Baptisme by a kind of self-excommunication Again we say Thâ—t to condemne the Doctrine of Anabaptists upon great grounds of Reason seems to lay too narrow a ground and possibly too unsound a foundation for our profession specially if we consider what is here said Sect. 10. Num. 2. concerning the pretended authority of Reason and following his guide so far as his Reason goes along with him Or which is all one he that follows his own Reason c. which guidance by Divine Revelation and I know not what other good means he meaneth he saith hath great advantages But to leave ambiguities of words and confusion of senses we affirm That the word of God is our ground and guide in matters of Faith and Religion which even the greatest pretenders to humane authority and undervaluers of holy Scriptures do acknowledge in their soberer fits and that the Spirit of God illuminateth the elect whom he calleth guideth and enableth to obedience against the dictates of carnall reason and the corrupt affections ofâ—flesh and blood If he mean any other Divine Revelation then that which is consonant to the known and invariable Rule of Gods word I know not what greater advantage Satan could desire for leading beguiled souls to hell blindfold then to find them following their own reason and putting their salvations upon pretended revelations our faith is on Gods truth not humane Reason which in this life is not so absolutely purged from the contagion of sin ignorance and error since the Apostles being furnished with infallibility of Spirit but that it is subject to some errors and therefore though we disclaim all blind obedience to man in acts of Religion yet we submit to God in believing every thing which he saith adoring his Truth which we cannot by any strength of humane Reason examine Moreover we say seeing that only may and can be the ground of our Faith which cannot erre or be false and seeing that we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone Ephes. 2. 20. we cannot consent to be taken off from that infallible certainty and to be set upon the moveable and loose sand of onely Great grounds of Reason or any thing lesse known certain and infallible then the holy word of God which we know cannot deceive us It will neither be unpleasant nor unprofitable to draw a short Scheme of plea for each party the result of which possibly may be that though they be deceived yet they have so great excuse on their side c. Surely unpleasing to God it is to make sport with matters of so high concernment and to play with holy things for so this plea must be except you are in earnest for the Anabaptists or for fear or favour of men so to temporize as thereby to endanger as much as you can the Cause and Truth of Christ. And how it can be either pleasing to any good Christian which displeaseth God or profitable which causeth any to erre from the truth in pleading for that which you acknowledge to be a Doctrine justly condemned I confesse I understand not Possibly Joash would here have replied to such a short Scheme of plea will ye plead for Baal That their error is not impudent or vincible To say an impudent error is but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and impropriety of speech which in more exact expression I suppose you would render they are not impudent in defence of their error If so I onely appeale to experience As for that which you say They have so great excuse on their side that their error is not vincible seems a contradiction in the adject who believes any error to be invincible who believeth that Christ the Truth John 14. 6. hath sufficiently delivered that heavenly light in the Gospel which though God permit it sometimes to be clowded shall shine clear and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it but it shall put to flight and overcome every darkness of error specially in things pernitious and about the foundation I say not to the sense of those whom God justly giveth over to strong delusions that they may perish who receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved but to the Goshen and Israel of God appointed to salvation How else should it be that our faith should be the Victory that overcometh the world except it be in the invincible truth and faith in him who hath overcome the world John 16. 33. For by World Christ here meaneth and comprehendeth all that which is contrary to the salvation of the Elect specially those falsehoods and errors which Satan by any means broacheth to corrupt and overthrow the true Faith See Heb. 11. 1 c. Mat. 16. 8. The Baptisme of Infants rests wholly on this Discourse If that were true your plea for Anabaptists were lesse condemnable but the contrary will appeare in due place But whether they have originall sin or no Indeed the Pelagians an old Sect of Hereticks denied that Infants were born in originall sin And Celestius affirmed That Adams sin hurt onely himself but not mankind And others that Infants are born in the same state in which Adam was before his transgression But the holy Scripture plainly condemnes this Heresie See Job 14. 4 Psalm 51. 5. John 3. 5. 1 Cor. 15 50. Rom. â— 12. 1 Cor. 15. 22. Eph. 2. 3. So do all the Reformed Churches and Papists too vid. Bellar. l. 4. de amissione gratie stat peccati Besides woful experience teaching us that children die demonstrateth that they brought that guilt into the world with them which subjected them to the sentence of death and participation of the punishment of Adams sin which could not be except they were partakers of his guilt because God is just That they have contracted the guilt of Adams sin you confesse pag 230 Num 16. Infants cannot by any act of their own promote the hope of their own salvation which men of reason and choyce may by acts of vertue and election Faith and hope of salvation are not of our selves but the gift of God Eph. â— 8. And what hope infants have or acts of reason how God applieth the merit of Christ to Infants who became an infant that he might also save them is a secret unknown to me and therefore I do neither anxiously enquire nor rashly determine That men of reason and choyce may promote their hope of salvation by acts of Vertue and Election must cautiously be understood seeing they neither can do any thing hereto as they have reason or election both which are naturall and so corrupted that they are utterly inactive to any moral good without the help of Gods preventing and quickning grace supervenient The Scripture is expresse You hath he quickned who were dead in trespasses and sins and were by nature the children of wrath even as others
baptized under the Gospel for the same end for baptism answereth circumcision and is called by the same name Col. 2 11 12. as having the same end effect to seal up the same grace unto faith mortification remission of sins admission into the visible Church If it be excepted that under the Law there was an express command for Infant-circumcision on the eighth day but there is none for Infant-baptism We say 1 Because there was an express command under the Law never repealed in the Gospel and the same end and use still remain therefore there need be none in the Gospel more then that general opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers in taking away the stop of the partition wall by that which is said Baptize all Nations None but Israelites and their proselytes were sealed under the Law none but male children at eight days old but now go baptize all nations without exception to nation age sex or condition 2 There is in all the Scripture no express prohibition neither can any by any sound consequence imply it The assumption is thus confirmed Those whom Christ saveth are members of his body for he is the head of the Church and Savior of the body Eph. 5. 23. But Christ saveth Infants of believing parents therefore Infants are members of Christs body the Church The major is evident for Christ saveth none but those who are members of his body the Church The minor is as evident it being granted that any Infants are saved which is apparent from the covenant of God Gen. 17. 7. and the words of Christ of such is the kingdom of God as also by this argument Those whom Christ loved and for whom he gave himself to deathâ— those he will sanctifie and cleanse with the washing of water by the Word Eph. 5. 26. that they may be received into the Church and be made partakers of the benefits of his death but Christ not only loved and gave himself for persons of years but also for Infants therefore he will sanctifie and cleanse Infants with the washing of water by the Word c. 2 All Infants were by Adam capable of sin and the expressions of Gods justice punishing the same by death sickness c. but Infants are not less capable of the grace and mercy of God in Christ in respect of the expressions thereof then they were of his justice in Adam Therefore Infants are capable of the expressions of Gods grace and mercie in Christ which in the ordinary dispensation thereof is baptism The major is evident Rom. 5. 12. 1 Cor. 15. 22. The minor Rom. 5. 20 where sin abounded grace did much more abound that is Gods grace doth more abundantly appear in holding out the visible remedy then his justice inflicting the denounced punishment which could not be if Infants visibly involved in the condemnatorie sentence and execution thereof should be excluded from the ordinary and visible means of recovery and salvation by Christ which in them can be no other external means but baptism the laver of regeneration it can be no less then a sacrilegious injury to the grace mercy of God in Christ to suppose that the sin of man is more powerful to hurt then the grace of God in Christ is to heal and save 3 If we ought not to baptize Infants then there must be some apparent let and impediment thereto either on Gods part prohibiting or on the Ministers part or in the Sacrament it self or in the incapacitie of the receiver but there is no apparent let or impdiment on the part or in any of these therefore there is none at all 1 There is no impediment on Gods part for God no where expresly or by good consequence saith Baptize not Infants or Baptize none but those who do first testifie their faith and repentance 2 There is no impediment on the Ministers part for he can as easily baptize Infants as persons of years 3 There is no impediment in respect of the Sacrament it self for all the essentials of baptism may be placed on children profession of faith repentance c. are conditions of baptism in persons of years and effects of it which may in due time appear and follow in baptized Infants those therefore are not of the essence of baptism nor so much as universal conditions thereof for the present sprinkling washing or dipping in water in the name of the Father the Son and the H. Ghost are the essence of baptism so are not faith repentance or newness of life for it may be a true baptism where these graces do neither precede nor follow it though without these preceding or following baptism cannot be effectual to salvation which need not seem strange to him that considereth that Judas Simon Magus and many who were and now are truly baptized are not saved 4 Neither can the let be in the Infant who cannot by any actual hardnes of heart impenitency or positive unbelief or contempt of the ordinance of God refuse or despise the grace of God offered in baptism Therefore they are to be admitted to that whereof they are apparently undeniably capable which is the external seal at least which is all that man for present can administer or we will contend for being most willing to leave secret things to God and to hope the best where the contrary cannot appear unto us only add hereto if the issue be put upon the capacitie or incapacitie of the Infant with relation to any condition so much insisted on let any of our Antagonists shew us how or wherin Infants under the Gospel covenant of grace in Christ have less capacity in respect thereof then Infants under the Law of Moses had or that baptism is not the seal of the same righteousness of faith in Christ wherof circumcision for the time was the seal 4 That which without any expressed exception to particulars Christs commission holds forth to all nations belongs to Infants as well as persons of years for Infants are alwayes a great part of all nations but Christs commission holds forth baptism to all nations without any expressed exception to particulars therefore baptism belongs to Infants of believing Parents as well as to persons of years 5 No man may forbid water that is the outward administration where God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit which maxim the Apostle built on in that then difficult question whether the Gentiles might be sealed into the covenant of grace But God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit to Infants Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. 1 Cor. 7. 14 therefore no man may forbid water or the outward administration for the baptism of Infants The reason of the major is that all they who are partakers of the grace both signified exhibited in baptism have right to the sign and sacrament thereof and therefore may not be barred from it for that were to withstand God Act. 11.
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
unto them we undertake not to make the truth evident to every gain-sayer and despiser thereof but say of such an one as Elisha for his servant at the beleaguered Dothan 2 King 6. 17. Lord I pray thee open his eyes that he may see The most manifest light of the Gospel had not evidence enough with the Pharisees whom Christ pronounced blind and it concerned them chiefly which he said they have winked with their eyes c. an unbeliever may doubt of any truth and then it is not evident to him The old Academicks were wont to question the testimonie and evidence of their own senses with a quid si falleris being not confident of the truth of that they saw with their eyes and heard with their ears Carneades doubted of all things yet certainly many things were evident of themselves to those who could and would see and know manifest truths though not to him 4. They who deny convincing evidence in Gods Word not only erre not knowing the Scriptures but tacitely accuse the Wisdom and Providence of God for mans salvation of insufficiencie for how shall matters of controversie concerning faith and manners be decided without sufficient evidence and if you think there is not sufficient evidence in Scripture to keep us from errour and to direct us in the way of truth and salvation in what other rule or testimonie will you place such evidence as you would have what in Traditions and unwritten verities where shall we feek these among our adversaries nay but no man can be edified by that which is destructive or in Enthusiasms and Revelations but what evidence can there be in those things whose authority cannot be proved and whose truth cannot be infallible nothing less then that which cannot be false can be the ground of faith and religion whatsoever falleth below that supreme certaintie is but opinion at most Now the Word of God only is infallible because he cannot lye Tâ—â— 1. 2. and therefore his Word is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works 2 Tâ—â— 3. 16 17. 5 If it be rejoined that in our present question and some other cases the Scripture saith nothing expresly and positively to evidence the truth I answer 1 with Tertullian I am confident to say that the Scriptures themselves were so disposed by the will of God that they might administer matter to Hereticks seeing that I read there must be Herefies which could not be without Scriptures 2 That is Scripture truth which the Scripture proposeth or enjoineth by necessary consequence though not in express words and whosoever disbelieveth or disobeyeth that so far he rejecteth the Scripture in his errour and ignorance of Scripture So the Sadduces denyed the resurrection of the dead among other vain arguments so principally a non scripto because Moses whose writings only they received did not in terminis or express words and syllables say the dead shall rise again now though that is true Moses did not expresly say so yet our Saviour told them that therein they erred not knowing the Scriptures Mat. 22. 29. where he meaneth not express words of Scripture but necessary consequence for certainly they knew the express letter yet thought they had not evidence enough from Scripture because they found nothing there in terminis against their errour which Christ yet justly chargeth on them Ye do erre not knowing the Scriptures as touching the resurrection of the dead have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God saying I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob Well what express Scripture is here to prove the resurrection of the dead that Christ should charge those that denyed the same with errour and ignorance of Scriptures Truly no more then we find for Infant-baptism in appearance much less yet thus he who could not be deceived chargeth them because denying necessary consequence they required express words now the consequence was thus God is not the God of the dead but of the living therefore the dead shall rise again To the folding up of all I might repeat sundry things which as necessarily conclude our Infant-baptism as Infants circumcision into the same faith Gods Covenant with Abraham and his spiritual seed that is all Beleevers Christs honouring Infants with sacred embraces proposing them as heirs and patterns designed for the Kingdome of heaven the extent of Gods federal promise to us and our children childrens capacitie of the inward baptism signified in the external sign whole Families and Nations baptized of which children are and ever were a great part Christs absolute command to baptize all Nations without any tittle of exception to Infants Infants federal and ecclesiastical holiness by their parents and their own right But that I would not be irksom to the prudent and pious Reader to whom I heartily wish a right understanding in all things constancie in the truth and unitie of the holy Spirit that we may all meet in Gods eternal kingdom of glory AMEN A SURVEY OF The Controverted Points CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM c. THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. Infants of Christian Parents ought to be baptized I Need not be long in describing this Sacrament only I say that Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament succeeding Circumeision the Seal of the Old appointed by Christ for our Inlet into his Church our implantation into Him and the similitude of his death and resurrection in which the water sanctified by the word representeth the blood of Christ sealeth and exhibiteth to the Elect all the benefits of his inestimable merits death passion and resurrection to our regeneration remission of sins and cleansing our bodies and souls from them all though not presently so that we have no sin yet so as that believing in Christ we have no guilt of original or actual sin imputed to us to condemnation for the water by the Ordinance of God touching the body the Spirit of Jesus baptizeth body and soul. Hence Baptism is said to save us 1 Pet. 3. 21. the end of Baptism is that being baptized we might be illuminated being illuminated we might be adopted sons of God being adopted we might be perfected that we may become immortally blessed In our being baptized in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost we do as it were by a solemn Oath or Covenant declare and protest that we are wholly devoted to one God in Trinity of Unitie and God on his part herein testifieth that by this Seal of his Covenant he receiveth us into the participation of his free mercies in Christ and into the holy communion of his Church the body of Christ I Joh. 5. 7 8. The Protestant Church holdeth That the subject of Baptism are all they who either are
shadowed out in the Law and clearer manifestation of Gods grace and truth in Christ. Now they who deny Infants of believers the initiatory seal of Gods Covenant as much as in them lieth diminish the grace of God and make the Covenant seem worse by Christs coming in that they diminish the comfortable assurance of our childrens implantation into Christ and of his care of and favour to them if they may not so much as be marked with the external sign and seal thereof which yet elect and reprobates if of years may by your leave and do receive 18. That which is evil to be done is forbidden in some express and known Law and Word of God But Infant-baptism is forbidden in no express and known Law and word of God therefore it is not evil as our Antagonists would make the world believe 19. That whereof God will severely punish the contempt or neglect we must not omit But God will severely punish the contempt or neglect of his Covenant of grace and mercy whereof Baptism is a part or condition as well with Infants as persons of years therefore we may not omit it See Gen. 17. 14. Exod. 4. Mark 16. 16 Hebr. 10. 28 29. and that being supposed which hath hitherto been proved that Infants of Church-priviledged Parents ought to be baptized the Minister who upon such fancies and unsufficient grounds as are alledged by our Antagonists refuseth to baptize them or the Parent who will not have them baptized must needs be under a woful condition the Apostles argument being good from the dispensation of the Gospel committed to him to the necessary administration of the same as in preaching the word so in the seals thereto belonging whereof he expresly saith 1 Cor. 9. 16. Wo is unto me if I preach not the Gospel For though his principal and first office was to preach as being appointed the Doctor of the Gentiles first to be taught and then respectively to be baptized yet it is manifest that the Dispensation of Baptism the seal of the Gospel and Covenant of God in Christ went along in charge with preaching of the same and was committed to the Apostles and all Ministers their Successors and so woe will be to them if they baptize not where Christ intended the seal of his Grace as surely as if they preach not the Gospel 20. They are to be held as Heathens and Publicans who refuse to hear and obey the Church of Christ But such are Anabaptists nor is it any excuse but an aggravation of their sin to bespatter the Church with impious calumnies It had been and ever was as easie for all sorts of hereticks in and since Christ and the Apostles time and in the purest ages of the primitive Church to have said for a pretended defence of their errour and contumacy you are not the true Church but in spight of Satan and the powers of hel we are through the mercy of God a member of the true Church of Christ therefore their schism contempt is the more condemnable 21. Those to whom the things signified belong unto them belong also the signs and seals thereof except in case of some apparent condition making an evident exception as want of ability to examine themselves barreth Infants from the holy Eucharist But the thing signified by Baptism belongs to Infants and there is no apparent condition making any evident exception to bar them from it therefore Baptism belongeth to them The things signified by Baptism are that we are thereby received into Gods favour for the blood of Christ shed for us to binde us to a sincere obedience to faith and endeavour to newness of life Gods promise of grace and mercy in Christ marking us for sheep of his pasture our puting on Christ regeneration washing from our sins justification salvation by Christ these things belong to all the elect whereof Infants of Believers are a very considerable part And these things are held forth in Baptism as things signified in the sign by God appointed to all receivers sacramentally and to an external communion of which lambs aswel assheep Infants aswel as the aged are capable Therefore Baptism belongeth to Infants of Christian Parents 22. To whom the Covenant in force runneth in the same tenour in the new Testament as in the old to such persons the application of the Initiatory seal of the new Testament ought to be administred as well as was the Initiatory seal of the old But the Covenant in force runs in the same tenour c. therefore the Initiatory seal of the Covenant ought now to be administred to such persons as the Initiatory seal of the Covenant was administred to in the old The tenor of the Covenant was to Parents and their children upon condition that they should be sealed according to the promise that God would be their God who would observe the Laws and conditions thereof the same is still for substance in force though the seals are changed So that as Infants were circumcised so ought they now to be baptized and except this be allowed to our Infants as well as to our selves believing in Christ we are not as the Apostle affirms Col. 2. 10. Compleat in him In whom we are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands Buried with him in Baptism c. Nor are we and our children so sealed into our implantation into the death of Christ that we may in the ordinary way thereby be assured that as he put off the infirm affections of the natural body so we put off the body of sin spiritually See Rom. 6. 3 c. 23. Such persons as were typically baptized unto Moses are capable of the real and true baptism under the Gospel of Christ For in the main the argument holds from the type to the truth though possibly not in every circumstance But children as well as persons of years were baptized in the cloud and in the red-sea unto Moses 1 Cor. 10. 2. and their washing with rain from the cloud prefigur'd our washing in Baptism and by the Spirit therefore children of covenanted persons are capable of the true and real Baptism under the Gospel of Christ. 24. Where there is a command for a thing never remanded or countermanded there that thing is still in force But there is a command for the signing of Infants of Believers with the sign of Gods Covenant with their Parents and them never yet remanded or countermanded Therefore the signing of Believers children with the sign of Gods Covenant which is Baptism is still in force 24. That which dependeth not on any age or act of man but on the meer institution and gracious promise of God as its ground may not be denyed by man to any comprehended under the general term of All Nations in respect of any age or defects thereof as want of understanding and the acts thereof in faith repentance c. in Infants But Baptism depended not on any age or act
similitude must fully hold some might possibly reason thus as Christ was first dead and buried and rose again the third day so we must first be dead and buried and then be baptized and rise with Christ a third time Marcion that old pernicious heretick held that one might be three times baptized or they might infer that we must not rise up out of the water into which we are dipt until the third day but how absurd such inferences are none can be ignorant 3. The alledged scripture concludes not the manner of our baptism but the effects thereof not how the water should be applied or in what maner we should be baptized whether by sprinkling washing or dipping but how we ought to live who are baptized that sin should henceforth have no more power over us then if we were dead that we should so live to righteousness and bringing forth fruits thereof as being implanted into Christ and so no more living our own life but the holy life of Christ. 4. He saith not We are buried with Christ in water or just as Christ was buried in his baptism but into the â—ikeness of his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead so we should not be raised out of the water but walk in newness of life Here is the main substance of the similitude 't is not in any circumstance Now I would sain know whether a man may not walk in newness of life being baptized with sprinkling as well as if he had been doused 5. The argument here drawn to prove necessity of immersion is a fallicia accidente is a reasoning from the the substance to the accident Suppose thus We must be baptized into the similitude of Christs death But he was covered and rose again ergo We must be covered with water that we may be raised again c. Non sequitur his being covered in the rocky vault was but a circumstance as was his lying covered to the third day therefore it can be no more here concluded that we must be like Christ in being covered with water in baptism then that we must lie under water three days and nights in our baptism because he lay so long in his grave for why should one circumstance or accident be concluded rather then another 6. If the similitude must be so strictly urged it will be rather for us Christ was not thrown down prone with his face downward as they use to dive their disciples but honorably embalmed and decently laid in a new Sepulchre and we use solemnly to bury our dead with their faces upward sprinkle dust and earth upon them and in such decent posture we baptize Infants by putting our sprinkling water on them or by dipping them 7. Christs natural body was truly dead buried we must therefore understand that which must be done in us by analogy and proportion and not wrest the Apostles words to a litteral sense The body of sin is then buried when the power thereof is enervated and weakned and as it were a dead carcase is so over whelmed and buried that it can no more move and force a man whither it would and was wont and this is said to be done in Baptism in a twofold respect 1. In respect of Christ into whom when we are implanted by baptism all the benefits of his death are freely given and sealed to us so that our sins are buried in his grave who bare our sins in his own body 1 Pet. â—â— 24 so in his burial our sins were covered no more to appear in judgment against us or to be imputed to us 2. In respect of our mortification sacramentally accomplished in our baptism and by the Spirit of God by certain degrees in al our life long though bodily death being a privation of life hath no degrees he that is dead dyeth no more yet in our spiritual death to sin there are degrees we dye daily as the power of sin is more and more broken in us That baptism which is not agreeable to Christs or Johns baptism is not instituted by Christ therefore mans invention and will-worship But washing or sprinkling with water agreeth not with the baptism of Christ or John for they baptized and were baptized in Jordan and the Eunuch was baptized in the brook Acts 8. 38. therefore baptizing with sprinkling or only washing is not instituted by Christ. We answer 1. This is a fallacious arguing the term agreeable being boâ—oâ—ymical 't is doubtful in the assumption whether he mean agreeable in substance or in circumstance that which is not agreeable in substance with the baptism of Christ and John Baptist is not instituted by Christ but this holds not in point of circumstance for then there could be no lawful baptism but in Jordan or some other water of Palestine 2. It follows not that John B. dived Christ or any other into water or Philip the Eunuch because John baptized in Jordan where were some sandy places because we read they went down into the water for so they may do who only wet their feet or go up to their knees or anckles we must consider that in the infancy of the Gospel they had not publike Oratories and Fonts to accommodate them baptizing as in a setled state of the Church we have seen and therefore they baptized where they could have convenience of water which in that dry region was not every where to be had as appeareth in that reason ofâ— Johns baptizing in AEnon near Salim given by the Evangelist becauso there was much water there 3. It is not probable that Christ was dipt cloathes and all in Jordan and so went immediately wringing-wet into the wilderness see Mark 1. 1 2 10. nor that he was stripped naked with such a confused multitude of men and women as cam to Johns baptism see Luke 3. 21. Matth. 21. 31 32. Matth 3. 5 6. 4. It is but a weak Fallacy to dispute à particulari ad generale thus some went into the river to be baptized therefore all that are to be baptized ought so to do for in things circumstantial and without some binding Precept to impose them as duties a particular example can beget no general rule for our due and necessary imitation 5. If it could be proved which all our Antagonists can never do that Christ and those whom John baptized were duckt into the water when they were baptized yet it doth no more follow thence that all must everywhere and at all seasons be so baptized then that the Lords Supper may be administred with none but unleavened bread in an upper room after Supper to twelve men only no women because Christ so administred it or that we must anoint the sick with oyl or salute with an holy kiss because these things were in use in those Regions nay but matters circumstantial are ever liable to the test of accommodation and customs of times and places and persons dipping might be convenient
regenerate but to promote the degrees of regeneration producing that faith and the fruits thereof sowed in baptism to a clearer and more evident maturity So was it in Isaac who was first regenerate by the seal of the righteousness of faith which was after he came to years nourished and confirmed by the word preached unto him So that though the word in the ordinary dispensation thereof be often repeated and doth by many degrees promote our regeneration and cause us to grow to a better stature and strength according to our measure in Christ of which we have continual need yet it follows not thence that baptism may also be iterated no more then that a man may be often born into the world because he is often fed and groweth up by degrees and divers accessions to his stature Though corporal generation or birth be naturally but one yet may it be supernaturally iterated Yea so shall it be in the resurrection which our Saviour calleth Regenerationâ— Matth 19. 28. We answer 1. The present question is concerning regeneration in this life not of that which shall be in the new age as the Syriac hath it that is in the world to come 2. Christ there calleth the resurrection regeneration to teach us who have received the first fruits of the Spirit in our regeneration that admirable thing which shall come to pass in our resurrection for so shall our flesh be as it were born again by incorruption as our soul is now regenerate by faith in Christ. 3. That regeneration in the end of the world shall be but once therefore by proportion regeneration in this world by baptism must be can be but once The spiritual death to sin is by many acts of regeneration as examination of our selves daily renewing our repentance beating down our bodies by fasting prayer humiliation and rising again to newness of life in our encreases of faith and growth in holiness is by sundry acts of the Spirit regenerating and making our endeavours effectuall in the use of the means as hearing praying receiving the Sacrament In and by these is regeneration therefore not one nor only once Add hereto that we are baptized into remission of sins which being daily we have need of daily remission and therefore of Baptism We answer 1. That dying to sin and rising to newness of life are the certain effects of regeneration and therefore it may conclude that where these are and their several acts appear there undoubtedly is Regeneration But it can no more conclude divers Regenerations then the divers acts of a living man can prove that he had several Generations or Births because these prove that he liveth 2. Our need of daily pardon for our daily sins may conclude our daily need of repentance as our Saviour taught us but it concludes not any necessity to iterate our Baptism but rather the contrary because the Covenant of God once sealed to us in Baptism for the free remission of all our sins through the inestimable and never dying-merit of Christs death into which we are implanted by Saptism is unchangably perpetual and the condition of our comfortable assurance of pardon cannot be iteration of our Baptism but renewing of our repentance and amendment of our lives which demonstrate our faith to be lively See Jer. 3. 12 13. Ezek. 16. 60. Nor doth that hinder which some object Some hypocrites receive the seal therefore they have need to receive it again that they may obtain the fruits thereof which believing they shall have It follows not that they ought to be baptized again but that they ought to be sincere and to repent of their hypocrisie and then the seal formerly received shall be effectual for them to Remission of sins and Salvation Spiritual death in sin is by many acts and Regeneration is a rising again from the same which in the regenerate who also often fall must and is often to be iterated therefore Regeneration may and must be iterated and consequently so must Baptism the Laver of Regeneration We answer 1 The acts of Regeneration are many but that proves not pluralities of Regenerations more then many acts of life prove many lives of one and the same person as we said 2. As many wounds or other concurrent causes of death conclude not many deaths of one and the same person so 't is here many sins wound and spiritually destroy the soul yet are there not more deaths then lives of one man for death is a privation of life So that our often falling into sin concludes only a need of frequent renewing our repentance and hath been shewed That which the Apostles of Christ did that we may do in the work of the Ministry But they rebaptized as may appear Acts 19. 4 5. therefore we may rebaptize We answer 1. This main argument which the Anabaptists have is built as the rest upon a meer mistake of that Scripture S. Luke thus relateth Then said Paul John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him that is on Christ Jesus When they heard this to wit that which John spake they that is the people mentioned verse 4. which heard those words of John B. were baptized that is by John B. or his Disciples not by Paul for he is only said verse 6. to have laid his hands upon them that they might be confirmed in their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost of which those Disciples to whom Paul there spake had not before that time so much at heard verse â— 2. There was no difference in substance or signification between the Baptism of John B. and that which was administred by the Disciples of Christ as hath been shewed 3. It is not said in the cited place that Paul baptized them but onely that he laid his hands on them as we noted Add hereto that his self saith That he baptized only Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanus but besides he knew not whether he baptized any other Now Crispus was a Corinthian Gaius a Macedonian and Stephanus of Achaia I Cor. 16. 15. but 't is apparent that these Disciples mentioned Acts 19. were Ephesians verse I. and Ephesus a City of Asia Rev. I'II therefore he baptized them not and so here was no rebaptizing 4. These words When they heard this do not at all relate to the speech of Paul there historified but unto the preaching of John B. for if otherwise it would follow which the Papists affirm that Johns baptism was not the same with the Baptism of Christ and consequently that Christ whom John baptized and we baptized by the successors of Christs Disciples are not baptized with one and the same baptism whereas Christ bare the same circumcision which the Jews and for substance the same baptism with us Gentiles that he might declare himself the Saviour both of Jews
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
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
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