do it at the most convenient season on the first second third fourth c. or on any day so that we neither contemn Gods ordinance nor unnecessarily delay it 2. As hath been noted baptism succeeded circumcision not in every circumstance but in the thing signified in the end and use 3. This your argument is a fallacious and childish caption à fallacia accidentis from the subject to the accident from the substance to the circumstance as the learned Dr. Featly observeth such a fallacy is this What the Jews were commanded in the fourth Commandement that we Christians are bound to perform But the Jews were commanded to keep holy the seventh day from the creation Therefore we Christians are bound to keep that day Such is this Paralogism If Baptisme succeeded Circumcision then children ought to be baptized the eight day it no more followeth then that children ought to be baptized in the same part where they were circumcised it will follow rather That because Circumcision was administred to the infant as soon as it was capable thereof or could receive the Sacrament without danger therefore children ought to be baptized as soon as conveniently they may But you say The case is clear in the Bishops question to Cyprian for why shall not infants be baptized just upon the eighth day as well as circumcised If the correspondence of the Rites be an Argument to inferre one circumstance which is impertinent and accidentall to the mysteriousnesse of the Rite why shall it not inferre all The case is as clear in the Question of Fidus the Presbyter whom you call Bishop as it is in your objecting it Fidus made a querie or rather affirmed that Infants ought not to be baptized on the second or third day but that the law of ancient circumcision ought to be considered so that he thought the new-born infant might not be baptized within or before the eighth day Cyprian answereth There is one equality of the Divine gift to all whether they are infants or old men for as God is no accepter of persons so neither is he of ages but he shews himself in an even-ballanced equality alike to all as to their attaining heavenly grace if to grievous offenders and to those who have before that much sinned against God and no man is prohibited baptism and grace how much less ought the infant to be prohibited who being new-born hath committed no sin onely that in Adam He hath in his first nativity been infected with the contagion of ancient death But concerning the cause of infants who you say are not to be baptized at two or three dayes old and that we are to consider the law of ancient circumcision so that you think that a child born may not be baptized before the eighth day all that were in our Councell are of a far different judgment for no man consenteth to that which you thought was to be done but we all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no man born Let the Reader judge how clear the case is in the Bishops question to Cyprian To the rest of your Arguments we say you dispute ex non concessis We do not say that the correspondence of Rites inferre the circumstances but the substance but errors are fruitfull and one absurdity granted many easily follow For that you say from your own fancy which you run away witha◠And then also females must not be baptized because they were not circumcised We answer 1. As we have said before baptism succeeded circumcision not in every circumstance which your selves justifie in that you baptize women but in the substance the thing signified the end and use or as others say in the inward mystery in the promises in use in effects 2. God expressly restrained circumcision to males Gen. 17. 10 12 14. yet the females were comprehended in the males and to be born of circumcised parents was to them in stead of circumcision and so were they born to God and in his account Daughters of Abraham Luke 13. 16. and so within his covenant of grace and mercy and the sealing of males was then limited to the eighth day but now in baptism the circumstances of sex age and a fixed day are not expressly mentioned but we have a generall commandement to baptize all without exception to any time sex or age 3. Though women were not capable of circumcision and therefore it was not enjoyned them yet the female is as capable of baptism as the male and therefore without exception to sex they who are all one in Christs account must equally be baptized into him 4. Circumcision and Baptism agreeing in substance did yet differ in many circumstances First in the Rite or Ceremony Secondly in the manner of signifying For Circumcision held out grace in the Messias then to come but baptism presenteth it in Christ exhibited Thirdly in the particular testimony annexed to make good the promise for then God promised not onely a covenant with his Church but a peculiar place for the same the land of Cauaan untill the coming of the promised Seed but baptism hath no particular promise of this or that fixed place Fourthly in the manner of binding Circumcision did oblige the circumcised to the observation of the whole Law Morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall but baptism bindeth us onely to the observation of the Morall Law that is faith repentance and newness of life according to the holy Rule of Gods will revealed in the Moral Law from the curse whereof in respect of non-performance we are delivered in Christ into whom we are baptized Fifthly in their appointed continuance Circumcision was appointed onely for Abrahams posterity and to◠continue onely unto the coming of Christ but baptism was instituted for all Nations and times unto the worlds end Lastly in circumstance of sex and age so far as circumcision was limited to males and the eighth day So that to argue as you do from the substance to the circumstance or that which is accidentall is fallacions and captions as hath been shewed You say Therefore as Infants were circumcised so spirituall Infants shall be baptized c. This you think a right understanding of the business after your shuffling together many strange impertinencies to tell us of baptizing spirituall Infants To which we answer If you mean by Spirituall Infants such as are born again of water and the holy Ghost then you would have them twice regenerate or born If you mean Believers onely for in reason you cannot call an unbeliever or wicked person a spirituall infant then I would fain learn by what discerning spirit you can know when and whom to baptize and whom to put by or which infant according to the flesh is not a spiritual infant by the spirit of regeneration If you say that those who are of years profess faith and repentance and therefore are to be baptized it is easily
man to have instituted that Sacrament but though Christ say nowhere baptize children at seven dayes six months seven years or though he say nowhere Baptize women yet neither of these are Will-worship because the substance and institution of Baptism is grounded on his express command age and sexe are accidents Lastly If the major proposition be particular the rule is well known Of meer particulars nothing is concluded 2 There was an express command for the sealing of Abrahams sons in their generations in their infancie Gen. 17. 7. c. and Believers are expresly the sons or children of Abraham Gal. 3. 7. that is his spiritual seed who have no less priviledge in things belonging to salvation then his carnal seed And the Apostles who were Jews and brought up amongst them who were sealed in their infancie did not that we read of so much as ask Christ any question what they were to do with Infants and Christ giving them no prohibition concerning them he did thereby sufficiently intimate that he having not repealed the law of sealing Infants into his covenant would have them proceed according to the Analogie of the first seal of his covenant The greater doubt might possibly have been concerning baptizing of females who were not formerly sealed the doubt concerning the Gentiles sealing being removed by an express precept Baptize all Nations Mat. 28. 19. 3 On this very ground on which Anabaptists deny Infant-baptism the old Sadduces denyed the resurrection of the dead because they found it not expresly written in the books of Moses which only they received See what hath been answered to the Pleader near the end 4 Although we read not in terminis and so many words and syllables in holy Scripture Baptize Infants yet we read it in most firm and evident consequence if we but hold these three certain conclusions 1 That Children are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath 2 That God would not have them perish but rather be brought into the holy communion of Christ and his Church that they may be saved 3 That he hath appointed no other external ordinary means to us known for Infants regeneration but baptism 5 If the matter must be put upon express words of Scripture let our Antagonists shew us where they are expresly forbidden to baptize Infants where is there any syllable express or probable for re-baptizing any where have they any express precept for dipping over head and ears where have they any express precept for their long prayers for baptizing women or administring the communion to them shew us any express precept for the change of the Sabbath That which we read not expresly mentioned in Scripture that the Apostles did that we may not do but we read not in express words in Scripture that the Apostles ever baptized Infants therefore we may not baptize them We answer 1 If your principle were true it might thence be concluded that the Lords Supper may not be administred to women for we no where read in express words that the Apostles ever administred it unto them 2 Express words in Scripture are not alwayes necessary to prove a thing which necessary consequence doth conclude we have no express words in Scripture naming an holy Unitie in Trinitie and Trinitie in Unitie most undeniable consequence we have Mat. 28. 19 1 Joh. 5. 7. Again we have no express word that the Apostles were baptized for Christ himself baptized none Joh. 4. 1. c. and we read not where or when John Baptist baptized them yet certainly they were baptized we read not expresly that the Apostles in baptizing mentioned the Father the Son and the holy Ghost but most certain consequence concludeth it because Christ so appointed it and it was of the essence of the Sacrament and why should we more tie the baptism of Infants to express words then any of these fundamental things are tyed and on the like consequential grounds why should we doubt whether the Apostles did indeed usually baptize Infants of Christians because it is not expresly written seeing that many other words matters and actions of the Apostles and Christ himself were not written 3 Christ expresly commanded to baptize all Nations in no one syllable title or word therein excepting Infants who are and ever were a great and numerous part thereof and that which concerneth all alike concerneth every part thereof When Peter was asked what was needful to be done for the Jews prickt at heart Act. 2. 37 38. he said Repent and be baptized but Infants can neither actually repent nor contribute any thing towards their baptism therefore they ought not to be baptized And again Mat. 3. they confessed their sins and were baptized which Infants cannot do We answer 1 Forasmuch as Infants cannot actually as such repent or confess it concludeth that these things for the present concern not Infants for no impossibilitie is reasonably enjoined any but belong to persons of years or those who were not yet sealed into the communion of Christs Church and it is apparent that unto such Peter spake as far as his words concerned Infants is also express be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins for the promise is to you and to your children What promise why that Gen. 17. 7. To what children was that promise made what to those who had been children but were now of years to be taught believe and repent No but to those first who were to be sealed the eighth day after they were born who certainly could then no more actually believe or repent then can our Infants now therefore 't is plain to those who will understand that persons of years to be taught must first repent c. but Infants to whom the promise covenant or seal thereof jointly belongeth must besealed as joint-covenanters with their Parents before they can actually believe or repent for why else after this exhortation to repentance and baptism doth he mention their children were they no wayes liable to this double precept repent and be baptized every one of you who they only who can actually for the present repent nay but Peter knew well that children of whom he spake could not do that by reason of their present want of the use of reason yet he knew they had need of remission of sins by Christ and that the promise of God was made to them without which 't were but vain for men to seal and as firmly concerned them as their enchurched parents and therefore he mentioned them There appears neither act nor habit of regeneration in Infant-baptism until they be taught the Word neither any more promptitude to learn it then is in unbaptized children coming to years therefore their baptism is effectless and consequently unlawful We answer 1 The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation Luk. 17. 20. and the internal acts of the Spirit are secret for what man knoweth the
with so much wit sophistry and learning as indeed make the Piece a very shrewd Bug-bear formidable to many yet in truth 't is not much unlike that Cuman-beast which going up and down in a Lions skin frighted many which being pulled off the silly Animal appeared more ridiculous then dangerous Being therefore exhorted by sundry of my reverend brethren to answer the Arguments herein laid down by way of Plea I hope rather tentatively then dogmatically and being perswaded that in so doing I might in a great part satisfie my engagement the learned Author having said much more or in more plausible terms then ever the Anabaptists for ought that I have ever seen or heard have yet alledged for their own opinion I have adventured so to do And now concerning my learned Antagonist although I hope he let fall these things as Boaz Reapers on purpose that some might for good advantage to the truth of Christ glean after him yet seeing he hath so sharply and strenuously pleaded against the same that Religion may say of her hurts on some less armed parts Thus was I wounded in the house of my friends And we may say in these giddy times as Joshua to him whom he spied with his drawn sword by Jericho Art thou for us or for our adversaries and seeing that they who for private ends and interests carry arms and ammunition to any known and professed enemies are justly made lawful prize at least if taken we must lay by all personal interests with a magis amica veritas and he ought to be patient if he meet with any more rough and unpleasing language then he useth to receive or I love to give Concerning this whole peece I have no more to say then that of Venerable Beda concerning the Book of Bishop Julian to the Reader let him so gather the grapes that he may beware of the thorn that is let him in his sayings search and choose out the wholsom sense so as with no less care he may avoid the unwholsom He doth but plead and so pretend to a lawfulness of biting us from the priviledge of custom and so in reason must expect the like returns If he that dresseth himself up in a Bears skin to make others or himself sport be seriously baited whom hath he to blame but himself What this Authours councel was thus to write that which himself condemns and of which he saith it is A Doctrine justly condemned by the most sorts of Christians I know not but do heartily wish that if he have not yet repented of digging this pit whereinto divers are fallen not without great and apparent hazard to their souls he timely may if he have come to some second better thoughts he may do commendably to cover it with some seasonable endeavour that no more may fall by the stumbling-block which he hath laid before them I wish he would revise his own writings with some judiciary severity as St. Augustine speaks so that those things which his self liketh not in his plea he might mark and censure he need not be informed but may be remembred that true repentance is inseparably united to a sincere desire faithful endeavor to satisfie and make a mends neither is he to learn what that great light of the Western Church saith No man saith he that 's wise will therefore presume to reprove me because I reprehend my own errours but if he shall say I ought not to have said such things which should afterward even displease my self he saith true and doth as I do for he reprehends those very things which I also do for neither ought I to reprove them if I ought to have said them What he did in his Retractations many good and learned men have done because they loved Gods truth and honour more then their own reputations and whosoever can truly say with S Peter Thou knowest that I love thee ought no more to be ashamed of the fruits of Repentance then Peter was It is no dishonor to amend and turn to better and therefore it cannot but be safe to give God his due honour and security to those souls who have strayed been misled or scandaled by this Patronage of untruth by acknowledging the truth and disavowing a known errour He denyeth Christ who is silent for fear or favor of men when and where he ought to speak in defence of his truth how much more he that doth omnes nerves intendere in the opposition thereof possibly the Authour had some better intention and aim then appears to the Vulgar but 't is true it skilleth not with what intention one doth that which is evil and ought not to be done because facts are seen but the minde is not Let the good Reader take notice that in the conclusion of this Plea the advocate saith That men have disputed against them the Anabaptists with so much weakness and confidence that they have been encouraged in their errour more by the accidental advantages we have given them by our weak arguings then by any truth of their cause or excellency of their wit And I conceive that he will think with me that it should be a motive to him to whom God hath given more excellency of art and nature to defend the truth which he hath opposed lest otherwise he sacrilegiously eclipse Gods honour by a kinde of Interposition of that body which shineth by no other light then that which God lent If he that hid his Masters talent so that it did neither good nor harm yet heard his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what except in case of timely repentance may they expect who with those many talents which their Master entrusted to them have assisted and furnished the known enemy with arms against their Master Consider what I say and the Lord give you a right understanding in all things Lastly I have to entreat the well-affected Reader not to misdeem some repetitions of the same things in cases of such conflicts unavoidable wherein the adversaries often striking at the same parts requires the same or the like wards for defence of the truth And now the God of all grace who hath called us into his eternal glory by Christ Jesus make you perfect stablish strengthen settle you To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever AMEN AN Antidote against Anabaptisme OR Animadversions on that part of the liberty of Prophecying which sect 18. pag. 223. beareth this Title A particular Consideration of the opinion of the ANABAPTISTS Their denying Baptisme to Infants although it be a Doctrine justly condemned by the most sort of Christians upon great grounds of Reason WE say That denying Baptism to Infants is justly condemned by all true Christians we cannot understand them to be such who renounce their Saviour Christ by a pretended Baptisme in their rebaptizing never warranted by precept or example in holy Scripture or those who by their Doctrine annull and make void their
Infants did it work upon them when they came to age We answer 1. That the word Character may be taken for any sign or note distinguishing one thing from another so Baptism may be also said to be a character distinguishing Christians from unbelievers not as an absolute quality but as a relative thing as a tessera militaris by which God wil own his who fight under the Banner of Christ and by which the baptized have a comfortable assurance that they are marked for the children of God when they believe in Christ according as it is written In whom also after that ye beleeved ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our Inheritance a. Your instance importeth onely a circumstantiall not a substantiall difference Now the variety of signes vary not the thing signified It is the same Christ the same Faith under the Gospel and under the Law though the Sacraments by God appointed for the one and for the other were much different And the ends of Circumcision and Baptism are the same to implant us into Christs visible Church to be an in-let and door to the same to seal up the admitted to faith repentance mortification and newness of life which work is as truly done to the baptized Christian when he cometh to age as it was to the Israelite circumcised to wit to and in them that believed and repented to others the work was so farre from being done that that very seal of Gods Covenant which they bare in their flesh served for a witnesse against the soul of the Covenant-breaker to his greater condemnation and so it is proportionably with the baptized Apostate which may be a warning to your Clients to repent before it be too late You say again It is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit We answer 1. This weakly follows from unsound premises was there no word added to Circumcision How doth that appear Was there not a word of Institution Genes 17. 10 11 12. Was not the reason of the Covenant declared to Abraham Did not he and others preach the same to all of age to be circumcised as Proselytes and to the circumcised infants when they came to age capable of Doctrine so doe we to the baptized but to persons of years we preach the Gospel first and then baptize them infants we baptize first and instruct them when they come to be capable 2. That it is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word c. We say so also they must be capable of Reason either in act that they may presently understand those things or in habit that they may afterward understand the same to what end else should we baptize infants or why were they circumcised into future faith repentance and newness of life We utterly dislike Popish baptizing of Bels Churches Altars c. 3. We say further That Covenants between man and man require that both parties expressly understand know the tenour substance and particulars of the same but in Covenants between God and his Creatures that Rule doth not universally hold for here God stipulateth and principally transacteth with the creature according to that which he will have done or do in or by them So he established his Covenant with Noah and his seed after him and with every living creature the Fowle Cattell Beasts c. Gen. 9. 10. How much more rationally may he make covenant with infants though yet without the actuall use of reason Again sometimes such covenants are made between men as that the parent or parents covenant for or in stead of their children because they are not yet of age to understand the words and purport of the covenant and it standeth good How much rather may God covenant with an infant whose mouth and Advocate Christ Jesus said expressly Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. I demand quojure by what right is the Kingdom of Heaven theirs What by descent from naturall parents Nay but that which is born of the flesh is flesh John 3. 6. And flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. It must therefore be by the free covenant of God with them out of which it can belong to none by right of any infant-innocency seeing all are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath but for the grace and covenant of God with them which they yet understand not yet is it valid and effectuall to their salvation as we may also understand in case of Circumcision in which the circumcised Child understood as little what was said or done as the baptized infant now doth and yet it was Gods covenant with them Gen. 17. 7 10 11 12. and effectual for them To conclude if you mean that it is requisite that none should be admitted to baptism but those that have the actuall use of reason that is men and women of years you beg the question of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit Concerning a Character or impress set upon the baptized the Schoolmen and Jesuits have moved sundry questions whether it be an absolute or relative quality which yet they say sticks fast upon them also that are in hell Whether it be an ens rationis or a relatio realis Whether a quality action or passion And if a quality of what kind it is Whether the subject thereof be the soul or some active or passive faculty thereof Whether it be a figure or form Whether the Sacraments of the old Testament made the like impress c. In all which and the like vain speculations we may not unprofitably note the just judgment of God giving them over to unfruitfull delusions who forsaking the true and constant light of his holy word give themselves â—ver to follow the ignes fatuos of their own fancies I hope you are not of their sense though you mention this impress Concerning the seal of our implantation into Christ I have spoken a little before and onely add that we receive grace and the obsignation thereof but are not sensible of all untill we receive a greater measure that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God Since therefore say you the reason of this parity does wholly fail there is nothing left to inferre a necessity of complying in this circumstance of age any more then in the other annexes of the type It wholly holds in substance for ought you have said to the contrary and therefore your following instances are frivolous As concerning baptizing the eighth day we answer 1. That whereas God appointed no set day for baptism we have the greater liberty to
this I steadfastly believe wherein though possibly there may be untruth because the Sponsor doth not as he professeth steadfastly believe yet so may there also be when persons of years answer for themselves that they believe seeing the lawfulness of baptizing infants is affirmed on condition of their parents believing and Church-priviledge which is often testified personally by the very parents Grand-fathers Grand-mothers and sometimes in defect or necessary absence of such by some fellow-believers testifying for them and the childs priviledg and baptism but your sensible account is that they speak false and ridiculously if you can bear the eccho of your own words we therein answer you yet for the sober readers sake we further answer after Augustin treating of the same argument Let no man whisper to you other doctrines this the Church ever had ever held c. doubtless the custom is very ancient Histories tell us of it in the time of Higinus who was coetaneous with Polycarp a disciple of S Johns they lived under the reigne of Antoninus Pius about the year 140. some think it came into the Church from the custom of those who were Catechumenists who being examined before they were admitted to baptism concerning their faith and repentance were not only to answer in their own persons but to have sponsors as witnesses of their faith conversion and baptism It is not improbable which some here propose that As children were baptized when their Christian parents had formerly made confession so sureties confessed in relation to themselves that they might be fit to stand as a kind of parents c. Seeing therefore this custom is nothing repugnant to holy scripture neither hath in it any appearance of evil but rather of profit and edification though it be not of the essence of baptism but a ceremonial circumstance 't is foolish and impious to quarrel it and for it to break unity and disturb the peace of the Church But you say The infant is not capable of believing and if he were he were also capable of dissenting and how then do they know his mind If it be necessary to baptism that the baptizer know the mind of the person to be baptized how can you baptize men of years You will say they express their minds and so we baptize them I grant you may know their words their minds you cannot because they may dissemble If you say you are in charity to believe the best once more we say Be but as charitable towards infants of whom you can know no actual evil nor shew any just cause why you should suspect it for the future And I pray how could the Priest under the Law know the minds of children to be circumâ—â—sed To conclude 't is nothing material whether we know the infants mind 't is behoofull that we know his priviledg as being born within the Church and Covenant of God which giveth him a sufficient right to the seals thereof But you say Tertullian gives advice that baptism of infants should be deferred till they could give account of their faith I answer 1. Tertullian speaking of deferring baptism lest they should rashly give it as to persons out of the Covenant or unbelievers instanceth specially children that is extraneorum non foederatorum as the learned Fra. lunius interpreteth the same so that this concerneth not our present question which is of children of Christians 2. This shews then that the practice of infant-baptism was none of Augustins device as you charge him seeing it was in use in the time of Tertullian 3. But let us hear the rest of Tertullians advice was it only concerning the deferring infants baptism Let them come when they can learn when they are taught whither they come let them be made Christians when they shall be able to know Christ nay but presently he saith For no less cause the unmarried also are to be delayed in whom the tentation is prepared both in virgins by their maturity and widows by their going up and down untill they are either married or confirmed in constancy Will you follow Tertullians advice herein But what if they never marry must they never be baptized If not give us leave to decline it in the other or to take it in the sense he meaneth it as may appear in that he specifieth widows who being at that age are necessarily to be supposed either baptized after their first marriage or out of the Covenant And the same you say is also the Councel of Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum c. Gregory Nazianzâ—n in his fortieth Oration which you cite in your margent saith Sow when the time of sowing is plant prune thy vine when the season is c. But at all times intend thy salvation and think that any time is seasonable or appointed for baptism among other ages of man be instanceth in Infancy Hast thou an Infant saith he let not wickedness take away the occasion let it be sanctified from its infancy let it be dedicated to the Spirit from it â—ender years fearest thou the seal in respect of the infirmity of Nature How poor a spirited mother art thou and of how little faith But Anna promised Samuel unto the Lord before he was born c. You say concerning Gr. Nazianzen that his reason taught him that which was fit true for he allowed Infant-baptsm yet he was over-born with the opinion of his Age c. So far also I consent as this relates to that they thought that Infants dying without Baptisme should neither he glorified nor punished That which you further say although he allowed them to hasten in case of necessity falleth under a double consideration First in respect of those times appointed for Baptism in the primitive Church to wit Easter and Whitsontide or Pentecost which he mentioneth But when he cometh to the question whether Infants should be baptized he answereth positively By all means if any danger urge and sheweth it from the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism He taketh away the objection from the years at which Christ was baptized which was indeed to be deferred untill the fulness of time for the worlds redemption was come and that we are not to imitate all the actions of Christ. To that which you say Yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Baptism was not administred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of Infancy we say you utterly mistake for Nazianzen in the same Oration speaking of delay in performance of that duty reckons up severall sorts of those whose Baptism was deferred some for sloth or insatiable desire of sinning others are not in ability to receive it either for their infancy or some sudden and violent accident disabling them so that they cannot receive this grace if they would True infants have neither ability nor will to come to Baptism nor can those though of years who are accidentally disabled they have not power though they have a will
to come What is this to our deferring Infants Baptism in the Rule which in some cases may reasonably and lawfully be done As for example Suppose an infant neer some Mahumetan border were found and the parents not known we may and ought to demur But what makes this against baptizing infants of parents known to be within the Church But you say To which if we add that the parents of S. Augustine S. Hierom and St. Ambrose although they were Christian yet did they not baptize their children before they were 30 years of age it will be very considerable in the Example and of great efficacy for the destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles This may make a formidable noyse in some vulgar ear 't is true which Mr. Homes notes pag. 188. that the opinions or practices of some few conclude no more against the generall tenet and practice of the Church then the Hills and Vallies do against the roundness of the world But to what purpose do you propose any of these examples to your clients imitation If not why inferre you them Possibly the parents of some great and excellent men might erre in such omission of duty or there might be some in vincible lets or obstructions to their desires however you would not have your childrens Baptism deferred â—0 years To the particulars I say Possidonius in the life of Augustine saith that he was born of honest and Christian parents and that he received of St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan both the wholesome doctrine of the Catholick Church and the Divine Sacraments But Augustine saith he believed and desired baptism from his childhood the cause of the delay thereof he putteâ—h on a sudden great sickness and his fathers unbelief but if the parents were then Christian when he was born and either understood not or neglected his Baptism what is this to our cause I know nothing hence following but that if so they neglected they were culpable We read of his dangerous estate while he was a Maniche and his mothers constant and importunate tears and intercession for his conversion as her sorrow for the delay thereof which at last happily obtained according to that which the Prelate answered her It cannot be that the son of those tears should perish After his conversion he seriously learned and happily taught others not to defer infant-baptism as may appear by that which hath been alledged out of him As for St. Hierom they also say that both his parents were Christian and that he was diligently taught and brought up of them at home and that with Bonosus presently even in his Parents embraces and Nurses gentle language he received in Christ and presently he was instructed in the rudiments of Christian piety which very probably importeth his infant-baptisme rather then that he had any Nurses at his being â—0 years old That which Erasmus who gathered his story out of other Authors after saith on Hieroms Epistle to Damasus that he would follow the saith of that Citie in which he had received the garment of Christ as the same Erasmus gives the sense in the life of Hierom proves not that he was not baptized before he was 30 years old for Hieroms words are to this sense because the Eastern Churches have rent the seamless Coat of Christ by their schismes so that it is hard there to know where the Church is therefore I thought it meet that I should consult with Peters Chaire and the faith commended by the Apostles mouth Rom. 1. thence now requiring food for my soul where long since I tooke on me the garment of Christ. What was it which he called Peters Chair What the Citie of Rome Was that faith which the Apostle commended onely there or then when Hierom wrote in all the Western Church his words concerning the Eastern Churches divisions by reason of the Arian faction and the following concerning the great distance at which Hierom being then in Syria near Antioch was make it plain that he spake of the Western Church in which he was baptized probably in oppido Stridonis where he was born not in Rome As for Erasmus's opion of his being baptized in Rome 't is grounded but upon an opinor I think saith he he meaneth it not of his Priesthoâ—d or orders And what solidity is there on these conjectures to conclude that Hieroms parents though Christian defer'd his baptism until he was 30 years old or what wil it advantage you if it were true there may be such lets to sealing as to Israel in the Wilderness and God bare with them 40 years together yet they should have circumcised the male children at eight dayes old upon a severe penalty Gen 17. 14. an inevitable necessity varieth not the rule Concerning the last instance in Ambrose I find that his Father was Deputy or Governor of France but whether Christian or not I find nothing in Paulinus who wrote his life and you avouch no Author for that you say We read that after he was chosen Bishop of Milan after Auxentius the Arian by the joynt suffrages of the discordant parties and being though much against his own will confirmed in that charge by Valentinian the Emperor he was baptized and with the Church held Infant-baptism against Pelagius and the Donatists upon this ground Because every age is subject to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament let the reader mark how this also is very considerable in the example and of what great efficacy it is for the destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles as the pleader saith But seeing he can raise no stronger batteries against it he might more easily and certainly conclude that it will stand whether he will or no. But however saith he it is against the perpetual analogie of Christian Doctrine to baptize infants This is gallantly spoken if he could tell how to prove it or any part thereof Besides that Christ never gave any precept to baptize them c. This is his Argument all that for which Christ never gave any precept for the doing it and which neither himself nor his Apostles that appears did is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine but Christ never gave any precept to baptize them c. ergo I answer This foundred Argument lame on both feet doth poorly charge 1. 'T is not true that all is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine for which no express precept of Christ or practice of himself or his Apostles appears for there are many things circumstantial and indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden which yet on second thoughts you will not say are against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine I might instance the postures or numbers or sexes or places where in the receiving the Lords Supper Where do you read of any command of Christ or practice of himself or Apostles that the Communicants should stand or sit or
order to baptize and be baptized for the remission of sins freely for Christs sake into whom we are implanted by Baptism How false then must it be which you upon the matter affirm that we shall be never the neerer if we cannot contribute somthing to the efficacie of Baptism in the use of our own reason Certainly Gods Spirit accompanieth his ordinance in the elect sooner or later If the reprobate be never the nearer salvation for his baptism that is accidentall maketh nothing against the effectuall sealing of the elect to eternall life in their baptism There are many sorts of hearers of the Word some like the stony ground some like the thorny some like the high-way shall the Apostasie unbelief and barrenness of the greater part make the ordinance of God of none effect to believers To conclude it is but the outward ministration which is committed to us the capacity or incapacity fruit-bearing or sterility of receivers belongs to God to judge of not to us we must do our duty and leave the issues to to him But you say From the pains of hell they shall be saved by the mercies of God and their own innocency though they die in puris naturalibus and baptism will carry them no further What Popery and Pelagianism twisted together If you speak of childrens salvation by the mercies of God to his elect so far we accord if you say by their own innocency that Pelagians and Donatists taught who affirmed that infants were born without originall sin and therefore would not have them baptized Against this heresie the second Milvetian Councel determined Canon 2. as hath been noted For that you say they shall be saved though they die in puris naturalibus that is such as they are by nature without regeneration it is against the express word of God as may clearly appear in that all are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath by nature That which is born of the flesh is flesh and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God that is such as it is by and in the state of corrupted nature therefore except the infant be regenerate he cannot enter into the kingdome of God That which you say that Baptism will carry infants no further then from the pains of hell smels strongly of Popery They say that children dying without Baptism shall have poeâ—am damni non sensus that is they shall be free from hell fire but that they shall not enter into heavenly joys But Augustine so far said well there is not to any and middle place that he can be any where but with the Divel who is not with Christ. Certainly the Scripture mentioneth onely heaven for the elect and blessed and hell for the reprobate and damned For that Baptism that saveth us is not onely the washing with water of which onely children are capable but the answer of a good conscience towards God of which they are not capable till the use of reason till they know to chuse the good and refuse the evill If you mean by washing with water baptism according to Christs institution administred we say also it is not that onely which is the Ministers part to give which saveth us but the power and grace of Gods Spirit inwardly baptizing sanctifying regenerating and cleansing us from our sins by the pretious blood of Jesus that saveth us Now that infants are not hereof capable till the use of reason is evidently false if you but hold these three Principles 1. That no unregenerate unclean person can be saved 2. That all mankind is born in sin Rom. 5. 12. 3. That some infants dying before their use of reason are saved That which you say that infants are capable of washing with water that is of baptism or else you trifle we asserâ—t to and desire you to say no more infants of believing parents that is of professed Christians are capable of baptism for the rest we contend not we refer the effect thereof in particulars to God who alone knoweth his elect and how and when to give them the inward fruit of his own ordinances we neither affirm that all the baptized shall be saved neither can we or you determine which shall and which shall not but indifferently as charity requireth hope well of every one whom we baptize concerninig whom we can say nothing to the contrary But you say All vows made by persons under other names stipulations made by minors are not valid till they be by a supervening act after they are of a sufficient age to racifie them To which we answer 1. though all be not valid in such case it is enough that some are 2. Your assertion if granted that is that all vows or which is more then you affirm if no vows made by persons under others names or stipulations made by minors or persons in their minority are not valid untill by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age to ratifie them they are confirmed what could this make against our duty of Infant-baptism the case being much different between stipulations of men and the covenant between God man as hath been shewed as appeared in circumcision which was with Infants eight days old Mr. Cobbet well observeth that the covenant of grace is as well a testament 1 Cor. 11. 25. Heb. 9. 15 c. Now a testament may be and useth to be made in reference to little ones without knowledge nor do any use to deny a childs right in the Testators will because it understood not the same and that many Infants with whom God made the covenant Gen. 17. dying such were yet saved and that they restipulate in their Parents knowing acceptance of the covenant and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms as wel on their childrens parts as their own they restipulate in a passive reception of the Covenant condition bond to afâ—er imitation of their father Abrahams faith obedience Again our question is not concerning the ratification or effect of Infant-baptism by their act or acts to make it good to themselves and effectuall when they come of age but concerning a Church-priviledge on Infants part which is to be admitted unto the externall seal of Gods Covenant with his Church it being to Parents and their children and this dependth on Gods institution to appoint it and his inward working to make it good Secondly in the confirmation of children come to age they then professing faith obedience repentance newness of life c. into which in their infancy they were baptized that is then ratified which others promised and stipulated for them as concerning outward profession which is in your language a supervening act to make the former appear valid Thirdly the question is not concerning the final effect of baptism in particulaâ—â— baptized which cannot fall under the Ministers cognizance it being kept in heaven in the archives and secret counsel of God but concerning their right
is the initiatorie Sacrament of regeneration implantation into Christ faith mortification putting off the old man putting on Christ remission of sins deliverance from the wrath of God and curse of the Law all which is as necessary for Infants that they may be saved as for any others and into these either for present or future they are baptized 14 God ever since his covenant made with Abraham appointed Infants some seal of his covenant as well with them as their parents whereof they were some ways capable and whereby they might be externally known not only to God that they are long before any man can seal them 2 Tim. 2. 19. Tit. 1. 2. Rom. 8. 29. 9. 11. but also of men or otherwise he must have cast out Infants under the Gospel from right to the seal of his covenant which he gave them under the Law to be within Gods covenant therefore God hath appointed baptism to Infants add hereto that whereas poor Infants need mercie for remission of original sin they are not for present capable of the other ordinary means appointed persons of years as hearing the Word receiving the Lords Supper prayer repentance c. they are passively capable of baptism as under the law they were of circumcision therefore seeing remission of sin is simply necessary baptism the ordinary means thereto is necessary if it may be had 15 Whatsoever Infants of believers are capable of as interested in Gods covenant without the help of present understanding that man ought not to bar them of but such Infants as interested in Gods covenant are capable of baptism without the present help of understanding therefore they ought not to be bar'd thereof by man The major appeareth in Infants circumcision on the eighth day that was the seal of the same faith and covenant of God in Christ and a part or condition of the same as baptism now is as hath been proved The minor appears Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee c. that is with thy Infants also as well as with thee and by vertue hereof Isaac at eight dayes old received the seal of the righteousness of faith without the help of present understanding and there is the same reason of baptism in respect of Gods promise Act. 2. 39. and the alteration of the seal altereth not the covenant in substance subject or end I suppose all know that children of Christians without the help of present understanding are now as capable of Baptism the more easie seal as they were of Circumcision the more painful and bloody And lest any should think that this Priviledge of Infants-sealing belonged only to Abrahams Carnal-seed the Jews the Holy Ghost testifieth that they which are of the Faith the same are the children of Abraham Gal. 3. 7. and again The Promise is to you and to your children and to all that are a far off even as many as the Lord our God shall call Now he hath called us Gentiles to the faith in Christ who were once a far off Therefore Infants of those who by Calling are interessed in Gods Covenant are capable of Baptism Moreover as hath been noted as the worldly wise men by the creatures Rom. 1. 21. knew God but loved him not by grace dwelling in them neither glorified him as God So these Infants may have him before they can know him that is they may be regenerate by the holy Spirit before they have the use of understanding that they may know the things which are given them of God and certainly all Elect Infants though dying yong are regenerate else could they not be saved yet so young they can have no actual knowledge of their regeneration or means thereunto belonging and if they are saved and have the inward Seal of Gods Spirit how injuriously are they barred from the external seal by man To conclude Infants are interressed by Gods promise which dependeth not on any mans understanding sanctity or excellency but on the free grace of God who made this Covenant with us when we were all in the course of corrupted nature enemies without Christ aliens strangers from the Covenants of Promise having no hope and without God in the world Ephes. 2. 12. Lastly as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners and so sin is communicated to all mankinde yea to those who have not yet the use of reason for we see that Infants dye as well as old men So by one Christs Righteousness imputed many are made righteous in Baptism the Laver of Regeneration though they yet understand it not So put they on Christ though it be not yet given them to know the things which are given them of God See Argument 2. 16. The command for baptizing is for all that are to be saved But among those are many Infants therefore the command for baptizing is for Infants also or without exclusion of all Infants 17. That opinion which makes the Covenant or Priviledge of the Gospel worse to Abrahams spiritual seed then it was to his carnal is false and erroneous yea Antichristian But to deny Believers Infants baptism the initiatory Seal of the Covenant and the priviledge thereof makes this worse then that Therefore it is false c. The major is confirmed in that God avoweth the Gospel to be a better Covenant then that of the Law Heb. 8. 6. The minor likewise because under the Law Infants had the priviledge of the initiatory seal The Gospel-Covenant holdeth forth an enlargement of the signs and subject of Gods mercy It was before only to the Jews generally who had the Ordinances of Righteousness as Gideons Fleece the dew while all the floor which then figured the Gentiles was dry But now Christ saith Go Teach all nations baptizing them So far was it from diminishing or contracting the grace of God by the coming of Christ like rain into the Fleece that now he sent it to all Nations who before gave it only to one And the Covenant of God made with Abraham was testified by an external Seal to comfort Parents in assurance that God had care for and a Covenant with their children also Now they that take this away from children under the Gospel make the Gospel-Covenant much worse as being less testified then that under the Law Add hereto that the coming of Christ which set an end to Legal ceremonies and appointed Baptism diminished not the grace of his Father in the Signs and Dispensations thereof making it more dark or less testified by a Seal towards those who are within the Covenant of Grace but rather encreased or communicated it more clearly and therein it is a better Covenant Hebr. 8. 6. not in respect of God the appointer thereof he is one and the same for ever not in respect of Christ the Mediator he is the same under the Law and Gospel but in respect of the exhibition of things promised and
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
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