being there to command them to preach and to set to the Seal of the Gospel-covenant mentioning no particulars but intimating that all those that were of capacitie should be taught and that those that were not of present understanding yet if born of such persons as had given their names to Christ should be admitted to the seal of the righteousness of faith in Christ that they might be instructed when and as they were able to learn There are two conditions of Baptism Beleeve and Repent which seeing Infants as such cannot do their baptism ought to be deferred until they can We answer 1 These are the conditions If the question were concerning persons of years to be baptised but it is concerning Infants on whom no such condition is or can reasonably for the present be laid 2 The argument is impious and ridiculous as if one should say the condition of eating is labouring which seeing Infants cannot do let their eating or feeding be defered till they can The Apostle saith If there be any that will not labour let him not eat 2 Thess. 3. 10. who of any sense doth not understand that of those that can and will not and why not so in believing and repenting seeing that God requireth impossibilities neither in things temporal nor spiritual 3 As in the baptism of those who are of years a previous faith is required so is a subsequent faith of those who are baptized Infants which if they afterward have not they forfeit the benefit of the Seal which they received 4 Though Infants as such cannot have actual faith yet have they the seeds thereof in baptism covered or shut up in the habitual beginning of grace which Christ both can and doth work in them Nor is it simply necessary that the Sacraments should in the same moment in which they are administred effect all things which they figure or represent yea a dilatory paction hath place when in the making thereof there is some invincible let to present performance as want of the present use of reason is to infants faith repentance and obedience to the Gospel unto which they are by Covenant bound in their baptism and indeed to be within the Covenant gives the Infant a just capacitie to the seal of the same Now Infants of believing and baptized parents are within the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. Christ was not baptized in his Infancie although the Deitie hypostatically united dwelt in him fully but deferred the same untill he was about 30 years of age therefore what ever habitual faith or seeds of grace can be pretended to for infants they ought not to be baptized until they come of years to know what they do We answer 1 Christ requireth not that we should imitate him in all that he did which is proposed to us for doctrine but not for imitation for example he was both circumcised as being of the feed of Abraham under the Law the righteousness whereof he was to perform Mat. 3. 15. and also baptized if we should be so Christ should profit us nothing Gal. 5. 2. 2 The time was not come at the birth of Christ for the repealing of the seals of the ceremonial Law nor was the seal of the new Covenant to be instituted untill the time drew near wherein he was to publish it by preaching the Gospel and accomplishing the great work of our redemption in his bloud therefore he that was Saviour both of Jews and Gentiles was circumcised in his Infancie and baptized as soon as that Sacrament was instituted 3 They that herein require imitation of Christ intimate a necessitie of deferring baptism untill the age of 30 years which our Antagonists that I know of do not practise 4 A bare example without a precept doth not bind to imitation Christ administred the communion with unleavened bread after supper in an upper room to twelve men only and no women but seeing we find no precept in the Gospel which commandeth us to do the same we believe we are not bound by that example 5. There was neither neglect contempt nor danger in so long delaying Christs Baptism there must needs be some of all these in the delay of our childrens Baptism Christ had no sin but we have both Original and Actual he not only foreknew but foreordained as God the manner and time as of his nativity so also of his death We neither know nor can appoint the time of our departures hence therefore we may not defer our childrens Baptism they may suddenly dye 6. Christ would not before that age be baptized and enter into his publike Ministry among other causes for this also that the truth hereof might answer the type preceding in the Levitical Priests who although they were received into the Colledge of Priests at five and twenty yet were they not admitted to exercise their Ministry until they were thirty years old Numb 4. 3. The Lords Supper may not be given to Infants by reason of their incapacity On the same ground neither ought Baptism the other Sacrament We answer That the reason why we may not administer the Communion to Infants is because God hath given an express command Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup And there followeth a dreadful reason For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body Now Infants can neither examine themselves nor discern the Lords body because they cannot understand the institution end use and condition of that Sacrament Therefore we do not administer it unto them until they can be instructed therein No such limitation can be shewed concerning Baptism for though Faith and Repentance be mentioned as conditions of Baptism and Remission of sins and Salvation to persons of years yet the case is far otherwise with Infants who though they cannot as such actually believe and repent yet we doubt not of their Remission of sins and salvation neither could those Infants who were circumcised actually believe and repent yet that barred them not from the Seal of the same Righteousness of Faith Again that which is said Mark 16. 16. is very considerable as hath been noted He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned It sheweth that the condition of believing is proposed to persons of years who may believe or obstinately reject the Gospel which Infants as such cannot do and therefore it cannot for present concern them without involving them all in the sentence of damnation which opinion were damnable and Antichristian Christ having positively pronounced for them Of such is the Kingdom of God To Infants to be born within Gods Covenant and to receive the Seal thereof obliging them to future Faith Repentance and Obedience is instead of all these Lastly Baptism is the Seal of Initiation Entrance and Admittance into the Church that therefore we give
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
infants have right to the holy CoÌ„munion as they have to strong meat but not a capacity as such or while they are infants and God hath in express terms restrained the Lords supper to those who can actually apprehend remember declare forth Christs death 1 Cor. 11 26. which because infants cannot do we give them not the Communion Secondly God hath denounced a grievous curse or punishment against any that shall presume without due examination of himself to eat of that bread drink of that cup but not so concerning Baptism it being the seal of our new-birth and reception into the visible Church and Covenant which hath no such condition annexed as may justly exclude Infants in respect of any present non-performance thereof But the Lords Supper is the Seal of our groâ—â—h in grace and spirituall strength instituted for the confirmation of our admittance into and our continuance in the Church of Christ whose death and passion for our redemption we thereby shew forth and commemorate for our spirituall perfection nourishment and strengthening in faith and other graces of his Spirit for our assurance that God having once received us into his favour will continue his mercy to us in Christ By these disparities the invalidity of the Pleaders Argument may appear And if it were true which he further saith that the wit of man is not able to shew a disparity in the sanction c. yet the wisdom of God is able and hath declared this difference in holy Scripture and the same can shew more then the wit of man can discern and hath shewed more then the learned Pleader doth or will understand who I conceive doth not yet know all that the wit of man or all the world can inform him of but is it not better even for those who have been in the Mount with God to cast the veil of modest humility over those excellencies which they have received and with which they shine to others admiration then to ostent them to the contempt of others The Apostle of Christ was rap't up into the third Heaven and yet professed we know in part and we prophesie in part 1 Cor. 13. 9. But you further say Since the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity give them the Communion c. That which you said a little before They are as honest and as reasonable that doe neither to wit baptize infants or give them the Comunion as those that understood the Obligation to be Parallel we may very well believe and wish that either of them may prove honest hereafter But to that which you say That the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity give them the Communion I answer 1. with Tertullian That is of the Lord and true which was first delivered but that is extraneous and false which is afterward received in And with Cyprian We ought not to heed what some before us have thought was to be done but what Christ did who was before all for we ought not to follow the custom of men but the truth of God 2 Your own rule must binde you though it cannot others who consent not thereto they who reject tradition when 't is against them must not pretend it at all for them pag. 237. Numb 25 3 It is considerable in that custome of the church as some other incoveniences which Augustine saith It is saith he one thing which we teach and another which we endure one thing which we are enjoyned to command and another thing which we are commanded to amend and untill we amend we are compelled to endure it And again who is eaten with the zeal of Gods house why he that endeavoureth and desireth to amend all that he sees amisse he resteth not if he cannot amend it he endureth it he sigh's the grain is not tossed out of the floor it endures the chaff that it may enter into the granary when the chaff is winnowed out 4 We adhere not so to tradition that we universally receive all that which was done or said of old things delivered by some but not generally received by the Church we esteem but superstructions of particular men or superseminations which possibly may spread farre as many pernicious opinions have done yet no sober man ever took them for Apostolicall or so much as Ecclesiasticall traditions we neither reject any tradition which appeareth to be Apostolicall if not peculiar to their times or suited peculiarly to certain times places or persons nor do we rashly receive any tradition for such except we are certain that the Scripture determineth nothing against it or where strong consequence from thence justifieth it 5 We conceive Augustines rule herein to be good In those things saith he concerning which divine Scripture determineth nothing certainly the custome of Gods people or institution of our ancestors are to be held for a law otherwise endlesse contention will arise also we must beware that the calm of charity be not clouded by the storm of contention 6 We will not rashly dissent from reverend antiquity wherein it dissenteth not from the truth we love peace with all who hold that in fundamentalls at least and therefore will follow Augustin's advice in that he piously saith concerning his reader where saith he he knows his errour let him return to me where mine let him recall me our rule being that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11 1. be yee followers of me even as I also am of Christ more no good man will require nor render lesse to Ancestors 7 Lastly we say that the Scripture which you cite Joh. 6. 53. except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you is not spoken concerning a Sacramentall but a spirituall feeding and although * some of the Jesuites and other Papists contend against us herein yet â—â— some of the most sober of them acknowledge that those words are not to be understood concerning eating or receiving the Lords super which ours generally maintain you might do your self right to joyn with us and not with the most eager Jesuites concerning the spirituall feeding of infants to eternall life by the merit of Christ applyed to them for their Union with him and salvation in and by him we willingly accord the manner of effecting by the secret power of the holy Ghost we enquire not after because it is not revealed but for the reasons alleaged we give them not the communion Next you say If Anabaptist shall be a name of disgrace why shall not some other name be invented for them that deny to communicate infants which shall be equally disgracefull c That would be a rare invention indeed but if to call Anabaptists Anabaptists be just why find you fault with it if evill or unjust why consult you how to imitate it by way of revenge is it not a shame to be such as we are or may well be ashamed to be
kneel or lie down one of these or if you can think of any other must needs be shew us either precept or practice obliging to either where is any precept of Christ obliging to a set or determined number of Communicants where are we commanded to administer to women where is any precept obliging to a place who knows not that these and the like things are left under the general rule Let all things be done decently and in order which observed they are not against the Analogie of Christs Doctrine Again what think you of the Sabath is that which we now doe therein against the Analogie of Christs Doctrine because we find no express precept or practice of Christ or his Disciples for the translation of it That it is and ought to be the Christian Sabbath is grounded on necessary consequence but no express precept 2. It is also notoriously false that Christ never gave any express precept to baptize all Nations without any exception to infants within the Covenant and who knoweth not that infants ever were and are a great part of every Nation what then though he never said in so many syllables or by naming infants go and baptize them also is it not sufficient to name all Nations without enumeration of particulars Indeed he needed not give such an express command concerning children seeing that he sent them to administer this seal of the new Covenant and Sacrament of initiation who were in the old their selves sealed in their infancy by circumcision and so used to that Doctrine of childrens being within the Covenant with believing parents and the daily practice of their initiation and reception into the communion of a visible Church that it might have seemed very superfluous to say any more then Go baptize all Nations There is also much difference Inter ecclesiam constituendam constitutam the Apostles business was generally to baptize Heathens and converted unbelievers but we have to deal with a Church constituted therefore faith and repentance were so often mentioned in the story of the Apostles practice but we living in a setled Church have to deal with baptizing infants who cannot yet actually believe or repent But in that no particulars are mentioned in Christs universal command to baptize it sheweth that all within the Church-priviledg and Covenant of God are included Again whereas you require a command in terminis for baptizing infants I demand Where doth he in terminis say Baptize men of years or Kings peasants rich poor high low men women Citizens Countrey-men Fishers Husbandmen Threshers Shooemakers Taylors Shop-keepers or Mechanicks He commandeth that all be baptized of what sex age condition or estate whatsoever they be which appertain to any Nation So in general Prescripts Laws Grants and Franchises the rehersal of particulars is not requisite because such things pass on the whole kind therein contained and will that the censure or priviledg concern all particulars within that general except in case of any exemption of some specified particular or exception made by him who made the Covenant or granted the Priviledges We cannot find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these very words in any place of Scripture Baptize Women or administer the Lords Supper to women yet from these general precepts Baptize all Nations take eat this is my body and dâ—iâ—k ye all of it now it is evident that the twelve Apostles only were then present when he instituted this Sacrament and that he spake and administred it unto them only yet I say we all without quarrel about it baptize women and respectively administer the Lords Supper to them as included in the general precepts and why are we not contented with a general precept including childrens baptism seeing no exception of the Covenant-maker can appear to the contrary Lastly we say again that the reason why Christ gave his Disciples no express or peculiar command concerning baptizing infants but included them in the general was because the Apostles were so well acquainted with childrens reception into the Church-priviledges and sealing into the same that they could not reasonably make any question of baptizing infants having a general command to baptize all Nations infants being under the Law circumcised and knowing moreover that the grace of God was not more strict or restrained in the new Testament then in the old but contrarywise more diffused or large and therefore a greater and more difficult question might have been concerning the baptism of women there being neither analogie from circumcision nor particular precept to induce them to baptize them but that they knew that the general precept was authority sufficient without specifying particulars in terminis You say more All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous dispositions to baptism of which infants are not capable and these are faith and repentance Your whole scope is fallacious form your Argument Christ and his Apostles in all that he or they said concerning baptism required faith and repentance as previous dispositions to baptism but no infant can believe or repent ergo infants are not previously disposed to or capable of baptism according to that Christ or his Apostles ever said 1. We say here is a Paralogism or fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simplicitèr Your Major is true if you speak of persons of years to be instructed but false concerning children because he never requireth any impossibility 2. He that appointed Infants baptism requires no other previous disposition to infant-baptism but such as they are capable of that is of being admitted into the visible Church and sealed with the external Seal thereof into the future profession of faith and repentance Adde hereto that children under the Gospel are thus capable of the seal of faith as children were under the Law although they cannot actually repent or believe which were and are no less previous dispositions if we speak of persons of mature years to be baptized But if your dispute be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your ignoratio elenchi may not pass for current reason if by previous dispositions to baptism of men of years you would obtrude the same on infants concerning whom we say that actual faith or repentance are no more previous dispositions to baptism then they were to circumcision And so you see that I might reasonably answer all that you say herein by rejecting your consequence but for the prudent Readers further satisfaction I say 3. Aprevious disposition necessary to the capacity of a thing is considerable either as it is in or of the subject 1. A previous disposition in the subject we may understand either as a self-disposing by some intrinsecal and inward faculty or as a being extrinsecally disposed and fitted by some other power to a capacity or receptibility of something which yet it hath not neither was capable thereof before such a disposition Now this in our present instance presupposeth or speaks some change of the mind
proceed what man were sufficient for that Office The examples of Simon Magus Judas Demas c. shew enough that the most discerning men may be deceived in others fair profession and who can foresee the final estates of men and women baptized I cannot reasonably think that you take all those for elect whom your selves baptize or that your baptism shall doe them all good And if you dispute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning one and the same faith in several degrees that is if you mean the seeds or habit of faith that Minor is false for elect infants have the seeds of faith in baptism though they be not formed in them yet by the secret working of the spirit the seeds thereof for a time lying hidden in them shall flourish and shew their growth in them in newness of life If you mean it of actual faith that want of that condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discovereth the Paralogism And we say infants want of actual faith in present infancy thereof incapable concludeth nothing against their having of it in mature age and so as little against their baptism I cannot conclude so well as in Augustins words But some may say the things do some men no good what must the Medicine therefore be neglected because some mens pestilence is incurable So that if baptism be necessary then so is faith and much more for want of faith damneth absolutely I demand then Do infants believe Why do ye deny them baptism or because they have not faith do you conclude them all damned who die in their infancy That were a damnable assertion and to pay you with your own coyn Against the perpetual analogie of Christs Doctrine who commanded infants to be brought unto him bless them and positively affirmed that Of such is the Kingdom of heaven Further I say If your Proposition be universal it is notoriously false for all want of faith doth not absolutely damn For 1. They who pray for faith or the increases thereof as the Disciples did want faith yet were they not damned he that hungereth and thirsteth for the righteousness of faith wanteth the same for hunger and thirst are of emptiness yet Christ pronounceth such blessed 2. He that now believeth not may hereafter believe It was Pauls case had you seen him persecute the faith and faithfull in ignorance and unbelief would you presently have devoted him to absolute damnation Judg not that you be not judged I know no man living that wanteth not faith and I pray the good Lord to help my unbelief and exhort you otherwise to express your fancies that they prove not snares to weak and afflicted consciences Then you say it is sottish to say the same incapacitâ— of reason and faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of baptism c. A very acute and witty assertion indeed but we answer 1. By this principle you might have been as blasphemous against Gods Ordinance in circumcision had you lived under the Law 2. We say not but that infants by their incapacity are excused from actual susception of baptism for they cannot act thereto But parents are not excusable if they contemn or neglect their parts in sealing those that are joynt heirs of the Promises and Covenant of God with them and their children because they have a capacity to promote and effect it and this appeareth in the History of Moses Exod. 4. 24 25. We very well know that infants cannot come and desire the Seals their present incapacity excuseth them from that they cannot possibly do but their parents or friends can intreat it for them and present them to it so that infants have a passive capacity they cannot profess faith and repentance but their parents professing of the same interesseth them in all those external Church-priviledges whereof they are capable and so to be born in the Church is to them and for them instead and in place of their profession What your terms of reasonably and humanely received do mean if to any purpose want interpretation The conclusion you say is that baptism is also to be deferred till the time of faith Why might you not say the same also concerning circumcision It is certain that by the same you may conclude that many thousand persons of age must never be baptized because they never come to believe as for their profession no man can say whether it be hypocritical or not Since faith is necessary to the susception of baptism c. True in adult is what is this to our present question concerning infants We have often said that this your arguing a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter is fallacious and not passable among young Sophisters and we owe no other answer then denying the consequence Our contest is about Infant-baptism wherein we say a present actual faith is not required It is necessary or at least the profession thereof in those who present to or administer baptism we cannot say so of infants to whom God doth not yet give the use of reason therefore they cannot first believe and after receive the Seal as Abraham did But therefore they are to be baptized that they may attain faith and salvation So the word preached profiteth not if it be not mixed with faith in them that hear yet is the preaching thereof an effectual means whereby God will work faith in the hearers To conclude Baptism profiteth not without faith yet is it an effectual means whereby God worketh regeneration and salvation therefore none within his Covenant are to be barred from it It is not improbably conjectured by some that therefore the Disciples forbad them to bring children to Christ because they thought children have not faith nor can any teach them who are yet incapable of doctrine Possibly they did not yet understand the abolition of the old Seal for the introduction of the new nor how baptism was to succeed circumcision that was sometime after disputed and determined Actâ— 1 â—â— 2. but Christ was much displeased with it rebuked them and seriously protested that of such is the kingdom of heaven Whatever can be said to take off from the necessity of actual saith all that and much more you say may be said to excuse from the actual susception of baptism True in adultis but most faise in infants I am weary of telling you of your fallacious arguing à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Again if here by actual susception of baptism you mean that infants are to be excused from it we have answered in the foregoing paragraph if you mean from administration of infant baptism we deny your assertion and expect proof The second device you say was of Calvin and his You said before that some said infants have imputative saith and by the number you now attribute it to Calvin indeed Mr. Calvin saith as I have noted That infants are baptized into future repentance and faith which although