tance 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 promises 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. XLV. 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 Gospelf? (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 liable 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 ".

f John iii. 16-18. 36. i. 11-13.

2 Pet. ii. 20-23.

James iii. 2,

3.

Heb. vi. 2. 4-8. x. 26-28. 1 John i. 9, 10.

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. XLVI. 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 ministry 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 baptizer's 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 xix. 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 specially 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 especially distinct also, that he that had now but John's were to be yet baptized: the person of the Messiah 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 Saviour undetermined: however he pointed to Christ in the hearing of some of his disciples. We must not run from plain truth in peevishness of opposition to Papists or any other men.

4. The fifth verse would not be true of John's baptism as the history sheweth, that "When John's hearers heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." This is contrary to the text that recordeth it.

66

5. In the fourth verse, the words that is, on Christ Jesus" are plainly Paul's expository words of John's, and not 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 connexion 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, verse 4. "When they heard this, they were baptized, &c." must refer to the last words, or to his that was speaking to them. 3. Verse 6. the pronoun "them" 66 when

Paul had laid his hands on them," plainly referreth to them last spoken of, verse 5., which therefore were not John's hearers as such. 4. And the words "they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus," are plainly distinctive from John's baptism. Saith Grotius, 'Sic accepere Latinas, Syrus, Arabs, et Veteres omnes ante Marnixium (ut verba Lucæ). Yet I say not so hardly of John's baptism, as Tertullian on this text, (de Baptis.) Adeo postea in Actis Apostolorum invenimus, quoniam qui Johannis baptismum habebant, non accepissent Spiritum Sanctum, quem ne auditu quidam noverant: ergo non erat cœleste, quod cœlestia non exhibebat.' See Dr. Hammond in loc.

Quest. XLVII. Is baptism by laymen or women lawful in cases of necessity? Or are they nullities, and the person to be rebaptized?

Answ. I. 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, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. 2. He hath no where 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 threatening if they omit it. 3. He oft severely punisheth such as invade the sacred function, or usurp any part 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 præcepti,' 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 layman 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 an one when he did it. Let those that are angry with this resolution be as fair to me as they will be to Venerable Bede, 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 incapable 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. lib. v. c. 6.

Quest. XLVIII. May Anabaptists, that have no other error, be permitted in church-communion?

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 Antipædobaptists will consent, to profess