of man as its ground but on the meer institution and gracious promise of God therefore â—t ought not by anyman be denied infants in respect of their present defect or want of understanding or the acts â—hereof in faith repentance c. they being comprehended in All Nations The minor appears in S. Peters answer to his hearers prickt in heart Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sâ—â—â— For the Promise is unto you and unto your children c He saith not Be baptized for ye have repented ye are of age and a good understanding but Be baptized c. for the Promise is to you and to your children though they cannot yet actually believe repent understand c. yet they have Gods promise for the ground of their sealing on whose grace and ordinance the whole power and vertue of the sacrament dependeth But his grace and Ordinance depend not on any excellency ability or act of man therefore the Apostle fetched not the reason of his Exhortation from their age or repentance but from the promise and mercy of God calling them who were far of 26. For conclusion I take up this congeriem of arguments out of the learned Ursâ—â—â—s That opinion is pernicious which robs poor Infants of their right which obscureth the grace and mercy of God who would that Infants of Believers should from the womb be reckoned members of his Church which derogates from the grace offered in the new Covenant making it less then that in the old which weakneth the comfort of the Church and faithful Parents which denyeth Infants that seal which should differ them from the children of Jews and Pâ—gans which contradicteth the Apostles reason Can may man forbid water that these should not be baptiptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we which keepeth Infants as much as man can from Christ he expresly saying Saffer little children to come unto me which without a Covenant they cannot do spiritually nor without the external seal sacramentally Now such is the opinion of Anabaptists denying Christians Infants Baptism CHAP. IV. Anabaptists Arguments concerning the necessity of Dipping over head and ears in Baptism examined and answered THe envious Philistims will still be casting earth into Isaacs wells of livings waters to stop them up Satan envying man these waters of life in the Laver of Regeneration eâ—tsoon casteth in scruples to obstruct and make void the holy ordinances of God to deluded souls by causing them to renounce their Baptism and Christ whom they sacramentally had put on therein by taking on them another Baptism under a vain pretence that they were not susceptive of Baptism in their infancy nor lawfully baptized neither at all truly if happily they were not dipped under water for they say the institution of Christ requireth that the whole man be dipped all over in water so that the Anabaptists now hold that dipping the whole body into water is essential to baptism so necessary that except they are so dipt they are not duly and truly baptized according to the institution of Christ. Since the infancy of the Gospel Satan hath not ceased to trouble the Church concerning baptism Some of the Jews would have circumcision joyned with baptism the Archontici condemned baptism with a curse the Novatians deferred if to the last because they understood not the power of this ordinance of God to cleanse the whole life but thought that there was no mercy for him who sinned after baptism Liberius the Monk as also Fidus would have childrens Baptism tyed to the eighth day Anabaptists not only deny believers children Baptism as the Pelagians and Donatists did of old but affirm That dipping the whole body under water is so necessary that without it none are truly baptized as hath been said So the subtil enemy still assaileth Baptism in one part or another that we may not unaptly apply that to him his factors which Tertullian once said concerning the most impious Persecutor Nero He that knows him well may understand that nothing but some great or singular Neroâ— And indeed we ought more highly to esteem Gods favor in sealing us into his Covenant of grace and more seriously and carefully endeavour to answer thereto in newness and sanctity of living by how much more the enemy rageth against it The Protestant Church holdeth that the word and the element make the Sacrament and that neither sprinkling is simply necessary nor washing or dipping unlawful but that according to the convenience of times places and persons either sprinkling washing or dipping in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost is the true form of Baptism and that caeteris paribus either of these three applications of the water have the same effect and may as convenience serves indifferently be used being fit to signifie the application of the benefit of Christs blood for the remission of sin and cleansing therefrom But our Antagonists say We are buried with Christ by baptism into his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead even so we also should walk in newness of life Rom. 6. 4. But Christ in his burial was covered that he might thence rise out of the eartâ— therefore in Baptism we must be covered and as it were buried under water that we may rise again as Christ did We answer 1. Similitudes run not on four feet types signs and similitudes are not to be extended beyond the scope and meaning of the Speaker as might be shewed in almost innumerable instances lest not only absurdities but horrid blasphemies should be thence inferred The Ark in the Deluge was a type of Baptism 1 Pet. 3 20 21. what must the type and truth agree in all things must all the world be drown'd and only eight persons saved I doubt you would hardly agree among your selves which should be the eight The red-sea and cloud figured baptism 1 Cor. 10. 1 c. what would you have your disciples baptized with the sprie of two neighboring seas and a cloud of fresh water raining on their heads Jonah's being in the Whales belly was a type of Christs burial and resurrection you would not have your disciples in their conformity be three days under water These instances may shew the vanity of stretching types and signs to every fancy of Hectic braines and now deal ingenuously what reason or warrant have you to wrest this similitude to what you please in those similes which are most apt there may be many disconveniences found Or what commission can you dream of that gives you authority to draw this alledged Scripture beyond the Apostles scope and purpose rather to that which seems to favour your fancy and practise of immersion then to another sense 2. Those expressions Rom. 6. 4. are meerly figurative and therefore do not at all bind us to any external or literal sense or observance in the maner of baptizing if the
to twelve men only and no women So that if that which you can never prove should be granted you that John Baptist and Christs disciples did then and there baptize by dipping yet it would not follow that we ought to baptize in the like and no other manner In the infancie of the Church they had not Baptisteries or Churches as we have there was a kind of necessitie for them as they met with occasions to make use of waters as they could find them in rivers or sources wherein it cannot be proved that they dipt nor could it conclude our Antagonists pretended necessitie if it were supposed 8 Whatsoever was or is essential to baptism or simply necessary thereto is mentioned in some clear example or express precent of Christ But dipping the whole body in baptism is neither mentioned in any clear example nor any express precept of Christ therefore it is not essential or simply necessary to baptism Christ omitted nothing necessary and the holy Scriptures are able to make men wise to salvation And let our Antagonists now seriously consider what they do when they rebaptize upon that fancie that washing or sprinkling with water in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost is not true baptism CHAP. VI. Anabaptists Arguments for their dangerous practice of Re-baptizing examined and answered THE malitious Serpent ever attempting to poison or trouble these sanctuary-waters obstructing or hindering their effect lest they should heal sin-wounded souls somtimes moved Pelagius Donatus and others reviving their errors to deny the most innocent children of believers baptism sometimes he teacheth them to except against the manner of baptizing as if the vertue of the Sacrament depended on the quantitie of the element and not solely on the Ordinance and power of God working thereon sometimes he causeth deluded people to annul their baptism and in effect to renounce their faith and Christ whom they had sacramentally put on in baptism by receiving a second third or iterated baptism we read that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptized every day supposing that their former baptisms were made void by any sin after committed on which fancie possibly the Novatians thought that baptism ought to be deferred to the end of their lives Auxentius the Arrian taught that baptism ought ro be iterated the Marcionites baptized their disciples three times The Anabaptists rebaptize baptized Infants coming to age and affirm that the assuming of baptism in ripe years by those who were washed in Infancie is not a renouncing baptism but a firmer avouching thereof according to Christs mind errors are fruitful one absurdity granted many will readily follow they think first that Infants having no present actual faith and repentance not present use of reason to understand the Gospel preached are not as such to be baptized but until they â—ome to years to be taught and to make profession of their faith and repentance to be kept from baptism and that so Infant-baptism is void and to be esteemed no baptism Secondly they dream that those who are not dived under water are not baptized and therefore they rebaptize them who were baptized in Infancie though that ground may often fail them because some have been baptized by immersion Now that which hath been said on our part is enough to satisfie those in those things who are not wilfully bent with Simo in the Comedian rather to erre then to be directed by any Therefore to avoid repetitions let the issue be if Infant-baptism in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost either by washing sprinkling with or dipping into water be indeed a compleat and warrantable baptism according to the institution of Christ then Anabaptists rebaptizing do impiously seduce and teach simple people to renounce that baptism by which they had at least sacramentally put on Christ and thereby were re-admitted into that Church out of which can be no salvation And let the prudent Reader judge whom I herein refer to an impartial and serious consideration of that which hath been said which being proved the Anabaptists whole fabrick of dowsing and rebaptizing falleth heavily on their Dippers heads The Church of Christ holds that Infants of enchurched Parents or others of yeaâ—s converting to the faith being once sprinkled washed or dipt in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost according to Christs institution ought not on any pretence to be rebaptized I say thus baptized according to the ordinance of Christ because the Samosatenians Sabellians Marcionites Arrians or the like who any wayes opposed the holy Trinity or denied any persons thereof did not baptize according to the prescript of Christ and therefore in case any of their disciples converted the true Church baptized them because the former pretended baptism was not according to the Ordinance of Christ and so no true baptism it being the peculiar prerogative of Christ to appoint the seals of his own Covenant of free Grace and mercie with man But the Anabaptists after their manner object We are regenerate not only by Baptism but also by the Word Ephes. 5. 26. 1 Pet. 1. 23. but the Word is often repeated and therefore so may baptism We answer 1 The word mentioned Eph. 5. 26. is that which comming to the element makes the Sacrament as Chrysostom wel interpreteth that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word What Word saith he why this In the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost that Word which coming to the element makes the Sacrament ought not to be more repeated then the Sacrament it self because it is essential thereto 2 The regeneration of man is only one whose principal efficient cause is the holy Ghost the means or instrumental causes on Gods part are the Word and Sacraments on our part faith which the holy Ghost begetteth encreaseth and confirmeth ordinarily by those external means Therefore when they are baptized who were before regenerate by the Word as a spiritual feed they have not need of any other regeneration nor can they be twice regenerate but then baptism is to them an obsignation and confirmation of their regeneration So Abraham first believed as so was regenerate and afterward was sealed So Cornelius spiritual sanctification preceded in the gift of the holy Ghost and then he received the Sacrament of regeneration to confirm the same to him But when the elect who being baptized dye in their infancy it is certain that they are regenerate by the Sacrament without the ministry of the word preached unto them whereof they are not capable who yet without regeneration could not enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. And if the baptized Infant live to be capable of teaching and so receive the word as that it begets in him actual faith repentance and obedience to God then that word is as Sincere milk to nourish and confirm not to
and Gentiles The Lords Supper doth no less signifie the blood of Christ for our Salvation then doth the water of Baptism nor less represent his death then doth baptism in which we are implanted into the similitude of his death and resurrection But the Lords Supper is often to be administred and received and therefore so is Baptism We answer 1â— There is in Scripture express command for often administring and receiving of the Lords Supper I Cor. II. 24. This do in remembrance of me As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come shew us any one such warrant for rebaptizing and this controversie is at an end 2. The Lords Supper proposeth not any new Covenant with God but confirmeth that to us which he made with us in our baptism But baptism is the Initiatory Seal of our entring into Covenant with God as it was in circumcision which Covenant is but one 3. The vertue and efficacy of baptism in the elect extendeth it self to the whole life of the regenerate and is as it were a fountain of living waters perpetually running to cleanse away the pollutions of sin so that there need not new or more baptisms but a daily renewing of our repentance to which we were in our covenanting with God at first baptized As Ambrose saith after baptism there remaineth no remedy but true repentance Cyprian and the Councel of Carthage held that those who were baptized by hereticks upon their return to the Church ought to be rebaptized We answer 1. The question being proposed in the first Councel of Carthage Whether those who were once baptized might be rebaptized all the Bishops answered God forbid God forbid we resolve and determine that all re-baptizings are unlawful and far from sincâ—re faith and catholick discipline The business which troubled the Churches in Cyprians time was Whether baptism administred according to the lawful form of the Catholick Church that is with water in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost though by an Heretical Minister were invalid and therefore to be iterated Cyprian with other Eastern Bishops affirmed that there is but one Baptism which is not to be found out of the Catholick Church The other orthodox Bishops determined that baptism which an heretical Minister administred according to the form prescribed by Christ and practised by the Church was valid and not to be iterated So that indeed neither Cyprian nor the rest of that Councel did maintain rebaptizing but held that there could be no true or valid baptism out of the Catholick Church or that it was not baptism which Hereticks administred Against rebaptizing Cyprian speaks clearly L. I. Ep. 12. on that John 4. 14 applying it to baptism Which saith he is once received and not again iterated And in the Canons of the Apostles there is a severe caution against rebaptizing If any Bishop or Elder shall again baptize him who had truly received baptism let him be deposed 2. We must distinguish between Hereticks as hath been said whereof some are such as that though they err in some fundamental point or points yet they hold the true form of baptism Some so erre concerning the holy Trinity as that in such errour they cannot have with them the true form and essence of baptism Now there may be true baptism administred by the first sort and such as are baptized by them returning to the true Church must repent but not to be rebaptized But those who were pretended to be baptized by the second sort as Arians denying the Deity of Christ or those Pneumatomachi Eunomius and others blasphemous against the holy Ghost in case they came to the true Church they were to be baptized because there can be no true baptism where the essentials thereof are wanting as the element and the word constituting the Sacrament to wit In the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost Baptizing such as have not so been baptized is no rebaptizing seeing the first pretended was truly none Otherwise the ancient Church did not rebaptize a repenting Apostate though he had fallen into the errours of Arrians Eunomians or the like after that he had been baptized by the true Church and the reason thereof was that which Chemnitius well observed as on Gods part the Covenant which he made with the circumcised Israelites remained firm and ratified unto which after their falling into sin they returned by repentance so the Corinthians and Galathians having fallen were recalled by S. Paul and remitted to the promise and consolation of their baptism formerly received Therefore as Circumcision was not so ought not baptism to be iterated CHAP. VII Protestants arguments against the dangerous practice of Rebaptizing 1. BAptism is the Sacrament of Regeneration by our implantation into Christ. But we cannot be twice regenerate for regeneration presupposeth a precedent natural birth which can be but one nor can we be more often regenerate or born a new then born naturally therefore we ought not to be twice baptized The major is evident Tit. 3. 5. The minor is also evident in reason Add hereto that whereas we are by nature children of wrath Ephes. 2. 3. enemies to God Rom 5. 10. and so without a new birth aliens from the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. but being implanted into Christ by baptism we become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a new creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 6. 15. Now as one and the same creature can be but once created except that either the created essence of a man is destroyed by sin which the sin of the Devil cannot do or that a man may have pluralities of essences by several creations of one and the same person which no reason can suppose of neither can we have any more then one regeneration Therefore we ought to be but once baptized 2. Gods faithfulness in his Covenant sealed cannot become void by mans infidelity neither is his Covenant of peace momentany but perpetual which is sealed in baptism so that still we may return unto it by true repentance See Isa. 54. 10. and so they who sinned after baptism though notoriously and scandalouâ—â— were not rebaptized by the ancient Church but upon their repentance received again into holy communion and it is truly observed by some that baptism being once received confirmeth and assureth the penitent of their sins remission and that the efficacy and vertue thereof extendeth it self to all our life and therefore neither ought it to be iterated nor deferred unto the end of our lives as if it so only cleansed men from their sins upon condition that they never fall into any sin after their baptism received which cannot be in this frail state of flesh and blood subject to so many temptations and innate infirmities Therefore after the Apostle had shewed us how being implanted into the similitude of Christs death and resurrection we ought
by illumination faith remorse of conscience purpose of leading a new life and desire to be implanted into Christ and the communion of Saints by baptism and so it is internal or professing of that endeavour of knowing the mysteries of the Gospel faith and repentance testified before men and so these dispositions are external or expressed to men whom it may concern these are necessary in persons of years coming to baptism 2. there is a previous disposition of the subject without any present change of the mind which springeth from his relation to some other or some others act So some titles of honour come on children in their fathers Charters without any present change of the childs mind so Lands and Inheritances by right of adoption may be setled on them in their infancy without their present change or knowledg so also the believing parents priviledg and being within Gods Covenant made with them and their children previously disposeth infants to the seal thereof to wit by giving them a certain right thereto and so was it in circumcision But if a Proselyte were to receive the seal of the Covenant he must necessarily be prepared and first disposed thereto by the knowledg of Gods Law and Covenant faith repentance or at least the profession thereof and those other rites which the Law required on that behalf The infants previous disposition to circumcision was no other then his fathers and his own priviledg and being within Gods Covenant Of the child was neither faith nor repentance required for the present but future so must we understand concerning baptism the seal of faith under the Gospel And not say you to instance in those innumerable places that require faith before this Sacrament there needs no more but this one He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved I answer 1. Deal fairly dispute ad idem and shew me one place of Scripture which universally requireth faith before this Sacrament and you shall be excused for the innumerable places which you speak of We can shew that the rule holds not universally that faith must precede the Sacraments for though Abrahams faith preceded the seal thereof yet Isaaks seal preceded his faith Mr. Calvin expresseth the reason hereof Why saith he doth in Abraham the Sacrament follow faith and in Isaak his son it goeth before all understanding because it is meet that he which being in full-grown age is received into fellowship of the Covenant from which he had hitherto been a stranger should first learn the conditions thereof but an infant begotten of him needed not so which by right of inheritance according to the form of the promise is even from his mothers womb contained in the Covenant And certainly in this respect God calleth the infants of covenanted parents sons and daughters born unto him Ezek. 16. 20. 23. 37. be esteeming them his children who are born of those parents to whom God made the promise to be a God unto them and their seed after them which promise as truly concerns us and our children as it concerned Abraham and his 2. If the argument be good from that place Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized faith is first named and then baptism ergo faith must precede baptism Why shall not the Argument from other places be good to the contrary as John 3. 5. Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Baptism is first named and then regeneration therefore baptism must precede regeneration So again Ephes. 5. 26. Washing with water that is baptism is mentioned before the word ergo we must first be baptized and afterward receive the word 3. If this argument were good how many men and women of age must by the same reason be denyed baptism For all have not saith but the truth is that to be born in the Church is unto or in infants instead of profession of faith and repentance as to the outward seal for which we contend and profession of faith and repentance is to and for the adult instead of the same for their right to the desired seal so was it to Ismael and Esau whom God hated because they were born of covenanted parents 4. Sure it is that Christ in the forementioned place speaketh of men and women of years For you confess that infants as such cannot believe and what then must follow if your cruel principles were true Christ saith But he that believeth not shall be damned If this were as you would have it spoken concerning infants also what should become of all those that die in their infancy what are they damn'd Here appears an inexcusable perversness of these men who when children are proposed to their interest in general terms granted them there they would exclude them except they shew a particular warrant and baptize all Nations without a baptize infants shall not advantage them for the seal of their admission into Christs visible Church But where a general rule is mentioned from whence they are in reason and all charitable construction to be exempted there it must include them for their disadvantage even to damnation without any particular warrant for such inteterpretation Mr. Cobbet observeth well That the Covenant-priviledges of grace are ever to be expounded in favour of the principal or less principal counterparties unless any exception be made of persons or priviledges by him which was the Covenant-maker To avoid this you must either acknowledg that the place you cite is either to be understood of those of years who contumaciously reject the Ordinances of God being hardned in wilfull blindness and unbelief and so that iâ— doth not concern children as such or else you must allow infants some secret seeds of faith and regeneration and so you shall justly acknowledg their capacity of baptism Plainly you say thus faith and baptism in conjunction will bring a man to heaven but if he have not faith baptises shall do him no good True in those who though baptized as Simon Magus are yet but in the gall of bitterness but this is a meer ignoratio elenchi hence to conclude against infants baptism our question not being whether all that are baptized shall be saved but whether children of believing parents ought to be baptized which if you would thus disprove whosoever have not a saving faith that the Sacrament may do them good may not be baptized but children have not such faith that baptism received may doe them good ergo children are not to be baptized your reasoning would appear unreasonable both Propositions being false or fallacious The Major because baptism is but the external seal of admission into the visible Church into which elect and reprobates may enter as it were into the outward Court of the Temple And if saving faith finally doing the baptized good or which is the same if the inward baptism by the holy Ghost were the rule by which the baptizing Minister must
we shall make it appear more anon If they fall away to renew them again unto repentance seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame How do they crucifie him afresh to themselvs that is as much as in them is Why 1. They are said so to do who iterate or again do or resume that which is a resemblance or similitude of Christs suffering who died but once for in a reiterating it we declare or intimate the first to be void and so if we will have a new baptism we must have a new Christ and he must in our Symbole suffer as if one Christ or his once suffering were not sufficient for our redemption And is not this to pollute the bloud of the everlasting Covenant and Testament and to crucifie again the Son of God Secondly this may be said in respect of reciduation or falling away from Christ as they do who renounce their baptism by which they were implanted into him by receiving another baptism because the merit of Christs Cross being abolished and made void by which they were once renewed it must needs be that Christ should be crucified again and put to shame that they might be renewed by a fresh or new merit of the Cross which seeing it cannot be the Apostle possibly would infer that it was impossible that they which are once sealed and regenerate should ever fall away and that therefore all Christians should do their uttermost endeavour that they may be like good ground near the blessing and that they may not want an iterated renovation which no man can possibly aâ—â—ain As for the rest of your revilings though we have no cause to be troubled at your dogged eloquence yet for their sakes who are weak I shall endeavour to shew the injurious falshood thereof You say that we in baptizing infants dishonour and make a Pageantry of the Sacrament c. We answer to this puted calumny 1. You may as well in this your Theomachy and fighting against Gods Ordinance object the same against Circumcision of Infants if incapacity of present giving account of their faith as you pretend can make the Sealers of infants lyable to your unjust censure for infants could then no more give an account of their faith then now they canâ— 2. Infants have a capacity of the holy Ghost as hath been proved in the examples of Jeremy and John Baptist c yea such a measure of sanctification and so certain a regeneration working in them all such things as God knoweth to be necessary to their salvation or himself supplying all those things as that Christ both pronounceth their propriety in the Kingdom of heaven and proposed them as patterns to all those who should enter thereinto Therefore the Apostles Argument being good from the extraordinary and visible gifts of the holy Ghost gifts of miracles flourishing in the primitive Church and marking many receivers to a capacity of baptism which yet might then be had without any interest in the Kingdom of heaven who can forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we It must as certainly hold from the gift to regeneration and the spirit of sanctification which is in many infants because many infants dying such are saved And now in your judgment doth the baptism of such as are saved dishonour the Sacrament the outward seal which man can give and wicked men receive who have received the thing signified the inward seal of Gods holy spirit which none but himself can give and none but the elect receive Or do you dishonour your self who were so admitted into the Church the Church our holy Mother who maâ—gre the Devils malice and the powers of hell by Infant-baptism bringeth an holy seed to Christ Christ himself commanding us to baptize all without exception to any estate sex age or condition that either are within the Church as born of Christian parents or in their conversion profession of faith and repentance desire to be admitted into the same Adde hereto that Christ particularly cautioned for children left any should despise them openly declaring that of such is the kingdome of heaven And yet the doing of this duty is dishonour to the Sacrament and Pageantry with you But If of every idle word which men shall speak they shall give an account in the day of judgment it concerneth them speedily to repent of these blasphemous calumnies left it prove a black and dismal day to them in respect of these things for which they can give no better account then their own fancies and others And whereas you say they that baptize infants ineffectually represent a Sepulture into the death of Christ and please themselves with a signe without an effect making baptism like the fig-tree in the Gospel full of leaves but no fruit To say this is an untruth is as much answer as we owe to so reasonless a calumny yet I shall be contented to lay it further open I say 1. Can you be assured that none of these who are baptized in infancy and no otherwise are regenerate and saved Whence have you either such knowledg or commission so to judg You say the Anabaptists say so so said the Pharisees concerning those that believed in Christ This people who knows not the Law are cursed But what warrant is this for you to blaspheme for company 2. God be blessed that we who believe one God one Mediator one Faith one Baptism which we received in our infancy have such a testimony of Gods holy spirit effectually working faith repentance mortification and a comfortable measure of sanctification in us as that we know you speak untruth in that you say that Poedobaptists ineffectually represent a Sepulture into the death of Christ and please themselves in a signe without an effect c. God be blessed which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope wherein as we need not be beholding to you for testimony so neither are we to regard what you say against it With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of mans judgment but he that judgeth me is the Lord therefore judg nothing before the time He that saith that baptism is a bare signe only fallaciously concludeth dividing things which God hath joyned together 3. Although baptism of infants be effectless to the reprobate whether infant or person of years as in Judas Simon Magus Demas and others like â—et it is effectual to salvation to all the elect in whom Gods spirit powerfully worketh to faith repentance sanctification c. without which all the waters under heaven cannot be effectual for the cleansing of one soul. 4. We please not our selves with a signe without effect if you doe rest not in that state lest you and your stingie leaves without fruit withering become fuel for the fire which goes not
not to suffer sin to reign in our mortal bodies he saith not Let not flesh and blood the natural man live any longer or any more be active but Let not sin reign c. for Christ came not to destroy our nature but to correct our depraved will and affections 3 There is not in all the New Testament any one precept or example for rebaptizing therfore it ought not to be done the constant judgment and practice of the Church of Christ being to the contrary it is neither commanded in the institution of baptism nor in any Scripture admitted nor is it tolerable by any necessary consequence as is the contrary Johns baptism and Christs were one whatever Jesuites pretend to the contrary Apollos knew only Johns baptism Act. 18. 25. that is the doctrine of John Baptist we read not that Apollos or any other mentioned in Scripture was rebaptized no not any of Johns Disciples coming to Christ and his magistery which had surely been done had Christs baptism and Johns been different in substance and had it been done we should have had in Scripture either some express proof for the same or something so layed down that we might by good consequence have gathered the same which nowhere appeareth but as hath been said the Apostle recalleth penitent sinners once baptized unto the comfort of that which they had once received in baptism 1 Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. Circumcision was only once administred but was perpetual and everlasting and under the Law sinners were to return unto the Lord by true repentance compare Jer. 11. 3 4. Jer. 4. 1 2. c. with Jer. 18. 8 c. Ezek. 18. 31 32. Isa. 55. and the principal cause why circumcision was not iterated was Gods divine ordinance and institution the impressed character was secondary on Gods part it ever remained sure to which after their forsaking his covenant into which they had been once sealed he recalled them not to a susception of a new or the same seal iterated but only to repentance as to humble them so to shew that the fault and failing of the fruits and effects thereof which should have appeared in their newness of life was wholly on their parts not on Gods who is unchangeable and the same for ever So hath he appointed it in our sins after baptism I further add that those Christians which had apostated to the most pernitious heresie of Arrians denying the deitie of Christ by the judgment of the Catholick Church if they returned to her were not to be rebaptized but to be received again into the Church and communion thereof by repentance as hath been proved 5 All they that are baptized into the similitude of Christs death and resurrection are but once to be baptized but all they that are baptized according to Christs Institution In the name of the Father and the Son the H. Ghost are baptized into the similitude of Christs death and resurrection therefore they are but once to be baptized and thus the Church hath ever clearly judged The major is proved because Christ dyed and rose again but once Rom. 6. 3 4 5 9 10. we being therefore baptized into the similitude of his death and resurrection ought to be baptized but once seeing that pluralities of baptisms or baptizings cannot answer in similitude to his death and resurrection who dyed and rose again but only once for our justification Rom. 4. 25. Heb. 8. 25 26 28. Again we are buried with Christ by baptism Rom. 6. 4. but Christ was but once buried therefore neither ought we to be baptized any more then only once How then shal we be renewed after our falling into sin the Apostle saith Gal. 6. 1. Restore such a one but how he saith noâ— baptize him again no but godly sorrow saith he 2 Câ—â— 7. 10. worketh repentance to salvation for we must still remember that baptism is the ordinary gate and entrance into Christs Church which stands like that brazen Sea at the entrance into the Temple 1 King 7. 39. in which our sins are washed away and remitted by Christ so not that they should be no more but that they shal be no more imputed and therfore all this life long we have need of daily repentance because we daily fal into some sin repentance being a condition of Godspronouncing pardon to the sense of our consciences which he sealed to us in our baptism and so we may understand that which Christ said to Peter Joh. 13. 10. He that is was'd needeth not save to wash his feet We are washed from our sins by baptism because though we are in respect of the meritorious cause cleansed from them only by the sacred blood of Christ 1 Joh. 1. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 19. Heb. 9. 14. Rev. 1.5 yet baptism being the ordinary external seal and instrumental cause for the application thereof as also in respect of the analogie between the sign and the thing signified that is often ascribed to the sign which is proper to the thing signified to wit the bloud and merit of Christ sealed to us in baptism therefore we need no more clearing by iteration of baptism but only as it were washing our feet that is our vitious affections and failings by daily repentance that it may please God to pronouce to our consciences the remission of our sins which grieve and displease us There is but one Lord one faith one baptism Eph. 4. 5. That which the holy Ghost testifieth is but one as one Lord one Faith one Baptism no man may multiply iterate or make more But the holy Ghost testifieth that there is but one God one Faith one Baptism Therefore no man may iterate or make them more neither is it any better then a meer illusion of holy Scripture to distinguish between the Sacrament and the administration thereof by saying there is but one baptism but there may be many baptizings of one and the same person the Apostle saying there is but one not only in the unity of substance dispensation and effect but also in respect of lawful use or reception by one and the same person otherwise he must contradict himself who saith we are baptized into the similitude of Christs death which is but only one and once suffered Indeed it is said of the other seal as oft as ye do this 1 Cor. 11. 26. but not one word in Scripture can be found more then once baptizing but the Apostle mentioning baptism joins it with things incapable of multiplication or pluralitie one Spirit one body of Christ the Church one hope of our calling metonymically put for the thing hoped for that is eternal life which is essentially but one one Lord one Faith that is one doctrine of faith Gal. 1. 6 7 8. Jud. 3 or objectively one truth of God one Christ shewing that there ought to be no more baptisms then faiths Christs or Gods if therefore said Optatus you give another
baptism give another faith if ye give another faith give another Christ if ye give another Christ give also another God c. You see to what damnable absurdities rebaptizing drives unto That whereby men crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to open shame may by no means be done But to rebaptize or to be willingly rebaptized in the Apostles sense is to crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and to put him to open shame therefore it may by no means be done This point the Apostle layeth down Heb. 6. 4 5 6. It is impossible for those who were once enlightned saith our Translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who have been once baptized saith the Syriac to renew them again to repentance c. that is baptiâ—mal repentance the baptism of repentaence as it is called Act 19. 4. and so Heb. 10. 12. Call to remembrance the former dayes in which after ye were illuminated Gre. 〈◊〉 which the Syriac the best and nearest Interpreter of the New Testament rendreth in which ye were baptized So the Greeks were wont to call baptism 〈◊〉 illumination possibly because persons converting from darkness of Idolatry were ordinarily enlightned by being taught the doctrine of the Gospel see Mat. 4. 16. Luk 2. 32. Ad. 26. 18. so the Hebrew â—â—â— in one signification importing taught is rendred by the LXX illuminated or also in respect of extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost in the knowledge of the mysteries of the Gospel and unstudied tongues with other admirable enlargments of heart then flourishing in the Church Now those who are described v. 4 5. who have been once baptized and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the holy Ghost and have tasted the god word of God and the powers of the world to câ—me if they shall fall away saith our Translation Gre â—â—â—â—â—â—â—â—â— and falling away which and the Syriac omitteth rendring the sense as others also non possum iterum pâ—â—care ut denâ—ò renoventur ad resipiscentiam â—â—â— crucifigant c. they cannot so sin that is unâ— death that they should again be renewed to repentance and crucifie afresh c. that is in a second baptism where noâ—e by the way that this place of Scripture so much wrested by the enemies of truth against the comfortable doctrine of the Saints perseverance maketh mainly for it for the â—â—â—stle saith not that those who are described v. 4 5. de â—â—â— may fall away but that it is impossible isto supposito to he renewed because in such a supposition the merit of Christs Cross being abolished and made void by whicâ— they were renewed it must needs follow that so Christ should be crucified afresh and be put to open shame thaâ—â—â— they might be renewed by a second and new merit of his Cross which seeing it is impossible to be the Apostle will inferr that it is impossible that these here described v. 4 5. should finally fall away The foundation of the Lord remaining sure and having this seal The Lord knoweth who are his whose prescience cannot possibly be deceived in electing any who shall fall away But to return to our purpose the work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to themselves is very considerable The Son of God they cannot now possibly crucifie afresh nor put him again to open shame who sitteth at the right hand of the glory of the Father had they the malice of the Jews and power of the Romans ` who once crucified him to help them yet in iterating on themselves baptism the sign of heir implantation into the similitude of his death they crucifie to themselves that is as much as in them is the Son of God Chrysostome excellently expresseth it Baptism saith he is the Cross for therein our old man is crucified with him Again we have been planted together in the likeness of his death as therefore Christ may not be crucified again for that were to put him again to open shame so neither may we be baptized again for if death have no more dominion over him if he be risen in his resurrection a conqueror over death c. and should again be crucified then all these things were meer fables and mockeries therefore he that rebaptizeth himself doth again crucifie him But what is crucifying again As Christ died on the Cross so do we in baptism not in the flesh but to sin therefore there may be no second washing for if there be there may be a third and a fourth for the first is made void by the second and that by another even to an infinite Where there are all the essential parts of baptism rightly administred according to the commission given by Christ to his Apostles there baptism cannot be made void or no true baptism by any thing accidental circumstantial or less then essential neither expresly nor by any necessary consequence any where in holy Scripture forbidden But in baptizing of Infants of Church-priviâ—edged Parents by sprinkling or washing with water in the â—â—â— of the Father and the Son and the holy Ghost there are all the essential parts of baptism according to Christs commission given to the Apostles to wit the Element and the Word which constitute the Sacrament Therefore that their baptism is not neither can be made void or no true baptism by or in respect of Infant-age or of only washing or sprinkling them with water which are things circumstantial accidental less then essential and no where expresly or by necessary consequence forbidden in holy Scripture So that whatever Anabaptists pretend in their eager pursuit of their opinion that they do not rebaptize supposing that there preceded no essential or true baptism in regard of the persons being baptized in their Infancie or because they fancie dipping the whole body to be essential to baptism and so necessary that without it they think there can be no true baptism neither of which have any ground in Scripture and whereas Christ is the Saviour of every age sex and condition therefore male and female aged and Infants have right to the seal as hath been â—shewed it highly concerneth them seriously to consider how dangerous a thing it is upon a mere opinion to pull off the seals of their Disciples salvation under pretence of putting on a new unwarrantable seal to renounce their Saviour whom they put on in their lawful baptism at least sacramentally to make more baptisms then faiths and Saviours into the similitude of whose death and resurrection all Christians are baptized and to crucifie again to themselves the Son of God and to put him to open shame Alas they discern not Satans mischievous Legerdemain who like a cunning finger-jugler hereby takes from them the true seal of redemption and salvation by Christ put on all his who are baptized by pretending and seeming to put them on a new better or more perfect one And now Brethren I commend you to God to the Word
In which it seemeth to us a very weak querie And why cannot God as well do his mercies to Infants now immediately c. However you say there is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this externall ministery c. Not to dispute Gods secret counsels we say the danger will be to the despiser and neglecter of Gods Ordinance wherein Tertullians Assertion may serve for a reason Because saith he he shall be guilty of a mans destruction who shall omit to do that which he freely might have performed For say you Water and the Spirit in this place John 3. 5. signifie the same thing and by water is meant the effect of the Spirit cleansing and purifying the soul c. It is true that Calvin Oecolampadius and some others do not think that Christ doth there precisely speak of Baptism but that he either opposed it to Pharisaicall washings and purifications to which possibly Nicodemus with whom he then discoursed might be too much addicted Or that those words are simply to be interpreted concerning Regeneration but Justin Martyr Chrysostome Theophilact Cyril Euthymius Augustine Rupertus Bonaventure Musculus B. Aretius R Rolloc Pelargus and others expound these words concerning Baptism the Sacrament of Regeneration the present speech of Christ being concerning Regeneration and it is most probable that Christ therein respected the common order of the Church mentioning the Spirit and Water to shew that we must be baptized if we will be saved yet 't is not the water but Gods holy Spirit which washeth away our sins Neither doth he so simply and necessarily tie the grace and efficacy of Gods Spirit to the Sacrament of Baptism as if none could be saved without Baptism and that God could not extraordinarily and immediately save Whatsoever Papists say to the contrary to assert their bloody decree and cruell doctrine concerning Infants dying without Baptism yet their Schoolmen and they in their more sober fits confesse that God hath not absolutely tied his grace to the Sacraments Christ saith He that shall believe and be baptized shall be saved but in the Antithesis he saith not Whosoever shall not be baptized shall not be saved to shew us that faith alone may sometime be sufficient to salvation as in the penitent Thief but nothing can suffice without faith because without it it is impossible to please God And because faith onely apprehendeth Christ in whom alone there is salvation Acts 4â—â—â—â— To conclude it doth not appear that Water and the Spirit in the fore-cited place John 3. 5. signifie one and the same thing Although Christs Baptisme with the Spirit which gives the effect of Baptism were more excellent then John Baptists or any Ministers of the Gospel for so is it still and yet no sober man will deny that the water in baptism and the Spirit do differ as the externall sign and inward grace thereby signified You say further You may as well conclude that infants must also passe through the fire as through the water c. This assertion might better have suited with the dream of some fanaticall Jacobite What will not such an advocate say for his Clients I appeal to your own conscience may we as well conclude against Gods word as for it God expressly saith Deut. 18. 10. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to passe through the fire and it is above all rationall controversie that he instituted baptizing with water who said Baptize all Nations without any exception at all to infants this is a poor trick of yours to elude Scripture And where doth Peter say the same thing that we may as well conclude that infants must also pass through the fire as through the water No no Peter by the Spirit of truth speaketh another thing indeed intimating by those words 1 Pet. 3. 21. Not the washing of the flesh but the confidence as we translate but the answer of a good conscience toward God the effects of the inward baptism which the Syriac in his Paraphrasticall interpretation of that place maketh more clear but confessing God in a pure conscience as when in the peace thereof we call upon him with an holy security of his hearing us which can be onely in the inward Baptism which the Spirit of Jesus giveth by faith and sanctification wherein we have peace toward God in the assurance of our justification Rom. 5. 1. Rom. 8. 15 16. So that the sum is that the outward sign the water and washing of the body in baptism is not sufficient to salvation if the Spirit of Jesus give not the inward effect thereof and therefore it is dangerous to live securely in sin and unbelief as too many do in vain confidence that they must needs be saved because they have been baptized into the visible Church of Christ No but the externall sign availeth not where the inward grace thereby signified is wanting So in the preaching of the Gospel administration of the holy Eucharist mans ministery can nothing prevail to the receivers salvation without Gods Spirit giving the inward effect so that Peter briefly toucheth the power use of baptism recalling us to the testimony of a good conscience that confidence therein which can endure the sight of God and his Tribunal and flye unto him in all wants through Christ But this Scripture is fanatically Perverted by Schuincfeld others who would hence coÌ„clude against the effect of the Sacrament in the elect whereas the Apostle affirmeth not that the institution of Christ for baptizing the body with water is vain or effectless but secretly admonisheth carnall Gospellers that they rest not in their security but consult their own consciences whether they find there the effect of their baptism so that he neither saith that infants may as well pass through the fire as through the water as you trifle nor is this place any thing to the purpose in this question of Infant-baptism so that your following confused Hypotheses are of no value or use except to puzzle the Reader to find out what you mean which he hardly shall Therefore when you express your self more orderly and clearly we owe you an Answer This you say no more inferres a necessity of Infants Baptism then the other words of Christ inferre a necessity to give them the holy Communion Nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis c. This is another argument of Anabaptists à pari if infants say they are to be baptized they are also to be admitted to the Lords Supper But in this agument there is a Sophisma â—lenchi for first it wants the condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we follow your sense concerning spirituall infants taking infants for spirituall or regenerate persons in the major and for those who are literally infants in the minor and it wanteth also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is no question but that baptized
of reason and age what doth God when he said to Abraham and in thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed doth he meane only all persons of age are children in their nonage excluded from the blessing in Christ Nay but the Apostle saith expresly the promise is unto you and to your children and such Christ blessed and of such is the kingdome of heaven Doth the Scripture 21â— saying all flesh dyed every man meane onely all of reason and age were the infants excepted many places of Scripture may shew the vanity of this your assertion but if your proposition be particular that is that sometimes the Scripture by whole families means persons of reason that is who have the use of reason and age we can grant it you I adde somtimes all signifieth only a great part as Mat. 10. 22 ye shall be hated of all men for my name sake that is of many times in the Hebrew manner of speaking it signifies none or not any one as Psal. 147. 20. he hath not done so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all or every nation that is not to any so Exod. 12. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. every son of a stranger shall not eate thereof that is none now would you have the sense of Christs words goe and baptize all nations to be go and baptize some nations or a major part of the nations the evidence of the truth is against that as well as against the other go and baptise none but you would faine have it go and baptize those that are persons of reason and age within the nations shew us any such precept of Christ and we will obey it in the meane time we must do that which we know he commanded us that is baptize all nations all against whom we finde no exception and why should we look for exception in families seeing we find none mentioned by our Saviour in nations but you would have here a limitation to capacity which you think infants have not first we say shew us any Scripture-proofe for such limitation secondly we say that although the incapacity of an infant limit a command where there appeareth a present impossibility of doing that which God in generall commandeth as where he saith believe repent confesse your sins sing unto God praise him c for God commandeth no impossibilities yet where it is possible that the command may be fulfilled there lieth no such limitation now you will not say that 't is impossible for infants to be baptized if you say they ought not to be baptized untill they can actually believe repent c. we must answer you with your own this is unmanlike to build upon such slight and aery conjectures as are humane fancies to forbid infants baptisme and when you can bring us no solid ground for that you would have to beg the question But you say Tradition by all meanes must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a tradition Apostolicall that infants were baptized c. You seem here to speake three things first that when we cite traditions we use them in place of Scripture or for defect of Scripture-proofe which to deny is confutation enough untill you can shew which of us so pretend to tradition Secondly in your following words you pretend that we sometimes reject Apostolicall tradition for of that you speake to which we say that when the quaestion is concerning a tradition of the gospel or Apostles as Epiphanius speakes we receive it and with an ancient Council wish that those things may be done in the Church which were delivered by divine Scripture or Apostolical tradition which we adde hereto though we have no reason to admit of all that is alledged for such as for those things which the Apostles desivered in complyance with particular times places or persons as anointing with oyl saluting with an holy kisse love-feasts c. they were necessary then and to that people who had been long accustomed thereto of whom a gospel-Church was now to be gathered but they were neither universally prescribed neither do they concern us now Next we say with S. Augustine the whole Church holdeth by tradition the baptism of infants and that beeing continually observed we justly believe to have been delivered and confirmed by Apostolicall tradition But you say So farre as it can appeare it relies wholly upon the testimony of Origen for from him Augustine had it c. Yet before you affirmed that infant-baptisme was Augustin's device how had Augustine it from Origen if it were Augustin's device That it was neither his device neither that it relyeth wholly upon the testimony of Origen many other testimonis by us alleaged make manifest as Dionysius Jrenaus Cyprian Ambros Jerom Cyril Gre. Nazianzen Basil c. as also ancient Councils as that of â—arthage Anâ— 407. the Milevitan Anâ— 420 c. to conclude we rely not upon the testimony of man though we reverence holy antiquity but on the command of Christ and the Apostles practises baptising whole nations without any appearing exception to infants of believing parents and therefore you following inferences either nothing concern or nothing hurt us You say further There was no command of Scripture to oblige children to the susception of it No command to children to oblige them a dainty caption neither was there any command to infants to oblige them to the susception of circumcision for they could neither act nor understand that or any other command The command was to the parents for present and to children for the future therefore if you meaâ—e that there was no command of Scripture to oblige â—s to the baptizing of infants the contrary appeares Matth. 28. 19. But you require expresse termes we rejoyns what expresse termes in Scripture have you to prove that there is an holy Trinity in the unity of the deity or for the abrogating the Jewish Sabbath and observation of our Lord-day Sabbath or for womens receiving the Lords supper or for your rebaptizing or dipping over head and ears But you say The necessity of pedobaptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth age after Christ but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Councel never till then What necessity speak you of de necessitate medii in respect of infants salvation as if they could not be saved without it we maintain it not if you mean such a necessity on our part as bindeth us to obedience that is to baptize infants of believing parents we say with S. Augustin the custom of our mother the Church in baptizing infants is not at all to be despised or by any means to be esteemed superfluous nor to be believed any other then an Apostolical tradition the ground hereof is laid down l. 3. c. 24. Contra Donat. before by us cited to which I refer the reader the sum is That whatsoever is universally observed in all Churches and no man can say by what
God-fathers is but a circumstance therefore the sponsors supply not any incapacity of infants in the respect of the substance of baptism which is to be sprinkled washed with or dipped in water in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost for this their own capacity is sufficient they being born of believing parents and within the Church without the supply of any answer of others for them which if you grant us we have the end of our dispute as for circumstances neither commanded nor forbidden by God in the holy scriptures we shall willingly submit to the authority and practice of the Church in which we live If you dispute from the circumstance or any pretended inconvenience therein to the anulling the substance controverted you know how unreasonable that fallacia accidentis is and what sensible account can be given of it But you say That which some imperfectly murmur concerning stipulations civil performed by Tutors in the name of their Pupils is an absolute vanity c. Have a care that you be not answered with à turpe est Dactori c. Do you not vainly argue that in the use of God fathers c. God is tyed and Christian Religion transacts her mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Law of the Romans concerning which something hath been answered before I only add here that God neither commanding nor forbidding God-fathers it is no vanity to obey authority herein But to disturb the peace of the Church and make schismes for things in their own nature indifferent and commended to us by venerable antiquity is not only vain but impious And how is God tyed where he neither forbids nor commands To the rest we say not that Christian Religion must transact her mysteries by complyance with Roman Laws or humane customs but that in some things she may in things circumstantial and no waies repugnant to the word of God You say further I know God might if he would have appointed God fathers to give answer in behalf of children and to be fideiussors for them but we cannot find any authority or ground that he hath and if he had then it is to be supposed he would have given them commission to have transacted the solemnity with better circumstances and given answers with more truth We answer 1. In that you can find no authority or ground for it nor against it as we know it can be no other then adiaphorous or indifferent and in or for such things as are meerly circumstantial and in their own nature indifferent to dissent from antiquity disobey the Churches authority and break the sacred band of unity let your own consciences tell you what you do 2. Whereas you would bespatter this custom of imputation of will-worship and untruth in the users thereof I say first That whatsoever God hath commanded or forbidden in holy Scriptures that is necessarily to be observed and this faithfull word we must hold fast Tit. 1. 9. But those things which he hath neither commanded nor forbidden neither expresly nor by necessary consequence fall under the general rule belonging to things arbitrary and indifferent Let all things be done decently and in order ◠Cor. 14. 4◠which then only can be when we unanimously and uniformly do that which a general consent and constant practice of the Church warranteth not that which every private spirit liketh or disliketh There can be no decency without order nor order in confusion of practices therefore God having left many things circumstantial arbitrary as to the authority of the Church we ought to tender her unity and reverence her authority the contempt whereof hath opened so wide a dore to schism as now troubleth the Christian world Secondly there may be falshood in some mens answers though no fault in the order which God will it being his perfection that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God that cannot lie Tit. 1. 2. and it is the inviolable holyness of his will that he will not neither can will any evil and it is certainly true which Fulgentius saith As there is no sin in him so there is no sin of him For the question you say is asked of believing in the present and if the God-fathers answer in the name of the child I do believe it is notorious that they speak false and ridiculously for the infant is not capable of believing c. For answer we may say with Augustin Who knows not that to be baptized is in or for infants instead of believing And again they are borne to Church and although they cannot run thither on their own feet yet go they on others feet that they may be healed our mother the Church lendeth them others feet that they may come others heart that they may believe others tongue that they may confess that for as much as in that they are sick they are more grievously burthened with anothers sin that is which they acted not in their own persons so when these are cured they may be healed or saved another confessing for them But I demand Why may we not here with better reason understand present for future believing then you do children of believers holyness which the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. pronounceth in the present by a designation to the service of Jesus Christ and the future participation of the promises But Augustin saith very well If the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should not at all be Sacraments but by reason of this likeness they oftentimes receive the very names of these things themselves therefore as after a certain manner the Sacrament of Christs body is the body of Christ the Sacrament of Christs blood is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is faith Now to believe is nothing else but to have faith and so when 't is answered that the infant believeth who hath not yet the affection of faith we answer that he hath faith in respect of the sacrament of faith and that he converteth to God in respect of the sacrament of conversion because even that very answer appertaineth unto the celebration of the Sacrament as the Apostle speaketh of baptism it self We are saith he Buried with him by baptism into death he saith not we signifie burial but altogether saith We are buried therefore he called the Sacrament of so great a matter by no other name then of the thing it self So that faith though it be not yet such as consisteth in the will of believers yet the very Sacrament of that faith makes a baptized infant faithfull or a believer For as 't is answered that he believeth so is he called a believer not signifying that thing in the very mind but in respect of his receiving the Sacrament of that very thing to wit of believing and giving his name to Christ. But what unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance is there for God-fathers thus answering All
the congregation of the Lord c. what not in case of their becoming proselytes nay but Ruth the Moabitess is rehearsed in the genealogie of our Savior Christ and there was but one law to him that is home-born and unto the stranger he may not bear any publick office but he might be received into Gods covenant and so be capable of all holy duties So v. 1. the maimed or Eunuch shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord c. what might he not be sealed or saved the contrary expresly appeareth Is. 56. 4 5 6 7. Mat. 19. 12. To our present purpose the Apostle gathereth that matrimonial conjunction between a believer and an unbeliever is holy because the denomination and estimate being from the better part their children are within the covenant of God by an argument from the effect to the cause 3 The Apostle discoursed not there of civil Policie but of conscience and how could it satisfie any Christians conscience to take an argument from the civil laws of any of the Nations it is notorious that among those many things were established by their laws which a Christians conscience would and must abhor yea even such divorces without the case of adultery as were in civil respects tolerated by Moses for the hardness of the Jews hearts excused not the offenders conscience though that permissive law would bear him out before men 4 When the Apostle saith the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife if any ask what wife we cannot say in a wife as she is only civilly legitimate for so far that husband hath as good and evident a ground of sanctification on his part and in himself without any accession of priviledge from his wife for he must needs be as lawfully her husband as she is his wife we can therefore no otherwise rationally answer then a believing wife and so on the other side Now seeing the Apostle puts it on a peculiar priviledge which is sometimes in the man when he is a believer and his wife is not and sometimes in the wife if she be a believer and her husband is not so it appears that the foundation of comfort here intended by the Apostle is laid in faith peculiar but to one of the two and not in matrimonial legitimacie common and equal to both 5 Faith which rendreth us acceptable to God in Christ purifieth us and all estates and possessions to us that sanctifieth marriage not marriage it that uniteth us by one Spirit to Christ and is therefore far more excellent then marriage which uniteth man and woman only in one flesh faith therefore gives our children a denomination and right to the seals of the covenant as they are holy not marriage which though civilly lawful may yet be impious before God as where one puts away his wife for less then adultery and marrieth another or another man marrieth her so put away it is therefore the faith and Church-priviledge of parents which thus denominateth children holy 6 The Apostle could not here mean legitimacie of children for that can neither sanctifie them nor entitle them to the seal of Gods covenant neither is sanctification here or in any other place of Scripture taken otherwise then for separating some way from some thing prophane or impious So persons times places c. are said to be sanctified which legitimation cannot do neither can holy necessarily imply no bastard for some holy men have been such neither can no bastard conclude a man holy The children of infidels and aliens from the covenant of God born in lawful wedlock are legitimate and no bastards and yet as such far from holy and bastardie though the effect and product of foul sin of parents and the childs indelible dishonour before men yet maketh them not such as belong not to the covenant of God as appears in Pharez and Zarah Gen. 38. 18 29 30. Jephtah Judg. 11. 1 2. c. it must needs be therefore that the Apostle in that term of holy signified some thing peculiar to those that are within the Church of God and not communicable to children of Infidels as such so Tertullian speaks of the unregenerate from Joh. 3. 5. he shall not enter into the kingdom of God that is he shall not be holy such every soul is counted in Adam until he be recounted in Christ. 7 We must consider that legitimacie of children which our Antagonists would here have intended is a proceed of legitimacie of marriage which is of one man and one wife joined together in matrimonie according to Gods ordinance as it is written they two shall be one flesh not they many and he that made them at the beginning made them male and female now the institution of marriage is in place of a perpetual law the violation whereof is sin and wickedness Therefore Christ refuted their objection from Moses permission of the bill of divorcement from the original and Gods first institution of marriage because he in the beginning appointed it otherwise and the same sanction is inviolable So when the Prophet would recall the Jews from Polygamie to pure wedlock he said did not he that is God the Creator make one that is did he make any more wives for Adam then one or did he at first make any more then one husband and one wife yet had he the residue or excellency of the Spirit that is he had power enough if he had pleased to have made more that therefore is illegitimate which agreeth not with the first unrepealable law and institution of God who created but one man and one woman for the fountain of all humane propagation as it is written Gen. 1. 27. God created him-male and female created be them both one flesh and so but one and wherefore one saith the Prophet that he might seek a godly seed that is a generation according to Gods holy institution which is between one man and one woman lawfully joined in matrimonie this he opposeth to their Polygamie secretly here intimating that all they are spurious who are born of Poligamie because they cannot and ought not to be esteemed legitimate who are begotten otherwise then in that matrimonie which God appointed which is only between one man and one woman Now this legitimacie all the tribes of Israel though they were otherwise holy had not in the Prophets sense but they had it in the Apostles sense 1 Cor. 7. 14. for not to question more Dan and Nephtali Bilhab the hand-maids sons and God and Ashâ—r Zilpah the other hand-maids sons liad not this legitimacie and yet were they and their posteritie holy to the Lord it must needs be therefore that it was from some other fountain of holiness then civilâ— legitimacie can give and that could be none but federal holiness from the covenant of God made with Abraham and his seed wherein he contracted to be their God and that they should be his people sealed
in those hot Regions and at Easter and Pentecost to which their baptizing was limited of old which in these Northern climats and in the dead of winter were near deathful to tender bodies 6. Christs baptism is washing Ephes. 5 25 26. and washing is as well by sprinkling or pouring on of water as by dipping into water hence the Apostle speaking of the washing of Regeneration presently saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he hath poured out on us and the Scripture calleth the divers sprinklings mentioned Heb. 9. 13 19 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptismes v. 10. As washings or sprinklings are also called Mark 7. 4. but hereof we shall see more anon for the present only note that the Holy Ghost the surest Interpreter of Scripture interpreteth Baptizing by sprinkling or washing so that there is no necessity as our Antagonists would sain have it of dipping or dousing the whole body under water Dipping say they is baptizing and baptizing dipping Christ therefore who instituted Baptism therein appointed that the whole man should be dipped in Baptism We answer 1. If this bubble had any weight or solidity it were easily retorted washing or sprinkling is baptizing in Gospel-sense Christ therefore who instituted Baptism therein appointed men to be washed or sprinkled with water 2. Prove that Christ appointed the whole man should be dipped all over in water by some other medium if you can by this you cannot true it is that all dipping all over in water is baptizing but not convertibly for all baptizing is not dipping for it is proved by the fore-alledged Scriptures that washing by pouring on or sprinkling water is also a kinde of baptizing If you should say every man is a living creature that is true but not convertible therefore every living creature is a man it follows not because there are more species of living creatures then one all dipping is baptizing therefore all baptizing is dipping follows not because there are more sorts of baptizings then one by dipping 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifieth to dip but not always The Apostles according to Christs promise were baptized with fire they were not after the foolish Jacobites opinion dipt into fire the cloven tongues sate upon each of them The Pharisees among many other traditions used the baptism of beds Mark 7. 4. You will not understand that to have been dipping their beds into water that would quickly have rotted and made them useless and unwholsom but of some light sprinkling with water So when they came from the market they eat not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they be baptized You will not understand except they be dipt over head and ears in the Water but except they washed as our translation gives it after the Syriac neither had they in that dry Climate convenience and store of waters every where to dive into They had commonly their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 water-pots after the manner of the purifying of the Jews John 2. 6. out of which they drew a little for lustrations or sprinklings Moreover the Israelites 1 Cor. 10. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were baptized in the cloud not dipt into it but be sprinkled with the distilling drops thereof for the prepositoin in there used in such expressions signifieth not in but with as He shall baptize you in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with not in the holy Ghost and fire Matth 3. 11. So Rev. 19. 11. The rest were slain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with not in the sword it is an usual Hebraism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sword that is with the sword Exod. 6. 6. I will redeem you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in braehio extenso So Deut. â— 15. The Lord thy God brought thee out thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that is by a mighty hand and a stretched out arm Again the sons of Zebedeâ— were to be baptized with the baptism of blood Mark 10. 39. that is in Tertullians phrase Russari suo sanguine beseneared or wet with drops of their own blood not dipt into blood The same use of â—â— derived from the Hebrewâ— we often finde in the new Testament Rom. 10. 9. 1 Cor. 4. 21. 1 Per. 1. â—1 Rev. 2. 16. 12. 5. 19. 15. 3. It is granted that Christ and many others were baptized in Jordan and that Philip did go down into the water to baptize the Eunuch and that such baptisms in hot Climates have and may lawfully be used yet no scripture-proof at all appears that Christ in his own person was dived under water or the Eunuch or any of those whom John or any of the Apostles baptized neither do we at all deny immersion to be lawful but we deny it to be so necessary as to the exclusion of washing or sprinkling as if they were not as effectually used We deny that dipping in rivers is so necessary to baptism as that none ought to be accounted baptized but those who are dipt after such a manner And we say that where we have other conveniencies in the settled Churches that practise appeareth meerly Schismatical affected and unnecessary Baptism being a sign must answer to the thing signified as The washing of the whole soul in the blood of Christ. 2. That interest which the Saints have in the death burial and resurrection of Christ is not partial but total so therefore ought the baptizing of the body to be We answer 1. It must still be remembred that this sacrament may be rightly and effectually administred by any of the three ways dipping washing or sprinkling and we approve of dipping where custom and convenience require it so far as that it excludes not the other For a divers custom of several Churches makes no difference where they all hold one faith in the main 2. It is not in the quaintity of the Element but the institution of Christ the vertue of his death and passion and the powerful working of his holy Spirit which gives the fruit and effect of baptism therefore John 3. 5. the Spirit is mentioned with water because the power of regenerating is not of the water but of Gods Spirit and Ordinance effectually working by the water of baptism And here we may note that Infants are capable of this operation as hath been proved and Christ in his institution of baptism prescribed not so far as can appear in Scripture how much water must be used herein not how deep it must be as there is no quantum of the elements prescribed in the Eucharist neither is there in all the new Testament either one precept for or example of plunging or dousing the party to be baptized over head and ears under water 3. In Circumcision the whole body was not cut but onely the foreskin of the flesh whereby the whole person body and soul was sealed and admitted into Gods Covenant and so is it proportionably in baptism the seal of Gods present Covenant In common use we know the