, sufficient for my owne satis­faction, and clearely also de­sign'd the right subject of that ordinance, I come now (in or­der to a more full discharge of my self to this controversy, & for a more generall satisfactiō) to consider the particular rea­sons, by which the patrons of [Page 161]Infant Baptisme would inforce it: The first whereof (& which seemes to be a great one) is that the seede of Abraham, with whom and whose seede God was in covenant, received or­dinances, and particularly cir­cumcision, by vertue of their birth, and that wee being in­grafted into that stock, have power to derive a capacity of ordinances to our children, else the priviledges of Christians, & the New Testament would be lesse then those of the Iewes & of the old Testament; which is not to be imagined; I take this to be the summe of that ar­gument, which seemes to carry the greatest weight, & to speake [Page 162]lowdest for Infant Baptisme of any other.

Here divers things by way of answer are to be considered, first what circumcision was to the Iewes, & whether the qua­lification required to it was re­generation, or the infusion of gratious habits; for if not, then there will be found to be this great and essentiall difference, namely the qualification of the subject.

Secondly, what ever that should proove; how far the or­dinances of the old Testament should regulate & determine, by way of rule and institution those of the New; if not, then the parallel of circumcision is [Page 163]not fit to beare the weight of an institution.

Thirdly how we are ingrafted into Abrahams covenant, and by what tittle wee are called Abrahams children; for we are not to clayme the same things by different tenures.

Fourthly how far the Iewes, by vertue of their being Abra­hams seede, could pretend to New Testament ordinances, and if they by their birthright could not, then neither can we by any such birthright, or car­nall generation.

Fifthly whether though In­fant Baptisme, should not be; the priviledges of Christians & their churches might justly be [Page 164]said to be as great or greater, then the priviledges of the Iewes and their Churches and state.

For the first, I must professe I am not Iew 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 owne apprehensions, yet it is safe to be sober, and to advance no further then the Scripture guides. This I am persuaded of, that as they were formed particularly to that state of the Iewish church, so they had meanes to understand them, for their comfort & edi­fication, [Page 165]to better advantage then 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 Bap­tisme, hath (I am afraid) to much determined & streight­ned the interpretation of that ordinance, & the places which speake 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 [Page 166]essent paternae fidei. Circumcision hath something of dignity, but it is a signe onely, vvhich signe the children of Abraham did therefore receive, that they might be knovvne to be his seede, vvho beleeving in God, received this signe, that they might be emula­tors of their fathers faith.

Ierome upon the 3. of the Gal. saith, Because Christ vvas to spring from the seede of Abraham, and many ages vvere to passe from Abraham to Christ; the vvise God, least the seede of beloved Abraham should be mingled vvith other na­tions, and should by degrees be joyned more familiarly, distinguisht the flock of Israel by a certain marke, or circumcision; then for 40. yeares to­gether in the vvildernesse none vvere [Page 167]circumcised, because they vvere out of the daunger of such mixtures, being alone; but assoone as they vvere past the banks of Iordan, circumcision prevented the error of mingling vvith others, vvhereas it is vvritten that they vvere circumcised that second time by Ioshua, it signifies that cir­cumcision ceased in the vvildernesse, vvhich vvas rationally used in Egypt.

The Apostle Rom. 4. doth not call circumcision a seale of the covenant or promise, but of the righteousnes of faith, which sayes Origen upon this place, vvas to seale shut up, the righteousnes of faith, vvhich in its time vvas to be revealed; that is, under the figure and types of that carnall cir­cumcision was secretly signi­fied [Page 168]and vayled, the circumci­sion of the heart, which is the true justification that Christ was to bring, or as Chrysostome, Theophilact and others, it vvas cal­led a seale of the righteousnes of faith, because it vvas given to Abra­ham as a seale and testimony of that righteousnes, vvhich hee had acqui­red by faith; Novv this seemes to be the priviledge of Abraham alone, & not to be transferd to others, as if cir­cumcision, in vvhom ever it vvas, vvere a testimony of divine righteousnes: for as it vvas the priviledge of Abra­ham, that hee should be the father of all the faithfull, as vvell circumcised as uncircumcised, and being already the father of all uncircumcised, ha­ving faith in uncircumcision, hee re­ceived [Page 169]first the signe of circumcision, that hee might be the father of the circumcised; novv because he had this priviledge in respect of the righteous­nes vvhich he had acquired by faith, therefore the signe of circumcision vvas to him a seale of the righteous­nes of faith, but to the rest of the Ievves, it vvas a signe they vvere A­brahams seede, but not a seale of the righteousnes of faith, as all the Ievves also vvere not the fathers of many nations. This appeares first, be­cause Paul joynes these two to­gether, he received the signe of cir­cumcision, a seale of the righteousnes of faith, that he might be the father of all that beleeve, vvhether circum­cised or uncircumcised, ver. 11.12. Therefore all circumcised [Page 170]have not the seale of the righ­teousnes of faith, as they are not the father of all that be­leeve.

Secondly, this the Apostle may seeme to intimate, by di­stinguishing betweene a signe, and a seale, to shew that circum­cision was to all a signe, but to Abraham alone a seale of the righteousnes of faith.

Thirdly though the Scrip­ture speake often of circumci­sion, yet it never calls it a seale, but here where it speakes of A­braham, which intimates that it was onely a seale to him, else when Paul askes, vvhat advan­tage hath the Ievv, and vvhat proffit is there of circumcision, and sayes, [Page 171] much every vvay, Rom. 3.1.2. He should (one would thinke) have mentioned this great advan­tage, that it should be the seale 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 seemes here to find a double question, one, what ad­vantage hath the Iew, which is handled in this Chapter; the other, what proffit is there of circumcision, which is han­dled in the 4. chapter; this hath to great an quietnes, rather as Musculus sayes upō that place, It is no daunger to vvhich member yee apply the ansvver, for the same thing is askt in both, for by circumcision he [Page 172]comprehends in generall all Iuda­isme, for asmuch as the inauguration into Iudaisme 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 bene the seale of the righteous­nes of faith to Infants, then an account of the righteousnes of faith should have bene requi­red in those of yeares; to whom it was administred, but that such faith was required or foūd in all, wee reade not; Abraham the same day circumcised all, whether borne in his house, or bought with his money with­out any such declaration, or [Page 173]demaund that wee read of; and Ishmael, who was thirteene yeares 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 forme at least would have bene required, if it hath bene judged necessary to that seale, and used by converted Prose­lites, though Symeon and Le­vi, brethren in iniquity, were the ministers of it.

To illustrate this considera­tion, let us see the great diffe­rence in the institution of Bap­tisme and Circumcision, when Christ instituted Baptisme, Goe [Page 174]teach, sayes hee, and baptize, make Disciples and baptize; and in the administration of the ordi­nance, they confessed and vvere bap­tized, they beleeved and vvere bapti­zed; but not a word of infants, who were not capable of this beleeving 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 expresly, for the time, for the age, for the sexe.

To conclude, whereas ho­lines is required to Sacraments, the household of Abraham, whether naturall, or adopted, [Page 175]were holy, but not so as to in­clude regeneration, or cleanes of heart, which is our holynes; but there was of use among them an Ecclesiasticall, Levi­ticall, and typicall holynes, which amongst us obtains no­thing; of creatures for food some were cleane & some un­cleane, 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 tooke their denomination of sinfull or holy, from such out­ward and typicall considera­tions, when circumcision was predicated of trees, as well as [Page 176]men; no wonder though in­fants were circumcised.

The summe of all is this, that it is not easie for us to deter­mine distinctly of the nature and scope of the ordinances of the other covenant, that some have judged circumcision one­ly a signe of the Iewes, dist in­guishing and admonishing to good, but a seale to Abraham onely, who had righteousnes 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 faithfull.

And then againe, it is won­dred, [Page 177]that the profession of this faith should never have bene required of those of yeares, if it had qualified for this ordi­nance, and lastly it is shewed, that there was another kind of holynes then of use & esteeme in the church of God, namely, typicall, ecclesiasticall and Le­viticall, which gave right and tittle to ordinances, which a­mongst us hath no place, and therefore there will be found to be this great difference be­tweene these to ordinances the qualification of the subjects, which will farther appeare, in handling the third particular in this answer; to all which I shall add onely this one thing [Page 178]more, that if that be true which I have formerly discoursed a­bout Infant Baptisme, that it cannot be necessarily conclu­ded that they have Baptismall qualifications, namely regene­ration, and that if they had, yet there were no just hast for the ordinance of Baptisme, but the contrary, then much lesse can any such qualifying regenera­tion and conversion be predi­cated of the infants of the Iews in the old covenant; and there­fore if that be the onely way, as it is, to pretend to Baptisme, & our infants cannot pretend that way, then the Iewes infants must needs have some other qualification for circumcision, [Page 179]then 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 drawne from Circumcision, to wit, how farre 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 farre 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 [Page 180]in the essentialls of it, a­mongst which the subject of ordinances in the mayne qua­lification of it, must needes be accounted: Because things be­come ordinances to us by ver­tue 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 [Page 181]consequences drawne from the ordinances of another co­venant, is to set our posts by Gods 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 sayes the Pope as that of the old Testament was rationall, and but one in all the world, the truthes of God being then confined to a nar­rower [Page 182]compasse, so now since the Gospel is preacht to every creature under heaven, by just consequence the Church of God should be universall and Catholike; and as then though there were many subordinate Priests and Levites, yet there was one high Priest, who sate 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 appeales upon earth, and the great moderator under Christ, who both then was, and still is, the invisible head of the church. And if you shall object now that the New [Page 183]Testament gives no such ex­tension to the Church, nor power to an universall Bishop, that those things were typicall and proper to that Testament or covenant (which is the same that is said by those who op­pose the Baptisme of Infants) they will not fayle as well as the patrons of Infant Baptisme, to tell you, that besides some little footesteps they finde in the new Testament, this is par ratio, a like reason, a due conse­quence, and good reason may be shewed that it is for the ho­nour and safety of the Church, that things should be so admi­nistred; Hence comes the orna­ments and vestures of Priests, [Page 184]the holynes of Temples, and for ought I know the baptizing 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 confesse there are some things of common equi­ty, the rule of life was the same then 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 Iewes did, with [Page 185]whom our Saviour and the A­postles had to do.

But in instituted ordinances, the reason of which lyes 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 essentiall 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 essentiall and necessary to the worship of it.

The summe is, that it is un­safe arguing from one institu­tion to another, because the in­ferrences [Page 186]and consequences cannot be drawne from our reason, as not falling under the judicature of common light, or spirituall reason in the gene­rall, but of a particular distinct & independant will in Christ, from whence, not from the rea­son of the thing they draw all their vertue and efficacy, the reason that makes it good to us, being onely the impression of his will upon it; but espe­cially this will take place in or­dinances of differing covenāts, for the ordinances of oath co­venant are fitted to the meri­dian of that covenant.

The rationallity of that church, the typicallnes of that [Page 187]which was called holynes and uncleanes amongst them, the generality of the subjects, which were not onely men, women & children, but beasts, birds and trees, their very gar­ments, their very land, to what alone is called holynes and sin; now with the subject of it, shewes a great boldnes & 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 hee styles that under which wee live, in the same place.

Now that circumcision (though of use before the law, as Baptisme was also before Christ) was the great ordināce of the Mosaicall law, as I could bring many places, if any doubt of it, so I will content my self with one or two, Acts 21.21. They are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Ievves vvhich are among the Gentils, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circum­cise their children, neither to vvalke after the customes; where the prime instance of forsaking Moses, was not to be circumci­sed; that place more shall suf­fice Gal. 5.3. For I testify againe to every man that is circumcised, that hee is a debtour to doe the vvhole lavv: [Page 189]The yooke of circumcision they could beare, not the debt to which it obliged them, therefore that was the leading ordinance of another covenāt, namely the law; Now to make this mayne ordinance of the law, institutive to us, as touch­ing a great essentiall in our Christian Baptisme, namely, the subject of it, is to make not onely one ordinance institu­tive to another, of which no good accoūt can be given, but infinite and visible inconve­niencyes follow, as wee have seene; but to send us to schoole to the old covenant, in that which was the leading, maine & distinguishing ordinance of [Page 190]it, which no good Christian, I hope, will consideringly admit of, especially since we are so as­sured of the sufficiency and saithfullnes of our Law-giver Christ Iesus, by whom we have grace and truth and vvho is the vvay▪ the truth and the life to us, as well in the matter of his ordinan­ces, as in any other thing that concernes our duty, as that we need not turne 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 ingrafted into Abrahams covenant, and by what title wee are call'd Abrahams children.

A Third consideration is, how wee are ingrafted into [Page 191]Abrahams covenant, and by what title we are called Abra­hams children.

In the 4. Rom. 16. you have this affirmed, that Abraham is the father of us all; That place seemes to be understood of all beleevers, and therefore when hee saith in the same verse, the promise is of faith, to the end that it might be sure to all the seede; hee makes a distribution, Not to that onely vvhich is of lavv but to that al­so vvhich is of the faith of Abra­ham; as if hee should say, this whole seede, to whom the pro­mise is sure, is either the belee­ving Iewes, or the beleeving Gentiles, which have no other pretence or clayme to the pro­mise, [Page 192]but by a like faith, even as the Iewes also pretend to this fatherhood, no other way but by their faith; for so verse 12. And the father of circumcision to them vvho are not of the circumcision onely, but also vvalke in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, vvhich he had yet being uncircumci­sed. It is not enough to be of the Circumcision, but they must walke in the steps of the faith of Abraham, that is, beleeve as hee did, if they would pretend to the sonneship wee speake of, so as in this 16. verse, the oppo­sition is onely betweene the faithfull under the Law, & the faithfull under the Gospel, so as the law and faith are not op­posed [Page 193]here simply, but as cir­cumcision was an adjunct, or no adjunct to faith, that is, as true beleevers were either of the Iewes or Gentiles, and so these words are not to be taken as the 14. vers. If they vvhich are of the lavv be heires, faith is made voide, and the promise made of none effect. Here you see one father­hood, Abraham is the father of all beleevers, whether Iewes 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, [Page 194]of which the Iewes were apt enough to bragge, namely a carnall generation, that they had Abraham to their father, as appeares by the reproofe that Iohn gave them, Mat. 3.9. Thinke not to say vvithin your selves vvee 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 vvill make thee a father of many nations, adds this, before him vvhom hee belee­ved, even God, vvho quickeneth the dead, &c. As if he should say, Abraham is the father of us all, not in respect of his carnall paternity, but of his spirituall, [Page 195]which is before God, vvhom hee be­leeved; it is said to be before God, because founded in faith, by which wee are commended to God.

He adds also, VVho quickneth the dead, and calleth those things vvhich are not, as though they vvere; by which wee have all a pat­terne or glasse 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 wee are called by God, wee goe out of nothing, as not having the least sparke or seede of good in us, which may render us ca­pable of the kingdome of God; but on the contrary must dye [Page 196]to our selves, that wee may be proper for Gods call, whose call is so effectuall, as a simple will of his or signe thereof, produ­ceth the greatest and highest existencies.

The like distinction of a double paternity & sonneship, to wit, after the flesh, and after the spirit, that is, by carnall ge­neration & by faith, yee have Rom. 9.6.7.8. Not as though the vvord of God hath taken none effect, for they are not all Israel, vvhich are of Israel, neither because they are the seede of Abraham, are they all chil­dren; but in Isaac shall thy seede be called, that is they vvhich are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of [Page 197]the promise are counted for the seed. Where the Apostles intention is to make it appeare, that not­withstanding the great defe­ctiō of the Iewes, yet the truth of the divine promise is not di­minished, For they are not all Is­rael, sayes hee, vvhich are of Israel, because they are not the chil­dren of the promise, but of the flesh, and can pretend title one­ly to Israel their father by a carnall generation, vers. 7. Nei­ther because they are the seede of A­braham are they children, that is, the like may be said also of A­braham; It is not their carnall generation (of which they are apt to boast) that gives them a true notion of sonneship, in re­spect [Page 198]of the spirituall promises made to Abraham (for so one­ly by faith they gave the title of Abrahams seede as before;) But in Isaac shall thy seede be called; this he explaines vers. 8. that is they vvhich are the children of the flesh, those are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seede.

The sence is, That promise of God made to Abraham, by which hee made so great a dif­ference amongst his children, that, Ishmael laid aside and re­jected, onely the posterity of Isaac should be called his seed; saying in Isaac shall thy seede be called; teacheth us thus much, that neither they all, nor onely, [Page 199]are to be reputed for the true seede of Abraham, which ac­cording to the flesh are issued from Abraham, but those which are the sonnes of the promise, that is, which are re­generated according to the spi­rit by faith, according to that promise, In thy seede shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.

Here you have a distinction as it were of two Abrahams, a begetting Abraham, and a be­leeving Abraham, and also of two seedes, the children of the flesh, that is by carnall genera­tion onely, and the children of the promise.

This allegory hath its foun­dation in that which the Apo­stle [Page 200]saith Gal. 4.22.23. For it is vvritten, Abraham had tvvo sonnes, the one by a bond mayd, the other by a free vvoman; but hee vvho vvas of the bond-vvoman, vvas borne after the flesh; but he of the free vvoman vvas by promise; where hee affirmes that Ishmael was borne accor­ding to the flesh, but Isaac ac­cording to the spirit; that is, he onely by a naturall power of generation, but Isaac not so much according to the flesh, but miraculously as it were, by the restoring of a generative vertue to Abraham, for the ma­king good of the promise.

Now, saith hee, those one­ly, which according to that of which Isaac was a type, are [Page 201]borne by promise, those and those onely are counted for the seede, Rom. 9.8. They vvhich are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seede. According to which is that which is affirmed Gal. 3.7.9. Knovv yee therefore that they vvhich are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham; and vers. 9. So then they vvhich be of faith, are blessed vvith faithfull 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 workes, which hold by that tenure, but those which are of faith, the same are [Page 202]the children of Abraham.

Againe hee perstringeth the Iewes, who gloried in their car­nall generation, that they were Abrahams sonnes according to the flesh; the 9. verse is a rea­son of the 8. where hee sayes, that the Scripture (that is, the spi­rit that writ the Scripture) fore­seeing that God vvould justify the heathen through faith, preached be­fore the Gospel unto Abraham, say­ing, In thee shall all nations be bles­sed; that is, either in thy seede which is Christ, who onely is apprehended & made ours by faith, or (as many of the an­tients expound this place, and Calvine is of the same judge­ment) In thee, that is, according [Page 203]to the imitation and after the similitude of thee: hee being, as Calvin sayes, in this the pat­terne & rule of us all, and there­fore is called our father, as being the primitive patterne made by God; and this inter­pretation the words of the 9. verse seeme to imply, So then they vvhich be of faith, are blessed vvith faithfull Abraham; which is an illation or inference of the foregoing reason: in this verse the principall Emphasis lyes in the word faithfull, where the former mentioned distin­ction is againe intimated, there is a begetting Abraham, and a be­leeving Abraham, it is with the beleeving Abraham, the faithfull [Page 204]Abraham, that all nations are blessed by being as hee was of faith; the word blessing how­ever diversly taken in the Scrip­ture, yet here it is taken as Cal­vin expounds it for our adop­tion into the inheritance of life eternall.

Having therefore at large opened those places, which give light to this cōsideration, & made good out of the Scrip­ture, that double fatherhood of Abraham, the one carnall by his begetting, the other spiri­tuall by his beleeving, there re­mayneth nothing to add, but this in a word, that we can pre­tend nothing of sonneship to Abraham, by the first tenure, [Page 205]scil. of begetting, by which te­nure the Iewes partooke of cir­cumcision, but by the other of beleeving, that is, after the example and imitation of A­braham, who, for that he so an­tiently and so eminently belee­ved in God, carryes the title of the father of all beleevers, who do the like, as Sarah his wife doth of the mother of good women; and this faith, not car­nall generation, is that that in­titles us to Christian ordinan­ces.

And to make this last which is the summe of all, a little plai­ner, I shall add this, that by ver­tue of the parallel of circumci­sion, that onely qualifies for or­dināces [Page 206]that is derivable from parents to their children by generatiō; for neither was Isaac circumcised, because hee was borne after the spirit, nor Ish­mael debard from it, because as a type he was borne after the flesh, but both the one and the other had it by vertue of their naturall and carnall genera­tion, by which they were made of the houshold and family of Abraham: Now wee pretend­ing to be Abrahams children by faith, not by carnall genera­tion, cannot pretend to ordi­nances by carnall generation as the others did.

And secondly, forasmuch as by carnall generation, wee our [Page 207]selves cānot derive faith, which is that which qualifies for our ordinances, therefore no fa­therhood of ours can derive a right for ordinances, unles wee understand such a fatherhood as Paul pretended to, when hee calls Onesimus his son, saying, Hee had begotten him in his bonds, Phile. 10. Or when he tells the Corinthians 1. Corinth. 4.15. Though yee have ten thousand instru­ctors in Christ, yet have yee not many fathers, for in Iesus Christ I have be­gotten you through the Gospel; and so we may be the father as well of other mens children as of our owne: Now then if we can­not pretend to be Abrahams children, and so consequently [Page 208]to partake of ordinances, by the way which the Iewes did, which was carnall generation, but by a way quite of another kind, namely a way of perso­nall beleeving.

And secondly, if wee cannot pretend to a fatherhood to o­thers in deriving by carnall generation, the qualification of ordinances, which is faith, it must then of necessity remaine, that the Iewes partaking of cir­cumcision by vertue of having Abraham to their father, and deriving that title to their po­sterity, by the same way of car­nall generation, is no president or patterne to us, of either being Abrahams children, & [Page 209]so qualified for baptisme, 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 carnall generation.

And indeed in the Gospell notion we all are children, and there is no father but Abra­ham; for to gayne the title of father, there must be either a generative power, which re­maynes onely in the spirit, of whom as Christians wee are borne, Not of flesh, nor of blood, nor the vvill of man. Or there must be the eminency of an example or coppy, and so wee use to say the first in every kind is the rule of the rest. Now it hath [Page 210]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 worlds end, of the father of us all.

Let us be content therefore to be children, and glory in that, and let Abraham injoy his priviledge; or if wee will needs be fathers also, let us imi­tate Paul, and be vve vvorkers vvith God, and labour in Iesus Christ to be­get men through the Gospel.

CHAP. XII. Wherein is handled the fourth Question, pro­posed to answer the argument drawne from Circumcision, to wit, How farre the Iewes by vertue of their being the sonnes of Abra­ham, could pretend to new Testament Ordi­nances, wherein also, besides severall others, that much agitated place is opened & con­sidered of, Acts 2.38.39.

FOurth Question: How farre the Iewes, by vertue of their being the sonnes of Abraham, could pretend to new Testa­ment ordinances; and if they by any such birthright could not, then nor wee, by any such birthright or carnall genera­tion.

First we will shew how farre they might pretend.

Secondly where the stop lay, and where they went equall with others. They had this great honour & advantage, that the Gospel was first offered to them; the Iewes were brought neerer God then others, and therefore the advantage of the Ievv and circumcision vvas much every [Page 212]vvay, because to them vvere 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 goe into the vvay of the gentiles, nor into any city of the Samaritanes (which were as gentiles to them) but to the lost sheepe 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 vvorketh good, to the Ievv first, and also to the Gentile; and after the ascension of Christ in Peters effectuall sermon, which was [Page 213]crowned with the conversion of 3000 soules, he keepes this method Acts 2.38.39. Then Pe­ter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ, for the remission of sinnes, 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 afarre of, even as many as the Lord our God shall call: In the way hee tooke to raise those which were cast downe, hee bids them, Repent and be bapti­zed, that was the thing to be done on their parts, for their restoring and raising, of which hee tells them the effects; first the great and mayne one, that they should receive remission [Page 214]of sinnes, 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 hee, it is not to us alone, but to you also, that the prophecy and promise of Ioel foremētioned ℣. 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 Iewes, which are night, & then though you may wonder at it, to the gentiles al­so which are afarre of; and that you see in the event prooved a [Page 215]wonder, for it is said Acts 10.45. that they of the circumcision vvhich beleeved vvere astonished as many as came vvith Peter, because that on the Gentiles also vvere povv­red out the giftes of the holy Ghost. Now these gentiles are called afarre of, suitable to the expres­sion of Ephes. 2.13. Yee, that is, the gentiles, vvho sometimes vvere farre of, are made night by the blood of Christ; where the same expres­sions of nigh & farre of, are used that are here; now hee makes mention particularly of their children, (under which also he intends the childrē of the gen­tiles, when by calling they should be made nigh) to ac­commodate to them more ful­ly [Page 216]the mentioned place of Ioel; as if he should say, those are the last dayes, when this promise vers. 16.17.18. is to be fullfil­led, both to Iew 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 doe such thinges as wee have done, but with this difference, that according to what is fore­told, the spirit will accommo­date and vent it self proportio­nable to their states and capa­city; some things are proper to old mē, they shall dreame dreames, others to young men, they shall [Page 217]see visions, and according to the manner of their revelatiō, shall their gift be, and the venting of it by prophecy. But all, you and your childrē 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 sinnes, so as no man can object against Peter, for comforting them onely with giftes.

Secondly as a consequence of this, and as Christ elsewhere saith, a signe of them that beleeve, they shall have the same gift of the holy Ghost, both Iewes & Gentiles (in their order) that [Page 218]the Apostles had, & this should be just accommodated accor­ding to the prophecy of Ioel 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 Ioel, is meant abillity of speaking tongues & prophecies, as it is cleare by the context in it self, so accor­ding to the judgement of Cal­vin, who sayes clearly, that this ought not to be understood of the grace of sanctification, but of those primi­tive gifts, vvhich though vve novv re­ceive not, yet vve have something ana­logicall 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 generall judgement of expositers, Pro­testant and others, and is most cleare by Acts 10.45.46. where sayes hee, they of the circumcision vvhich beleeved, vvere astonished, be­cause that on the gentiles also vvas povvred out the gift of the holy Ghost, for they heard them speake vvith ton­gues &c. where the gift of the holy Ghost (the same words used that is here) is discribed by speaking with tongues. Pe­ter therefore calleth them that were pricked at their hearts, & were weary and heavy laden to [Page 220]repentance, and Baptisme in the name of the Lord Iesus, that they might receive and have sealed up to them the remission of sinnes, which was the great thing they desired, as a sym­bole and signe of which they should partake also of the effect of that illustrious promise made in Ioel, and mentioned formerly, that they should re­ceive the gifts of the Holy Ghost; so as nothing could be spoken more to the harts of di­stressed men then this, nor no­thing could more incourage them to repentance and Bap­tisme, then the remission of sins sealed to them in that ordi­nance, and yet more & further [Page 221]signified and sealed by that fa­mous promise of extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, which for that time, Christ himself made a signe and effect of be­leeving to them that were nigh and farre of, that is, both to Iewes and Gentiles, and so you see the Iewes incouraged to re­pentance and Baptisme, 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 afarre of, that is, to the gen­tiles, who indeed were afarre of, being aliens and in the esti­mation [Page 222]of Peter, so farre, that God was forced to give him a particular vision, as you shall heare Acts 10. to persuade him to looke upon them as those nigh.

And thus wee have what the Iew as a naturall sonne of Abra­ham may pretend to Baptisme, and new Testament ordinan­ces, to wit, a priority in respect of the offer, whereby the way wee have taken occasion to cleare that place that some have indeavored to bring to prove infant Baptisme by, then which truely nothing seemes to be lesse properly raised out of it.

The next considerable thing [Page 223]is, where the stop lyes, & where the Iewes goe equall with o­thers. Now for that wee will consider that place of Matt. 3. chap. ℣s. 7.8.9. VVhen hee savv many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his baptisme, hee sayd unto them, O generation of vipers, vvho hath vvarned you to flee from the vvrath to come? Bring forth there­fore fruites meete for repentance. And thinke not to say vvithin your selves vve 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 Iohns Baptisme, upon [Page 224]this pretence and clayme, that they were descended from A­braham and were his children; that they come in this confi­dence and pretence, was mani­fest by what Iohn said unto them: Luke hath it Luk. 3.8. Begin not to say vvithin your selves, that is, doe not take this subter­fuge, to oppose to repentance, & change of heart, which one­ly qualifies for Baptisme, that you have Abraham to your father, Matthew sayes, thinke not to say vvithin your selves, which notes a persuasion of a prerogative of carnall generation, that you have Abraham to your father; such carnall and birth prero­gatives stand you in no steed in [Page 225]this covenant, for of these stones God can raise up children to Abra­ham; that as when Isaack was borne, who was the sonne of promise, Abrahams body and Saraas wombe were dead as a stone; so those which are now to be accounted the sonnes of Abraham, God can raise from nothing, evē from stones, from the gentiles, which you despise, and for their hardnes, 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 carnall ge­neration, or priviledges, but thinges of another nature, na­mely [Page 226]true holynes, which is seene and manifested by the fruit it brings forth; Bring forth therefore fruit meete for repentance.

The next place considerable to this purpose is that Iohn, where hee shewes that this ex­cellēt person the sonne of God, that came to bring life & light, was rejected by the world, and after by his owne, not onely the vvorld vvhich hee had made, and in which he had shewed great & sufficient evidences of himself, knevv him not, (by which the mi­serable blindnes of corrupt na­ture appeares, they can doe no­thing spirituall, but by a light of another kind then theirs is, to wit, spirituall and divine) But [Page 227]vvhen he came to his ovvne they recei­ved him not. The people of the Iewes were his peculiar; hee vvas in the vvorld, but hee came to them, that is, first hee presented him­self to them, they received him not, that is, though he were offered and shewed, they tooke him not to them, which shewes a great deale of mallice joyned to blindnesse, by which they resi­sted the holy Spirit, offering to inlighten them by words and miracles; But least Christ should suffer as a person gene­rally neglected and slighted, he tells you Christ came not in vayne, there were those that re­ceived him, and made much of him, As many as received him; for [Page 228]now the hedge was pulled up, the partition wall brokē down; those he magnifies wonderful­ly, they had this povver, that is, this dignity, this priviledge, as in the margent, given them to become the sonnes of God; that is, though they were strangers, and afarre of naturally, yet the honour of adoption was given them, to be made, & be the sonnes of God. If you aske now, but what was this receiving, or how came this about? Hee tells you this was effected by faith, by belee­ving in his name.

But now whereas the fashion of this world in adopting chil­dren, is to respect either the greatnes of their birth, or the [Page 229]excellency of their parts, or some glory of their actions, he tells you, nothing of all this mooved God, but his meere grace and will; which provo­ked him to doe this great good to the vyldest and unworthiest, for sayes hee, those vvere borne not of bloods.

The Iewes pretended the dignity of their race, that they were the seede of Abraham, & because they drew their origi­nall from Abraham, by a series of many successions, & so they were more noble by their anti­quity, therefore he sayes, bloods; this blood (saith he) did them no good, and by consequence the carnall generation from [Page 230]godly and just parents, will doe no good (simply considered) to intitle us to become the sonnes of God, or consequently to the ordināces, which seale up that sonneship; therefore they vvere borne not of bloods, nor of the vvill of flesh, nor of man, that is, no free­will, no resolutions, no mo­rall indeavours, though they should ingage never so much, can effect this birth; Nor the vvill of man, no heroïcall workes, no excellency or dignity can ef­fect this adoption, this title, but onely God; this proceeds onely from the will of God, Iames 1.18. Of his ovvne vvill bégate he us, by the vvord of truth, which (by the way) should cause us to love [Page 231]God, who finding nothing in us, hath so freely loved us.

Here you see in the second place, that in respect of adop­tion and sonneship to God, of which baptisme is especially & in the first place a seale, the birth of bloods, the descending of such parents, whether Iewes or gen­tiles (saving for the order of the offer as before) doth no good, but wee all in that matter lye open & exposed to the free will and grace of God, so as whē a Iew comes to baptisme, he must come even as wee, and bring other characters with them, then of having Abraham to his father, if hee will pretend to this, or any new Testament ordinance.

The equality in this respect will appeare 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 hee that feareth him, and vvorketh righteous­nesse, is accepted vvith him. God see­med formerly to have bene a respecter of persons; some men, as some meates, were borne cleane, insomuch as circumci­sion & other ordinances were their due as a birth-right, those which were Iewes 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 [Page 233]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 generall, be­cause no man had right to them, or could merit them at his hands; but hee is free, as a rich man at a doale to give to whom he will, or a King to his subjects, so as the acceptance of persons in this sence was once just and according to the will and pleasure of God; But now Peter was taught by God, by the meanes of the vision hee had seene, to admit men to or­dinances upon other conside­rations, then legall denomina­tions of cleane, or uncleane, na­mely, [Page 234] upon fearing of God, and vvor­king righteousnes, and no other, which is a thing not generated and conveighed 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 reasōs, signes and conjectures, as Calvin ex­pounds it, to wit, the signes hee saw before, viz. that of the ves­sell vers. 11. Now then 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 [Page 235]no difference betvveene us and them, purifying their harts by faith; the purity is not by birth as for­merly. Thus you see the Iewes come to Baptisme, and be cal­led the sonnes 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 personall preroga­tives in respect of their birth, but upon their fearing God, & working righteousnes, and ha­ving their hearts purified by faith; therefore the old way & advantage of birthright, and in that respect of accepting of [Page 236]persons, is ceased long agoe on both sides alike.

To conclude in a word, all birth priviledge is by the title of Abrahams covenāt, if there­fore the naturall seede of Abra­ham could not at all pretend to new Testament ordinances a right by that title, much lesse the adopted seede by any such way of naturall generation; but if you speake of the spirituall seede and heires according to promise, then they and we pre­tend both alike in new Testa­ment ordinances, with this dif­ference onely, to the Iew 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 prooving the subject of Baptisme, the priviledges of Christians and their state, may not justly be said to be as great as the priviledges of the Iewes and their state.

QVestion 5. Though infants should not proove to be the subject of Baptisme, yet whe­ther the priviledges of Chri­stians and their state, may not justly be said to be as great and greater then the priviledges of the Iewes and their state.

No man is willing to loose by change, and our children are so great a peece of us, as that what they loose, wee feele.

It must first be affirmed that the Iewes had this peculiar ho­nour [Page 238]proper both to their per­sons, and the land of their ha­bitation and dwelling, their Temple also & other ordinan­ces, that they were types of thinges to come, and in that re­spect were many thinges per­formed by them, and many thinges predicated of them, which else would not have beene, as the land was holy but typically, and the Temple holy but typically, and all the inha­bitants of all ages and degrees, unlesse under a particular defi­lement and uncleannesse, were denominated holy, but typi­cally also.

Now what ever was a type in that wherein it was a type, [Page 239]whether persons or ordinan­ces, &c. of all such things as types, it may be affirmed.

First that they are inferiour to their antitypes, that is, to the thing figured, or shewed by them.

Secondly that they are not true in themselves, being a sha­dow of thinges to come, but in the body or truth, which they figure or type out.

Thirdly that when the anti­type, or truth is fullfilled, or performed, the type ceaseth; now it seemes to be agreed by all hands, that not onely places and persons, ceremonies and events, were types, but the Sa­craments of the Iewes and for­mer [Page 240]times, were types and sha­dowes of our Sacraments, not to instance in any but in cir­cumcision, as relating to & ty­pising out Baptisme, which is agreed on all sides to be a type of our baptisme, yea, so far some urge it as a type, that they would therefore have infants baptized, because infants were circumcised, the antitype being to answer the type; but upō how great a mis-take they so urge it, we shall shew hereaf­ter, when wee shall make that manifest, that a great reason of the difference and not bapti­zing infants of beleevers, ari­seth from the consideration of the typicalnes of circumcision: [Page 241]for the present though it be ge­nerally graunted, yet wee fur­ther make it manifest to be a type of Baptisme by exami­ning that place Coll. 2.11.12. In vvhom also yee are circumcised vvith the circumcision made vvithout hands, in putting of the body of the sinnes of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried vvith him in bap­tisme, vvherein also you are risen vvith him through the faith of the operation of God, vvho hath raysed him from the dead. In this second chapt. Paul seemes to contend with divers impugners of Chri­stian religion, vs. 1. For I vvould that you knovv vvhat great conflict I have for you; and first vers. 4. hee contends against oratory and [Page 242]inticing words, by which their hearts might be led away and seduced; And this I say, least any man should beguile you vvith inticing vvords, &c. then vers. 8. hee ar­gues against Philosophers, as a vayne deceit; who would judge of the thinges of Christ by the elements or rudiments of the world, for none of those things extend themselves to the my­steries of Christ, which wee hold by faith, and therefore Philosophicall demonstrations any farther then they are pro­portionable to the analogie of faith, are extreamely deceit­full, and to be bewar'de of.

In the third place hee con­tends against those who labou­red [Page 243]to retaine Iewish ceremo­nies and types, vers. 10.11.12. And yee are compleat in him vvhich is the head of all principalities and povver, in vvhom also yee are circum­cised vvith the circumcision made vvithout hands, in putting of the body of the sinnes of the flesh by the cir­cumcision of Christ, buried vvith him in baptisme, vvherein also you are ri­sen vvith him, &c. For here hee shewes that circumcisiō, which was the profession of the whole Law, was fullfilled as a type or figure to Christians by Christ in Baptisme, and therefore that was to vanish away, as types ought to doe, when they were fullfilled; therefore hee shewes how wee are circumcised in [Page 244]Christ, which is sealed and ef­fected by Baptisme; first it is without hands, which the le­gall circumcision was not, as Baptisme in some sence may be said also to be, God being the great Baptizer.

Secondly this circumcision doth not deprive you onely of a little skin of the flesh, which was typicall, but of the whole body of sinne.

Thirdly this is not the cir­cumcision of Moses, or of the fathers, but of Christ, for onely Christ can effect this.

Lastly all this is sealed to us and made ours by Baptisme, by Baptisme is effected this cir­cumcision, in which we are as­simulated [Page 245]to Christ, buried & risen againe, and are sealed one with him in our death to sinne and life to holynes, so as Bap­tisme is Christian circumci­sion, and then we are said to be circumcised with the circum­cision of Christ, when wee are rightly baptized.

Now therefore if circumci­sion be a type of Baptisme, as it is acknowledged and prooved, then examine it by the former properties of a type.

And first if circumcision be a type of Baptisme, then it is in­ferior to Baptisme, as types are to their antitypes, of which they are shadowes and figures; But if Baptisme be to be admi­nistred [Page 246]for a seale and signe in infancy, as circumcision was to teach and instruct hereafter, then on the other hand their priviledge was far above ours, who carryed a marke in the flesh, visible and sensible, by which they knew assuredly they were circumcised, where­as that any of us have bene sprinkled or dipt in infancy, we must receive by a humane faith, having never our selves seene it, nor no markes to shew 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 worke upon us with any power, of which wee [Page 247]have so little assurance, whe­ther it have bene administred to us or no.

Besides that a man had a Iew to his father, was the assured qualification for circumcision, which a man might know as well as his owne father; but for Baptisme I must beleeve 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 goe downe so ea­sily as it hath done, that a pro­fession of Christianity onely at large will qualify for deriving right to Baptisme) now this is a thing which possibly may be very hard for me to ascertain [Page 248]from my owne knowledge, or the knowledge of any others, but perhaps I must be put to dispute as well my right to bap­tisme, 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 weakely will the operation of such a ceremony or signe fall upon me, where in there will be need of faith to beleeve that I had right to it, or that I had it at all. Now then if the type be inferior to the antitype, wee must never allow it great and essentiall superiorities, as it would certainly have, if infants [Page 249]were to be baptized, as former­ly they were circumcised; this therefore according to what hath bene said, not being possi­bly to be avoyded, that if in­fants be to be baptized, they will fall below in such Bap­tisme the priviledges and ad­vantages of circumcisiō, which is contrary to the nature of a type, it must then follow that therefore they are not to be baptized, and therefore bap­tisme was never intēded them; this being most assured, that it farre excells that of the Iewes, as the antitype doth that which typifies it, and figures it out.

Secondly it is affirmed of [Page 250]types that they were not true in themselves, being a shadow of thinges to come, but in the body or truth which they fi­gure or type out, so the scape goate, the Pascall lambe, &c. apply this from circumcision of infants the type to the anti­type baptisme, with its sub­ject; the infants generally of the Iews no more then the land were not truely and properly holy and saintes, but types of such, the administring it to males of such an age, and to males onely, shewes as much, when as it might have bene administred to women, as Pe­ter Martyr affirmes out of Am­brose, the Egyptians doe, and [Page 251]the Iacobites, a certain sect of Christians inhabiting Cyprus, Syria, &c. in great numbers, & others doe to this day; Now had it not bene 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 appeares by what is recorded of fact, for what is done by whole nations & people, might have bene done by Gods com­mand, or the Lord could have pitcht upon another ceremo­ny, which would have fitted women in the administration of it, if that would not; But as it [Page 252]is acknowledged that circum­cision typified Baptisme, so the subject of the one the subject of the other, to wit, a male a be­leever, or one who is in Christ the sonne of God: Therefore baptisme is better thē circum­cision, and our state better then theirs, though infants have it not; nay the betternesse lyes in this, that by baptizing belee­vers, so knowne 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 beleever the subject of ours.

The third thing predicated of types is, that when the anti­type or truth is fullfilled and [Page 253]performed, the type ceaseth: Apply this to the case of cir­cumcision and baptisme: The Lord now making up his chur­ches of saints really so and no other (as farre as we can judge by the rules he gives us to judge by) those who by vertue 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, beleevers, and such as in whom Christ is formed, which the other seemed to ty­pify [Page 254]and shadow; and to doe otherwayes, were to bring your selves to the beggarly admini­strations of types and shadows, when you have the substance and antitype, out of a desire to goe equall with the Iewes in priviledges, whereas in this way propounded, ye are infi­nitely above them.

To conclude out of what hath bene 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 childrē no more then our land or temples, hold out shadowes of things to come: In the meane time wee have Christ amongst us, and are his temple; wee have [Page 255]the body, Coloss. 2.17. others were a shadovv of thinges to come, but the body is of Christ. And Heb. 10.1. The lavv had a shadovv of good thinges 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 Iewes had in an age whē it can proffit them noe 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 typicall, or our temples or dayes of wor­ship: But wee have Christ a­mongst us for our seede, as well as for our selves. And consider [Page 256]this that by all that is sayd, wee reject no promises made to the children in consideration of Gods love, or affection to their parents; but we imbrace them, and expect, & pray for the full­filling of them, onely wee doe 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 assi­mulate them to the pedagogy and similitude of types.

And lastly that we may looke upon this in the glasse of other thinges, no man holds the con­dition [Page 257]and state of our Mini­sters lesse blessed, then that of the Iewish church, yet the Priests & Levits then had this peculiar, that their state was successive, and derived from father to sonne, which ours we know is not. And not onely so, but their church state also was successive, a man was borne a member of the Iewish 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 bapti­zed at aventure, yet not onely many churches we take notice of now a dayes, as pretending to a more strict reformation, [Page 258]require also a personall & par­ticular admission, for the insta­ting them into the Church as members, but others also (and those particularly of the uni­ted Provinces) doe the like, not onely in relatiō to the children of Christians, strāgers 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 lesse stick with any that they cannot de­rive a right to Baptisme to their children that way; on the other side, wee should glory in our priviledges, and thinke our [Page 259]selves more then 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 uncleane, but now are they holy.

HAving thus largely vindi­cated this great Gospel or­dinance, from those objections that the parallell of Circumci­sion seeme to make against it, in the administration of it to an actuall beleever onely, and by [Page 260]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 turne for cōsideration, to it therefore we now addresse our discourse, the words are these, For the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the vvife, and the un­beleeving vvife is sanctified by the husband, else vvere your children un­cleane, but novv are they holy.

The great drift of this place seemes to be to exhort belee­vers to abide in that calling or condition, wherein religion finds them, & to informe them, [Page 261]that that laide no law or neces­sity upon them, of a change, vers. 20. Let every man abide in the same calling vvherein hee vvas called; art thou called being a servant, care not for it, &c. In which verses he gives an account and satisfa­ction to servants, which he had done before to maried persons, concerning the communion of man and woman for the use of the bed; there were two thinges which seemed especially to render it uncleane 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 [Page 262]might be a holy seede, 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 yoaked with unbelee­vers and Idolaters, which a­mongst the Iewes rendred the mariage and the fruit of the wombe so uncleane and unho­ly, that there was to be a sepa­ration and devorce betweene the husband and the wife, and the children also of such births were to be put away as unholy, as appeares Ezra 10.2.3.

And that the course of the Apostles doctrine was against this unequall yoaking with un­beleevers, appeares by what he sayes 2. Cor. 6.14. Be ye not un­equally yoaked vvith unbeleevers, which intends particularly though perhaps not principally mariage, as some would have it; it was but therefore needfull to inlighten & cleare this great objection, which would lye as a barre in their way, to the comfortable enjoyment of that relatiō, in regard of their yoake­fellowes and children; to those people therefore that seeme to fall under such a capacity and condition, the Apostle speakes vers. 12. to the rest speake I, &c. [Page 264]that is, to these which are of a different religion and worship (having considered others be­fore) & what sayes he to them? hee relieves them against a great evill, that they might feare would fall upon them, which is that they must part with their wives, or husbands, that are unbeleevers, and by consequence also with the births of such a bed: Hee tells them there is no necessity of such a parting, but that they may abide in the condition wherein they were called, ℣s. 20.21. Religion breaks no bonds, no civill contracts, tyes or subordinations, which in themselves are not simply, and [Page 265]by the law of nature unlaw­full. Adultery were a state out of which religion would call you, as being simply unlawfull, and against the law of nature; but the state of mariage, which is honorable amongst all men, and holy in it self, is not dissol­ved, or rendred unholy, by the conversion of any party, but on the other side, it still remaynes a holy and sanctified state, to the beleever (for to the pure all things are pure, that are not na­turally and by themselves sin­full or impure) as on the con­trary, even lawfull mariages, and the most justifiable things, are impure to the unbeleevers, to whom nothing is pure, their [Page 266]minds and consciences being defiled, therefore sayes he, the unbeleeving husband is sanctified in the vvife, or to the vvife: Sanctifica­tiō being here opposed to that which is impure & uncleane, that is, contrary to the law of God; so that the whole mariage converse, is by the faith of the beleever rendred pure and cleane, as also are their chil­dren, though borne of an unbe­leever on one side, which if the mariage converse were un­cleane, would be unholy or un­sanctified, they also are holy, for so it followes, Else vvere your children uncleane, but novv are they holy.

Here seemes to be two argu­ments, [Page 267]though very much alike and neere of kinne, why there should not be a putting away of the mans side, or a leaving on the womans, if either of them be a beleever, the one is from the holynes of the unbe­leeving yoake-fellow, the other from the holynes of the births of such a bed, which are both rendred so, that is sanctified or holy to their use, by the faith of one party: where marke that the question is not here of in­fants onely, but of children in generall, though of age, which are as capable of being sancti­fied by the beleevers faith, and to the beleever, though them­selves were unbeleevers, as the [Page 268]unbeleeving wife, or the unbe­leeving husband is; And as the word children, extends it self be­yond infants to all children, so the word holy (which is of the same kinde with that which in this verse is attributed to the husband or wife) is as apply­able to a child of yeares, & not beleeving as to an unbeleeving husband or wife; And of such a holy child there will be no great cause to boast, as of a fit subject for Baptisme.

This I take to be the genuine interpretation of this place, which seemes to exhort as much as may be, to an abiding in the condition, wherein reli­gion finds them, as appeares by [Page 269]the 17.18.19.20. verses, and answers the great objection, which might arise from une­quall matches in respect of their yoake-fellowes and their children.

Another interpretation there is, which you may consider al­so, which seemes to take its rise from the words before, And shee be pleased to dvvell vvith him, ℣s. 12. And hee be pleased to dvvell vvith her, ℣s. 13. So as the reason why the beleever sanctifies the unbeleever not simply, but in respect of mariage, is from the pleasure and willingnes of the unbeleever to co-habite with the beleeving husband or wife; for the Apostle would seeme to [Page 270]intimate, that such a kinde of consent to co-habite, by which the unbeleever seemes not to abhorre the faith of Christ, and a spirituall life in the belee­ving 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 unbelee­vers, by reason of the willing­nes of the one to cohabite, and the subjection of the other to Christian education, may in that sence be said to be sancti­fied, or made holy, being as it were deputed to it, and in the [Page 271]way of preparation for it, so as the unbeleeving parent & the childrē of that mixt birth, may be called as Tertullian sayes, Candidati timoris; and as after­ward by others, Candidati fidei, Probationers or compettitors, for feare and faith; the words following vers. 16. seemes to fa­vour such an interpretation, For vvhat knovvest thou O vvife, vvhether thou shalt save thy husband, or hovv knovvest thou O man, vvhether thou shalt save thy vvife; there being already wrought a good plea­sure, or willingnes to abide and cohabite on the unbeleevers part, husband or wife, and the children in that respect being subjected to Christian educa­tion, [Page 272]and to the beholding of holy examples, true cōversion and faith, which brings them into estate of salvation, may be in time accomplisht in them, to which they seeme in some sort destin'd by the providence of God, in such a yoake-fellow, or such parents. So sanctifica­tion is predicated of those who are destined, or prepared to such an end; so God sayes 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 sayes, that sometimes sanctifi­cation is referred to regenera­tion, which is peculiar to the elect of God; sometimes it sig­nifies [Page 273]to prepare or destine to a certain end; so those unbelee­ving parents by their willing­nes to abide with beleevers, & their children in regard of the opportunity of a holy educa­tion, seeme 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 sence, may be called sanctified or ho­ly. Which consideration, if it may give them a greater ac­cesse to ordinances proper for them, or stirre 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 [Page 274]thinke that such providences speake 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 doe 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 farre as in the respects before mentioned, they may be tearmed sancti­fied, that is, by a providence destin'd as it were and prepa­red for God, so farre the church within whose pole they [Page 275]seeme by a providence to live, and to be cast, ought to have a more especiall eye after them, and care of them, by vertue at least of that generall injun­ction, As you have opportunity doe good to all men, especially to the hous­hold of faith; under the shadow of which these are come.

But whether you take either of these sences, or both, for they may both stand in severall re­spects, and regarding the text with a different aspect, you will surely find nothing to ingraft Baptisme upon.

For whether the children are sanctified to the beleeving pa­rents use, as all other things are (not unholy in themselves) [Page 276]which to the unbeleever are not, or whether in the second sence they are sanctified, that is, as it were destined for holy­nes, of which by vertue 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 meanes in either of these re­spects be qualified for, or made the subject of Baptisme, which presupposeth, as hath formerly bene shewed, another kind of holynes proper to, and inhe­rent in the party, namely regene­ration and nevvnes of life; not such [Page 277]an one as is competible to an unbeleever, either parents, or children.

It was but necessary to speake something to this place, which beares amongst many the weight of so great a building as infant Baptisme, though if I could find here such a holynes for infants, as wee all wish to ours, namely justifying faith & regeneration, yet I should no more judge it meete to baptize them, then to preach to them, or to administer the Lords sup­per to them, they being as ca­pable of the word as baptisme, and of one mysterious ceremo­ny as well as another; which hath bene a reason, I doubt [Page 278]not, why many formerly, and many at this day doe admini­ster the Lords supper to infants, by vertue of a parallell ordi­nance to Baptisme: Nor doe I know the reason why the one should be refused, where the other is deem'd a due. But e­nough I hope for this, which truely the contests of others, rather then 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 practise of antiquity, touching the subject of Baptisme, is considered.

THe authority of the Fa­thers, and the practise of [Page 279]ancient times, is to many a great argument for the Bapti­zing of infants; to me that looke upon such argumentations, as not of the first magnitude, col­laterall, and such as may truely and as often be brought, for the patronising of errors as truth, they are of no great considera­tion, yet to satisfy others more then my self, there must be something spoken to this head.

In which I shall consider especially these two things, first whether by the witnesse of sto­ry, Infant Baptisme have injoy­ed a quiet and peaceable pos­session in the church, from the Apostles times downeward, till of late it was interrupted by [Page 280]some few evill spirits in the times of Luther, as some men would give us to beleeve.

Secondly upon what grounds those Fathers, which are al­leadged for the chief patrons of Infants Baptisme went; for if they have erred in the reason of the foundation, it will be easi­lyer beleeved, that they did al­so in the building.

We will consider first of this latter.

I will give you their grounds, either as I have reade them my self, or as I find them quoted by Bellarmine Tom. 3. lib. cap. 8. whose quotatiōs I shall take for truth, till I find the contrary, for here hee hath to doe with the Ana­baptists, [Page 281]enemies in this point alike common to him, with most of those that are tearmed Protestants.

First hee quotes the testimo­ny Dionisij Areop. qui lib. Eccles. Hier. c. ult. part ult. ab Apostolis traditum affirmat, ut infantes bapti­zentur. Iusti. five quicunque est au­ctor earum quaest. qu. 56. parvulos baptizatos salvari alios non item; That infants baptized are saved, o­thers not.

Orig. lib. 5. in cap. 6. ad Rom. Ec­clesia inquit ab Apostolis traditionem accepit, etiam parvulis dare Baptis­mum. The Church sayes hee received a tradition from the Apostles, to give Baptisme to infants. Cypr. lib. 3. Ep. 8. ad Fidum scribit, Non solum sibi, [Page 282]sed etiam integro consilio visum esse parvulos baptizariposse: That it see­med good, not onely to himself, but to a vvhole councell that infants might be baptized, even before the 8. day. In other places the same author affirmes, Baptisme simply necessary to salvation, & that it vvashes avvay originall sinne, so as it is never more to be imputed. page 470. a.

Hierom. lib. contr. Pelag. Infantes baptizari dicit, & tum ommpeccato carere: That infants are to be bapti­zed, and then they are vvithout all sinne.

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 [Page 283]Apostolica esset traditio. The custome of our mother the church in Bapti­zing little children, is not to be despi­sed, nor to be judged superfluous, nor to be beleeved at all, unles it vvere an Apostolicall tradition.

The same Austin, As for the authority of infant Baptisme, he flyes to tradition, so for the reason of it hee bottomes it upon this, that they nei­ther have faith to save them, nor a Sacrament instead of faith vvithout Baptisme, and therefore judges them to eternall death, unles they be taken out of the vvorld by martyrdome, as the learned Forbes hath observed in his 10. booke Instruct. Histor. in Theol. cap. 5. lib. 7. onely Austin sayes, they shall be in damnatione omnium mitissima multum autem [Page 284]fallere & falli, qui eos in damnatio­ne praedicat non futuros; They shall be in the easiest damnation of all others, but hee much deceaves himself and others that teaches they shall not be condemned, lib. 1. de peccat. meri­tis & remissione cap. 16. & lib. 5. contra Iulian cap. 8. but as gentle or as easy as damnation is, it is such as the vvrath of God remaines upon them, lib. 3. de peccatorum me­ritis & remissione cap. 20. They goe into the second death, lib. de bono per­severantiae cap. 12. And they are children of vvrath, lib. 6. contra Iu­lian cap. 3.

Bernard also was of this same minde Epist. 77. Sanè, inquit, omnes infantes qui hanc prohibente aetate non possunt habere fidem, hoc [Page 285]est, cordis ad Deum conversionem, con­sequentè nec salutem, si absque bap­tismis perceptione moriuntur. Cer­tainly, saith hee, all infants, vvho their age hindring them, cannot have this faith, that is, the conversion of their hearts to God, neither conse­quently can they have salvation, if they dye vvithout the partaking of Baptisme.

More of this and of the same kind might be alleadged, but these shall suffice.

Before wee goe any farther, we must consider here, what is meant by traditions, which in the former quotatiōs you heare so often mentioned.

The name of Tradition in it self is generall, and signifies all [Page 286]doctrines, either written, or not written, as 2. Thess. 2.15. Hold the traditions vvhich you have bene taught, vvhether by vvord, or our epistle.

But the name Tradition is accommodated by Divines, to signify onely a doctrine not written, so Irenaeus is quoted lib. 3. cap. 2. Evenit, inquit, neque Scripturis, neque traditioni consenti­re eos. They vvould neither consent to Scripture, nor tradition.

So Tertull. lib. de corona militis, Si legem postules Scripturam nullam invenies, traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix: If you looke for a lavv, yee shall find no Scripture, but tradition is pretended, as that vvhich autho­riseth.

Novv that is called a doctrine not vvritten (saith Bellarmine) not vvhich is no vvhere vvritten, but vvhich is not vvritten by the first au­thor, and hee gives the instance of in­fant Baptisme: It is called an Apo­stolicall tradition not vvritten, be­cause it is not found vvritten in any Apostolicall booke, although it be vvritten (as hee affirmes) in the bookes of allmost all the ancient Fa­thers. Tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 2. b.

And by the way, why Bel­larmine could not find Bap­tisme written in the Apostles writings, if there it were, as well as other men, I know not; for hee wants no accutenes in his sight, but when he is corrupted by his ends, and it suites with [Page 288]his end abundantly to proove infant Baptisme as strongly as hee can, because none judge it so necessary to the world as he, and those of his religion doe.

You see therefore by tradi­tions here, meant thinges not found written in the Scripture, yet for their antiquity suppo­sed to be Apostolicall, which if they were allowed & received, what a miserable confusion should wee be brought into in matters of religion, and how under the notion of ancient tra­ditions should we vvorship God in vayne, teaching for doctrines the commandements of men, Matt. 15.9. Matth. 16.6. Christ bids us take heed of the leaven of the Pharises, [Page 289]which was their unwritten tra­ditions, and vve 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 bene the opinion of holy men in all ages. Luther on the first of the Galat. There ought no other doctrine to be delive­red, or heard in the church, besides the pure vvord of God, that is, the holy Scriptures; let other teachers and hearers vvith their doctrine be ac­cursed. So Calv. lib. 4. Inst. cap. 8. s. 8. Let this be a firme axiom, no­thing is to be accounted for the vvord of God, to vvhich place should be gi­ven in the church, but that vvhich is first contained in the Lavv and the Prophets, and after in Apostolicall vvritings.

But because we are in a way of quotatiō, it will not be amisse to give you the judgement of some more ancient concerning this matter; and wee 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. &c. 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 vvitnes, because our senses and narrations vvithout those vvit­nesses, have no credit.

So Constantin the Empe­rour, who in the Counscell of Nice, as Theodoret witnesses 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 Euangelicall and Apostolicall bookes, and the oracles of the ancient Prophets, playnely instruct us vvhat vvee should thinke of divine thinges; Therefore all hostile discord layde a­side, let us take the explication of que­stions from vvords divinely inspired.

Then Athanasius lib. con­tragent. Sufficiunt divinae, & divi­nitùs inspiratae Scripturae ad omnem [Page 292]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 vvould be an argument of infidelity, and a most certain signe of pride, if any man should reject things vvritten, or should introduce things not vvritten.

Also Cyril. lib. de recta fide. Necessarium nobis est divinas sequi literas, & in nullo ab eorum prae­scripto discedere. It is necessary for us to follovv the divine letters, and in nothing to depart from their pre­script.

So Theoph. lib. 2. Paschali. Diabolici spiritus est, aliquid extra Scripturarum sacrarum auctorita­tem putare divinum. It is the part of a diabolicall spirit, to thinke any thing divine vvithout 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 fullnes of the Scripture, let Her­mogenes shevv that it is vvritten; if it be not vvritten, let him feare the vvo destin'd to those vvhich adde or detract.

The end of all that hath bene said amounts to this, that those [Page 294]Fathers, or Churches, that tooke up and practized Bap­tisme as an Apostolicall tradi­tiō, that is, a thing not written, nor found in the word, but for the antiquity sake call'd Apo­stolicall (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 traditiō, because it will not beare the weight of an institution, as you have heard, therefore the whole building is to fall, which is falsely bottomed, and their au­thority [Page 295]upon that ground is no­thing, saving that by flying for a bottome, and refuge to tradi­tion, they doe with us affirme, that there is no better ground for infant Baptisme then hu­mane traditiō, 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 prest by the Pa­pists, as if they admitted of a tradition in this ordinance of Baptisme, which they refuse in others, and being loath to loose the authority of the Fathers in this point, who put it upon tra­dition, [Page 296]as upon its proper basis, would fayne wrest their necke out of this noose, and therefore shew you also how the Fathers fastned 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 fastned Baptisme upon tradition, as upon its owne ground and basis, being no more able then other men to find a word of institution for that which had none, and for the credit of the tradition, cal­ling that Apostolicall, which they found ancient, which as the same Chemnitius acknow­ledgeth [Page 297]was an ordinary pra­ctise in other things, but with­all some of them give some ground of Scripture of their owne framing for the colour of such a tradition; so Origen, Iraeneus, Cyprian and those o­thers, quoted by Chemnitius to this purpose, which reatch not to any word of institution, but to the reason of it, as Ori­gen sayes, That the Apostles knevv that there vvere in all the stayne of sinne, vvhich ought to be vvasht by vvater and by the spirit. So Cy­prian, VVhen the Lord saith in the Gospel, hee came not to destroy the soules of men, but to save, vvee also should prevent as much as may be, that no soule be lost. For God as he ac­cepts [Page 298]not the person, so nor the age. I shall give you no more, this onely for a tast. Now those I said are no words of institution, but some generall reason as they conceave, and doth not at all hinder, but that Apostoli­call tradition, as they call it, beares the weight of the insti­tution; I deny not but that there hath bene such a thing as the tradition of Christ, and Aposto­licall tradition, which are of the highest and greatest autho­rity, but they were such things as afterwards were committed to writing by the Euangelists and Apostles, as Chemnitius well observes p. 61. and other traditions of Christ & his Apo­stles, [Page 299]wee avow none, but esteeme them all Apocryphal.

Againe for those Fathers and ancient writers, together with the Papists & Lutherans, that judged Baptisme simply neces­sary to salvation, and some of them condemning infants to eternall damnation without it, as Austin, Bernard &c. (unlesse they were happily rescued by martyrdome) you see what ne­cessity lay upon them to def­fend infant Baptisme, but upon a most false ground, namely the necessity of it to salvation, which fayling as wee know it doth, wee may see both how they might be tempted & ne­cessitated to such an opinion, & [Page 300]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 salvatiō, was indeed a false hy­pothesis, or supposition, not fit to beare the weight of infant Baptisme; but that the Fathers also might possibly have other mediums, by which to proove this, as those before instanc'd in. I answer, that the weaknesse of those mediums or any other I have mett withall in this par­ticular, as alleadged by them, declare plainly that there was some other great thing, which inforced them to it, namely the [Page 301]necessity of it to salvation, as whē 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 sitts so neere us, as it may beare the weight of many reasons, and cause us to admit conclusions, though of great moment and concernement upon very easy considerations. So as wee have fully examined this head, na­mely upon what grounds the Fathers, which are alledged for the chief patrons of infant bap­tisme, [Page 302]went & have found that so many as build it upon tradi­tion, as generally all doe, 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 Bap­tisme 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 level'd 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 Baptisme, as I conceave 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 remaynes also in some to this day, and it is like would in more, had not Popish supersti­tion given the supper the start of Baptisme, to such a degree as to make it not so much the signe and representation of Christ, as Christ himself, and the very Protestants themsel­ves, are so respective to this Sa­crament of the Supper above [Page 304]the other, as to give it as a rea­son, vvhy it should not be admini­stred to infants, least it should fall in contempt. Hosp. Hist. Sacram. p. 60.

Wee shall produce some te­stimonies that the Supper was administred to infants as well as Baptisme, as necessary to sal­vation, & if antiquity be to be esteemed a great argument for the administring of one Sacra­ment, why not of the other.

For this Hospinian in his se­cond booke Histo. Sacram. pa. 59. quotes Cyprian Se. 5. de lapsis, and affirmes also that Ie­rome, Aust. and other Fathers witnes, that those vvhich vvere bap­tized not onely of age, but also infants [Page 305]vvithout any delay received the holy mysteries under both signes.

So Ierome against the Luci­ferians, Non potest, inquit, Bapti­ma tradere sine Eucharistia. Bap­tisme must not be given vvithout 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 (sayes he) or dull, vvhich are not capable of doctrine, let those ansvver for them, vvhich offer them according to the custome of baptizing, and so being fortified by Chrisme, and imposition of [Page 306]hands, let them be admitted to the mystery of the Euchariste.

Also Epist. 107. hee speakes thus, Infantes 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 dye in that young age, are judged according to that vvhich they have done by the bo­dy, that is, in the time in the vvhich [Page 307]they vvere in the body, vvhen by the heartes and mouthes of those that carried them, they beleeved or not be­leeved, vvhen they vvere baptized, or not baptized, vvhen they did eat the flesh of Christ, or not eat it, vvhen they drunke his blood, or not drunke it; according therefore to those things vvhich they did by the body, they are to be judged not according to those, vvhich if they had lived long, they vvould have done. So lib. 5. Hypo­gnosticôn cont. 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? Hovv (saith he) is the kingdome of heaven promised to [Page 308]children, not renevved by vvater and the holy Ghost, not fed vvith the flesh, and made to drinke of the blood of Christ, vvhich is shed for the remis­sion of sinnes.

This custome received of old, so farre prevayled after­wards, especially in the time of Charles the Great, that not onely the Eucharist was com­municated to infants, in the publike assembly of the church after Baptisme, 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 yeares: for this Hospinnian [Page 309]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 vvhen any is vveake, or vvhen a little child shall be vveake or sicke, hee may presently communicate him, least he should dye vvithout communion.

Amongst the Aethiopians as Osorius witnesseth in his 9. booke de gestis Emmanuelis, Infants in the same day that they are initiated to holy thinges, take the Eucharist in a bitt of bread: Hospi­nian also affirmes, that not many [Page 310]yeares agoe, there vvere reliques of this custome in Lorrayne, and the pla­ces adjoyning; for vvhen an infant vvas to be baptized, the Priest, vvho baptized him, brought a little boxe in vvhich vvas the Sacrament to the Alter, and shevved one Host, as they call it, to the people; then he put it in the boxe againe, and reatches forth his tvvo fingers, vvith vvhich hee had tucht it, to be vvasht vvith vvine by the Clarke or Church-vvarden, and distills of that vvine into the mouth of the baptized Infant, saying, The blood of our Lord Iesus Christ proffit thee unto eternall life.

Also at this day, as Brerewood in his learned inquiries, touch­ing the diversity of Religion, affirmes, The Supper is admnini­stred [Page 311]to Infants immediately after their Baptisme in both kindes by the Iacobits, a people called by that name, vvhich are in great numbers in Sy­ria, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Babylon and Palestine; for the Patriarch of Ierusalem, who keepeth his residence still in Ierusalem, in which City there still remaine ten or more churches of Chri­stians, is also a Iacobite. Also the Cophty (which are the Christians in Aegypt, for it is a name of their nation, rather then of their religion) doe the same, namely give the Sacra­ment of the Eucharist to in­fants presently after Baptisme.

The like doe the Christians tearmed Habassines, which are [Page 312]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 practise (out of whose rubbish we drew our reformation, as being once involved in that lumpe & con­fusion) seemes to me to appeare out of their Tridentine consti­tutions, Trid. Concil. sec. 5. where it is affirmed; Parvulos usu rationis carentes nulla obligari [Page 313]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, vvhich vvant the use of reason, are by no necessity obliged to the Sacramen­tall communion of the Eucharist; for as much as being regenerate by the laver of Baptisme, and incorporated into Christ, in that age, they cannot loose that state of sonneship already obtayned; so that grace being ne­cessarily conferr'd to them, ac­cording to their opiniō by bap­tisme, which they cannot loose if they would in that age, they thinke they need not the other till they come to be capable of [Page 314]sinning and falling away. Be­sides the high & transcendent notion they have put upon the Lords Supper, by making it to be the very body and blood of Christ, may justly apologize for them that they make it not childrens play.

And even that differencing of those two Sacraments by way of preferrence, stickes close still to our fingers, of which there are undoubted characters in the greatest part of reformed Churches.

All this hath bene to shew, that if you will take primitive practise, and antiquity for your guide, that will lead you as well into the administring of the [Page 315]Supper to infants as Baptisme, and if it fayle by your owne judgement in the one, you may very well suspect it in the other; for my part, I see not why the Sacramēt of the Supper should be of a greater mystery then the other, or the ceremony more significant, or that the duty of examining should need more the use of reason, then be­leeving, repenting and confes­sing our sinnes. And since it is as naturall & proper to infancy to be nourisht, as to be borne, I see not but why they should be as capable of the ceremony of their nourishmēt, as of their birth, and so of one Sacrament as well as the other. You see [Page 316]how needfull 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 farre fetcht Scripture allusion or glosse, hath bene inabled to e­stablish ordinances of institu­tion, and inforce practise appa­rently very divers from reason, and Apostolicall president, and which since by consequences have stuffed bookes with so many ridiculous disputes in this point, as forsooth, whether the childe being wholly in the wombe, and no part appearing it may be baptized, or whether if any part appeare without, it [Page 317]may be baptized, especially if it be the head, or the hand, or the foote, whether if it be borne with the after birth, or whether if it be a monster, it may be baptized, with severall of the like nature, which have mise­rably tormented the Schoole­men, and are the births of such a premisses, it being the na­ture of errour to be fertile, and if you graunt one fundamentall 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 alleaged, for the chief patrōs of infant Baptisme, went.

The second wherein I shall be breefe (for wee build not much upon this bottome) was, whether infant Baptisme have enjoyed a quiet and peaceable possession in the Church from the Apostles time downeward, till of late it was interrupted (as is affirmed) by certain unquiet spirits in the dayes of Luther.

Though no prescription will lye good against God, yet I am of opinion, that if the possession of infant Baptisme hath bene very antient (which I doubt of) yet the injoyment hath not bene anciently so peaceable, as some would make us be­leeve.

Let them who list or can con­fute [Page 319]Ludovicus Vives, who af­firmes 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 seemes hee meant very old) vvere vvont to be baptized but in a full or grovvne age, and vvho desired Baptisme for themselves, and understood vvhat it vvas to be bapti­zed. I find also Rupertus Tui­tiensis in his 4. booke of divine offices cap. 14. quoted to have sayd, In former times the custome of the primitive Churches vvas, that they administred not the Sacrament of regeneration, but onely at the feast of Easter & Pentecost, and all the chil­dren of the church, vvhich through­out [Page 320]the vvhole yeare, through the vvord vvere mooved, vvhen Easter came gave up their names, and vvere the follovving dayes till Pentecost in­structed in the rules of faith, rehear­sed the same, and by their Baptisme, and dying thus vvith Christ, rose againe vvith him.

So the famous Erasmus, as I find him quoted in his annota­tions upon the 5. of the Ro­manes, affirmes, that baptizing of children vvas not in use in Pauls time. And our Doctor Feild in his learned Treatise of the Church p. 729. affirmes, that many very anciently, vvho vvere borne of Christian parents, besides those vvho vvere converted from Pa­ganisme, put of their Baptisme a long [Page 321]time, insomuch as some vvere elected Bishops, before they vvere baptized, as vve read (saith he) of Ambrose; to proove which hee quotes Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 11. But to come more particularly to a few antient and authentique proofes, with which I shall content my self.

Hee that shall read Iustin Martyr, who lived about Anno 150. and is beleeved to have bene converted to Christ with­in 30. yeares after the Apostle Iohn, when it is credible also very many were living, who had bene frequent auditors of the Apostles, hee, I say, who should consider in secunda pro Christianis Apologia, the de­scription [Page 322]he makes of the man­ner of Christian Baptisme, would surely not pick out of it the Baptizing of Infants, as the most usuall and ordinary pra­ctise of those times; its worth the relating at large, being of so great Antiquity; I vvill novv tell you, sayes he, hovv vve dedicate our selves to God, being renevved by Christ, least if vve should have past by this, vve should seeme to deale ma­lignantly, and dissemblingly in this discourse; vvho ever have bene per­svvaded, & have beleeved that those things are true, vvhich are delivered and spoken by us, and have ingaged themselves to live accordingly, they are taught to pray vvith fasting, and to beg of God the remission of all their [Page 323]past sinnes, vvee also praying and fa­sting vvith them, then they are brought to us, vvhere there is vvater, and in the same manner of regenera­tion, vvith vvhich vvee are regenera­ted, they are regenerated; for in the name of our Lord God the parent of all things, and of our Saviour Iesus Christ and of the holy Spirit, they are then vvasht vvith vvater. Nor is it any prejudice to this testi­mony (by which as by way of Apologie, the regular and or­dinary way of Baptisme is de­clared) that I find him quoted by some as owning infants Bap­tisme, 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, [Page 324]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) hee gives a knite of infant Baptisme by considering in a word or two the conditiō of those chil­dren, who dye baptized, and of them who dye unbaptized, since it is not my part here to proove that infant Baptisme, as well as many other unwar­rantable practises, crept not in betimes, but to shew by story, what was the most usuall and authenticke practise of the ad­ministration of this ordinance, or what was the opinion and judgement of the most antient [Page 325]and learned men about it.

The next authority I shall bring is of Nazianzen, another Greeke Father, a man of great esteeme & authority, he plain­ly councells, that Baptisme should be differred, Donec pueri de fide sua aliquid possint respondere; till chil­dren should be able to ansvver some­thing of their faith, and therefore councells to deferre Baptisme at least till the third yeare of their age. Wherein although hee made hast, not being altogether per­haps free from the superstition of the daunger of dying with­out Baptisme, which crept in betimes, yet overcome by the truth and the reason of the or­dinance, hee judged it fit to de­ferre [Page 326]it till such time as they were capable of having & ma­nifesting actuall faith. This fa­mous authority of a man so great and learned, Bellarmine answers onely thus, That other Fathers vvere of another minde, and that the commodity is very little, but the daunger (to wit, according to his opinion of the necessity of Baptisme to salvation) is very great.

The next and last authority I shall bring, shall be that of Tertulliā, who flourished about 203. yeares after Christ, the most famous of the Latin Fa­thers, of him Hierom in an epi­stle of the Christian writers, af­firmes, that nothing vvas more lear­ned, [Page 327]or acute, a man of that au­thority, with the famous and antient Cyprian, that hee called him his master, and as Hierome affirmes of him, hee never past a day vvithout the reading of Tertul­lian.

This Tertullian in a treatise that hee hath of Baptisme to­wards the end, hath these ex­pressions; first in the generall, Baptismum non temerè credendum esse, sciant quorum officium est. That Baptisme is not slightly or rashly to be committed to any, let them knovv vvhose duty it concernes. To give to every one that asketh belongs to almes; rather consider this, Give not that vvhich is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearles to svvyne. And lay hands sud­dainly [Page 328]on no man, least you partake of their sinnes; then hee apologi­zeth why the Eunuch & Paul were so soone baptized, & 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 differ­ring of Baptisme is more proffitable, especially for young children; for vvhat necessity is it, sayth hee, for the vvitnesses to expose themselves to daunger, &c. It is true the Lord saith, do not forbid them to come to me, let them come therefore vvhen they grovvolder, vvhen they learne, vvhen they are taught vvhy they come; Fiant Christiani quum Chri­stum [Page 329]nosse potuerint; Let them be made Christians vvhen they can knovv Christ. Then he tells them, They deale more vvarily in secular things, that divine thinges are given, vvhere they vvould not betrust earth­ly. And lastly concludes, that they vvho understand the vveight of Baptisme, vvill rather feare the at­taining then the differring of it: ad­ding that, Fides integra secura est de salute; An intier faith is secure of salvation. Thus the excellent & antient Tertullian.

Nor can that stand to any purpose, which some (who are loath to have so great and an­tient an authority against them in the point of infāt Baptisme) alleage, that parhaps Tertul­lian [Page 330]speakes here of the Bap­tisme onely of those infants, whose parents were unbelee­vers, because hee speakes of the daunger of the witnesses, or suerties, for where the parents are Christians, there the wit­nesses seeme not to be exposed to that daunger? To which I answer, that the witnesses were not freed from daūger, 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 as­sertiō [Page 331]against infant Baptisme, runnes upon principles com­mon to all infants, of what ever parents they be borne, for hee would have none come, till they be capable of learning, & being taught why they come; hee would have none declar'd Christians by that ceremony, till they can know Christ, and concludes that hee would not have divine mysteries be trust­ed with infants, whom wee would judge it improper & un­comely to be trust with earth­ly and secular affaires.

I shall content my self with what hath bene said already to this head, having neither the desire, nor the commodity to [Page 332]make a large and generall search; besides that a few of the most authentique, & most antient writers after the Scrip­tures, ought to be of more au­thority then many hundreds (if there could so many be found) of latter times, it being my undertaking to proove that most antiently, beginning with Christ and the Apostles times the subjects of Baptisme, were persons professing faith and re­pentance, not infants, and that the most authentique and pri­mitive Fathers were of this minde and judgement.

We have done therefore with this head, wherein if the most authentique & antient autho­rity [Page 333]be ours, and the rest neces­sitated to their opiniōs by false premises and principles by no meanes to be received, or allo­wed, and which also as ratio­nally produce other cōsequen­ces, which in these times men are loath to admit of; no men I hope will blame us for our pre­sent beleefe, concerning the subject of Baptisme, nor object hereafter as an argumēt against us, the authority of the fathers.

CHAP. XVI. In which is handled, whether Baptisme be to be repeated; but more especially, whether such as were baptized in infancy, should be accounted baptized, or are to have that or­dinance administred to them.

HAving givē the due bounds to the ordinance of Bap­tisme, [Page 334]in respect of the subject of it, and sayd what I judged cōvenient 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 baptized, whether such as were baptized in infācy should be baptized againe?

Wherein first will come to be considered, whether Bap­tisme be to be repeated or no?

I answer, there have bene some of that opinion, as Mer­cion and his followers, who had their first, second and third baptisme: Also a religion cal­led the Hemerobaptistae, that is, the every day baptizers, that [Page 335]avowed, because wee sinned e­very day, therefore wee should be every day baptized, and practised accordingly.

Secondly according to the received opinion, that I conceave it is not to be re­peated.

First because the covenant of grace is but once made, and struck with every man, & this is the seale of the Covenant, it is the Sacrament of regenera­tion, initiation and incorpora­tion; but these things are not capable of being reïterated, therefore the seale and signe thereof should not be, to this agrees that place Heb. 6.4.5.6. For it is impossible for those vvho [Page 336]vvere once inlightned, and have ta­sted of the heavenly gift, and vvere made partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted the good vvord of God, & the povvers of the vvorld to come, if they shall fall avvay, to renevv them againe to repentance, &c.

The Apostle speakes not here of theft, perjury, adultery, or any sinne in particular, but of an intire 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 tast of the heavenly gift, and quits the [Page 337]communion of the spirit, in the participatiō of its grace, which cannot be without the sinne a­gainst the holy Ghost, and a to­tall falling from God: Now it is impossible, sayes hee, those should be renevved 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 Baptisme, they are incapable of Baptisme; for others though they sinne, the same covenant, repentance, & Baptisme stands good for ever.

Secondly because the signi­fication, the fruit & use of Bap­tisme, [Page 338]is not for a moment, or respecting the time past onely, but respects the future also, and the whole life of the baptized person, as appeares Rom. 6.2. So as the Baptisme of repen­tance once receaved for remis­sion of sinnes, remaynes as a pledge by us of the covenant of God, and that perpetuall washing which we have by the blood of Christ, Marke 14. Iohn did baptize in the vvildernes, and preach the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes; which is to be often thought of, for the full assurance of our pardō, for that promise is of perpetuall use and influence, He that beleeveth and is baptized, shall be saved; and Gal. [Page 339]3.27. As many as have bene bapti­zed into Christ, have put on Christ.

But thirdly the greatest rea­son why Baptisme is not to be repeated, is because neither in precept or example wee find it repeated, which is the word of our institutiō. But on the other side, There is one Lord, one faith, one Baptisme, which is one, Ʋnitate usus legitimi, in the unity of the lawfull use, as well as in other respects; so as there is no thought of leaving Christ, as if there were to be exspected a new regeneration, and a new Baptisme: The Fathers also were of this opinion, Tertull. lib. de Baptis. Semel lavacrum ini­mus, semel dilicta diluuntur. So Cy­prian. [Page 340]lib. 2. Epist. 3. Baptisma semel sumitur, nec rursus iteratur. Baptisme is once received, nor is it re­peated againe.

The question then will be, what shall become of those that have bene baptized into a false name by heritickes that erre about the Trinity, as the Ar­rians, Marcionites, &c.?

The receaved answer is that they are to be baptized aright, with the baptisme of Christ, & in such cases, Baptisme is not to be said to be repeated, the for­mer being no baptisme or a nullity, and this according to the decree of the Counsell of Nice cap. 19. as Bucan quotes it p. 635. The like decree also [Page 341]hath a Counsell of Carthage, Ii sunt baptizandi, de quibus incer­tum est, an fuerint baptizati necne, Concil. Carth. 50. cap. 6. They are to be baptized, of whom it is uncertain whether they were baptized 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 Baptisme in an heretick church was null, and therefore those who came to them were baptized, as suppo­sing that vayne and nothing: others have thought that those onely were to be baptized a­gaine, who had bene formerly baptized by such a church and [Page 342]in such a manner as the essen­tialls of Baptisme were want­ing, so the Arrians baptized, which rendred that ordinance vayne and null.

The same may be affirmed more fully of infant Baptisme, that it is null and nothing, and therefore that the partie so sup­posed to be baptized, is indeed still unbaptized, and therefore ought to be baptized accord­ing to the institution of Christ, which Baptisme, when he hath once receav'd, he cā in no way (as is before shewed) be sayd to be rebaptiz'd; for those thinges which cannot be shewen done, no reason allowes that they should seeme to be reïterated.

To proceed therefore, The Sacraments in generall, & par­ticularly Baptisme, is that by which wee pledge our selves to God, or in which a formall co­venant is made, in which wee promise obedience, and God protection & defence to be our God, and therefore 1. Pet. 3.21. it is stil'd 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 civill law it signified an oath, Sacramenti praestatio, & recusatio, the taking or refusing an oath: The word Sacrament also is taken for a mystery, for [Page 344]the visible signe of an invisible grace. In a word Baptisme seemes to be nothing else, but the ceremony of a mysticall & spirituall marriage, for it is a dedication, a covenant, and a mystery; and as in marriage be­sides the words, there hath bene usually some ceremo­nious signe, as the giving of a ring, or money, or a kisse, or the taking by the hand, so here, &c.

To examine this therefore by that similitude and resem­blance, that which is the first and principall ingredient into marriage, is consent, Nam nup­tias non concubitus, sed consensus fa­cit; Not the bed, but consent makes marriage; for otherwayes that [Page 345]joyning, which is fornication, or adultery, would be mar­riage: This stands by vertue of the first institution, A man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his vvife, Ge. 2.24. How? By covenant and consent.

This is so essentiall an ingre­dient, as Beza calls it the for­mall cause of marriage, others the efficient cause; therefore the lawyers say, Solus consensus matrimonium facit; Onely consent makes the marriage. But then this consent must be exprest out­wardly, Nisi quatenus consentiunt, & consensum suum exterius expri­munt; because the covenant & contract is externall.

But then lastly and especial­ly, [Page 346]it must be the proper con­sent of the parties married, for the consent of the parents, who have some & the greatest pow­er besides, cannot doe 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 formall or efficient fayle in respect of the consent, and a materiall fayle 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 Baptisme.

First the great busines of mar­riage is consent of the parties married, this is the efficient or formall cause of it, so in our mysticall marriage, Baptisme, the covenant struck betweene God and us, implyes especially the consent of parties; But by infant Baptisme the infant is not bound, for hee consented not; againe consent must be ex­prest, but the child wantes the just ripenesse and formation of organs inward and outward for such expressions, that cannot be, neither hee cannot will it, because he cannot understand [Page 348]it, nor can hee expresse that which within he hath not.

But may not my friends doe it for me?

Personall consent is required to carnall marriage, whē much depends upō the parents, much more to this mysticall; there­fore as a mad man cannot con­sent nor expresse 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 incourage, and teach; but as the covenant is made with us, so it must be made by us: A child may lawfully marry him­self [Page 349]to Christ, without the con­sent of his parents, which in the other marriage hee cannot doe; here is therefore no cove­nant, no bond, because no con­sent on one party, founded on a present impossibility, for a co­venant is betvveene tvvo consenting partyes.

It is not therefore the dipping of the child in water, gives bap­tisme, no more then the bedd gives marriage, where consent is wanting.

Here you see then a fayle of the great matter in the busines of the covenant, namely the formall, or as some will have it the efficient cause; you will find a great fayle also in the [Page 350]subject matter, for here is an error of the person; Christ looks for a beleever, he makes his co­venant in Baptisme onely with such, the institution is termi­nated upon them; but here is a poore infant as uncapable for the present of beleeving and re­penting, as a mad man is of reasoning, which yet hee 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 madnes to bring to Baptisme such an one; and see whether it may not be thought to hold of the same distemper, to offer a [Page 351]child to that sacred fountaine, that in the matter of reasoning and covenanting can doe no more then a mad man: Yee see therefore the great and essen­tiall fayle of such a Baptisme, so essentiall as it makes it a nul­lity, as the like in marriage ren­ders it null and voyd.

Now then to goe on, if there be no bond, no covenant in this infant Baptisme, no obligation, which is the mayne of it, then there is no sealing, for a seale serves but to ratify & confirme a bond and covenant. Againe, 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 [Page 350] [...] [Page 351] [...] [Page 352]receive it, that is, as an ordi­nance, there is no reason in the use of it, no faith, no sence; you may speake aloude, and say, this signifies the death of Christ, & this his resurrection, by this you are buried and mortified, and by this quickned; but the child is asleepe, or dead, or as good; here is no receptive fa­culty, proportionable to the or­dinance, in the manner of con­veighing it.

When Christ will speake in an invisible, secret, unknowne and unconceavable way, hee doth it without the help of an outward & visible ordinance; when Iohn was sanctified in the wombe, hee needed no word or [Page 353]signe to conveigh it to him; but here, if Christ conveighes not himself Sacramētally by words & signes, and representations, hee conveyes not himself at all by vertue of the Sacrament. So that as there was a fayle in the forme 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 Christs part, of which you have heard, namely, sealing up to us our union with Christ, and every good thing, and exhibiting & conveighing himself to us, in the use of this ordinance; and for us who by this meanes should forme a formall cōtract [Page 354]with God, and should give a te­stimony of our piety and obe­dience to God, Iohn 4.1. And secondly should distinguish our selves by this badge, or charra­cter of our profession, from the prophanes of the world, with some more of that kind, we are capable of doing nothing, in a busines so active, no more then of receiving, so as upon the whole matter, & as the summe of this discourse Infant Bap­tisme 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 bene profaned to [Page 355]such, out of a well meaning ig­norance, and hee that will par­take of that great ordinance, as it is our duty and priviledges, must knowingly & beleeving­ly be baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus; which ordi­nance, when wee 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 fayles in an action, which may not make it null or nothing; as [Page 356]for one to marry one of ano­ther religion, or without some due consents, makes it an ill or an unlawfull marriage, but it doth not make it no marriage; but those essentiall fayles, which may be said to nullify it, can never be repaired by any act afterwards; now such are the fayles of infant Baptisme, as I have prooved, such as enter into the very essence of it, na­mely the formall and materiall causes, so as if you aske what I lay to the charge of infant Bap­tisme, I say that it is nothing, as the Scripture saith that an Idole is nothing, not but that there is a great deale of busines made of it, as if it were some­thing, [Page 357]which all can contribute or conferre nothing to the es­sence or being of it, so as he that will affirme that after consent may make that pretended Bap­tisme reall & true, must proove first that it hath not failed in its essentialls, which I have alrea­dy prooved Baptisme to have done. To conclude, a man may receive many wounds, and be miserably disfigured, loose ma­ny members or parts, and yet remayne a man, but let out the rationall soule, which is his forme, but by the prick of a pin, and that which remaynes is no more a man, but a carcasse, be­cause the cōstitutive essentiall, which is his forme, is gone, and [Page 358]it must be an Almighty power that must give him his being, and denomination of a man againe; of what act soever yee may justly say this is a nullity, that no after act can repaire to give it a being, it may now take upō 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 parhaps, That that which is given, cannot be un­given, but to Infants Baptisme is given already. I answer, It is true that which is given can­not be sayd to be ungiven, but to Infants the Sacrament of Baptisme is not given, but one­ly [Page 359]a certain externall washing, with certain externall rites & ceremonies: And the patrons of infant Baptisme, I hope, will pardon me, if what Chamier affirme of Baptisme, not given by a right Minister; I with much more equity and reason affirme here, that it is not a Sa­crament, but a rashe mockery or deceaving, by no meanes to be indur'd in the Church, Te­merariam ludificationem nullo modo tolerandam in Ecclesia. Tom. 4. Pan­stratiae lib. 5. cap. 14. s. 8. The Imperiall Constitutions carry, Ʋt ea quae contra leges fiunt non so­lum inutilia, sed etiam pro infectis habenda sunt; That those things which are done against law, are [Page 360]not onely 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 perpetuall, as for example, Ne filius contrahat cummatre, the son should not contract with his mother; now the perpetuall cause of prohibition is the stan­ding law of God, not changed by God himself, and in which God himself hath not dispen­ced, 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 Baptisme given to infants hath largely bene prooved to do) [Page 361]must by no meanes 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 Baptisme requires for the subject a true beleever, suppose an hypocrite professe faith, and submit him­self to the ordinance, will not here be by the same reasō cause of Baptisme, the former being also a nullity in respect of the true intent of Baptisme. Answ. How farre such a case may re­quire another Baptisme, I shall not need to determine, if it should, that makes nothing a­gainst the other, but that that [Page 362]doth also and more. But here I shall put a cleare distinction, and help my self by the former similitude of marriage. There be some essentiall fayles, as I told you, that make marriage a nullity, no subsequent act can releeve 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 forme or being to a mar­riage, when the consent is gi­ven, the like is true of Baptisme.

But in marriage betweene persons of yeares, there may be a formall marriage with an hy­pocriticall consent, a man may [Page 363]professe faith in marriage to such a woman, but may intend onely to gayne her estate by that pretence & leave her; now the great ingredient unto con­sent, should be truth and realli­ty, but the fayle of that shall by no meanes nullify the mar­riage, he shall be ever bound to the duty of a husband, though hee should professe to have dis­sembled his consent, nor shall there be any need of a new marriage, or expressing of con­sent to tye 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 [Page 364]externall performing of the es­sentialls of it. The like may be avowed of Baptisme, if a man repenting and confessing his sinnes, beleeving and profes­sing subjection, be baptized according to the right forme and ceremony of Baptisme, I see not the ground of repeti­tion, what ever the internall fayles may seeme to be either of true righteousnes on mans part, or of present influence on Gods part, which are desire­able to the happy being of Bap­tisme, else so often as men find not that present influence on Gods part, which to him is free, or doubt of their former state and condition, so often [Page 365]there must be a repetition of Baptisme, which I see no groūd for; the ordinance which is an externall ceremony, having all its externall essentialls to the true being of that ordinance; and as the remayning forme produces its effect, when the impediment is taken away, as for example, heavines in a stoane carryes it downe, when the impediment is taken away the hand that held it up, so Bap­tisme externally rightly admi­nistred, may attayne his end, when God takes away the im­pediment.

The like may be said of or­dination, or admission into church fellowship, which can­not [Page 366]be called a nullity, though the persons should proove hy­pocrites or unholy, as appeares by this, that such persons are capable of excommunication, which implyes them members, and the ordinance duly admi­nistred, notwithstanding that there may be great internall fayles, but would be certainly a nullity, if such admission or ordination were in infancy, in sleepe, or in the time of mad­nesse, as I said before; But what ever the case of the Baptisme of hypocrites may proove (of which notwithstanding I have told you my opinion) it makes not much to this question, for if it proove not a nullity, it is be­cause [Page 367]they fayle not in the es­sentialls, if they should require Baptisme a new, then Baptisme in infācy much more, in whom it is most cleare the fayles of Baptisme were essentiall.

And it is not my part so much to proove, that there are no o­ther causes of repeating of Baptisme, as that in this there is cause full and sufficient, to give them a true reall Baptisme, whose pretended Baptisme, in respect of its essentiall fayles, prooves voide and nothing.

CHAP. XVII. In which is considered the time and ranke that Baptisme is to hold in the order of Ordi­nances.

THere are but two thinges, which I shall farther consi­der, upon this subject, the one is the time & order of Baptisme, the other is the Minister of Baptisme.

That there is an order in all the worship of the New Testa­ment, no man will deny that hath learn't with Paul, to joy in beholding the order and faith of the Saints, Col. 2.5. and none will acknowledge this more then they, who deny themselves of some very considerable ordi­nances, for want of comeing to them in the right order, as the [Page 369]Lords supper for wāt of church fellowship: Every thing is sea­sonable and bewtifull in its time, out of which it is disorder­ly and evill, to find the order & time of Baptisme, 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 baptize them, Mat. 28.19. make disciples and baptize. Marke 16.16. Hee that beleeveth and is baptized, shall be saved: You see here the ranke of Baptisme immediately after [Page 370]teaching, after beleeving, it holds the first place of ordinan­ces properly Christian; ye may see it againe in the rule in Pe­ters preaching, Repent and be baptized, Acts 2.38. which was instantly put in practise, which is our second head of proofe, namely Scripture example, for they that gladly received his vvord, vvere presently baptized, to the num­ber of three thousand, ver. 41. after which they continued constantly in the liturgicall vvorkes of the Apo­stles doctrine, and breaking bread, & in prayer, ver. 42. In the example of the Eunuch you have the same, assoone as ever Iesus was preached, and hee discovered water, vvhat hinders me, saith he, [Page 371] to he baptized? nothing, saith Phi­lip, if thou hast faith, so he was instantly baptized, Acts 8.38. The like ye have of Cornelius, who upon the first preaching of Christ, before the assembly was dissolved, was baptized he and his, Acts 10.48. The like you have of the Iaylor Act. 16. to whom at midnight (being a­stonished by a miraculous ac­tion) the vvord vvas preacht, and to all in his house, and he and all his be­leeving, vvere forthvvith all of them baptized. Here was no losse 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 [Page 370] [...] [Page 371] [...] [Page 372]which I conclude is, the order and time of Baptisme, namely the next ordinance to belee­ving, not but that I would have fit time allowed for the tryall of faith, wherein to be sure the Apostles were not negligent of their duty.

For the primitive times wee can have no better instances then what we heare of the Ca­techuminy, who were exclud­ed not onely 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, [Page 373]which heard sermons, & had a desire to Christ, the other were such as desired Baptisme, 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 wayted onely a fit time for the administration of Baptisme, during which time they were farre enough from being admitted to the Lords Supper, though beleevers jud­ged, but on the other side, as­soone as ever they were bapti­zed, they had Baptisme, 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 sinnes a medicine be prepa­red for their vvounds, and then the nourishment of the heavenly table be added. Ambrose &c. And as this was observed strickly to the ca­techuminy, so every body will grant me that to infant Bap­tisme, this order is surely main­tayned.

If you passe from precept & example of all times to reason, there you will find that what ever makes for the not repeat­ing of Baptisme 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 seale of initiation, regeneration, and incorporatiō, then by the same reason this must be first, as ini­tiation, admission, incorpora­tion, and regeneration, are the first internall acts in us, & upon us, by which we are made Chri­stians.

Secondly if the signifi­cation and use of Baptisme be for ever, and of constant & per­petuall use, then this ordinance is to lye as the bottome 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 [Page 376]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 Baptisme on our parts (not to mention further those on Christs) be, that there should be a formall externall contract past with God, by which wee are visibly handfasted in this mysticall marriage, or secondly to distin­guish our selves by this badge and charracter of our profes­siō from the evill world, which we renounce with all its works, then certainly this peece is to be first administred before we goe further, and the Sacrament [Page 377]of our spirituall life and birth, is to be given before that of our nourishment and growth: In a word Baptisme hath bene cal­led of old, & not without rea­son, Sacramentorum janua; and is for all these considerations, which are as many as can con­curre 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 thē 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 [Page 378]Scripture rule and example be any thing, which is all we have to shew for any practise, then Baptisme is to be the first Sa­crament after beleeving.

Besides the reason of the thing, that which makes it un­lawfull to baptize before teach­ing is, because the Scripture hath rankt it otherwise, that sayes, teach and baptize, not baptize and teach, as the Pa­pists and others doe; the same reason will hold for the giving it its preference in time to any other ordinance, because it is rankt immediately after teach­ing, & before any other thing, againe you have the fullest con­currence of all example & rea­son [Page 379]also, for the timeing and ranking of this ordinance, as for any thing can be thought.

To what hath bene said in this laste point, I shall onely ad by way of caution, with which I conclude it, that when I give Baptisme the first place in the ranke of ordinances, after be­leeving, I intend not such ex­pressions to the prejudice of church-fellowship, which I conceave is properly the state for instituted ordinances, and the subject of them, as will more fully appeare by what will be sayd in the following chapter.

CHAP. XVIII. Wherein by way of conclusion, is treated of the Minister of Baptisme, and shewed where that power rests, which is to conveigh to us that blessed Ordinance, which hath bene all this while the subject of our discourse.

WE have found out the sub­ject of Baptisme to be a be­leever onely, (that is) one pro­fessing faith in Christ, and sub­jection to his ordinances; upon which consideration wee have found cause to reject the Bap­tisme of infants as a vanity of mens invention, and our owne received then, as voyde & null; we have also found in the order of Sacraments Baptisme to be the first; the next thing we are to speake of is the Minister of this Sacrament, that wee may [Page 381]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 our selves with the handling of this controversy, as it is stated betweene us and the Papists, who putting a more simple and absolute necessity upon this or­dinance then 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, wee shall onely take those two things for graunted, or at least deny them not; first, That the errour of the Minister doth not enter the essence of Baptisme, nor is of [Page 382]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 Bap­tisme, then 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 our selves, and the ordi­nary and orderly administra­tion of Baptisme, we shall con­sider whether Baptisme be a thing of publick or private co­gnisance, and to what predica­ment it belongs, and whether it pretends, which will be the [Page 383]bounds of this discourse, and shew us whence it is to be fetcht and derived.

That it is a thing of publicke cognisance, appeares to me both by the primitive commis­sion, and primitive practise, the commission lyes Matt. 28.19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost.

In the 18. verse Christ tells his Disciples, that all povver is gi­ven to him in heaven & earth, these were his letters patents, by which hee shewed hee did no­thing without power and good warrant; now he goes into hea­ven as into one part of his king­dome, [Page 384]which was quiet and at peace, and sitting there at the right hand of his Father, gives an Apostolicall commission for all the earth, so Marke 16.15. Go into the vvhole vvorld, preach the Gospell to every creature; here hee opposes the whole earth to the bounds and limits of Iudea (by which the Prophets of old were bounded in their administra­tions) That, he had by an here­ditary right, hee sent therefore to them, first with this caveat, that they should not go into the vvay 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 [Page 385]men, he gives a commission for all the world, this is Apostoli­call, for hee bids them go forth into all the world, which is pro­perly the word of Apostolicall commission, whose diocesse had no bounds, and if not here, where can any Apostolicall commission be found? And he tells them their great workes, which was to preach and bap­tize, for although Paul sayes 1. Cor. 1.17. that hee vvas sent by Christ not to baptize, but to preach the Gospell, that must be under­stood with a limitation, that he was not sent especially to bap­tize, because the administra­tion of the Sacraments, which are the appendixes and seales, [Page 386]though it need as much power, yet a lesse gift then the preach­ing of the word.

And behold I am vvith you to the end of the vvorld. Here is a word of great incouragemēt & com­fort, Christ had told them be­fore, hee was Lord of heaven & earth; he sends them to manage a great worke, but sayes hee I will be with you, that is, who ever is publikely deputed for such a service, as they need more especially assistāce, so they shall have it, and here he makes a playne difference betweene the makers of Disciples, & Dis­ciples to be made; Hee vvill be vvith them especially as they need it most, to vvhom the charge of teach­ing [Page 387]and baptizing is deputed; for the Apostles were not to continue alwayes, as the world was to be gone through but once, and in­stitutions to be set up but once, but a publike power was still left, which succeeded this A­postolicall, which in the next place we come to consider of, that so finding where the com­mission rests, wee may addresse our selves thither for ordinan­ces, and expect the blessing of Christs 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 [Page 388]of Ecclesiasticall policy and power, as the common-wealth is of civill power, so as Ecclesia­sticall 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 vvill build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevaile against it: And I vvill give unto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven, &c. So as though the use of the keyes be divers, according to the variety of callings, and con­ditions in the Church, yet the power of the keyes originally and primarily is given to the Church, for Peter here beares but the person of the Church, [Page 389]as in other places in which hee answers for others, and Christ also speakes to him as adressing himself to the Church by him. This is a thing so commonly avowed and defended by Pro­testāts against Papists, as I shall not need here to proove it. Also that other knowne place of Matth. 18.17. Tell the Church, where both Church state, and Church power are clearely spokē of: Now where the pow­er of admitting, receaving and casting out is, there is the pow­er of administring and commu­nicating all ordinances to the edification of the same body; and they which have power of administring the kingly office [Page 390]of Christ, consisting in casting out and receaving in, have also power of administring his Pro­pheticall office, of which the Sacraments are a part, & there­fore to the Christian churches, as to the Iewes of old, pertain­eth the publike dispensations and services of God. Rom. 9.4.

And hence it followes, 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 [Page 391]Elders, 1. Pet. 5.1. The Elders vvhich are among you I exhort, vvho am also an Elder, &c.

To conclude this head, a man becomes a Prophet and able to teach, by vertue 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 publike co­gnisance & commissiō. Teach­ing out of a gift hath its foun­dation in nature, which ariseth from a personall gift and grace of the spirit. But Baptisme, cen­sures, ordination and the like, depend not upon a speciall gift, but are acts of power, confer­red authoritatively upon a spe­ciall person. And thus much [Page 392]for the primitive commission for Baptisme, which falls under a publike cognisance, upō per­sons qualified by publike au­thority for the administration of it.

Next we consider in this dis­course, primitive practise and example, for according to this power & commission, you will find it runne in the example.

The first Baptizer who intro­duced that ordinance, & from thence drew his name, Iohn 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, Hee came in the spirit and povver of Elias, vvas [Page 393]the great restorer of Israel, this no man will deny. Then Christ in the 4. of Iohn is said to baptize (but by his Disciples) who re­ceived commission for that ad­ministration from his person & presence, himself either inten­ding to the greater workes of miracles, or teaching, or else might abstaine purposely that those baptized by him, might not vaunt of a greater privi­ledge then others. In like man­ner it is probable Peter the A­postle communicated of his au­thority to those who were with him, for the baptizing of Cor­nelius and his family, for it is sayd vers. 48. of Acts 10. He com­manded them to be baptized in the [Page 394]name of the Lord; unles it were ei­ther that of those brethrē there were inferiour officers, or that by commanding is ment, the warrant he gave to Cornelius, & his companie for Baptisme, of which notwithstanding hee 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 baptized (sa­ving those who drew their com­mission from Church power, of whom wee shall speake after­ward) wee read of Philip and Ananias, the one, to wit Philip, was an Euangelist, an order as it is taken of a publike authori­ty [Page 395]and commission, as the A­postles were. Besides he had an especiall authority and provo­cation from the spirit at that time, for the ministry hee had to performe about the Eunuch, by which spirit also he was mi­raculously taken away after the worke done, as you may read Acts the 8. And for Ananias of whom wee read in the 9. of the Acts, that he baptized Paul, he was also deputed in an extraor­dinary manner to that ministe­ry by the Lord, who spoke to him in a vision; And such extra­ordinary and peculiar manner of workings, where the mini­stery of conversion lay in a mi­racle, and the Ministers were [Page 396]men acted to it, as appeares by divine revelation, must not be drawn into ordinary examples, and here we find also particular commission: but thus farre in the example it makes cleare for what wee say, that the admini­stration of Baptisme is a thing of publike cognisance & com­mission.

That it hath bene since the Apostolicall times so, is as cleare out of all story, of which the notion of the Catechuminists will give an assured witnes; Christians in the Church were antiently distinguisht by three degrees, Catechumini, Fideles and Poenitentes; the Catechumeni, or such as were principled in the [Page 397]Christian religion, the faith­full & the penitents; the faith­full were such as being past the forme of Catechists, were ad­mitted to all ordinances, & the penitents were such as had fal­len into some scandall, & were under censure.

The Catechumeni were such (as Origen cont. Cels. lib. 3. sayes) vvho vvere nevvly admitted into some degree of communion, but not yet bap­tized; of these mention is made in the most ancient writers Ire­neus, Clemens Alexand. Ter­tullian. Of these Clemens saith, Sine catechismo nulli datur credere; vvithout catechising no body can be­leeve.

Of this number some (as I [Page 398]have formerly had occasion to speake) 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 Iew 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 Baptisme, and gave up their names, of these Austin sayes, Post sermonem fit missa Cate­chumenis, [Page 399]manebant fideles. Ser. de Temp. 137. After the sermon the Catechumini were dismist, the faithfull remayned, 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 usuall of old to stand as competitor for Baptisme, as a Candidate, as we call them, to seeke and desire it before they had it.

But the end for which I espe­cially bring this here, is to shew that in all times of the Church Baptisme hath bene a thing of publike 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 bene no where else sought, nor never by any otherwise preten­ded to it I know, saving of late yeares by those upon whom the name of Anabaptists was primitively and properly fixt, who erring greatly in many other things of as great conse­quence, might easily be mista­ken in this.

These two things in a word I [Page 401]suppose out of this discourse is evinced, which will directly point out the Minister of Bap­tisme.

First that Baptisme is a thing of publike cognisance & com­mission.

Secondly that as of old since the Apostles times, so now and alwayes till Christ come, the Church is the dispenser of such commissions and administra­tions.

That which remaynes now therefore is to find out what a Church is, wherein I hope wee are not to seeke.

A Church in a word may be said to be an assembly of saints, knit together to a fellowship [Page 402]with Christ their head.

I intend not here a discourse of this subject, it is enough to my purpose that this be consi­dered and allowed, that belee­ving and saintship, gives a qua­lification for Church fellow­ship, and Church fellowship for acts of power, & that Baptisme doth no more enter the defini­tion of a church, as if a church state could not be without Bap­tisme, then 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 dues, [Page 403]thinges they have power for, & may justly pretend to. Though it will ordinarily be, that a church will consist of baptized persons, for what should hinder them who have assembled for the injoying of ordinances, and who have power for all ordi­nances, from administring to themselves in a way of order that ordinance, which is as it were the gate of the rest, and as wee may call it (for ought 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 in­joying of ordinances, and the [Page 404]subject of all ordinances; so as ordinarily a church will be an assembly of baptized Saints, though the word Baptisme be no part of the definition, nor doth Baptisme contribute more to the being of a church, then o­ther ordinances, which for a time they may want. So as yee see clearly where to fetch Bap­tisme, namely where a compa­nie of Saints are gathered toge­ther in Christs 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 parhaps objected, to which I will speake a word, that Baptisme not being the ordinance of admis­sion into the Church, nor par­haps 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 Baptisme is one) will fall under the cog­nisance and power of an insti­tuted body, whether therefore Baptisme be administred after admittāce, which in an ordina­ry way seemes better, or whe­ther it may precede it, it will be all one in the issue, since it is in order to church fellowship, [Page 406]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 baptized with a priviledge 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 seales of both from the church: And therefore as be­fore, I like well for Baptisme [Page 407]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 hee that baptizeth should necessarily be himself a baptized person, for though ordinarily it will be so, yet it is not necessary to the or­dinance, no more then it is sim­ply necessary to a church state, that the members be baptized, for not the personall Baptisme of him that administers, but the due commission hee hath for baptizing, is alone conside­rable to make him a true Mini­ster of Baptisme; And here that [Page 408]expression holds not, one can­not give what hee hath not, as a man cannot teach me that wants knowledge himself, be­cause no man gives his owne Baptisme, but conveyes as a publike person, that which is givē us by Christ: A poore man that hath nothing of his owne, may give me gold, that is the money of another man, by ver­tue of being sent for that pur­pose; so if any man can shew his commission, the writing & seale of him that sent him, it is enough here, else what would become of the great Baptizer Iohn the Baptist, who had a fayer commission to baptize, but was not himself baptized [Page 409]that we read of, or if hee should be, which cannot be affirmed, yet the first Baptizer, who ever hee was, must at the time of his first administration of that or­dinance be unbaptized.

To conclude, in this discourse of the Minister of Baptisme, we have shewed especially these particulars.

1 That the due administra­tion of Baptisme hath bene al­wayes, and is an act of power and commission.

2 That the Churches of Christ are now the onely sub­ject of this power, and are be­trusted with dispēsing all com­missions for the administra­tions of ordinances, of which [Page 410]Baptisme is one, whether it be administred after admission in­to Church fellowship, (which parhaps will be the usuall way) or before, (but as other things) in order to it.

3 That Baptisme doth not enter the definitiō of a church, as Saintship profest and mani­fested doth, nor is it simply ne­cessary to the Minister of Bap­tisme that he be himself bapti­zed, since his qualification for that worke, ariseth from his commission, not from his Baptisme.