A Christian Directory

Quest. 26. Whether Church-Canons, or Pastors Directive Determinations of matters pertinent to their Office, do bind the Conscience? And what accidents will disoblige the people; you may gather before in the same case about Magistrates Laws, in the Political Directions: As also by an impartial transferring the Case to the Precepts of Parents and Schoolmasters to Children; without respect to their Power of the Rod (or supposing that they had none such.) Quest. 27. What are Christ's appointed means of the Unity and Concord▪ of the Universal Church, and consequently of its preservation, if there be no Human Universal Head and Governor of it upon Earth? And if Christ have instituted none such, Whether Prudence and the Law of Nature oblige not the Church to set up and maintain an Universal Ecclesiastical Monarchy or Aristocracy? Seeing that which is Every man's work, is as No man's, and omitted by all?

I. TO the first question I must refer you in part to two small popular yet satisfactory Tractates written long ago, that I do not one thing too oft. Briefly now,

1. The Unity of the Universal Church, is founded in, and maintained by their Common Relation to Christ the Head, (as the Kingdom in its Relation to the King).

2. A Concord in Degrees of Goodness, and in Integrals and Accidentals of Christianity, will never be obtained on earth, where the Church is still imperfect: And perfect Holiness and Wisdom, are necessary to Perfect Harmony and Concord, Phil. 3. 12, 13, 14.

3. Experience hath long taught the Church, if it will learn, that the claim of a Papal Headship and Government over the Church Universal, hath been the famous incendiary, and hinderer of Concord in the Christian world.

4. The means to attain such a measure of concord and harmony which is to be hoped for, or endeavored upon earth, I have so distinctly, fully, and yet briefly described (with the contrary Impediments) in my Treatise of the Reasons of Christian Religion Part 7. Chap. 14. pag. 470, 471. in about two leaves, that I will not recite them. If you say, You are not bound to read the Books which I refer you to; I answer, Nor thi • .

II. To the latter Question I answer, 1. To set up such an Universal Head on the supposition of natural Reasons and Human Policy is, 1. To cross Christ's Institution, and the Laws of the Holy Ghost, as hath been long proved by Protestants from the Scripture.

2. It is Treason against Christ's Sovereign Office to usurp such a Vicegerency without his Commission.

3. It is against the notorious light of Nature, which telleth us of the Natural Incapacity of Mortal man, to be such an Universal Governor through the world.

4. It is to sin against long, and dreadful common experience, and to keep in that fire that hath destroyed Euperours, Kings and Kingdoms, and set the Churches Pastors and Christian world in those divisions, which are the great and serviceable work of Satan, and the impediment of the Churches increase, purity and peace, and the notorious shame of the Christian profession in the eyes of the Infidel world.

And if so many hundred years sad experience, will not answer them that say [If the Pope were a good man, he might unite us all,] I conclude that such deserve to be deceived, 2 Thess. 2. 10, 11, 12.

Quest. 28. Who is the Judge of Controversies in the Church? 1. About the Exposition of the Scripture, and Doctrinal points in themselves: 2. About either Heresies, or wicked Practices, as they are charged on the persons who are accused of them: That is, 1. Antecedently to our Practice, by way of Regulation, 2. Or Consequently, by Judicial Sentence (and Execution) on Offenders.

I Have answered this question so oft, that I can persuade myself to no more than this short, yet clear solution.

The Papists use to cheat poor unlearned persons that cannot justly discern things that differ, by puzzling them with this confused ambiguous question. Some things they cunningly and falsely take for granted, As that there is such a thing on Earth, as a Political Universal Church, headed by any Mortal Governor. Some things they shuffle together in equivocal words. They confound, 1. Public Judgment of Decision, and private judgment of discerning. 2. The Magistrates Judgment of Church-controversies, and the Pastors, and the several Cases, and Ends, and Effects of their several judgments. 3. Church-judgment as Directive to a particular Church, and as a means of the Concord of several Churches. Which being but distinguished, a few words will serve to clear the difficulty.

1 As there is no Universal Human Church (Constituted or Governed by a Mortal Head ) so there is no Power set up by Christ to be an Universal Judge of either sort of Controversies, by decisive Judicial • entence: Nor any Universal Civil Monarch of the world.

2. The public Governing Decisive judgment, obliging others, belongeth to public persons, or Officers of God, and not to any private man.

3. The public decision of Doubts or Controversies about Faith itself, or the true sense of God's Word and Laws, as obliging the whole Church on Earth to believe that decision, or not gainsay it, because of the Infallibility or Governing authority of the Deciders, belongeth to none but Jesus Christ; Because as is said, he hath made no Universal Governor, nor Infallible Expositor. It belongeth to the Law-giver only to make such an Universally obliging Exposition of his own Laws.

4. True Bishops or Pastors in their own particular Churches are Authorized Teachers and Guides, in Expounding the Laws and Word of Christ: And the people are bound as Learners to reverence their Teaching, and not contradict it without true cause: yea, and to believe them fide humanâ, in things pertinent to their Office: For oportet discentem credere.

5. No such Pastors are to be Absolutely believed, nor in any case of notorious Error or Heresy, where the Word of God is discerned to be against them.

6. For all the people as Reasonable creatures, have a judgment of private discerning to judge what they must Receive as Truth, and to discern their own duty, by the help of the Word of God, and of their Teachers.

7. The same power of Governing-Judgment Lawful Synods have over their several flocks, as a Pastor over his own, but with greater advantage.

8. The power of Judging in many Consociate Churches, who is to be taken into Communion as Orthodox, and who to be refused by those Churches as Heretics, in specie, that is, what Doctrine they will judge sound or unsound, as it is Iudicium discernendi; belongeth to everyone of the Council • ingly: As it is a Judgment obliging themselves by Contract, (and not of Governing each other) it is in the Contracters and Consenters: And for peace and order usually in the Major Vote. But with the Limitations before expressed.

9. Every true Christian believeth all the Essentials of Christianity, with a Divine faith, and not by a mere human belief of his Teachers, though by their Help and Teaching, his faith is generated and confirmed, and preserved. Therefore no essential Article of Christianity is left to any obliging decision of any Church, but only to a subservient obliging Teaching: As whether there be a God, a Christ, a Heaven, a Hell, an Immortality of souls; whether God be to be believed, loved, feared, obeyed before man? Whether the Scripture be God's Word, and true? Whether those that contradict it are to be believed therein? Whether Pastors, Assemblies, public Worship, Baptism, Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, be Divine institutions? And the same I may say of any known Word of God; No mortals may judge in partem utramli • et, but the Pastors are only Authorized Teachers and helpers of the people's faith. (And so they be partly to one another.)

10. If the Pope or his Council, were the Infallible, or the Governing Expositors of all God's Laws, and Scriptures, 1. God would have enabled them to do it by an Universal Commentary which all men should be obliged to believe, or at least not to contradict. For there is no Authority and Obligation given to men (yea, to so many successively) to do that (for the needful decision of Controversies) which they never have Ability given them to do. For that were to oblige them to things impossible. 2. And the Pope and his Council would be the most treacherous miscreants on earth, that in so many hundred years, would never write such an Infallible, nor Governing Commentary, to end the differences of the Christian world. Indeed they have judged (with others) against Arius, that Christ is true God, and one with the Father in substance, &c. But if they had said the contrary, must we have taken it for God's truth, or have believed them?

11. To judge who for Heresy or Seandal, shall be punished by the Sword, belongeth to none but the Magistrate in his own dominions: As to judge who shall have Communion or be excommunicated from the Church, belongeth, as aforesaid, to the Pastors. And the said Magistrate hath first as a man his own Judgment of discerning what is Heresy, and who of his subjects are guilty of it, in order to his public Governing Judgment.

12. The Civil Supreme Ruler may Antecedently exercise this Judgment of Discerning (by the Teaching of their proper Teachers) in order to his consequent sentences on offenders: And so in his Laws may tell the subjects, what Doctrines and practices he will either Tolerate or punish. And thus may the Church Pastors do in their Canons to their several flocks, in relation to Communion or non-communion.

13. He that will condemn particular persons as Heretics or offenders, must allow them to speak for themselves, and hear the proofs, and give them that which justice requireth, &c. And if the Pope can do so at the Antipodes, and in all the world either per se, or per alium without giving that other his essential claimed power, let him prove it by better experience than we have had.

14. As the prime and sole-universal Legislation belongeth to Jesus Christ, so the final Judgment universal and particular, belongeth to him, which only will end all Controversies, and from which there is no appeal.

Quest. 29. Whether a Parents power over his Children, or a Pastor or many Pastors or Bishops over the same Children, as parts of their flock, be greater, or more obliging in matters of Religion and public Worship?

THis being touched on somewhere else, I only now say, 1. That if the case were my own, I would 1. Labor to know their different Powers, as to the matter commanded, and obey each in that which is proper to his place.

2. If I were young and ignorant, Natural necessity, and natural obligation together, would give my Parents with whom I lived such an advantage above the Minister (whom I seldom see or understand) as would determine the case de eventu, and much de jure.

3. If my Parents commanded me to hear a Teacher who is against Ceremonies or certain Forms, and to hear none that are for them, natural necessity here also (ordinarily) would make it my duty first to hear and obey my Parents: And in many other cases, till I came to understand the greater power of the Pastors, in their own place and work.

4. But when I come to Church, or know that the judgment of all Concordant Godly Pastors, condemneth such a thing as damnable Heresy or Sin, which any Father commandeth me to receive and profess, I would more believe and follow the Judgment of the Pastors and Churches.

Quest. 30. May an Office Teacher or Pastor be at once, in a stated Relation of a Pastor and a Disciple to some other Pastor?

1. THat Timothy was still Paul's Son in point of Learning and his Disciple, and so that under Apostles the same persons might be stated in both relations at once, seemeth evident in Scripture.

2. But the same that is a Pastor is not at once a mere Lay-man.

3. That men in the same Office may so differ in Age, Experience, and degrees of knowledge as that young Pastors may and often ought, many years to continue, not only in occasional reception of their help, but also in an ordinary stated way of receiving it, and so be Related to them as their ordinary Teachers, by such gradual advantages, is past all doubt. And that all Juniors and Novices owe a certain reverence and audience, and some obedience to the elder and wiser.

4. But this is not to be a Disciple to him as in lower Order or Office, but as of lower Gifts and Grace.

5. It is lawful and very good for the Church, that some Ordained persons continue long as Pupils to their Tutors in Schools or Academies, ( e. g. to learn the holy Languages, if they have them not, &c. ) But this is a relation left to voluntary Contractors.

6. In the ancient Churches the particular Churches had one Bishop and some Presbyters and Deacons, usually of much lower parts, who lived all together (single or chaste) in the Bishops or Church-house, which was as a College, where he daily edified them by Doctrine and Example.

7. The Controversy about different Orders by Divine Institution, belongeth not to me here to meddle with: But as to the Natural and Acquired Imparity of age and gifts, and the unspeakable benefit to the Juniors and the Churches that it is desirable that there were such a way of their education and edification, I take to be discernible to any that is impartial and judicious.

Ambrose was at once a Teacher and a Learner: Beda Eccl. Hist. mentioneth one in England, that was at once a Pastor and a Disciple. And in Scotland some that became Bishops were still to be under the Government of the Abbot of their Monasteries according to their first devotion, though the Abbot was but a Presbyter.

8. Whether a settled private Church-member, may not at once continue his very formal Relation, to the Pastor of that Church, and yet be of the same Order with him in another Church, as their Pastor, at the same time (As he may in case of necessity continue his Apprenticeship, or civil service,) is a case that I will not determine. But he that denieth it, must prove his opinion, (or affirmation of its unlawfulness) by sufficient evidence from Scripure or Nature; which is hard.

Quest. 31. Who hath the power of making Church Canons?

THis is sufficiently resolved before. 1. The Magistrate only hath the power of making such Canons or Laws for Church matters as shall be enforced by the Sword.

2. Every Pastor hath power to make Canons for his own Congregation; that is, to determine what hour and at what place they shall meet; what Translation of Scripture, or Version of Psalms shall be used in his Church: what Chapter shall be read: what Psalm shall be sung, &c. Except the Magistrate contradict him, and determine it otherwise, in such points as are not proper to the Ministerial Office.

3. Councils or Assemblies of Pastors have the power of making such Canons for many Churches, as shall be Laws to the people, and Agreements to themselves.

4. None have power to make Church Laws or Canons, about anything, save 1. To put God's own Laws in execution, 2. To determine to that end, of such Circumstances as God hath left undetermined in his Word.

5. Canon-making under pretence of Order and Concord, hath done a great deal of mischief to the Churches: whilst Clergy men have grown up from Agreements, to Tyrannical Usurpations and Impositions, and from Concord about needful Accidents of Worship, to frame new Worship Ordinances, and to force them on all others; but especially 1. By encroaching on the power of Kings, and telling them that they are bound in Conscience to put all their Canons into execution by force: 2. And by laying the Union of the Churches, and the Communion of Christians upon things needless and doubtful, yea, and at last on many sinful things; whereby the Churches have been most effectually divided, and the Christian world set together by the Ears; and Schisms, yea, and Wars have been raised: And these maladies cannot possibly be healed, till the tormenting tearing Engines be broken and cast away, and the Voluminous Canons of numerous Councils, (which themselves also are matter of undeterminable Controversy) be turned into the primitive simplicity; and a few necessary things made the terms of Concord. Doubtless if every Pastor were left wholly to himself for the ordering of Worship Circumstances and Accidents in his own Church, without any Common Canons, save the Scriptures, and the Laws of the Land, there would have been much less division, than that is, which these numerous Canons of all the Councils, obtruded on the Church, have made.

Quest. 32. Doth Baptism as such enter the Baptized into the Universal Church, or into a particular Church, or both? And is Baptism the Particular-Church Covenant as such?

Answ. 1. BAptism as such doth enter us into the Universal Church, and into it alone; and is no particular Church-Covenant, but the solemnizing of the great Christian Covenant of Grace, between God and a believer and his seed.

For, 1. There is not essentially any mention of a particular Church in it.

2. A man may be baptized by a general unfixed Minister, who is not the Pastor of any particular Church: And he may be baptized in solitude, where there is no particular Church. The Eunuch Act. 8. was not baptized into any particular Church.

3. Baptism doth but make us Christians: But a man may be a Christian who is no member of any particular Church.

4. Otherwise Baptism should oblige us necessarily to a man, and be a Covenant between the Baptized and the Pastor and Church into which he is baptized: But it is only our Covenant with Christ.

5. We may frequently change our particular Church relation; without being baptized again. But we never change our relation to the Church which we are baptized into, unless by Apostasy.

2. Yet the same person at the same time that he is baptized may be entered into the universal Church, and into a particular; And ordinarily it ought to be so where it can be had.

3. And the Covenant which we make in baptism with Christ, doth oblige us to obey him, and consequently to use his instituted means, and so to hear his Ministers, and hold due Communion with his Churches.

4. But this doth no more enter us into a particular Church, than into a particular family. For we as well oblige ourselves to obey him in family relations as in Church relations.

5. When the baptized therefore is at once entered into the universal and particular Church, it is done by a double consent, to the double relation. By baptism he professeth his consent to be a member of Christ and his universal Church; and additionally he consenteth to be guided by that particular Pastor in that particular Church; which is another Covenant or Consent.

Quest. 33. Whether Infants should be Baptized?

I have answered long ago in a Treatise on that Subject.

Also What Infants should be Baptized? And who have Right to Sacraments? And whether Hypocrites are univocally or equivocally Christians and Church-members, I have resolved in my Dispute. of Right to Sacraments.

Quest. 34. Whether an unbaptized person who yet maketh a public profession of Christianity, be a member of the Visible Church? And so of the Infants of Believers unbaptized.

Answ. 1. SUch persons have a certain Imperfect irregular kind of profession, and so of Membership; Their Visibility or Visible Christianity is not such as Christ hath appointed. As those that are Marryed, but not by Legal Celebration, and as those that in cases of necessity are Ministers without Ordination; so are such Christians as Constantine and many of old without Baptism.

2. Such persons ordinarily are not to be admitted to the Rights and Communion of the Visible Church, because we must know Christ's sheep by his own mark: But yet they are so far visible Christians, as that we may be persuaded nevertheless of their salvation. As to visible Communion, they have but a remote and incomplete jus • d rem, and no jus in re, or legal investiture and possession.

3. The same is the case of unbaptized Infants of believers, because they are not of the Church merely as they are their natural seed; but because it is supposed that a person himself devoted to God, doth also devote his Children to God: Therefore not nature only, but this supposition arising from the true nature of his own dedication to God, is the reason why believers Children have their right to Baptism: Therefore till he hath Actually devoted them to God in Baptism, they are not legally members of the Visible Church, but only in fieri and imperfectly as is said. Of which more anon.

Quest. 35. Is it certain by the Word of God that all Infants Baptized, and dying before actual sin are undoubtedly saved? Or what Infants may we say so of?

Answ. I. 1. WE must distinguish between certainty objective and subjective, or plainlyer, the Reality or Truth of the Thing, and the certain apprehension of it.

2. And this certainty of apprehension, sometime signifieth only the Truth of that apprehension, when a man indeed is not deceived, or more usually that clearness of apprehension joined with Truth, which fully quieteth the mind and excludeth doubting.

3. We must distinguish of Infants as Baptized Lawfully upon just title, or unlawfully without title.

4. And also of Title before God, which maketh a Lawful claim and Reception at his bar; and Title before the Church, which maketh only the Administration lawful before God, and the Reception lawful only in foro ecclesiae or externo.

5. The word Baptism signifieth either the external part only, consisting in the words and outward action, or the Internal Covenanting of the heart also.

6. And that internal Covenant is either sincere which giveth right to the benefits of God's Covenant, or only partial, reserved, and unsound, such as is common to hypocrites.

Conclus. 1. God hath been pleased to speak so little in Scripture of the case of Infants, that modest men will use the words [ Certainly and Undoubtedly ] about their case, with very great Caution. And many great Divines have maintained that their very Baptism itself, cannot be [ Certainly and undoubtedly ] proved by the Word of God, but by Tradition: Though I have endeavored to prove the contrary in a special Treatise on that point.

2. No man can tell what is objectively certain or revealed in God's Word, who hath not subjective certainty or knowledge of it.

3. A man's apprehension may be True, when it is but a wavering opinion, with the greatest doubtfulness. Therefore we do not usually by a Certain apprehension, mean only a True apprehension, but a clear and quieting one.

4. It is possible to baptize Infants unlawfully, or without any Right, so that their Reception and baptizing shall be a great sin, as is the misapplying of other Ordinances. For instance; one in America where there is neither Church to receive them, nor Christian Parents nor Sponsors, may take up the Indians Children and Baptize them against the Parents wills; Or if the Parents consent to have their Children outwardly Baptized, and not themselves, as not knowing what Baptizing meaneth, or desire it only for outward advantages to their Children. Or if they offer them to be Baptized only in open derision and scorn of Christ; such Children have no Right to be received. And many other instances nearer may be given.

5. It's possible the person may have no Authority at all from Christ who doth Baptize them. And Christ's part in Reception of the person, and Collation and Investiture in his benefits, must be done by his Commission, or else how can we say that Christ doth it? But open Infidels, Women, Children, madmen, scorners, may do it that have none of his Commission.

6. That all Infants baptized without title or right by mis-application, and so dying, are not undoubtedly saved, nor any word of God doth certainly say so, we have reason to believe on these following grounds.

1. Because we can find no such Text, nor could ever prevail with them that say so, to show us such an ascertaining Word of God.

2. Because else gross sin would certainly be the way to salvation. For such mis-application of Baptism, by the demanders at least, would certainly be gross sin, as well as mis-applying the Lord's Supper.

3. Because it is clean contrary to the tenor of the new Covenant which promiseth salvation to none but penitent Believers and their seed: What God may do for others unknown to us, we have nothing to do with: But his Covenant hath made no other promise that I can find; 〈…〉 d we are • ertain of no man's salvation by Baptism, to whom God never made a promise of it. If by the Children of the faithful, be meant not only their Natural seed, but the Adopted or bought also of which they are true Proprietors, yet that is nothing to all others.

4. To add to God's words, Especially to his very Promise or Covenant, is so terrible a presumption, as we dare not be guilty of.

5. Because this tieth Grace or salvation so to the outward washing of the body or opus operatum as is contrary to the nature of God's Ordinances, and to the tenor of Scripture, and the judgment of the Protestant Divines.

6. Because this would make a strange disparity between the two Sacraments of the same Covenant of Grace: When a man Receiveth the Lord's Supper unworthily (in scorn, in drunkenness, or impenitency) much more without any right (as Infidels,) he doth eat and drink damnation or judgment to himself; and maketh his sin greater: Therefore he that gets a Child Baptized unworthily and without right, doth not therefore infallibly procure his salvation.

7. Because the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy; and the Scripture giveth this privilege to the Children of the faithful above others: whereas the contrary opinion levelleth them with the seed of Infidels and Heathens, as if these had right to salvation by mere Baptism, as well as the others.

8. Because else it would be the greatest act of Charity in the world, to send Soldiers to catch up all Heathens and Infidels Children and Baptize them; which no Christians ever yet thought their duty. Yea it would be too strong a temptation to them to kill them when they had done, that they might be all undoubtedly saved.

Obj. But that were to do evil that good might come by it.

Answ. But God is not to be so dishonored as to be supposed to make such Laws, as shall forbid men the greatest good in the World, and then to tempt them by the greatness of the benefit to take it to be no evil: As if he said, [If Soldiers would go take up a million of Heathens Children and Baptize them, it will put them into an undoubted state of salvation: But yet I forbid them doing it: And if they presently kill them, lest they sin after, they shall undoubtedly be saved; but yet I forbid them doing it.] I need not aggravate this temptation to them that know the power of the Law of nature, which is the Law of Love and good works, and how God that is most Good is pleased in our doing good: Though he tried Abraham 's obedience once, as if he should have killed his Son, yet he stopped him before the execution: And doth he ordinarily exercise men's obedience, by forbidding them to save the souls of others, when it is easily in their power? Especially when with the adult the greatest labor and powerfullest Preaching, is frequently so frustrate, that not one of many is converted by it.

9. Because else God should deal with unaccountable disparity with Infants and the Adult in the same ordinance of Baptism. It is certain that all Adult persons Baptized, if they died immediately, should not be saved. Even none that had no right to the Covenant and to Baptism; such as Infidels, Heathens, Impenitent persons, Hypocrites, that have not true Repentance and faith: And why should Baptism save an Infant without title, anymore than the Adult without title? I still suppose that some Infants have no title, and that now I speak of them alone.

Obj. But the Church giveth them all right by Receiving them.

Answ. This is to be farther examined anon. If you mean a particular Church, perhaps they are Baptized into none such: Baptism as such is a Reception only into the Universal Church, as in Eunuchs case, Act. 8. appeareth. If you mean the Universal Church, it may be but one single ignorant man in an Infidel Country that Baptizeth; And he is not the Universal Church? Yea perhaps is not a lawfully called Minister of that Church? However this is but to say, that Baptism giveth Right to Baptism. For this Receiving is nothing but Baptizing? But there must be a Right to this Reception, if baptism be a distinguishing Ordinance, and all the world have not right to it. Christ saith, Matth. 28. 19. Disciple me all Nations, baptizing them: They must be initially made Disciples first, by Consent, and then be Invested in the visible state of Christianity by Baptism.

10. If the Children of Heathens have right to baptism and salvation thereby it is either, 1. As they are men, and all have right, or 2. Because the parents give them right, 3. Or because remote ancestors give them right, 4. Or because the universal Church gives them right, 5. Or because a particular Church giveth them right, 6. Or because the Sponsors give them right, 7. Or the Magistrate, 8. Or the Baptizer. But it is none of all these, as shall anon be proved.

II. But as to the second question, I answer: 1. It will help us to understand the case the better if we prepare the way by opening the case of the Adult, because in Scripture times, they were the most famous subjects of Baptism. And it is certain of such, 1. That everyone outwardly Baptized is not in a state of salvation. That no hypocrite that is not a true penitent believer is in such a state. 2. That every true penitent believer is before God in a state of salvation, as soon as he is such; And before the Church, as soon as he is baptized. 3. That we are not to use the word Baptism as a Physical term only, but as a moral Theological term. Because words (as in Law, physic, &c. ) are to be understood according to the art or science in which they are treated of. And Baptism taken Theologically doth as Essentially include the Wills consent or Heart-Covenanting with God, as Matrimony includeth marriage consent, and as a man containeth the soul as well as the body. And thus it is certain that all truly Baptized persons are in a state of salvation; that is, All that sincerely consent to the Baptismal Covenant when they profess consent by Baptism, (but not hypocrites.) 4. And in this sense all the Ancient Pastors of the Churches, did concur that Baptism did wash away all sin, and put the baptized into a present right to life eternal; as he that examineth their Writings will perceive: not the outward washing and words alone, but when the inward and outward parts concur, or when by true faith and repentance, the Receiver hath right to the Covenant of God. 5. In this sense it is no unfit language to imitate the Fathers, and to say that the truly baptized are in a state of Justification, adoption and salvation, unless when men's misunderstanding maketh it unsa • e. 6. The sober Papists themselves say the same thing, and when they have said that even ex opere operato Baptism saveth, they add that it is only the meet Receiver; that is, the penitent believer, and no other of the adult. So that hitherto there is no difference.

2. Now let us by this try the case of Infants; concerning which there are all these several opinions among Divines.

1. Some think that all Infants (baptized or not) are saved from Hell and positive punishment, but are not brought to Heaven as being not capable of such joys.

2. Some think that all Infants (dying such) are saved as others are, by actual felicity in Heaven, though in a lower degree. Both these sorts suppose that Christ's death saveth all that reject 〈…〉 not, and that Infants reject it not.

3. Some think that all unbaptized Infants do suffer the poenam damni and are shut out of Heaven and happiness, but not sensibly punished or cast into Hell. For this Jansen hath wrote a Treatise; and many other Papists think so.

4. Some think that all the Children of sincere believers dying in infancy are saved (that is Glorified) whether baptized or not; and no others.

5. Some think that God hath not at all revealed what he will do with any Infants.

6. Some think that he hath promised salvation as aforesaid to believers and their seed, but hath not at all revealed to us what he will do with all the rest.

7. Some think that only the Baptized Children of true believers are certainly (by promise) saved.

8. Some think that all the adopted and bought Children of true Christians, as well as the natural, are saved (if baptized, say some; or if not, say others.)

9. Some think that Elect Infants are saved, and no other, but no man can know who those are. And of these, 1. Some deny Infant Baptism; 2. Most say that they are to be baptized, and that thereby the non-elect are only received into the visible Church, and its privileges, but not to any promise or certainty of Justification, or a state of salvation.

10. Some think that all that are baptized by the Dedication of Christian Sponsors are saved.

11. Some think that all that the Pastor Dedicateth to God are saved, (because so dedicated by him say some; or because baptized ex opere operato say others.) And so all baptized Infants are in a state of salvation.

12. Some think that this is to be limited to all that have right to Baptism coram Deo; which some think the Churches reception giveth them, of which anon.

13. And some think it is to be limited to those that have right 〈…〉 m Ecclesia, or are rightfully baptized ex parte Ministrantis, where some make the Magistrates command sufficient, and some the Bishops and some the baptizers will.

Of the title to Baptism I shall speak anon. Of the salvation of Infants, it is too tedious to confute all that I dissent from: not presuming in such darkness and diversity of opinions to be peremptory, nor to say, I am certain by the Word of God who are undoubtedly saved, nor yet to deny the undoubted certainty of wiser men, who may know that which such as I do doubt of, but submitting what I say to the judgment of the Church of God and my superiors, I humbly lay down my own thoughts as followeth.

1. I think that there can no promise or proof be produced that all unbaptized Infants are saved, either from the poena damni or sensus or both.

2. I think that no man can prove that all unbaptized Infants are damned, or denied Heaven. Nay I think I can prove a promise of the contrary.

3. All that are rightfully baptized in foro externo are visible Church members, and have Ecclesiastical right to the privileges of the visible Church.

4. I think Christ never instituted Baptism for the collation of these outward Privileges alone, unless as on supposition that persons culpably fail of the better ends.

5. I think Baptism is a solemn mutual contract or Covenant between Christ and the Baptized person. And that it is but one Covenant, even the Covenant of Grace which is the sum of the Gospel, which is sealed and received in baptism; And that this Covenant essentially containeth our saving relation to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and our Pardon, Justification and Adoption or right to life everlasting: And that God never made any distinct Covenant of outward Privileges alone, to be sealed by Baptism: But that outward mercies are the second and lesser gift of the same Covenant which giveth first the great and saving blessings.

6. And therefore that whoever hath right before God, to claim and Receive Baptism, hath right also to the benefits of the Covenant of God, and that is, to salvation: Though I say not so of everyone that hath such right before the Church, as that God doth require the Minister to Baptize him. For by Right before God, or in foro coeli I mean, such a Right as will justify the claim before God immediately, the person being one whom he commandeth in that present state to claim and receive baptism. For many a one hath no such right before God to claim or receive it, when yet the Minister hath right to give it them if they do claim it.

The case stands thus. God saith in his Covenant, [ He that believeth shall be saved, and ought to be Baptized to profess that belief and be invested in the benefits of the Covenant; And he that Professeth to believe (whether he do or not) is by the Church to be taken for a visible believer, and by Baptism to be received into the Visible Church. ] Here God calleth none but true believers (and their seed) to be Baptized, nor maketh an actual promise or Covenant with any other; and so I say that no other have right in foro coeli. But yet the Church knoweth not men's hearts, and must take a serious Profession for a credible sign of the faith professed, and for that outward title upon which it is a duty of the Pastor to Baptize the claimer. So that the most malignant scornful hypocrite that maketh a seemingly serious profession, hath right coram Ecclesia, but not coram Deo, save in this sense, that God would have the Minister Baptize him. But this I have largelyer opened in my Disputations of Right to Sacraments.

7. I think therefore that all the Children of true Christians, do by Baptism receive a public Investiture by God's appointment into a state of Remission, Adoption and right to salvation at the present: Though I dare not say that I am undoubtedly certain of it, as knowing how much is said against it. But I say as the Synod of Dort, Art. 1. that Believing Parents have no cause to doubt of the salvation of their Children that die in infancy, before they commit actual sin; that is, not to trouble themselves with fears about it.

The Reasons that move me to be of this judgment (though not without doubting and hesitancy) are these, 1. Because whoever hath right to the present Investiture, delivery and possession of the first and great benefits of God's Covenant made with man in Baptism, hath right to Pardon and Adoption and everlasting life: But the Infants of true Christians have right to the present investiture, delivery and possession of the first and great benefits of God's Covenant made with man in Baptism. Therefore they have right to pardon and everlasting life.

Either Infants are in the same Covenant (that is, are subjects of the same promise of God) with their believing Parents, or in some other Covenant, or in no Covenant: If they be under no Covenant (or promise) or under some other promise or Covenant only, and not the same; they are not to be Baptized. For Baptism is a mutual Covenanting; where the Minister by Christ's Commission in his name acteth his part, and the believer his own and his Infants part: And God hath but one Covenant, which is to be made, sealed and delivered in baptism. Baptism is not an equivocal word, so as to signify divers Covenants of God.

Obj. But the same Covenant of God hath divers sorts of benefits, The special God giveth to the sincere, and the Common to the common and hypocritical receiver.

Answ. 1. God indeed requireth the Minister to take Profession for the Visible Church-title; And so it being the Ministers duty so far to believe a liar, and to Receive dissemblers wh 〈…〉 had no right to lay that claim, you may say that God indirectly and improperly, giveth them Church-privileges: But properly, that is, by his promise or Covenant-deed of gift, he giveth them nothing at all; For his Covenant is one, and undivided in its action, though it give several benefits, and Though Providence may give one and not another, yet the Covenant giveth all or none. God saith that Godliness hath the promise of this life and of that to come: but he never said (that I know of) [ To the bypocrite or unsound believer I promise or give right to common mercies. ]

2. But suppose it were otherwise, yet either the Children of true believers have the true Condition of Right to the special blessings of the Covenant, or they have not the condition of any at all. For there can no more be required of an Infant as to any special blessings of the Covenant, than that he be the Child of believing Parents and by them Dedicated to God. Either this condition entitleth them to all the Covenant promises which the adult believer is entitled to (as far as their natures are capable) or it entitleth them to none at all: Nor are they to be baptized: For God hath in Scripture instituted but one baptism (to profess one faith ) And that one is ever for the remission of sins: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, Mark 16. 16.

3. Or if all the rest were granted you, yet it would follow that all Infants in the World, even of true believers, are left out of God's Covenant of Grace, that is, the Covenant or promise of pardon of life; and are only taken in to the Covenant of Church-privileges. And so 1. You will make two Covenants (which you denied) and not only two sorts of benefits of one Covenant. 2. And two species of Baptism: while all Infants in the World are only under a Covenant of outward privileges, and have no baptism, but the seal of that Covenant, while believers have the Covenant, promise and seal of pardon and life.

2. And this is my second Reason, Because then we have no promise or certainty, or ground of faith, for the pardon and salvation of any individual Infants in the World. And so Parents are left to little comfort for their Children. And if there be no promise there is no faith of it, nor no Baptism to seal it; and so we still make Antipaedobaptism unavoidable. For who dare set God's seal to such as have no promise? Or pretend to Invest any in a near and saving Relation to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (which is the very nature of Baptism) when God hath given no such commission?

Obj. Yes: Baptism and the Covenant of special promises are for all the Elect, though we know not who they are.

Answ. 1. I deny not God's Eternal antecedent Election; But I deny that the Scripture ever mentioneth his pardoning or Glorifying any, upon the account of Election only, without certain spiritual conditions, which may be given as the reason of the difference in judgment. God may freely give the Gospel to whom he will, and also faith or the first grace by the Gospel, without any previous condition in man, but according to his free Election only: But he giveth pardon and Heaven as a Rector by his equal Laws and judgment; and always rendereth a reason of the difference, from the qualifications of man.

2. And if this were as you say, it would still overthrow Infant baptism. For either we must baptize all indifferently, or none, or else know how to make a difference. All must not be baptized indifferently: And Election is a secret thing to us, and by it no Minister in the World can tell whom to baptize; Therefore he must baptize none, if there be no other differencing note to know them by.

Obj. God hath more elect ones among the Infants of true believers than among others: And therefore they are all to be baptized.

Answ. 1. It will be hard to prove that much (that he hath more) if there be no promise to them all as such. 2. If he have more, yet no man knoweth how many, and whether the Elect be one of ten, twenty, forty or an hundred in comparison of the non-elect: For Scripture tells it not. So that no Minister of a Church is sure that any one Infant that he ever baptized is elect. 3. And God hath given no such rule for sealing and delivering his Covenant with the benefits, as to cast it hap hazard among all, because it is possible or probable it may belong to some.

Object. You have no certainty what adult professor is sincere, nor to which of them the special benefits belong; no not of any one in a Church, And yet because that there is a probability that among many there are some sincere, you baptize them all. Take then the birth privilege but as equal to the profession of the adult.

Answ. This partly satisfied me sometimes: But I cannot forget that A visible, false or hypocritical profession is not the condition of God's own Covenant of Grace, nor that which he requireth in us, to make us partakers of his Covenant-benefits, Nay, he never at all commandeth it; but only commandeth that profession of Consent, which followeth the real consent of the heart; He that condemneth lying, maketh it neither the condition of our Church-membership, as his gift by promise, nor yet our duty.

And mark well, that it is a Professed Consent to the whole Covenant that God requireth, as the condition of our true right to any part or benefit of it. He that shall only say, I consent to be a visible Church-member, doth thereby acquire no right to that membership; no not in foro Ecclesiae: But he must also profess that he consenteth to have God for his God, and Christ for his Lord and Savior, and the Holy Spirit for his Sanctifier. So that he must be a liar or a sound believer that maketh this profession.

But for an Infant to be born of true believers, and sincerely by them dedicated in Covenant to God, is all the Condition that ever God required to an Infant-title to his Covenant; And it is not the failure of the true Condition as a false profession is.

Indeed if the proportion were thus laid, it would hold good; [As we know not who sincerely covenanteth for himself, and yet must baptize all that soberly profess it; so we know not who doth sincerely Covenant for his Infant, and yet we must baptize all whom the Parents bring with such a profession, for themselves and them.]

But if the sincere dedication of a sound believer, shall be accounted but equal to the lying profession of the adult, which is neither commanded, nor hath any promise, then Infants are not in the Covenant of Grace, nor is their sincerest dedication to God either commanded or hath any promise.

If I were but sure that the profession of the Adult for himself were sincere, I were sure that he were in a state of Grace. And if I am not sure of the same concerning the Parents dedication of his Infant, I must conclude that this is not a condition of the same Covenant, and therefore that he is not in the same Covenant (or Conditional promise of God) unless there be some other Condition required in him or for him: But there is no other that can be devised.

Object. Election is the Condition.

Answ. Election is God's act and not man's; and therefore may be an Antecedent but no Condition, required of us. And man is not called to make Profession that he is Elected, as he is to make profession of his faith and consent to the Covenant. And God only knoweth who are his by Election, and therefore God only can baptize on this account.

And what is the probability which the objectors mean that many of the Infants of the faithful are elected? Either it is a promise, or but a prediction: If no promise it is not to be sealed by baptism. If a promise, it is absolute o • conditional. If any absolute promise [As, I will save many children of believers] 1. This terminateth not on any singular person, as baptism doth, and 2. It is not the absolute promise that baptism is appointed by Christ to seal. This is apparent in Mark 16. 16. and in the case of the adult. And it is not one Covenant which is sealed to the adult by baptism, and another to infants. Else baptism also should not be the same. But if it be any conditional Covenant, what is it, and what is the condition?

And what is it that baptism giveth to the seed of believers, if they be not justified by it from original sin? You will not say, that it conveyeth Inherent sanctifying Grace, no not into all the Elect themselves, which many are many years after without. And you cannot say, that it sealeth to them, any promise, so much as of visible Church-privileges. For God may suffer them presently to be made Ianizaries, and violently taken from their Parents, and become strangers and despisers of Church-privileges, as is ordinary with the Greeks Children among the Turks. Now God either promised such Church-privileges absolutely, or conditionally, or not at all? Not absolutely, for then they would possess them. If conditionally, what is the Condition? If not at all, what promise then doth baptism seal to such, and what benefit doth it secure? God hath instituted no baptism, which is a mere present delivery of possession of a Church-state, without sealing any Promise at all. True baptism first sealeth the promise, and then delivereth possession of some benefits.

Yea, indeed outward Church-privileges are such uncertain blessings of the promise, that as they are but secondary, so they are but secondarily given and sealed, so that no man should ever be baptized, if these were all that were in the promise. The holiest person may be cast into a Wilderness, and deprived of all visible Church-communion: And doth God then Break his promise with him? Certainly no: It is therefore our saving Relations to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which the promise giveth, and baptism sealeth; and other things but subordinately and uncertainly as they are means to these. So then its plain, that believers Infants have a promise of salvation, or no promise at all which baptism was instituted to seal.

I have said so much more of this in my Appendix to the Treatise of Infant Baptism, to Mr. Bedford, in defense of Dr. Davenants judgment, as that I must refer the Reader thither.

8. I think it very probable that this ascertaining promise belongeth not only to the natural seed of believers, but to all whom they have a true power and right to dedicate in Covenant to God: which seemeth to be all that are properly their Own, whether Adopted or bought; But there is more darkness and doubt about this than the former, because the Scripture hath said less of it.

9. I am not able to prove, nor see any probable reason for it, that any but sound believers have such a promise for their children: nor that any hypocrite shall certainly save his child, if he do but dedicate him to God in baptism. For, 1. I find no promise in Scripture made to such. 2. He that doth not sincerely believe himself, nor consent to God's Covenant, cannot sincerely believe for his child, nor consent for him. 3. And that faith which will not save the owner, as being not the condition of the promise, cannot save another. Much more might be said of this. I confess, that the Church is to receive the children of hypocrites as well as themselves: And their baptism is valid in foro externo Ecclesiae; and is not to be reiterated. But it goeth no further for his child, than for himself.

10. Therefore I think that all that are Rightfully baptized by the Minister, that is, baptized so as that its well done of him, are not certainly saved by baptism, unless they be also rightfully baptized, in regard of their right to claim and receive it. Let them that are able to prove more do it, for I am not able.

11. Whereas some mis-interpret the words of the old Rubric of Confirmation in the English Liturgy, as if it spake of all that are baptized, whether they had Right or not, the words themselves may serve to rectify that mistake, [ And that no man shall think any detriment shall come to children by deferring of their Confirmation, he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God's Word, that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved, ] Where it is plain that they mean, they have all things necessary ex parte Ecclesiae, or all God's applying Ordinances necessary, though they should die unconfirmed, supposing that they have all things necessary to just baptism on their own part. Which is but what the ancients were wont to say of the Baptized Adult; But they never meant that the Infidel and Hypocrite and Impenitent person was in a state of life, because he was baptized; But that all that truly consent to the Covenant, and signify this by being baptized are saved. So the Church of England saith, that they receive no detriment by delaying Confirmation, but it never said, that they receive no detriment by their Parents or Sponsors Infidelity and Hypocrisy, or by their want of true Right Coram Deo to be baptized.

12. But yet before these Questions (either of them) be taken as resolved by me, I must first take in some other questions which are concerned in the same Cause; as

Quest. 36. What is meant by this speech, that Believers and their seed are in the Covenant of God; which giveth them right to Baptism?

Answ. THough this was opened on the by before, I add, 1. The meaning is not that they are in that Absolute promise of the first and all following grace, supposed ordinarily to be made of the Elect as such (unknown) viz. [ I will give them Faith, Repentance, Conversion, Justification and Salvation and all the Conditions of the Conditional promise, without any Condition on their part ] which many take to be the meaning of [ I will take the hard heart out of them, &c.] For 1. This promise is not now to be first performed to the adult who Repent and believe already: And no other are to be baptized at age: If that Absolute promise be sealed by baptism, either it must be so sealed as a promise before it be performed, or after: If before, either to all, because some are elect, or only to some that are elect. Not to all: for it is not common to Infidels: Not to some as elect; for 1. They are unknown, 2. If they were known, they are yet supposed to be Infidels. Not after performance, for then it is too late.

2. The meaning is not only that the Conditional Covenant of Grace is made and offered to them: For so it may be said of Heathens and Infidels and all the world that hear the Gospel.

But 1. The Covenant meant is indeed this Conditional Covenant only, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.

2. To be in this Covenant is, to be a Consenting believer, and so to be one that hath by Inward Heart Consent, the true Conditions of right to the benefits of the Covenant, and is thereby prepared solemnly by baptism to Profess this Consent, and to receive an Investiture and seal of God's part, by his Minister given in his name.

3. Infants are thus in Covenant with their Parents, because Reputatively their Parents Wills are th •• rs, to dispose of them for their good. And therefore they Consent by their Parents, who Consent for them.

Quest. 37. Are Believers Children certainly in Covenant before their Baptism, and thereby in a state of Salvation? Or not till they are baptized?

Answ. DIstinguish between 1. Heart-Covenanting, and Mouth-Covenanting: 2. Between being in Covenant before God, and Visibly before the Church.

1. No person is to be baptized at age, whose Inward Heart Consent before professed, giveth him not Right to baptism. Therefore all the adult must be in Covenant, that is, Consent on their part to the Covenant, before they are baptized.

2. Therefore it is so with the seed of the faithful, who must Consent by their Parents, before they have right: Otherwise all should have right, and their baptism be essentially another baptism, as sealing some other Covenant, or none.

3. If there be no promise made to the seed of the faithful more than to others, they have no right more than others to baptism or salvation. But if there be a promise made to them as the seed of believers, then are they as such within that promise, that is, performers of its conditions by their Parents, and have right to the benefit.

4. If the Heart Consent or faith of the Adult, do put themselves into a state of salvation, before their baptism, then it doth so by their children: But &c. —

5. But this Right to salvation in Parents and Children upon Heart Consent before baptism, is only before God. For the Church taketh no Cognizance of secret heart-transactions: But a man then only consenteth in the Judgment of the Church, when he openly professeth it, and desireth to signify it by being baptized.

6. And even before God, there is a necessitas praecepti obliging us to open baptism after heart consent: And he that heartily consenteth, cannot refuse God's way of uttering it, unless either through ignorance he know it not to be his duty, (for himself and his child,) or through want of ability or opportunity cannot have it. So that while a man is unbaptized, somewhat is wanting to the completeness of his right to the benefits of the Covenant, viz. A reception of Investiture and possession in God's appointed way; though it be not such a want, as shall frustrate the salvation of those that did truly consent in heart.

7. I take it therefore for certain, that the children of true believers, Consent to the Covenant by their Parents, and are as certainly saved if they die before baptism, as after; Though those that despise baptism when they know it to be a duty, cannot be thought indeed to believe or consent for their children or themselves.

Quest. 38. Is Infants title to Baptism and the Covenant-benefits given them by God in his Promise, upon any proper Moral Condition, or only upon the Condition of their Natural Relation, that they be the Seed of the Faithful?

Answ. THat which is called a mere Natural Condition is properly in Law sense no condition at all; nor doth make a Contract or Promise to be called Conditional in a Moral sense. But it is matters of Morality and not of Physicks only that we are treating of; and therefore we must take the terms in a Moral sense. For a Physical Condition is either past; or present, or future, or not-future: If it be past or present, the proposition may indeed be hypothetical, but it is no such conditional promise as we are speaking of: For instance, if you say, [If thou wast born in such a City, or if thy name be John, I will give thee so much] These are the words of an uncertain promiser; but the Promise is already either equivalent to an Absolute Gift, or Null. So if the Physical condition be de futuro, e. g. [If thou be alive tomorrow, I will give thee this or that; or if the Sun shine tomorrow, &c. ] This indeed suspendeth the gift or event; but not upon any Moral being which is in the power of the Receiver, but upon a Natural Contingency or uncertainty. And God hath no such Conditional Covenants or promises to be sealed by baptism. He saith not, If thou be the child of such or such a man, thou shalt be saved, as his natural offspring only. If the Papists that accuse us for holding that the mere natural progeny of believers are saved as such, did well understand our doctrine, they would perceive that in this we differ not from the understanding sort among them, or at least, that their accusations run upon a mistake.

I told you before that there are three things distinctly to be considered in the title of Infants to baptism and salvation. 1. By what right the Parent covenanteth for his child? 2. What right the child hath to baptism? 3. What right he hath to the benefits of the Covenant sealed and delivered in baptism?

To the first, two things concur to the title of the Parent to Covenant in the name of his child: One is his Natural Interest in him, The child being his own is at his dispose. The other is God's gracious will and consent that it shall be so; that the Parents Will shall be as the child's for his good, till he come at age to have a Will of his own.

To the second, The child's right to baptism is not merely his Natural or his Birth relation from such Parents, but it is in two degrees as followeth, 1. He hath a Virtual Right, on condition of his Parents faith: the Reason is, because that a believers consent and self-dedication to God death Virtually contain in it a dedication with himself of all that is his: And it is a contradiction to say that a a man truly dedicateth himself to God, and not all that he hath, and that he truly consenteth to the Covenant for himself, and not for his child, if he understand that God will accept it. 2. His Actual title-condition is his Parents (or Owners) Actual Consent to enter him into God's Covenant, and his Actual mental dedication of his child to God, which is his title before God, and the Profession of it is his title before the Church. So that it is not a mere Physical but a Moral title-condition, which an Infant hath to baptism, that is, His Parents Consent to dedicate him to God.

3. And to the third, His title-condition to the Benefits of baptism, hath two degrees, 1. That he be really dedicated to God by the heart-consent of his Parent as aforesaid: And 2. That his Parent express this by the solemn engaging him to God in baptism; The first being necessary as a Means sine quo non, and the second being necessary as a Duty without which he sinneth, (when its possible,) and as a Means coram Ecclesia to the privileges of the Visible Church.

The sum of all is, that our mere natural interest in our children is not their title-condition to baptism or to salvation, but only that presupposed state which enableth us by God's Consent to Covenant for them: But their title-condition to baptism and salvation, is our Covenanting for them, or Voluntary dedicating them to God; which we do 1. Virtually when we dedicate ourselves, and all that we have or shall have, 2. Actually when our Hearts consent particularly for them, and Actually devote them to God, before Baptism: 3. Sacramentally, when we express this in our solemn baptismal covenanting and dedication.

Consider exactly of this again; And if you loath distinguishing, confess ingenuously that you loath the truth, or the necessary means of knowing it.

Quest. 39. What is the true meaning of Sponsors, Patrimi or God-fathers as we call them? And is it lawful to make use of them?

Answ. I. TO the first question; All men have not the same thoughts either of their Original, or of their present use.

1. Some think that they were Sponsors or Sureties for the Parents rather than the child at first: And that when many in times of Persecution, Heresy and Apostasy, did baptize their children this month or year, and the next month or year apostatize and deny Christ themselves, that the Sponsors were only credible Christians witnessing that they believed that the Parents were credible firm believers, and not like to apostatize. 2. Others think that they were undertakers, that if the Parents did apostatize or die, they would see to the Christian Education of the child themselves. 3. Others think that they did both these together: (which is my opinion; ) viz. That they witnessed the probability of the parents fidelity; But promised that if they should either apostatize or die, they would see that the children were piously educated. 4. Others think that they were absolute undertakers that the children should be piously educated, whether the Parents died or apostatized or not: So that they went joint-undertakers with the Parents in their life time. 5. And I have lately met with some that maintain that the God-fathers and God-mothers, become Proprietors, and Adopt the child, and take him for their own, and that this is the sense of the Church of England. But I believe them not for these reasons.

1. There is no such word in the Liturgy, Doctrine or Canons of the Church of England: And that is not to be feigned and fathered on them, which they never said.

2. It would be against the Law of Nature to force all Parents to give the sole propriety, or joyntpropriety in their children to others. Nature hath given the propriety to themselves, and we cannot rob them of it.

3. It would be heinously injurious to the children of Noble and Learned persons, if they must be forced to give them up to the propriety and education of others, even of such as perhaps are lower and more unfit for it than themselves.

4. It would be more heinously injurious to all God-fathers and God-mothers, who must all make other men's children their own, and therefore must use them as their own.

5. It would keep most children unbaptized; Because if it were once understood that they must take them as their own, few would be Sponsors to the children of the poor, for fear of keeping them; and few but the Ignorant that know not what they do, would be Sponsors for any, because of the greatness of the charge, and their averseness to adopt the children of others.

6. It would make great confusion in the State, while all men were bound to exchange children with another.

7. I never knew one man or woman that was a God-father or God-mother on such terms, nor that took the child to be their own: And if such a one should be found among ten thousand, that is no rule to discern the judgment of the Church by.

8. And in Confirmation the God-father and God-mother is expressly said to be for this use, to be Witnesses that the Party is Confirmed.

9. And in the Priests speech to the Adult that come for baptism, in the Office of baptism of those of riper years, it is the persons themselves that are to promise and covenant for themselves, and the God-fathers and God-mothers are only called [ these your Witnesses. ] And if they be but Witnesses to the adult, its like they are not Adopters of Infants.

II. Those that doubt of the Lawfulness of using Sponsors for their children, do it on these two accounts: 1. As supposing it unlawful to make so promiscuous an Adoption of children, or of choosing another to be a Covenanter for the child instead of the Parent, to whom it belongeth; or to commit their children to another's either propriety, or education, or formal promise of that which belongeth to education, when they never mean to perform it, nor can do. 2. Because they take it for an Adding to the Ordinance of God, a thing which Scripture never mentioneth. To which I answer.

1. I grant it unlawful to suppose another to be the Parent or proprietor that is not: Or to suppose him to have that power and interest in your child which he hath not: O • to desire him to undertake what he cannot perform, and which neither he nor you intend he shall perform: I grant that you are not bound to alienate the propriety of your children, nor to take in another to be joint-proprietors; nor to put out your children to the God-fathers education. So that if you will misunderstand the Use of Sponsors, then indeed you will make them unlawful to be so used.

But if you take them but as the ancient Churches did, for such as do attest the Parents fidelity (in their persuasion,) and do promise first to mind you of your duty, and next to take care of the children's pious education if you die, I know no reason you have to scruple this much.

Yea more, it is in your own power to agree with the God-fathers, that they shall represent your own persons, and speak and promise what they do, as your deputies only, in your names? And what have you against this? Suppose you were sick, lame, imprisoned or banished, would you not have your child baptized? And how should that be done, but by your deputing another to represent you in entering him into Covenant with God?

Object. But when the Church-men mean another thing, this is but to juggle with the world.

Answ. How can you prove that the authority that made or imposed the Liturgy, meant any other thing? And other individuals are not the Masters of your sense. 2. Yea, and if the Imposers had meant ill, in a thing that may be done well, you may discharge your conscience by doing it well, and making a sufficient profession of your better sense.

2. And then it will be no sinful addition to God's Ordinance, to determine of a lawful circumstance, which he hath left to human prudence: As to choose a meet Deputy, Witness or Sponsor, who promiseth nothing but what is meet.

Quest. 40. On whose account or right is it that the Infant hath title to Baptism and its benefits? Is it on the Parents, Ancestors, Sponsors, the Churches, the Ministers, the Magistrates, or his own?

Answ. THe titles are very various that are pretended: Let us examine them all.

I. I cannot think that a Magistrates Command to baptize an Infant, giveth him right, 1. Because there is no proof of the validity of such a title: 2. Because the Magistrate can command no such thing if it be against God's Word, as this is, which would level the case of the seed of Heathens and believers. And I know but few of that opinion.

II. I do not think that the Minister as such giveth title to the Infant: For 1. He is no proprietor, 2. He can show no such power or grant from God: 3. He must baptize none but those that antecedently have right. 4. Else he also might level all, and take in Heathens children with believers: 5. Nor is this pretended to by many, that I know of.

III. I cannot think that it is a particular Church that must give this Right, or perform the condition of it. For 1. Baptism (as is aforesaid) as such, doth only make a Christian, and a member of the Universal Church, and not of any particular Church. And 2. The Church is not the proprietor of the child. 3. No Scripture Commission can be shown for such a power. Where hath God said, All that any particular Church will receive, shall have right to baptism? 4. By what act must the Church give this right? If by baptizing him; the question is of his antecedent right? If by willing that he be baptized, 1. If they will that one be baptized that hath no right to it, their will is sinful, and therefore unfit to give him right. 2. And the baptizing Minister hath more power than a thousand or ten thousand private men, to judge who is to be baptized. 5. Else a Church might save all Heathens children that they can but baptize, and so level Infidels and Christians seed. 6. It is not the Church in general, but someone person, that must educate the child: Therefore the Church cannot so much as promise for its education: The Church hath nothing to do with those that are without: but only with her own; And Heathens children are not her own, nor exposed to her occupation.

IV. I believe not that it is the Universal Church that giveth the Infant title to baptism: For, 1. He that giveth title to the Covenant and baptism, doth it as a performer of the Moral Condition of that title. But God hath nowhere made the Churches faith, to be the condition of baptism or salvation, either • o Infidels or their seed. 2. Because the Universal Church is a body that cannot be consulted with to give their Vote and Consent: Nor have they any Deputies to do it by. For there is no Universal Visible Governor: And if you will pretend every Priest to be commissioned to act and judge in the name of the Universal Church, you will want proof, and thats before confuted. 3. If all have right that the Universal Church offereth up to God, or any Minister or Bishop be counted its Deputy or Agent to that end, it is in the power of that Minister (as is said) to level all, and to baptize and save all; which is contrary to the Word of God.

V. I believe that God-fathers as such, being no Adopters or Proprietors, are not the performers of the condition of salvation for the Infant, nor give him right to be baptized. 1. Because he is not their Own, and therefore their will or act cannot go for his: Because there is no Word of God for it that all shall be baptized or saved that any Christians will be Sponsors for. God's Church blessings be not tied • o such inventions, that were not in being when God's Laws were made. Where • here is no promise or word, there is no faith. 3. No Sponsors are so much as lawful (as is shown before) who are not Owners, or their Deputies, or mere secondary subservient parties, who suppose the principal Covenanting party. 4. And as to the Infants salvation, the Sponsors may (too oft) be ignorant Infidels and Hypocrites themselves, that have no true faith for themselves; and therefore not enough to save another. 5. And it were strange if God should make no promise to a wicked Parent for his own child, and yet should promise to save by baptism all that some wicked and hypocrite God-fathers will offer him. 6. And that thus the seed of Heathens and Christians should be levelled, and yet an ignorant bold undertaker to carry away the privilege of saving persons from them both. All this is but men's unproved imaginations. He that never commandeth God-fathers; but forbiddeth the Usurping sort, and only alloweth human prudence to use the Lawful sort, did never put the souls of all children, Christians and Heathens into their hands, (no more than into the hands of the Priest that baptizeth them.)

VI. I do not find that remote ancestors that are dead, or that are not the proprietors of the children, are the performers of the Condition by which they have right to baptism or salvation. 1. Because God hath put that power and work in the hands of others, even the Parents, which they cannot nullify. 2. Because the promise of mercy to thousands is no supposition that the successors make no intercision. 3. Else the threatenings to the seed of the wicked would signify nothing, nor would any in the world be excluded from right, but all be levelled; Because Noah was the common Father of mankind: And if you lay it on dead Ancestors, you have no rule where to stop till you come to Noah.

VII. I conclude therefore that it is, elearly the Immediate Parents, (both or one) and probably any true domestic Owner of the Child, who hath the power to Choose or Refuse for him; and so to enter him into Covenant with God, and so by Consent to perform the Condition of his Right. For 1. Abundance of promises are made to the faithful and their seed, of which I have spoke at large in my Book of Infant Baptism. And besides the punishment of Adams sin, there is scarce a Parent infamous for sin in Scripture, but his posterity falleth under the punishment, as for a secondary Original sin or guilt. As the case of Cain, Cham, the Sodomites, the Amalekites, the Jews, Achan, Gehazi, &c. show. And 1 Cor. 7. 14. it is expressly said, Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy (of the sense of which I have spoke as aforecited).

Object. But if Owners may serve, one may buy multitudes, and a King or Lord of slaves, whose Own the people are, may cause them all to be baptized and saved.

Answ. 1. Remember that I say, that the Christian Parents Right is clear, but I take the other as more dark: For it is principally grounded on Abraham and the Israelites circumcising their children born to them in the house or bought with money: And how far the parity of reason here will reach is hard to know. All that I say is, that I will not deny it, because favores sunt ampliandi. 2. If such a Prince be an hypocrite, and not a sincere Christian himself, his faith or consent cannot save others, that cannot save himself. 3. It is such a propriety as is conjunct with a Divine Concession only that giveth this power of Consenting for an Infant: Now we find clear proof of God's Concession to Natural Parents, and probable proof of his Concession of it to Domestic Owners; but no further that I know of. For, 1. It is an Act of God's Love to the child for the Parents sake; and therefore to such children as we are supposed to have a special Nearness to, and Love for. 2. And it is a Consent and Covenanting which he calls for, which obligeth the promiser to, consequent pious education, which is a domestic act. 3. They are comprised in the Name of Parents, which those that adopt them and educate them may be called. 4. And the Infants are their Children, not their Slaves. But now if the Emperor of Moscovy, Indostan, &c. had the propriety in all his people as slaves, this would not intimate paternal interest and love, but tyranny, nor could he be their domestical educater. Therefore I must limit it to a pro-parent, or domestical educating proprietor.

Quest. 41. Are they really baptized who are baptized according to the English Liturgy and Canons, where the Parent seemeth excluded, and those to Consent for the Infant who have no power to do it?

Answ. I Find some puzzled with this doubt, Whether all our Infants baptism be not a mere Nullity: For, say they, the outward washing without Covenanting with God, is no more baptism than the body or Corpse is a man. The Covenant is the chief essential part of baptism. And he that was never entered into Covenant with God was never baptized. But Infants according to the Liturgy, are not entered into Covenant with God: which they would prove thus: They that neither ever covenanted by themselves, or by any authorized person▪ for them, were never entered into Covenant with God (For thats no act of theirs which is done by a stranger that hath no power to do it) But, &c—That they did it not themselves is undeniable: That they did it not by any person empowered by God to do it for them they prove, 1. Because God-fathers are the persons [ by whom ] the Infant is said to promise: But God-fathers have no power from God, 1. Not by Nature, 2. Not by Scripture. 2. Because the Parents are not only not in • luded as Covenanters, but positively excluded, 1. In that the whole Office of Covenanting for the child from first to last is laid on others: 2. In that the twenty ninth Canon saith, [ No Parent shall be urged to be Present; nor admitted to Answer as God-father for his own child: ] by which the Parent that hath the power is excluded: Therefore our children are all unbaptized.

To all this I answer, 1. That the Parents Consent is supposed, though he be absent: 2. That the Parent is not required to be absent, but only not to be urged to be present; but he may if he will: 3. That the reason of that Canon seems to be their jealousy, lest any would exclude God-fathers. 4. While the Church hath nowhere declared what person the Sponsors bear, nor any further what they are to do, than to speak the Covenanting words, and promise to see to the pious education of the child, the Parents may agree that the God-fathers shall do all this as their deputies, primarily, and in their steads, and secondarily as friends that promise their assistance. 5. While Parents really consent, it is not their silence that nullifieth the Covenant. 6. All Parents are supposed and required to be themselves the choosers of the Sponsors or Sureties, and also to give notice to the Minister before hand; By which it appeareth that their Consent is presupposed. And though my own judgment be, that they should be the principal Covenanters for the child expressly, yet the want of that expressness, will not make us unbaptized persons.

Quest. 42. But the great Question is, How the Holy Ghost is given to Infants in Baptism? And whether all the Children of true Christians have inward sanctifying Grace? Or whether they can be said to be justified, and to be in a state of salvation, that are not inherently sanctified? And whether any fall from this Infant state of salvation?

Answ. OF all these great difficulties I have said what I know, in my Appendix to Infant Baptism to Mr. Bedford and Dr. Ward, and of Bishop Davenants judgment. And I confess that my judgment agreeth more in this with Davenants than any others, saving that he doth not so much appropriate the benefits of baptism to the children of sincere believers as I do. And though by a Letter in pleading Davenants cause, I was the occasion of good Mr. Gatakers printing of his answer to him, yet I am still most inclined to his judgment; Not that all the baptized, but that all the baptized seed of true Christians are pardoned, justified, adopted, and have a title to the Spirit and salvation.

But the difficulties in this case are so great, as driveth away most who do not equally perceive the greater inconveniencies which we must choose, if this opinion be forsaken: that is, that all Infants must be taken to be out of the Covenant of God, and to have no promise of salvation. Whereas surely the Law of Grace as well as the Covenant of Works included all the seed in their capacity.

1. To the first of these Questions, I answer, 1. As all true believers, so all their Infants do receive initially by the promise, and by way of obsignation and Sacramental Investiture in Baptism, a Ius Relationis, a right of peculiar Relation to all the three persons in the blessed Trinity: As to God, as their reconciled Adopting Father, and to Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and actual Head and Justifier, so also to the Holy Ghost as their Regenerater and Sanctifier. This Right and Relation adhereth to them, and is given them in order to future actual operation and communion. As a Marriage Covenant giveth the Relation and Right to one another, in order to the subsequent Communion and duties of a married life: And as he that sweareth allegiance to a King, or is listed into an Army, or is entered into a School, receiveth the Right and Relation, and is so correlated, as obligeth to the mutual subsequent Offices of each, and giveth right to many particular benefits. By this Right and Relation, God is his own God and Father; Christ is his own Head and Savior; and the Holy Spirit is his own Sanctifier, without asserting what operations are already wrought on his soul, but only to what future ends and uses these Relations are. Now as these Rights and Relations are given immediately, so those Benefits which are Relative, and the Infant immediately capable of them, are presently given by way of communion: He hath presently the pardon of Original sin, by virtue of the Sacrifice, Merit and Intercession of Christ. He hath a state of Adoption, and Right to Divine Protection, Provision and Church-communion according to his natural Capacity, and Right to everlasting life.

2. It must be carefully noted, that the Relative Union between Christ the Mediator and the baptized persons, is that which in Baptism is first given in order of nature, and that the rest do flow from this. The Covenant and Baptism deliver the Covenanter 1. From Divine Displicency by Reconciliation with the Father, 2. From Legal Penalties by Justification by the Son; 3. From sin itself by the operations of the Holy Ghost. But it is Christ as our Mediator-Head, that is first given us in Relative Union: And then, 1. The Father▪Loveth us with Complacency as in the Son, and for the sake of his first beloved. 2. And the Spirit which is given us in Relation is first the Spirit of Christ our Head; and not first inherent in us: So that by Union with our Head, that Spirit is next united to us, both Relatively, and as Radically Inherent in the Human Nature of our Lord, to whom we are united. As the Nerves and Animal Spirits which are to operate in all the body, are Radically only in the Head, from whence they flow into, and operate on the members as there is need (though there may be obstructions); So the Spirit dwelleth in the Human Nature of our Head; and there it can never be lost; And it is not necessary that it dwell in us by way of Radication, but by way of Influence and Operation.

These things are distinctly and clearly understood but by very few; and we are all much in the dark about them. But I think (however doctrinally we may speak better,) that most Christians are habituated to this perilous misapprehension (which is partly against Christianity itself,) that the Spirit floweth immediately from the Divine Nature of the Father and the Son (as to the Authoritative or Potestative conveyance) unto our souls. And we forget that it is first given to Christ in his Glorified Humanity as our Head, and radicated in Him, and that it is the Office of this Glorified Head, to send or communicate to all his members from Himself, that Spirit which must operate in them as they have need.

This is plain in many Texts of Scripture, Rom. 8. 32. He that spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how shall be not also with him freely give us all things? (when he giveth him particularly to us.)

1 John 5. 11, 12. And this is the record that God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son: He that hath the Son hath the life, and he that hath not the Son hath not the life.

Rom. 8. 9. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his.

Eph. 1. 22, 23. And gave him to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

John 15. 26. The Advocate or Comforter whom I will send unto you from the Father, &c.

John 16. 7. If I depart, I will send him unto you.

John 14. 26. The Comforter whom the Father will send in my Name.

Gal. 4. 6. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your Hearts, crying Abba, Father.

Gal. 2. 20. I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me (I know that is true of his Living in us Objectively and Finally, but that seemeth not to be all. )

Col. 3. 3, 4. For ye are dead, and your life is bid with Christ in God; when Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in Glory. I know that in verse 3. by Life is meant Felicity or Glory; But not only; as appeareth by verse 4. where Christ is called Our Life.

Matth. 28. 19. All power is given unto me in Heaven and Earth —ver. 20. I am with you always —Joh. 13. 3. The Father hath given all things into his hands.

Joh. 17. 2, 3. Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him, And this is life eternal to know thee, &c.

Joh. 5. 21. The Son quickeneth whom he will: v. 26. For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.

Joh. 6. 27. Labor for that meat which endureth to everlasting life, which the son of man shall give unto you, For him • ath God the Father sealed.

V. 32. 33. He giveth Life unto the World. V. 53, 54, 55, 56. Whos • eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life—dwelleth in me and I in him—my flesh is meat indeed—At the Living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. V. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.

Joh. 7. 39. This spake he of the spirit which they that believe in him should receive. Joh. 3. 34. God giveth not the spirit to him by measure.

1 Cor. 6. 17. He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.

2 Cor. 3. 17. The Lord is the spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Phil. 1. 19. Through the supply of the spirit of Jesus Christ.

Joh. 15. 4. Abide in me and I in you: As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the Vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me. V. 5. I am the Vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: For without me (or, out of me, or, severed from me) ye can do nothing.

I will add no more: All this is proof enough that the spirit is not given radically or Immediately from God to any believer, but to Christ, and so derivatively from him to us. Not that the Divine nature in the third person is subject to the human nature in Christ; But that God hath made it the office of our Mediators Glorified Humanity, to be the Cistern that shall▪ first receive the Waters of life, and convey them by the pipes of his appointed means to all the offices of his house: Or to be the Head of the Animal spirits, and by nerves to convey them to all the members.

3. We are much in the dark concerning the degree of Infants Glory: And therefore we can as little know, what degree of grace is necessary to prepare them for their Glory.

4. It is certain that Infants before they are Glorified, shall have all that Grace that is prerequisite to their preparation and fruition.

5. No sanctified person on earth is in an Immediate capacity for Glory: Because their sin and imperfection must be done away, which is done at the dissolution of soul and body. The very accession of the soul to God doth perfect it.

6. Infants have no actual faith or hope or Love to God to exercise; And therefore need not the influence of the spirit of Christ to exercise them.

7. We are all so very much in the dark, as to the clear and distinct apprehension of the true nature of Original inherent pravity or sin, that we must needs be as much ignorant of the true nature of that Inherent sanctity or Righteousness which is its contrary, or cur • . Learned Illirious thought it was a Substance, which he hath in his Clavis pleaded for at large. Others call it a Habit, Others a nature, or natural Inclination and a privation of a Natural Inclination to God: Others call it an Indisposition of the mind and will, to holy Truth and Goodness, and an Ill disposition of them to error and evil. Others call it only the Inordinate Lust of the sensitive faculties, with a debility of Reason and Will to resist it. And whilst the nature of the soul itself and its faculties, are so much unknown to itself, the nature of Original pravity and Righteousness must needs be very much unknown.

8. Though an Infant be a distinct natural person from his Parents, yet is he not actually a distinct person Morally, as being not a moral Agent, and so not capable of moral Actions good or evil. Therefore his Parents Will goeth for his.

9. His first acceptance into the Complacencial Love of God (as distinct from his Love of Benevolence ) is not for any inherent Holiness in himself; but 1. As the Child of a believing Parent who hath Dedicated him to Christ, and 2. As a member of Christ, in whom he is well pleased.

10. Therefore God can complacencially as well as benevolently Love an Infant in Christ, who only believeth and Repenteth by the Parents, and not by himself, nor is not yet supposed to have the spirit of sanctification.

11. For the spirit of sanctification is not the presupposed Condition of his acceptance into Covenant with God, but a gift of the Covenant of God itself, following both the Condition on our part, and our right to be Covenanters or to God's promise upon that condition.

12. So the adult themselves have the operation of the spirit by which they Believe and Repent, by which they come to have their Right to God's part in the Covenant of Baptism; (for this is antecedent to their baptism): But they have not that gift of the spirit, which is called in Scripture, the spirit of sanctification, and of Power, Love and a sound mind, and is the benefit given by the Covenant of Baptism, till afterward; Because they must be in that Covenant before it can be made good to them. And their Faith or Consent is their Infants right also, antecedent to the Covenant gift.

13. There is therefore some notable difference between that work of the spirit by which we first Repent and believe and so have our title to the promise of the spirit, and that gift of the spirit which is promised to believers: which is not only the spirit of Miracles given in the first times, but some notable degree of Love to our Reconciled Father, suitable to the Grace and Gospel of Redemption and Reconciliation, and is called the spirit of Christ, and the spirit of Adoption, which the Apostles themselves seem not to have received till Christ's ascension: And this seemeth to be not only different from the Gifts of the spirit common to Hypocrites and the unbelievers, but also from the special gift of the spirit which maketh men believers: So that Mr. Tho. Hooker saith trulyer than once I understood, that V • cation is a special Grace of the spirit, distinct from Common Grace on one side, and from sanctification on the other side. Whether it be the same degree of the spirit which the faithful had before Christ's Incarnation, which causeth men first to believe, distinct from the higher following degree I leave to enquiry: But the certainest distinction is from the different effects.

14. Though an Infant cannot be either disposed to a holy life, or fit for Glory immediately, without an inward Holiness of his own, yet by what is said it seemeth plain, that merely on the account of the Condition performed by the Parent, and of his Union Relatively with Christ thereupon, and his title to God's promise on these Grounds, he may be said to be in a state of salvation; that is, to have the pardon of his Original sin, deliverance from hell (in right,) adoption, and a right to the needful operations of the Holy Ghost, as given to him in Christ, who is the first receiver of the spirit.

15. But when and in what sort and degree Christ giveth the actual operations of the spirit to all Covenanted Infants, it is wonderful hard for us to know. But this much seemeth clear, 1. That Christ may when he please work on the soul of an Infant to change its disposition, before he come to the use of Reason. 2. That Christ and his spirit as in Covenant with Infants, are ready to give all necessary assistance to Infants for their inherent sanctification, in the use of those means, and on those further conditions, on which we must wait for it and expect it. For the Holy Ghost is not so engaged to us in our Covenant or Baptism, as to be obliged presently to give us all the grace that we want; But only to give it us on certain further conditions, and in the use of certain means. But because this leadeth me up to another question, I will suspend the rest of the answer to this, till that be handled. Only I must answer this objection.

Obj. It is contrary to the Holy nature of God, complacenically to Love an unsanctified Infant, that is yet in his Original Corruption unchanged, and he justifieth none relatively from the guilt of sin, whom he doth not at once inherently sanctify.

Answ. 1. God's complacencial Love respecteth everyone as he is; For it is Goodness only that he so Loveth. Therefore he so Loveth not those that either Actually or Habitually Love not Him, under any false supposition that they do Love him when they do not. His Love therefore to the Adult and Infants differeth as the objects differ. But there is this Lovely in such Infants, 1. That they are the Children of believing sanctified Parents, 2. That they are by his Covenant Relatively United to Christ, and so are Lovely as his members; 3. That they are pardoned all their original sin; 4. That they are set in the way to Actual Love and holiness; being thus dedicated to God.

2. All imperfect Saints are sinners; And all sinners are as such abhorred of God, whose pure eyes cannot behold iniquity. As then it will stand with his purity to accept and love the Adult upon their first believing, before their further sanctification, and notwithstanding the remnant of their sins, so may it do also to accept their Infants through Christ upon their Dedication.

3. As the actual sin imputed to Infants was Adams, and their Parents only by Act, and not their own, it is no wonder if upon their Parents faith and repentance, Christ wash and justify them from that guilt which arose only from another's act.

4. And then the inherent pravity was the effect of that Act of their Ancestors, which is forgiven them. And this pravity or inherent Original sin may two ways be said to be mortified radically or Virtually or inceptively before any inherent change in them, 1. In that it is mortified in their Parents from whom they derived it, who have the power of choosing for them, and 2. In that they are by Covenant engraffed into Christ, and so related to the cause of their future sanctification; yea, 3. In that also they are by Covenant and their Parents promise, engaged to use those means which Christ hath appointed for sanctification.

5. And it must be remembered that as this is but an inceptive preparatory change, so the very pardon of the Inherent vitiosity is not perfect (as I have elsewhere largely proved) (however some Papists and Protestants deny it). While sin remaineth sin, and corruption is still indwelling, besides all the unremoved penalties of it, the very being of it, proveth it to be so far unpardoned, in that it is not yet abolished, and the continuance of it being not its smallest punishment, as permitted, and the spirit not given so far as to cure it. Imperfect pardon may consist with a present right both to further sanctification by the Spirit, and so to Heaven.

Obj. Christ's body hath no unholy members.

Answ. 1. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Now are your Children holy: They are not wholly unholy who have all the fore-described holiness. 2. As Infants in Nature want memory and actual reason, and yet initially are men; so, as Christ's members, they may want actual and habitual faith and Love, and yet initially be sanctified, by their Union with him and his spirit, and their Parents Dedication, and be in the way for more, as they grow fit; And be Christians and Saints in fieri, or initially only, as they are men.

Quest. 43. Is the right of the Baptized (Infants or adult) to the sanctifying operations of the Holy Ghost, now Absolute, or suspended on further Conditions? And are the Parents further duty for their Children such conditions of their Children's reception of the Actual assistances of the Spirit? Or are Children's own actions such Conditions? And may Apostate Parents forfeit the Covenant benefits to their Baptized Infants? or not?

Answ. THE question is great and difficult, and few dare meddle with it. And almost all Infant-cases are to us obscure.

I. 1. It is certain that it is the Parents great duty to bring up their Children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

2. It is certain that God hath appointed this to be the means of their actual knowledge, faith and holiness.

3. And God doth not appoint such means unnecessarily or in vain: nor may we ordinarily expect his grace but in the use of the means of Grace, which he hath appointed us to use.

4. It is certain that God's receiving the Children of the faithful is an act of God's Love to the Parents as well as the Children, and promised as a part of his blessing on themselves.

5. It is certain that these Parents hold their own mercies upon the condition of their own continued fidelity: And (let their Apostasy be on other reasons never so impossible, or not future, yet) the promise of continuance and consummation of the personal felicity of the greatest Saint on earth, is still conditional, upon the condition of • his persevering sidelity.

6. Even before Children are capable of Instruction, there are certain duties imposed by God on the Parents for their sanctification; viz. 1. That the Parents pray earnestly and believingly for them. 2. That they themselves so live towards God as may invite him still to bless their Children for their sakes, as he did Abraham's, and usually did to the faithful's seed.

7. It is certain that the Church ever required Parents; not only to enter their Children into the Covenant, and so to leave them, but to do their after duty for their good, and to pray for them, and educate them according to their Covenant.

8. It is plain that if there were none to promise so to educate them, the Church would not baptize them. And God himself who allowed the Israelites, and still alloweth us to bring our Children into his Covenant, doth it on this supposition, that we promise also to go on to do our duty for them, and that we actually do it.

9. All this set together maketh it plain, 1. That God never promiseth the adult in Baptism, though true believers, that, he will work in them all graces further by his sanctifying spirit, let them never so much neglect or resist him: or that he will absolutely see that they never shall resist him: nor that the spirit shall still help them, though they neglect all his means; or that he will keep them from neglecting the means ( Election may secure this to the Elect as such; but the Baptismal Covenant as such, secureth it not to the baptized, nor to believers as such. ) 2. And consequently that Infants are in Covenant with the Holy Ghost still conditionally as their Parents are: And that the meaning of it is, that the Holy Ghost as your sanctifier will afford you all necessary help, in the use of those means which he hath appointed you to receive his help in.

Obj. Infants have no means to use.

Answ. While Infants stand on their Parents account, or Wills, the Parents have means to use for the continuance of their grace, as well as for the beginning of it.

10. Therefore I cannot see but that if a believer should apostatize (whether any do so is not the question) and his Infant not be made another's Child, he forfeiteth the benefits of the Covenant to his Infant. But if the propriety in the Infant be transferred to another, it may alter the case.

11. And how dangerously Parents may make partial forfeitures of the spirits assistance to their Children, and operations on them, by their own sinful lives, and neglect of prayer, and of prudent and holy education, even in particular acts, I fear many believing Parents never well considered.

12. Yet is not this forfeiture such as obligeth God to deny his spirit: For he may do with his own, as a free benefactor, as he list; And may have mercy freely, beyond his promise (though not against his word) on whom he will have mercy. But I say that he that considereth the woeful unfaithfulness and neglect of most Parents, even the Religious, in the Great work of holy educating their Children, may take the blame of their ungodliness on themselves, and not lay it. on Christ or the spirit who was in Covenant with them as their sanctifier, seeing he promised but conditionally to give them the sanctifying Heavenly influences of his Life, Light, and Love, in their just use of his appointed means, according to their abilities.

13. Also as soon as Children come to a little use of Reason, they stand conjunctly on their Parents Wills and on their own. As their Parents are bound to teach and rule them, so they are bound to learn of them and be ruled by them for their good. And though every sin of a Parent or a Child be not a total forfeiture of grace, yet, both their notable actual sins, may justly be punished, with a denial of some further help of the spirit which they grieve and quench.

11. And now I may seasonably answer the former question, whether Infants Baptismal saving grace may be lost, of which I must for the most that is to be said refer the Reader to Davenant (in Mr. Bedford's Book) on this subject, and to Dr. Sam. Ward joined with it, (Though Mr. Gatakers answers are very Learned and considerable:) And to my small Book called, My Judgment of Perseverance.

Augustine who first rose up for the doctrine of perseverance, against its Adversaries, carried it no higher than to all the Elect as such, and not at all to all the Sanctified; but oft affirmeth that some that were justified, sanctified and Love God, and are in a state of salvation, are not elect, and fall away: But since the Reformation, great reasons have been brought to carry it further to all the truly sanctified; of which cause Zanchius was one of the first Learned and zealous Patrons, that with great diligence in long disputations maintained it. All that I have now to say is, that I had rather with Davenant believe that the fore-described Infant state of salvation, which came by the Parents, may be lost by the Parents and the Children, (though such a sanctified renewed nature in holy Habits of Love as the adult have, be never lost) than believe that no Infants are in the Covenant of Grace and to be baptized.

Obj. But the Child once in possession shall not be punished for the Parents sin.

Answ. 1. This point is not commonly well understood. I have by me a large Disputation proving from the current of Scripture, a secondary original sin, besides that from Adam, and a secondary punishment ordinarily inflicted on Children for their Parents sins, besides the common punishment of the World for the first sin. 2. But the thing in question is but a loss of that benefit which they received and hold only by another. It is not so properly called a punishment for another's Sin, as a non-deliverance, or a non-continuance of their deliverance, which they were to receive on the condition of another's duty.

Obj. But the Church retaineth them as her members, and so their right is not lost by the fault or apostasy of the Parents.

Answ. 1. Lost it is one way or other, with multitudes of true Christians Children, who never show any signs of grace, and prove sometimes the worst of men. And God breaketh not his Covenant.

2. How doth the Church keep the Greeks Children that are made Janizaries?

3. No man stayeth in the Church without title. If the Church or any Christians take them as their own, that's another matter: I will not now stay to discuss the question, whether Apostate's Baptized Infants be still Church-members? But what I have said of their right before God, seemeth plain.

4. And mark, that on whomsoever you build an Infants Right, you may as well say, that he may suffer for other men's default: For, if you build it on the Magistrate, the Minister, the Church, the God-fathers, any of them may fail: They may deny him Baptism itself: They may fail in his education: Shall he suffer then for want of baptism, or good education when it is their faults? Whoever a Child or man is to receive a benefit by, the failing of that person may deprive him of that benefit. More objections I must pretermit, to avoid prolixity.

Quest. 44. Doth Baptism always oblige us at the present, and give Grace at the present? And is the Grace which is not given till long after, given by Baptism? or an effect of Baptism?

Answ. I Add this Case for two Reasons, 1. To open their pernicious error who think that a Covenant or Promise made by us to God, only for a future distant duty (as to Repent and believe before we die, ) is all that is essential to our Baptismal Covenanting. 2. To open the ordinary saying of many Divines, who say, that baptism worketh not always at the present, but sometimes only long afterward. The truth I think may be thus expressed,

1. It is not baptism, if there be not the profession of a present belief, a present consent, and a present dedition, or resignation, or dedication of the person to God, by the adult for themselves, and by Parents for their Infants. He that only saith, [ I promise to believe, repent and obey only at twenty or thirty years of age, ] is not morally baptized; for it is another Covenant of his own which he would make, which God accepteth not.

2. It is not only a future, but a present Relation to God, as his Own, his Subjects, his Children by Redemption, to which the baptized person doth consent.

3. It is a present correlation and not a future only, to which God consenteth on his pa • t, to be their Father, Savior and S • nctifier, their Owner peculiarly, their Ruler graciously, and their chief Benefactor, and Felicity, and End.

4. It is not only a future but a present Remission of sin, and Adoption and right to temporal and eternal mercies, which God giveth to true Consenters by his Covenant and Baptism.

5. But those mercies which we are not at that present capable of, are not to be given at the present, but afterward when we are capable: As the particular assistances of the Spirit, necessary upon all future particular occasions, &c. The pardon of future sins; Actual Glorification, &c.

6. And the Duties which are to be performed only for the future, we must promise at present to perform only for the future, in their season, to our lives end. Therefore we cannot promise that Infants shall believe, obey or Love God, till they are naturally capable of doing it.

7. If any hypocrite do not indeed Repent, Believe or Consent when he is baptized, or baptizeth his child, he so far faileth in the Covenant professed: And so much of baptism is undone; And God doth not enter into the present Covenant-Relations to him, as being uncapable thereof.

8. If this person afterwards Repent and Believe, it is a doing of the same thing which was omitted in baptism, and a making of the same Covenant; But not as a part of his Baptism itself, which is long past.

9. Nor is he hereupon to be Re-baptized; Because the external part was done before, and is not to be twice done. But the Internal part which was omitted; is now to be done, not as a part of baptism (old or new); but as a Part of Penitence, for his omission.

Object. If Covenanting be a part of Baptism, then this person, whose Covenant is never a part of his Baptism, doth live and die unbaptized.

Answ. As baptism signifieth only the external Ordinance, heart-covenanting is no part of it, but the Profession of it, is: And if there was no Profession of faith made, by word or sign, the person is unbaptized. But as baptism signifieth the Internal part with the external, so he will be no baptized person while he liveth; that is, One that in baptism did truly Consent, and Receive the spiritual Relations to God: But he will have the same thing in another way of God's appointment.

10. When this person is after sanctified, it is by God's performance of the same Covenant in specie, which baptism is made to seal, that God doth pardon, justify and adopt him: But this is not by his past baptism as a Cause, but by after grace and Absolution. The same Covenant doth it, but not baptism. Because indeed the Covenant or Promise saith, [ When ever thou believest and repentest, I will forgive thee: But Baptism saith, Because thou now believest, I do forgive thee, and wash away thy sin; ] and maketh present application.

11. So if an Infant or adult person live without grace, and at age be ungodly, his Baptismal Covenant is violated; And his after Conversion (or faith and repentance) is neither the fulfilling of God's Covenant, nor of his baptism neither. The reason is, because though Pardon and Adoption be given by that Conditional Covenant of Grace which baptism sealeth▪ yet so is not that first Grace of Faith and Repentance which is the Condition of Pardon and Adoption, and the title to baptism itself. Else Infidels should have right to baptism, and thereby to faith and repentance. But these are only the free Gifts of God to the Elect, and the fulfilling of some Absolute predictions concerning the Calling of the Elect, and the fulfilling of God's Will or Covenant to Christ the Mediator, that He shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied, and possess those that are given him by the Father.

12. But when the Condition of the Covenant is at first performed by the Parent for the Infant, and this Covenant never broken on this child's behalf, (notwithstanding sins of Infirmity,) in this case the first Actual faith and repentance of children as they grow up, is from God's fulfilling of his Baptismal Covenant with them. The reason is, because that God in that Covenant did give them a Right of Relation to the holy Spirit in Christ their Head, as their Sanctifier, to operate on them as they are capable. But if they first prove Apostates and be after converted, God is disobliged (yea, to hypocrites never was obliged) as to the engagement made by him in baptism: And doth now 1. Freely give them faith and repentance as a Benefactor to his elect, and then 2. As a Covenanter give them pardon and adoption, &c.

13. So to the adult, that truly made the Baptismal Covenant, and never apostatized from it, all the Grace that God giveth them through their lives, is his fulfilling of his promise made to them, and sealed by baptism, and a fruit of their baptism. But to Hypocrites and Apostates it is otherwise, as is before explained.

Quest. 45. What is a proper Violation of our Baptismal Covenant?

Answ. NOte well, that there is a wide difference between these questions, 1. When doth a man miss of, or lose his present part in the Covenant or Promise of God in the Gospel? (This is as long as he is Impenitent, an Unbeliever and Refuser. ) 2. When doth a man totally lose his part and hope in that Promise or Covenant of God, so as to be • yable to all the penalty of it? (That is only by final Impenitence, Unbelief and refusal, when Life is ended.) 3. And when doth a man violate his own Covenant or promise made to God in baptism? Which is our present question. To which I answer.

1. This Promise hath parts Essential and parts Integral: We promise not both these parts alike, nor on the same terms: Though both be promised. The essential parts, are our essential duties of Christianity, (Faith, Love, Repentance in the essential parts,) &c. The Integrals are the Integral duties of Christianity.

2. He that performeth not the essential duties is an Apostate, or Hypocrite.

3. He that performeth not the Integral duties is a sinner, not only against the Law of Nature, and Christ's Precepts, but his own Promise; (And in this sense we all confess our breach of Covenant with Christ) But he is no Apostate, Hypocrite, or out of Covenant.

Quest. 46. May not Baptism in some Cases be repeated? And when?

Answ. 1. YOu must distinguish between Baptism, taken Morally, or only Physically. 2. Between Baptism Morally, as it is a Church or Visible Covenant, and as a Heart▪Covenant. 3. Between Real baptism and seeming baptism, which is a Nullity. 4. Between certain reception of baptism, and that which is uncertain or justly doubted of. And so I answer,

1. Real and Certain Baptism as a visible Church-Ordinance may not be repeated. Though the Heart-Covenant was wanting. And though it wanted not only decent modes, but integral parts.

2. But in these cases Baptism may be used where it seemed to have been received before.

1. When the person made no profession of the Christian faith (nor his Parents for him, if an Infant). 2. If that profession notoriously wanted an Essential part; As if he only professed to believe in God the Father, and not in the Son, or the Holy Ghost. 3. If the Minister only baptized him into the name of the Father, or Son, or left out any essential part. 4. If the person or Minister only contracted for a distant futurity, (As I will be a Christian when I am old, &c. ) and not for the present: which is not to be christened, but only to promise to be christened hereafter. 5. If all application of water (or any watery element ) was omitted, which is the external sign. 6. Of the Baptizers power I shall speak anon. 7. If the Church or the person himself have just cause of doubting whether he was truly baptized or not, to do it again, with hypothetical expressions, [If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee] yea, or simply while that is understood, is lawful, and fit. And it is not to be twice baptized Morally, but only Physically, As I have fully opened in the Question of Re-ordination, to which I must refer the Reader.

3. And I confess I make little doubt but that those in Acts 19. were Re-baptized, notwithstanding the witty evasion invented by Phil. Marnixius Aldegondus and Beza 's improvement of it, and the now common reception of that interpretation; For 1. A new and forced exposition which no Reader dreameth of till it be put into his head, is usually to be suspected, lest art deceive us.

2. The omission of the Holy Ghost is an essential defect, and maketh Baptism specifically another thing: And he were now to be re-baptized who should be so baptized.

3. Whatever some say in heat against the Papists, John's baptism and our Christian baptism are so specifically distinct also, that he that had now but John's were to be yet baptized: The person of the M • ssiah himself being not determinately put into John's baptism as such: Nor can it be supposed that all the Jews that John baptized, were baptized into the profession of faith in this numerical person Jesus, but only to an unknown Savior undetermined: However he pointed to Christ in the hearing of some of his disciples. We must not run from plain truth in pievishness of opposition to Papists o • any other men.

4. The fifth Verse would not be true of John's baptism as the History showeth, that [ When Johns hearers heard this, they were baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus ]. This is contrary to the Text that recordeth it.

5. In the fourth Verse the words, [ that is, on Christ Jesus ] are plainly Paul's expository words of John's, and • ot John's words: John baptized them [ into the Name of the Messiah that should come after him, ] which indeed saith Paul was Christ Jesus▪ though not then personally determined by John.

6. The connection of the fourth, fifth and sixth Verses puts all out of doubt: 1. In the fourth Verse the last words are Paul's, [ that is, on Christ Jesus ]. 2 In the next words, Ver. 4. [ When they heard this, they were baptized, &c. ] must refer to the last words, or to his that was speaking to them. 3. Ver. 6. The Pronoun [ Them ] ( when Paul had laid his hands on them ) plainly re •• erreth to them last spoken of, Ver. 5. which therefore was not John's hearers as such. 4. And the • ords [ they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus ] are plainly distinctive from John's baptism. Saith Grotius, Sic accepere Latinus, Syrus, Arabs, & Veteres omnes ante Marnixium ( • ut verba L • ucae). Yet I say not so hardly of John's baptism, as Tertuli •• on this Text ( de Baptis. ) [ Adeo pas •••• a in Actis Apostolorum invenimus, quoniam qui Johannes baptismum habebant, non accepissent Spiritum Sanctum, quem ne auditu quidem noverant: Ergo non erat coeleste, quod coelestia non exhibebat. ] See Dr. Hammond in loc.

Quest. 47. Is Baptism by Lay-men or Women Lawful in Cases of necessity? Or are they nullities, and the person to be re-baptized?

Answ. 1. I Know some of the Ancients allowed it in necessity. But I know no such necessity that can be: For 1. God hath expressly made it a part of the Ministerial Office by Commission, Mat. 28. 19, 20. 2. He hath nowhere given to any other either Command to oblige them to do it, or Commission to authorize them, or Promise to bless and accept them in it, or Threatning if they omit it. 3. He oft severely punisheth such as invade the Sacred Function, or usurp any part of of it. 4. Therefore it is a sin in the doer, and then there can be no necessity of it in such a case in the receiver. 5. He that is in Covenant by open professed Consent, wants nothing necessary to his salvation, either necessitate medii vel praecepti, when it cannot be had in a lawful way.

II. As to the nullity I will not determine so controverted a point any further than to say, 1. That if the Lay-man had the Counterfeit Orders of a Minister, and had possession of the place, and were taken for one, his deceit deprived not the Receiver of his right, nor made it his sin, and I should not re-baptize him, if after discovered.

2. But if he were in no possession or pretence of the Office, I would be baptized again, if it were my case: Because I should fear that what is done in Christ's name by one that notoriously had no authority from him to do it, is not owned by Christ as his deed, and so is a nullity. As if a deceiver go in my name to make bargains for me.

3. And if any that had after discovered a Minister to be indeed no Minister that baptized him, should doubt of the validity, and for certainty have it done again by an authorized Minister, I would not discommend him: Nor would I account it Morally twice baptizing, but a Physical repeating of that act which morally is but one: (As I explained before of Re-ordination).

Therefore if one that was a gross Heretic in the very Essentials, or an Infidel, or one that had not knowledge and parts essentially necessary to the Ministry baptize one (in right words) I would not blame him that for certainty would have an authorized person to do it: Especially if he was notoriously such a one when he did it. Let those that are angry with this resolution be as fair to me as they will be to Venerable Beda, and that great Miracle-working Bishop John, whom in his Ecclesiastical History he reporteth to baptize a man again in England, merely because the Priest that did it was so dull, ignorant and insufficient as in John's judgment to be uncapable of the Office, and therefore had been by him forbidden to use it, though the person baptized (at age) knew not this: viz. Herebaldus, ut Bed. l. 5. c. 6.

Quest. 48. May Anabaptists, that have no other error, be permitted in Churchcommunion?

Answ. YEs: And tolerated in their own practice also: For 1. They agree with us in all points absolutely necessary to communion.

2. The ancient Christians had liberty either to baptize, or to let them stay till age, as they thought best: And therefore Tertullian and Nazianzen speak against haste: And Augustine and many children of Christian Parents were baptized at age.

3. The Controversy is of so great difficulty, that if in all such cases none that differ be tolerated, we may not live together in the world or Church, but endlessly excommunicate or persecute one another.

4. Such sober Antipaedobaptists will consent, to profess openly, that they do devote their children to God according to all the power or duty which they can find communicated or laid upon them in the Word of God; And that if they believed that God would accept them into his Covenant upon their dedication, they would willingly do it. And that actually they do offer them to God according to their power, and promise to bring them up in his way. And who can force men's wills to choose aright for themselves or others?

Quest. 49. May one offer his Child to be baptized, with the Sign of the Cross, or the use of Chrysme, the White Garment, Milk and Honey, or Exorcisme, as among the Lutherans, who taketh these to be unlawful things?

Answ. I Am not now to meddle with the question, Whether they be lawful: But to this question I answer,

1. He that judgeth them unlawful, must first do his best to be •• rtain whether they be so or not.

2. If so, he must never approve of them, or consent to them.

3. He must not offer his child to be so baptized, when caeteris paribus, he may have it done in a better manner on lawful terms.

4. But when he cannot lawfully have better, he may and must offer his child, to them that will so baptize him, rather than to worse, or not at all: Because baptism is God's Ordinance and his privilege, and the sin is the Ministers and not his. Another man's sinful Mode will not justify the neglect of our duty: Else we might not join in any Prayer or Sacrament in which the Minister modally sinneth: that is, with none.

5. The Milk and Honey, White Garment and Chrysme, are so ancient (called by Epiphanius and others the Traditions and Customs of the Universal Church ) that the original of them is not known. And he that then would not be so baptized, must not have been baptized at all.

6. But in this case he that bringeth his child to baptism, should make known, that it is baptism only that he desireth; and that he disowneth and disalloweth the manner which he accounteth sinful: And then he is no consenter to it.

7. But where Law, scandal, or greater inconveniencies forbid him, he is not to make this profession openly in the Congregation, but in that prudent manner which beseemeth a sob • r peaceable person▪ whether to the Minister in private, or to his neighbors in converse: It being easy among neighbors to make known a man's dissent, without a disorderly troubling of the Church, or violating the Laws of Obedience, Civility and Peace.

8. But he must not; 1. Either offer his child to baptism, where the Ordinance is essentially corrupted, or worse than none. 2. Or where he cannot be admitted without an actual sin of his own; As by false professions, subscriptions, &c. For we must not do evil for good ends.

Quest. 50. Whence came the ancient universal custom of Anointing at Baptism, and putting on a White Garment, and tasting Milk and Honey? And whether they are lawful to us?

Answ. 1. WE must remember that the signification of these was not by a new institution of theirs, but by former custom of the Countries where they lived. As 1. Anointing in Judea was like Bathing at Rome: It was taken in those scorching Countries for a wholesome, and easing, and comforting thing; And therefore used to refresh the weary limbs of travellers, and to comfort the sick.

2. And it was the long accustomed Ceremony also used on Officers accounted sacred, Kings and Priests, who were anointed at their entrance and investiture.

3. White Cloathing and Purple were then and there taken for the noblest attire; Not appropriated to sacred things and persons; but as Scarlet lately in England, the garb only of great men: On which account, not as a Sacred Vestment, but as an honorable clothing, when the Bishops began to be advanced, they were allowed to wear White Cloathing, not only when they officiated, but at other times.

4. The Milk and Honey were there highly esteemed for food, and accounted the character of the Land of Promise.

2. Hereupon by application the Churches used these signs in the Sacred Ordinance of baptism: Not by new institution of the signification, I say, but by application of the old well known signification.

3. As Natural Signs are commonly allowed to be applied to holy things, so signs whose signification is of old and commonly stated and well known by Agreement or Custom, do seem in this not to be different from Natural Signs. Such are all Words, as signs of our minds; No word signifying anything Naturally, but by Agreement or Custom only. And such is kneeling in prayer; and being uncovered; and many the like: About some of which Paul appealeth to the custom of the Churches of God.

4. It is most probable that these two things together brought in Anointing; 1. The common use of Anointing then, in both the foresaid Cases, (Common Refreshment and Sacred Investiture ). 2. And the mistake of all those Scripture Texts, which command or mention Anointing Metaphorical; As 1 John 2. 27. The Anointing which you have received—teacheth you all things. Ezek. 16. 9. I washed thee, I anointed thee with Oil, &c. Psal. 105. 15. 1 Chron. 16. 22. Touch not mine anointed. Rev. 3. 18.

And withal reading that we are made Kings and Priests to God, and a Royal Priesthood, they thought this might be signified by the usual honourary signs of such, as well as by words to be called such. So that they took it as if in our age, the baptized should be set in a Chair of State, and sumptuously appareled, and a • east made to solemnize it, as they do at Weddings, and the baptized person set at the upper end, &c. which are significant Actions and Ceremonies; But they intended them not as new Sacraments, or any part of the Sacrament, but as a pompous celebration of the Sacrament by such additional ceremonial accidents.

5. And you must remember that they lived among Infidels, where their profession was made the common scorn, which tempted them by such ostentation and pomp to seek to make it honorable, and to show that they so accounted it, and to encourage those who were discouragable by the scorn. On which account also they used the Cross, and the Memorials of the Martyrs.

6. Yet some, yea, many afterwards did seem to take the Anointing for a Sacramental Action. When they read that the Laying on of hands was the sign of Giving the Holy Ghost, as distinct from baptism, and that the Spirit is called in Scripture the Anointing, they joined both together, and made that which they now call the Sacrament of Confirmation.

7. Whether the Anointing, Milk and Honey, and the White Garment, were then sinful in themselves to the users, I determine not. But certainly they proved very ill by accident, whilst at this door those numerous and unlawful Ceremonies have entered, which have so troubled the Churches, and corrupted Religion; and among the Papists, Greeks, Armenians, Abbyssinians, and many others, have made the sauce to become the meat, and the lace to go for clothing, and turned too much of God's Worship into Imagery, shadows and pompous shows.

Quest. 51. Whether it be necessary that they that are baptized in Infancy, do solemnly at age renew and own their Baptismal Covenant, before they have right to the state and privileges of adult members? And if they do not, Whether they are to be numbered with Christians or Apostates?

Answ. 1. CHurch-membership is the same thing in Infants and in the Adult.

2. Infants are naturally uncapable of doing all that in baptism which the adult must do: As to understand, profess, &c. themselves.

3. The baptism of the Adult, being the most complete, because of the maturity of the receivers, is made the standing pattern in Scripture: For God formeth his Ordinances to the most perfect ordinary receivers.

4. Though an Infant be devoted acceptably to God by his Parents will, yet when he is at age, it must be done by his own will.

5. Therefore a bare Infant title ceaseth when we come to age, and the persons title ceaseth, unless it be renewed by himself, or his own Consent. The reason is, because the Conditions of his Infant Title then cease. For his Parents will, shall go for his no longer.

6. Regularly and ad been esse the transition out of the state of Infant-membership into the state of Adult-membership should be very solemn; and by an understanding, personal owning of the Baptismal Covenant.

7. There needeth no other proof of this, than 1. That God in Scripture never gave adult persons title to his Covenant, but by their own personal consent: And at the first institution of baptism, both went together, (Personal profession and baptism) because the receivers were adult. 2. And that Infants are capable of baptism, but not of personal profession. 3. Therefore though they are not to repeat baptism, which was done before, yet they are bound to make that profession at age which they never made before.

8. Where this solemn Owning of their Covenant cannot be had (by reason of Church corruptions, and Magistrates prohibition) there the persons ordinary joining with the Church, in the public profession and worship, is to be taken for an owning it.

9. He that being baptized in infancy, doth no way at full age own his Baptismal Covenant, is to be taken for an Apostate: 1. Because his Infant title ceaseth: 2. And he notoriously violateth his Covenant: 3. Because he can be no adult Christian that no way owneth Christ.

10. But this is to be understood of those that have opportunity: For one in a Wilderness among Heathens only, cannot join in public Worship, nor give testimony of his Christianity to the Church.

11. Though the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper be appointed for the renewing of our Covenant at age, yet is it not the first owning of the Covenant, by the aged: For that Sacrament belongeth neither to Infants nor Infidels: And he that claimeth it, must be an adult Church-member or Christian; which those are not, who at full age no way ever owned their baptismal Covenant, nor made any personal profession of Christianity.

But of this I have written purposely in a Treatise of Confirmation long ago.

Quest. 52. Whether the Universal Church consist only of particular Churches and their members?

Answ. NO: Particular Churches are the most Regular and noble parts of the Universal Church; but not the whole: no more than Cities and Corporations be all the Kingdom. 1. Some may be as the Eunuch baptized before they can come to any particular Church; or as Paul, before they can be received.

2. Some may live where Church-tyranny hindereth them, by sinful impositions; As all that live among the Papists.

3. Some may live in times of doubting, distraction and confusion, and not know what Church ordinarily to join with, and may providently go promiscuously to many, and keep in an unfixed state for a time.

4. Some may be Wives, Children or Servants, who may be violently hindered.

5. Some may live where no particular Churches are: As Merchants and Ambassadors among M • hometans and Heathens.

Quest. 53. Must the Pastor first Call the Church, and aggregate them to himself, or the Church first Congregate themselves, and then choose the Pastor?

Answ. THe Pastors are in order of Nature, if not in time, first Ministers of Christ in general, before they are related to a particular Charge.

2. As such Ministers they first make men fit to be congregate, and tell them their duty therein.

3. But it is a matter variable and indifferent, Whether the Minister first say, [All that will join with me, and submit to me as their Pastor, shall be my particular Charge]: Or the people before Congregated do call a man to be their Pastor.

Quest. 54. Wherein doth a particular Church of Christ's institution differ from a Consociation of many Churches?

Answ. 1. IN that such a particular Church is a company of Christians associated for personal immediate Communion in God's worship and in holy living: Whereas Consociations of Churches, are combined for mediate distinct Communion, or by Delegates or Representatives (as in Synods.)

2. Such a particular Church is constituted of one or more Pastors with the people, officiating in the Sacred Ministry among them, in Doctrine, Worship and Discipline, in order to the said personal Communion. But a Consociation of Churches hath no particular Head as such, of divine institution, to Constitute and Govern them as one. In Ignatius 's time every particular Church was characterized or known by two marks of Unity, 1. One Altar, (that is, one place of assembling for holy communion): 2. One Bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons: And two Altars and two Bishops proved two Churches.

3. A particular Church under one Bishop, or the some Pastors, is a Political holy Society; But a combination of many Churches consociate, is not so, but only, 1. Either a Community agreeing to live in Concord, as neighbor Kingdoms may: 2. Or else a human Policy or Society, and not of Divine immediate institution. So that if this Consociation of Churches be called a Church, it must be either equivocally or in a human sense.

Quest. 55. Whether a particular Church may consist of more Assemblies than one? Or must needs meet all in one place?

Answ. 1. THe true distinguishing note of a particular Church is, that They be associated for holy Communion in Worship and holy living, not by Delegates, nor dist • ntly only, by owning the same faith, and loving one another, as we may do with those at the Antipodes; but Personally in presence.

2. Therefore they must necessarily be so near, as to be capable of personal present Communion.

3. And it is most convenient that they be no more than can ordinarily meet in the same Assembly, at least for Sacramental Communion.

4. But yet they may meet in many places or Assemblies, as Chapels, or Oratories, or other subordinate meetings which are appointed to supply the necessity of the weak and aged, and them that cannot travail far: And in times of persecution when the Church dare not all meet in one place, they may make up several smaller meetings, under several Pastors of the same Church. But they should come all together as oft as they can.

5. And it is to be considered that all the persons of a family can seldom go to the Assembly at one time, especially when they live far off. Therefore if a Church-place would receive but ten thousand, yet twenty thousand might be members, while half meet one day and half another, (or another part of the day).

6. Two Congregations distinctly associated for personal Worship, under distinct Pastors, or having statedly (as Ignatius speaketh) two Bishops and two Altars, are two particular Churches, and can no otherwise be one Church, than • s that may be called One which is a Conso • iation of divers.

Quest. 56. Is any Form of Church Government of Divine Institution

Answ. YEa: There are two Essentially different Policies or Forms of Church Government of Christ's own Institution, never to be altered by man. 1. The form of the Universal Church, as headed by Christ himself; which all Christians own as they are Christians in their Baptism.

2. Particular Churches which are headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors, and are parts of the Universal, as a Troop is of an Army, or a City of a Kingdom.

Here it is of Divine Institution, 1. That there be holy Assemblies for the Public Worship of God.

2. That these Assemblies be Societies, constituted of the people with their Pastors, who are to them as Captains to their Troops, under the General, or as Mayors to Cities under the King.

3. That these Pastors have the power of the Keys, or the special Guidance and Governance (by the Word, not by the Sword ) of their own particular charge, in the matters of Faith, Worship and holy living; and that the flocks obey them. And when all this is Iure divino, why should any say, that No form of Government is jure divino?

3. Moreover it is of Divine appointment, that these Churches hold the nearest Concord, and help each other as much as they can; whether by Synods, or other meet ways of correspondency. And though this be not a distinct Government, it is a distinct mode of Governing.

Object. But▪ that there be Pastors with fixed Churches or Assemblies is not of the Law of Nature.

Answ. 1. Hath Christ no Law but the Law of Nature? Wherein then differ the Christian Religion and the Heathenish? 2. Suppose but Christ to be Christ, and man to be what he is, and Nature itself will tell us that this is the fittest way for ordering the Worship of God: For Nature saith, God must be solemnly and ordinarily worshipped, and that qualified persons should be the official Guides in the performance: And that people who need such conduct and private oversight besides, should where they live have their own stated Overseers.

Object. But particular Congregations are not de primaria intention divina: For if the whole world could join together in the public Worship of God, no doubt that would be properly a Church: But particular Congregations are only accidental, in reference to God's intention of having a Church, because of the Impossibility of all men's joining together for Ordinances, &c.

Answ. 1. The question with me is not whether they be of primary Intention, but whether stated Churches headed with their proper Bishops or Pastors be not of God's institution in the Scripture?

2. This Objection confirmeth it, and not denieth it. For 1. It confesseth that there is a necessity of joining for God's Worship: 2. And an Impossibility that all the world should so join: 3. But if the whole world could so join, it would be properly a Church: So that it confesseth that [ to be a society joined for God's public Worship, ] is [ to be properly a Church. ] And we confess all this: If all the world could be one family, they might have one Master, or one Kingdom, they might have one King. But when it is confessed, that 1. A Natural Impossibility of an Universal Assembly necessitateth more particular assemblies: 2. And that Christ hath instituted such actually in his Word, what more can a considerate man require?

3. I do not understand this distinction, de primaria intention divina, and accidental, &c. The Primary Intention is properly of the Ultimate End only: And no man thinketh that a Law de mediis, of the means, is no Law, or that God hath made no Laws de mediis: For Christ as a Mediator is a Means. But suppose it be limited to the Matter of Church Laws: If this be the meaning of it, that it is not the principal means, but a subordinate means, or that it is not instituted only propter finem ultimum, no more than propter se, but also in order to a higher thing as its immediate end, we make no question of that. Assemblies are not only that there may be assemblies; but for the Worship and Offices there performed: And those for Man; And all for God. But what or all this? Hath God made no Laws for subordinate means? No Christian denieth it.

Therefore the Learned and Judicious Disputer of this point declareth himself for what I say, when he saith, [I engage not in the Controversy, Whether a particular Congregation be the first political Church or no: It sufficeth for my purpose, that there are other Churches besides—The thing in question is, Whether there be no other Church, but such particular Congregations. ] Where it seemeth granted, that such particular Churches are of Divine institution: And for other Churches I shall say more anon. In the mean time note, that the question is but de nomine here, whether the Name [Church] be fit for other societi • s, and not de re.

But lest any should grow to the boldness to deny that [ Christ hath instituted Christian stated Societies consisting of Pastors and flocks, associate for personal Communion in public Worship and holy living. ] (which is my detinition of a particular Church, as not so confined to one assembly, but that it may be in divers, and yet not consisting of divers such distinct stated assemblies with their distinct Pastors, nor of such as can have no personal communion, but only by Delegates): I prove it thus from the Word of God.

1. The Apostles were commissioned by Christ to deliver his commands to all the Churches, and settle them according to his will, John 20. 21.— Matth. 28. 19, 20, &c.

2. These commissioned persons had the promise of an infallible Spirit for the due performance of their work, John 16. 13, 14, 15. & 15. 26. & 14. 26. Matth. 28. 20.

3. These Apostles where ever the success of the Gospel prepared them materials, did settle Christian stated societies, consisting of Pastors or Elders with their flocks, associated for personal communion in public worship, and holy living. These settled Churches they gave orders to for their direction and preservation, and reformation: These they took the chief care of themselves, and exhorted their Elders to fidelity in their work. They gave command that none should forsake such assemblies, and they so fully describe them, as that they cannot easily be misunderstood. All this is proved, Acts 14. 23. Titus 1. 5. Rom. 16. 1. 1 Cor. 11. 18, 20. 22, 26. 1 Cor. 14. 4, 5, 12, 19, 23, 28, 33, 34. Col. 4. 16. Acts 11. 26. & 13. 1. 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. Acts 14. 27. & 15. 3. to omit many more. Here are proofs enow that such particular Churches were de facto settled by the Apostles, Heb. 10. 25. Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together. So James 2. 2. they are called Synagogues.

2. It is confessed that there is a natural necessity of such stated Churches or Assemblies, supposing but the Institution of the Worship itself which is there performed: And if so, then we may say that the Law of Nature itself doth partly require them.

1. It is of the Law of Nature, that God be publicly worshipped as most Expositors of the fourth Commandment do confess.

2. It is of the Law of Nature that the people be taught to know God and their duty, by such as are able and fit to teach them.

3. The Law of Nature requireth, that man being a sociable creature, and conjunction working strongest affections, we should use our sociableness in the greatest matters, and by conjunction help the zeal of our prayers and praises of God.

4. God's institution of public Preaching, Prayer and Praise, are scarce denied by any Christians.

5. None of these can be publicly done but by assembling.

6. No Assembly can suffice for these without a Minister of Christ; Because it is only his Office to be the ordinary Teacher, and to go before the people in prayer and praise, and to administer the Lord's, Supper; which without a Minister may not be celebrated, because Christ's part cannot be otherwise performed, than by someone in his name, and by his warrant, to deliver his sealed Covenant to the receivers, and to invest them visibly in the benefits of it, and receive them that offer themselves in Covenant to him.

7. It is also a Ministerial duty to instruct the people personally, and watch over them, at other times, Acts 20. 20, 28. And to be examples of the flock, 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3. To have the Rule over the people, and labor among them, and admonish them, 1 Thess. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7, 17. 1 Tim. 5. 17. To exercise holy discipline among them, Titus 3. 10. Matth. 18. 17, 18. 1 Cor. 5. To visit the sick and pray over them, James 5. 14. Yea, to take care of the poor. See▪ Dr. Hammond on 1 Cor. 12. 28. And all this cannot possibly be well done by uncertain transient Ministers, but only by a resident stated Pastor, no more than transient strangers can rule all our families, or all the Christian Kingdoms of the world.

8. And as this cannot be done but by stated Pastors, so neither on transient persons, ordinarily: For who can teach them that are here today and gone tomorrow: When the Pastor should proceed from day today in adding one instruction to another, the hearers will be gone, and new ones in their place? And how can vigilancy and discipline be exercised upon such transient persons, whose faults and cases will be unknown? Or how can they mutually help each other? And seeing most in the world have fixed habitations, if they have not also fixed Church-relations, they must leave their habitations and wander, or else have no Church Communion at all.

9. And as this Necessity of fixed Pastors and flocks is confessed, so that such de facto were ordinarily settled by the Apostles is before proved, if any Scriptures may pass for proof.

The Institution and settlement then of particular worshipping Churches is out of doubt: And so that two Forms of Church Government are Iure Divino, the Universal Church Form, and the particular.

4. Besides this, in the Apostles days there were under Christ in the Church Universal, many General Officers that had the care of gathering and overseeing Churches up and down, and were fixed by stated relation unto none. Such were the Apostles, Evangelists, and many of their helpers in their days. And most Christian Churches think that though the Apostolical extraordinary Gifts, privileges and Offices cease, yet Government being an Ordinary part of their work, the same form of Government which Christ and the Holy Ghost did settle, in the first age, were settled for all following ages, though not with the same extraordinary Gifts and Adjuncts. Because 1. We read of the settling of that form, (viz. General Officers as well as particular) but we never read of any abolition, discharge or cessation of the institution. 2. Because if we affirm a cessation without proof, we seem to accuse God of mutability, as settling one form of Government for one age only, and no longer. 3. And we leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions, as Pastors, Sacraments, &c. and to say that they were but for an age. 4. It was General Officers that Christ promised to be with to the end of the world, Matth. 28. 20.

Now either this will hold true or not. If not, then this General Ministry is to be numbered with the human additions to be next treated of. If it do, then here is another part of the form of Government proved to be of Divine Institution. I say not, another Church, (For I find nothing called a Church in the New Testament, but the Universal Church and the particular ): But another part of the Government of both Churches, Universal and particular: Because such General Officers are so in the Universal, as to have a General Oversight of the particular: As an Army is Headed only by the General himself, and a Regiment by the Colonel, and a Troop by the Captain: But the General Officers of the Army (the Lieutenants General, the Majors General, &c. ) are under the Lord General in and over the Army, and have a General oversight of the particular bodies (Regiments and Troops.) Now if this be the Instituted form of Christ's Church Government, that he himself Rule absolutely as General, and that he have some General Officers under him (not any one having a charge of the whole, but in the whole unfixedly, or as they voluntarily part their Provinces,) and that each particular Church have its own proper Pastor (one or more), then who can say, that No form of Church Government is of Divine Appointment or Command?

Object. But the question is only, Whether any sole form be of God's commanding? And whether another may not have as much said for it as this?

Answ. Either you mean [ Another instead of this, as a Competitor, ] or [ Another part conjunct with these parts. ]

1. If the first be your sense, then you have two works to do: 1. To prove that these before mentioned were Mutable Institutions, or that they were settled but disjunctively with some other, and that the choice was left indifferent to men. 2. To prove the Institution of your other form (which you suppose left with this to men's free choice).

But I have already proved, that both the General and particular Church form are settled for continuance as unchangeable Ordinances of God. I suppose you doubt not of the continuance of Christ's Supremacy, and • o of the Universal form: And if you will prove that Church Assemblies with their Pastors may cease, and some other way supply the room, you must be strange and singular undertakers. The other two parts of the Government (by General Officers, and by Consociation of Churches ) are more disputed; But it is the Circumstances of the last only that is controverted and not the thing; And for the other I shall now add nothing to what I have said elsewhere.

2. But if you only mean that Another part of the form may be jure divino as well as this, that will but prove still that some form is jure divino.

But 3. If you mean, that God having instituted the forms now proved, hath left man at liberty to add more of his own, I shall now come to examine that Case also.

Quest. 57. Whether any Forms of Churches, and Church Government, or any new Church Officers, may lawfully be invented and made by man?

Answ. TO remove ambiguities, 1. By the word [ Forms ] may be meant either that Relative form of such aggregate bodies, which is their essence, and denominateth them essentially; or only some Accidental mode which denominateth them but accidentally.

2. By Churches is meant either holy societies related by the foundation of a Divine Institution; or else societies related by accident, or by human contract only.

3. By [ Church Government ] is meant, either that Government formally Ecclesiastical, which constituteth a Church, of Christ's making; or else some Government about the Matters of the Church, which is formally either Magistratical or human, (by contract), &c.

4. So by Church Officers are meant, either such as are accounted essential to a Church in the pure Christian sense; or Integral at least (as Deacons): Or else such as are accounted but Accidental to it, and Essential only to the human form. And so I answer.

1. As there are some things circa sacra, or Accidents of God's special Church Worship, which are left to human prudence to determine of, so the same human prudence may determine who shall do them. As e. g. Who shall repair the Buildings of the Church; the Windows, the Bells, the Pulpits, the Tables, &c. who shall keep the Clock; who shall keep the Cups, Cloaths, and other Utensils; who shall be the Porter, the keeper of the Books, &c. Who shall call the people to Church, or ring the Bells, or give them notice of Church assemblies: who shall make bread for the Sacrament, or provide Wine, or bring Water for baptism: who shall make the Graves, and bury the Dead, or attend Marriages, or Baptizings, &c. Who shall set the Tune of the Psalm, or use the Church-Music (if there be any): who shall summon any of the people on any just occasion to come to their Pastors; or who shall summon the Pastors to any Synod, or lawful Assembly, and give them notice of the time and place: When they are to meet, who shall be called first, and who second? Who shall sit highest, and who lowest? Who shall take the Votes, or moderate or guide the Disputations of the Assembly? Who shall be the Scribe, and record what is done? Who shall send abroad their Agreements; and who shall be the Church-messenger to carry them. The Agents of such Circumstantials may be chosen by the Magistrate: or by the Churches or Pastors, as is most convenient. Though I doubt not but in the beginning the Deacons were mere servants to the Pastors, to do as much of such circumstantial work, as they were able, of which serving at Tables, and looking to the poor, and carrying Bread and Wine to the absent, &c. were but parts: And all went under the name of Ministring to the Pastors or Churches. And therefore they seem to be but such an Accidental Office, appointed by the Apostles, on such common reasons, as Magistrates or Churches might have appointed them, if they had not.

2. If one will call all or many of th • se, [ Church-Officers ] and another will not; it is but a strife about Names, which one will use more largely, and the other more narrowly or strictly.

3. If Magistrates by authority, or the Churches by Agreement, shall distribute the Country for conveniency into Parishes (not making all to be Church-members that dwell in those Pr • cincts, but determining that all persons that are fit in those proximities, and they only, shall be members of that particular Church) and then shall denominate the Church from this accident of place, it is but what is left to their discretion.

4. And if the said Magistrates or Churches shall divide a Kingdom into Provinces, and say, that whereas God commandeth us the use of correspondencies, mutual advice and Synods, for the due help, concord and communion of Churches, and all things must be done in order and to edification; therefore we determine that so many Churches shall make up such a Synod, and the Churches of such a district shall make up another Synod, and so shall be specially related to each other for Concord as advisers, all this is but the prudent determining of Church circumstances or accidents left to man.

5. And if they shall appoint that either a Magistrate or one Pastor shall be for Order sake the appointer of the times and places of meeting, or the President of the Synod, to regulate and order proceedings, and keep peace, as is aforesaid, it is but an Accident of the Sacred Work which man may determine of. Therefore a Lay-man may be such a President or Regulater.

6. And if they will call this man by the Name of a Church-Governor, who doth but a common part therein, and from thence will call this Association or Province by the name of a Church, which is but a company of Churches associated for Concord and Counsel, the Name maketh it not another thing than it is without that name: And the name may be lawful or unlawful as times and probable consequents make it fit or unfit as to use.

7. So much of Church matters as is left to the Magistrates Government, may be under Monarchy, Aristocracy or Democracy, and under such subordinate Officers as the Supreme Ruler shall appoint.

8. And if the Magistrate will make Assemblies or Councils of Pastors, to be his Councils, and require them frequently to meet to advise him in the performance of his own trust and work about Religion and the Church, he may accordingly distribute them into Provinces for that use, or order such circumstances as he please.

9. And if a Province of Churches be called one Church, because it is under one Magistrate, or a Nation of Churches called a National Church, because it is under one King, or many Kingdoms or an Empire called one Catholic Church, because they are all under one Emperor, it must be confessed that this question is but de nomine, and not de re.

And further 1. That in sacred things that which is of Divine and primary institution is the famosius analogatum, and not that which is but formed by man. 2. That when such an ambiguous word is used without explication or explicating circumstances, it is to be taken for the famosius analogatum. 3. That in this case the word Church or Church-form is certainly ambiguous and not univocal. 4. That • National, Imperial, or Provincial Church as Headed by a King, Emperor, Magistrate, or any head of man's appointment, is another thing, from a Church of Christ's institution: and is but an Accident or adjunct of it; and the Head of the Human form, if called the Head of the Church of Christ, is but an Accidental Head, and not Constitutive. And if Christ's Churches be denominated from such a Head, they are denominated but from an accident, as a man may be denominated clothed or unclothed, clothed gorgeously or sordidly, a neighbor to this man or that, &c. It is no formal denomination of a Church in the first acception, as it signifieth the famosius analogatum; though otherwise many kind of societies may be called Ecclesiae or Coetus: But Divines should not love confusion.

10. It seemeth to me that the first distribution of Churches in the Roman Empire, into Patriarchal, Primates, Metropolitical, Provincial, Diocesan, were only the determination of •• ch adjuncts or extrinsic things, partly by the Emperors, and partly by Churches Consent upon the Emperors permission: And so that these new Church Governments were partly Magistratical, or by power derived from the Emperors, and partly mere Agreements or Contracts by degrees degenerating into Governments: And so the new forms and names are all but accidental, of adjuncts of the true Christian Churches. And though I cannot prove it unlawful to make such adjunctive or extrinsic constitutions, forms and names, considering the Matter simply itself, yet by accident these accidents have proved such to the true Churches, as the accident of sickness is to the body, and have been the causes of the Divisions, Wars, Rebellions, Ruines and Confusions of the Christian world: 1. As they have served the covetousness and ambition of carnal men: 2. And have enabled them to oppress simplicity and sincerity: 3. And because Princes have not exercised their own power themselves, nor committed it to Lay-Officers, but to Church-men: 4. Whereby the extrinsic Government hath so degenerated, and obscured the Intrinsic and been confounded with it, that both going under the equivocal name of Ecclesiastical Government, few Churches have had the happiness to see them practically distinct: Nay, few Divines do clearly in their Controversies, distinguish them: (Though Marsilius Patavinus and some few more have formerly given them very fair light, yet hath it been but slenderly improved.)

11. There seemeth to me no readier and directer way, to reduce the Churches to holy Concord, and true reformation, than for the Princes and Magistrates who are the extrinsic Rulers, to re-assume their own, and to distinguish openly and practically between the properly-Priestly or Pastoral intrinsic Office, and their extrinsic part, and to strip the Pastors of all that is not Intrinseeally their own (It being enough for them, and things so heterogeneous not well consisting in one person): And then when the people know what is claimed as from the Magistrate only, it will take off most of their scruples as to subjection and consent.

12. No mortal man may abrogate or take down the Pastoral Office, and the Intrinsic real power thereof, and the Church-form which is constituted thereby; seeing God hath instituted them for perpetuity on earth.

13. But whether one Church shall have one Pastor or many is not at all of the Form of a particular Church: but it is of the Integrity