But indeed the reason of the thing is so clear and evident, as not to need any other authority. For what can be more plain, than that the one is an external, the other an internal work? That the one is a visible, the other an invisible thing, and therefore wholly different from each other: the one being an act of man, purifying the body; the other, a change wrought by God in the soul. So that the former is just as distinguishable from the latter, as the soul from the body, or water from the Holy Ghost. 2. From the preceding reflections, we may, _secondly_, observe, that as the new birth is not the same thing with baptism, so it does not always accompany baptism: they do not constantly go together. A man may possibly be _born of water_, and yet not be _born of the Spirit_. There may sometimes be the outward sign, where there is not the inward grace. I do not now speak with regard to infants: it is certain, our church supposes, that all who are baptized in their infancy, are at the same time born again. And it is allowed, that the whole office for the baptism of infants proceeds upon this supposition. Nor is it an objection of any weight against this, that we cannot comprehend, how this work can be wrought in infants? For neither can we comprehend, _how_ it is wrought in a person of riper years. But whatever be the case with infants, it is sure all of riper years who are baptized are not at the same time born again. _The tree is known by its fruits_: and hereby it appears too plain to be denied, that divers of those who were children of the devil before they were baptized, continue the same after baptism: _for the works of_ their _Father they do_; they continue servants of sin, without any pretence either to inward or outward holiness.