instrumental, effectual power in the water of baptism, to produce a good disposition in the soul, which effects that she receives grace. This is opposed by the Franciscans, who think that there is no such power in the water, but that God hath connected grace with the water of baptism by his promise, in such a manner, that all who are baptized with the baptismal water obtain the grace of God, and all who are not baptized remain without that grace. But this opinion of the Franciscans doth not prevail so generally in the Romish church, as the opinion of the Dominicans; for the opinion of the Franciscans agrees too well with the sentiments of the Lutherans to be acceptable; for the Lutherans also teach that the water in baptism is, as it were, a divine hand and vehicle, which conveys grace to the soul.

In opposition to this we teach that nothing but the blood and Spirit of Christ washes away sins, and that the water hath only a power to signify and seal that grace; that the unbaptized children of persons, who are in covenant with God, may possess grace, and when they die, be saved; that the want of baptism doth not damn a person, but the contempt of it; and that baptism is indeed necessary on account of the divine institution of it, but not because it works grace.

Jie who hath eyes to see, and ears to hear what the Spirit saith in his word, will indeed perceive that the doctrine of the Romanists cannot consist with the word of God, as the doctrine of the Reformed church doth. For,

1. The water in baptism is material, lifeless and irrational, and consequently it cannot work grace, which is wrought in a spiritual, lively and rational manner, in the spiritual, living and rational soul; and therefore the scripture denies that the water in baptism works grace. Observe what the text saith, "Baptism saveth, not that which is the putting away of the filth of the flesh." John the Baptist, explaining baptism, saith, Matt. iii. 11, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." There is no reason, why washing and sprinkling should be of more efficacy now, than they were under the Old Testament, when they were also sacramental signs, yet they could not sanctify as pertaining to the conscience, but only to the purifying of the flesh," as Paul teacheth, Heb. ix. 9, 10, 13. "Was it impossible, that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins," as the same apostle speaks, Heb. x. 4, it is then also impossible that the water should do this. The Papists think that the water can take away sins, as well as Peter's shadow, and

Paul's handkerchiefs and aprons could remove sicknesses and expel evil spirits, Acts v. 15, 16 xix. 11, 12, but then baptism would also work such an unusual miracle, women and all who baptized would work miracles. Did that shadow, those handkerchiefs, and aprons work those miracles then by an instrumental power? surely those things did nothing, but God alone, immediately by those things, upon the faith and prayers of Peter and Paul : let the Papists prove to us that Peter's shadow, and Paul's handkerchiefs and aprons wrought grace in the souls of those persons, and we will see whether it will help them at all to prove that the water washes away sins.

2. The washing away of sins is effected only by the blood and Spirit of Christ We must believe that great ambassadour of the cross, Paul, who tells us this, 1 Cor. vi. 11. "Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." Thus he teacheth us also, Tit. iii. 5. Heb. ix. 14. Peter and John are of the same mind, 1 Peter, i. 18, 19. 1 John i.. Rev. 1, 5. Do we not therefore deny the doctrine of the apostles, when we ascribe the washing away of sins to the water? I conceive that we do. The Papist thinks not, because he will connect the blood of Christ with the water; this, saith he, hath merited that such a great power should accompany the water of baptism : but the blood of Christ doth not then wash away sins, as the apostles say, but the water, and Christ will become the servant of the water, and will have suffered so much for that.

3. Whatever baptism doth toward the washing away of sins is merely of a sacramental nature, signifying and sealing, on account of the word of institution and of promise, the washing away of sins by the blood and Spirit of Christ, which is, and is supposed before baptism. The apostle saith that " Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, which," (mark well) "he had, being yet uncircumcised," Rom. iv. 11. Peter required that the Jews, who were concerned, should "repent," and then "be baptized, because the promise was to them," Acts ii. 38, 39. Faith, by which we obtain the forgiveness of sins, was required of the Eunuch, before Philip would baptize him, Acts viii. 36-38.

4. We add to this, that some persons have been baptized, who 'did not receive grace in baptism, as we may see in Judas. " Simon the sorcerer was also baptized, but he was, and continued in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity," Acts viii. 13, 23. Water did not then wash away his sins. Others have obtained grace without baptism, we see this in the penitent thief, who died on the cross, Luke xxiii. 42, 43, with which therefore also the opinion that unbap

tized persons cannot be saved, and that baptism is also absolutely necessary, falls to the ground.

5. Would we have more? the most unmerciful consequences follow from the doctrine of the Papists; for they deny that the children of persons who are in covenant with God, if they die unbaptized, obtain eternal happiness, although they are partakers of the promises it also follows from their doctrine, that the efficacy of baptism doth not depend upon the good intention of the person who baptizeth, which the Papists nevertheless teach, or otherwise he can render the virtue of the water inefficacious; the persons who are baptized can say that they have no sins, contrary to 1 John i. 8, and they need not therefore humble themselves on account of their original sin, with David, Psalm li. 5.

Though the doctrine of the Papists is so absurd, they will nevertheless maintain it, and they imagine that they are able, because the Holy Ghost calls baptism "the washing of regeneration, and the washing away of sins." Thus speaks the instructor. In these words he hath an eye to Titus iii. 5, where it is said, "He hath saved us by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." They quote also the words of Ananias, when he was about to baptize Paul, Acts xxii. 16, "Be baptized, and wash away thy sins." But who will say that he speaks there of waterbaptism. Baptism doth indeed wash away sins, because the blood and Spirit of Christ belong to it, as the things signified by it: but water-baptism, considered in itself, which is the subject of the present controversy, doth not wash away sin; we have proved this from 1 Peter iii. 21. And although it were even so, that the Holy Ghost calls water-baptism the washing of regeneration, and the washing away of sins, the popish opinion doth not however follow from those phrases; "for God speaks thus not without great cause," not in order to teach us that the water washes away sins, but to teach us, according to the usual sacramental phraseology, that the water in baptism is, by the word of institution, a sign of the washing away of sin; for," as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ." God the Lord teacheth us also by the baptismal water, which he calls the washing of regeneration, and the washing away of sins, on account of the word of promise, that it is a seal, a divine pledge and sign, to assure us that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins, as really, as we are externally washed with water." And thus the working and efficacy of the thing signified is, with great propriety, ascribed

to the sign, according to the nature of the sacraments, agreeably to what we have taught on the twenty-fifth Lord's Day.

The Papists insist still more on John iii. 5, where our Saviour saith, "Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Our adversaries conclude from this passage that we are born again of water; but how shall we prove that the Saviour speaks there of proper water, used in baptism? Will any one conclude that Christ baptizes with proper fire, because John saith, Matt. iii. 11, "He that cometh after me shall baptize with the Holy Ghost, and with fire?" No, but he will say that Jesus baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, who is like fire in his manner of operation; why then should we not say on John iii. 5, that we must be born again of the Holy Ghost, who is like water in his manner of operation, since the Holy Ghost is often likened to water? And although the Son of God did speak in that passage of the baptismal water, doth that oblige us to say that the baptismal water is as effectual in working regeneration, as the Holy Ghost is? I know not that any man would dare to say this; at least it is not contained in that passage, but only that regeneration, which is wrought by the Holy Ghost, and is signified and sealed in Baptism, is necessary.

In this manner do the Papists turn to the right hand, when they superstitiously ascribe too much to Baptism; but the Mennonites and Socinians turn to the left, when, denying original sin, they ascribe top little to baptism, as though it were only an outward sign of Christianity, and therefore they say that we ought not to baptize any chil dren. Although we will not baptize all children, as those of Jews, Heathens, Turks, and such as are born of parents who have been excommunicated out of the church, we must, nevertheless bap tize the children of persons, who are in covenant with God; which we prove, not from the tradition of the church, as the Papists would do, imagining, to the dishonour of the word of God, that we cannot prove infant-baptism therefrom; but from the divine word itself, which affords us the only foundation for the baptism of infants. The instructor produceth several proofs from the word.

1. He saith that "children, as well as adults, are included in the covenant of God." That this is so, appears herefrom, that God established his covenant with Abraham, and with his seed, Gen. xvii. 7. Peter having respect to this, saith that "the promise was" not only to the parents, but also to their children," Acts ii. 38, 39. And thus children, and their believing parents are both called holy, 1 Cor. vii. 14. And so children must be baptized; for baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant, and therefore children, as well as the

elder covenant people, were to be circumcised under the Old Testasment, as the Lord commanded Abraham, Gen. xvii. 9-14. Why then should not the children of the covenant be baptized also? Peter required that the elder covenant people should repent and be baptized, because the promise of the covenant belonged to them; the promise of the covenant belongs to the children a'so, according to his infallible words: therefore they ought to be baptized with their parents.

2. Children, as well as adults, are included in the church of God," saith the catechism. This is true; for when the Lord commands, Joel ii. 16, that they should "gather the people, and sanctify the congregation," he reckons among the congregation not only "the elders, the bridegroom and the bride, but also the children, and those who suck the breasts." It follows from this, that we must baptize children, who belong to the congregation (or church,) because baptism is a sacrament of, and for incorporation into the church for when the three thousand were baptized on the feast of Pentecost," they were added to the church," Acts ii. 41.

3. To this the instructor adds that "redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and by the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is prom-` ised no less to children than to adults." Is not this true? the promise belongs to them, Acts ii. 39. It deserves our consideration what promise is meant. Is it not the promise of the covenant of redemption by the blood and Spirit of Christ? "The remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost," saith Peter, Acts ii. 38. In order to confirm the promise to children, Christ called them to him, and ordered that they should be brought to him, he said that "the kingdom of God was theirs, he embraced them, laid his hands upon them, and blessed them," Mark x. 13-16. Ought not children then to be baptized? may we not say here also from Acts x. 47. "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?"

4. It is further added, that "the children of persons in covenant must be distinguished from the children of infidels." Our adversaries allow that adult believers are distinguished from infidels by baptism, as a sign of Christianity: but is there not also a difference between the children of believers, and of infidels? I conceive that there is, and that according to Paul, who saith that the children of infidels are unclean, but those of believers holy, 1 Cor. vii. 14. Must they not now be distinguished, as well as the adult, from the children of infidels by a solemn sign? Was not this done under the Old Testament by circumcision? Why then not now by baptism?