Felo de se, or, Mr. Richard Baxter's self-destroying manifested in twenty arguments against infant-baptism / gathered out of his own writing, in his second disputation of right to sacraments by John Tombes.

Felo de se, or, Mr. Richard Baxter's self-destroying manifested in twenty arguments against infant-baptism / gathered out of his own writing, in his second disputation of right to sacraments by John Tombes.

Table of contents

Title page

To the Christian READER.

Felo de Se.

Felo de Se.

[Page]

MAster Baxter of right to Sacraments, disp. 2. pag. 53. Argum. 1. If we must not baptize any who profess not true repentance, then must we not baptize any Infants; but the antecedent is true. Therefore, &c. The consequence of the major, is manifest, sith this proposition on which it depends, Infants profess not true repentance, is manifest by sense. The antecedent is easily proved from Scripture, and I know not whether any Protestant deny it. I prove 1. that Repentance, 2. and such as is proper to the effectually called is necessary to be professed by all that we may baptize; I will joyn the proof of both together. Argum. 1. If John Baptist required the profession of true repentance in men before he would baptize them, then so must we: but John did so, therefore the consequence is clear. 1. For either John [...] baptism and Christs were the same, as most of our Divines against the Papists do maintain (though Zanchy, and some few more follow the judgement of the ancient Doctors in this) or as Calvin Institut, saith, the difference seems to be but this, that John baptized them into the Messiah to come, and the Apostles into the name of the Messiah already come. 2. Or if the difference be greater we may argue a fortiori, from the more forcible: if Johns baptism required a profession of repentance, then much more Christs; for certainly Christ required not less then John, not did he take the impenitent into his Kingdom whom John excluded. The antecedent I prove. 1. From Mark 1. 3, 4. He preached, [...], the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. And doubless that repentance which is in remissionem pecatorum, unto the remission of sins, is true special repentance. One of our Divines, and many of the Papists have sound another evasion: That is, that John did engage them to repent, but not requiring a profession of repentance as foregoing baptism; but this is against the whole current of expositors, ancient and modern, and 2. against the plain scope of the Text. The words in Matth. 3 6. are [they were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins] This confession was with, yea before their baptism; and this confession was the profession of repentance that John required. Maldonate on the text, having first railed at Calvin and slandered him, as turning baptism into preaching, (as if he had expounded Johns baptizing, not of water baptism but preaching, when he onely shews that both should go together) doth tell the Protestants that they cannot prove by this text that confession went before baptism, because it is named after; but that he might not seem utterly impudent, he confesseth that the thing is true, and that is the sense of the text, and this he confesseth because he must rather be a faithful expositor, then a subtile adversary. And if any should say that it's onely confession that's [Page] required, which is no certain sign of true repentance, I answer: When John saith▪ if we confess our sins, he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins] he to [...]k that confession to be a sign of true repentance, and our expositors and the ancients befor them agree, that it was such a confession as was conjunct with a detestation and renouncing of the sin, and it is expounded by that of Acts 19. 18. as Grotius noteth, to have a special detestation of the sin accompanying it, where to the word [...] is added [...], confessing and shewing their deeds. And it may suffice that the baptism to which this confession was required, is the baptism of repentance.

But it is objected that in the 11. vers. of Matth. 3. It is said by John [I baptize you with water to repentance] Therefore it is but an engagement of them to it for the future.

Answ. Our Expositors have fully shewed that this signifieth no more, but [I baptize you upon your present profession of repentance, to newness of life] for that this profession did go before is proved already, & then the rest can be no more, than the continuance of repentance and exercise of it in newness of [...]ife, which they are engaged to for the future: Onely if any falsly profess it at present his own confession is an engagement to it as a duty. Grotius saith, that [ [...] potest non incommode exponi hoc modo, baptizo vos super professione paenitentiae quam facitis, unto repentance may commodiously be thus expounded; I baptize you upon profession of repentance, which ye make. The plain meaning is in a word [I do by baptism initiate you into the state of repentance, or of penitents] but Christ shall give the Holy Ghost (as it was poured forth) And so (as Pelargus speaks in Matth. 3. against Salm [...]ron) we maintain Johns baptism to be effectual, being the baptism of repentance to remission of sin: And that it was true repentance that he required appeareth further by the fruits of it, that he calleth from the Ph [...]ri [...]ees, Matth. 3. 6, 7, 8, 9. Lastly, I shall prove anon that God hath not appointed us to baptize any upon a promise of repentance or faith, before they profess actual faith and repentance, nor are they fit for such a covenant.

Argum. 2. For the proof of the necessity of a profession of repentance before baptism, is this: If Jesus Christ hath by Scripture, precept, and example, directed us to baptize those that profess true repentance and no other, then we must baptize them and no other: But the antecedent is true, therefore to is the consequent. All that requireth proof is of the antecedent, which I prove from an [...]numeration of those texts that do afford us this direction (besides the fore-mentioned.)

1. Jesus Christ himself did by preaching repentance prepare men for baptism, end for his Kingdom, as John before began to do, Matth. 4. 17. so Matth. 1. 15. The Kingdom of God is at hand, repent ye and believe the Gospe [...]; and to that end he sent his Apostles and other Preachers, Mark 16. 12. Acts 17. 30. Luke 24. 47. Repentance and remission is to be preached to all [...]tions in his name▪ and baptism which is for the obsignation of remission of [...]n, according to the appointed order, comes after repentance.

And when it is said by John. [I baptize you with water to repentance, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost] Matth. 3. 11. Mark 1. 8. Luke [Page] 3. 16. It implieth that Christs baptism comprehended Johns and somewhat more. In Acts 2. 37, 38. When the Jews were pricked in their heart (which was a preparatorie repentance) and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles [men and brethren what shall we do?] Peter saith to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins] so that we must require and expect true evangelical repentance to be professed before baptism. For verse 41. its added [Then they that gladly received his word were baptized] so that he baptized none that to outward appearance did not gladly receive that word, which could not be without a profession of that repentance. And he that hence perswadeth to repent and be baptized for remission, doth in the next chapter, verse 19. require them to repent, and be converted, that their sins may be blotted out, shewing what kind of repentance it is that he meaneth; and as the work of general Preachers to the unbelieving world is sometimes called a disciplining of nations, which goeth before baptizing them, Matth. 28. 19, 20. So it is in other places called a preaching of repentance and commanding all men every where to repent, Acts 17. 30. an opening of mens eyes and turning them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission (obsigned in baptism) Acts 26. 18. 1. Repent and turn to God, verse 20. And if it was the sum of Pauls preaching to the unbaptized [repentance toward God, and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ] Acts 20. 21. So that it is apparent that they took the profession or appearance of both faith and repentance as prerequisite to baptism, and still this same repentance is it that hath the remission of sin connexed, Acts. 5. 31. Luke 24. 47. Its repentance unto life, Acts 11. 18. And when the Apostles compare Johns baptism with Christs, they still acknowledge Johns to be baptism of repentance, Acts 13. 24. and 19. 4. and when the Apostle doth purposely recite the principle of our Religion he doth it in this order. Heb. 6. 1, 2. [The foundation of repentance from dead works and saith towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms, &c.]

Argum. 3. They that before they are baptized must renounce the world, the flesh and the devil, must profess true Evangelical repentance (I mean still such as hath a promise of pardon and salvation) but all that are baptized must renounce the world, flesh and devil, of which we shall have occasion to say more anon.

Argum. 4. They that profess to be buried with Christ in baptism, and to rise again, do profess true repentance; but all that are baptized must profess to be buried with him and rise again, therefore, &c. The major is proved in that to be buried and risen with Christ, signifieth, A being dead to sin and alive to God, and newness of life: and it is not onely an engagement of this for the future, but a profession also of it at the present. This with the rest we thus prove, Col. 2. 11, 12, 13. In whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead, and you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. Where note 1. that this is spoken to all the Church of [Page] the Colossians▪ and therefore they are presumed to be what they profess and appear to be. 2. That the putting of the body under the water did signifie our burial with Christ and the death and putting off of our sins; and though we now use a less quantity of water, yet it is to signifie the same thing, or else we should destroy the being of the Sacrament. So also our rising out of the water signifieth our rising and being quickned together with him. 3. Note also that it is not onely an engagement to this hereafter, but a thing presently done. They were in baptism buried with Christ, and put off the body of sin, and were quickned with him; and this doth all suppose their own present profession to put off the body of sin, and their consent to be baptized on these terms.

The like we have in Rom. 6. chapter 4. 5. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the father, even so we also should walk in newness of life; for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shal be also into the likeness of his resurrection. Here also it is evident, 1. that all the members of the visible Church are supposed to be baptized into Christ, and into his death, & so to be buried with him by baptism into death & planted together into the likeness of his death. 2. And that this is not supposed to be onely an engagement for the future, but a present entrance into the state of mortification and vivification wherein they were to proceed by newness of life; and therefore verse 5, 6, 7, 8, 11. they are supposed to have the old man crucified with Christ that the body of sin might be destroyed, and that henceforth they should not serve sin, and that they are so dead as to be freed from sin, as to the servitude thereof. And that they must reckon themselves dead to sin, but alive to God. He that readeth the whole chapter with judgement and impartialitie, will soon discern that true repentance and abrenuntiation of the service of sin, was to be professed by all that would be baptized; and that thereupon they sealed their own profession and covenant by the reception of baptism, as Christ sealed his part by the actual baptizing them; and that hereupon they are by the Apostles all called and supposed such as they professed themselves to be.

Argum. 5. If it be the very nature of baptism to signifie and seal both the present putting off the body of sin, and present putting on Christ, then the profession of true repentance must needs precede or concur with baptism: but the former is certain; of which more anon. I conclude then that both Scripture, and the very signs themselves, and the common consent of the Church do shew that true repentance and present repentance must be professed by all those that we may baptize.

Pag. 62. Argum. 2. My first Argument was from the necessity of a profession of true repentance. The 2. shall be from the equipollent terms, a description to the thing described, thus: We must baptize no man that first professeth not to believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: But no Infant professeth to believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; therefore we must baptize no Infant: The minor is manifest by sense. The major is proved from Matth. 28. 19. where this is made the form of the words in baptism, or at least the end, and that which we must insist on▪ Calvin [Page] on the words yields the Anabaptists that faith is put justly before baptism, nam alioqui mendax essot, figuraque remissionem peccatorum & spiritus donum afferes incredulis, qui nondum essent Christi membra. For otherwise he should speak false, and the figure should bring remission of sins, and the gift of the spirit to unbelievers, who were not members of Christ. And that, non abs re, Patris, Filii & spiritus expressa hic fit mentio, quia aliter baptismi vis apprehendi non potest, quam si a gratuita patris miserecordia initium fiat, qui nos per filium sibi reconciliat, deinde in medium prodeat Christus ipse cum mortis suae sacrificio, & tandem accedat etiam Spiritus sanctus per quem nos abluit & regenerat; denique suorum omnium bonorum consor [...]es faciat. Not from the matter, here is express mention made of the Father, Son, and Spirit, because otherwise the efficacie of baptism cannot be apprehended, but by beginning from the Fathers free mercy, who reconciles us to himself by his Son, and then that Christ himself come between with the sacrifice of his death, and then at last the holy spirit also approach, by which he washeth and regenerates us, and last of all makes us partakers of his benefits. It appeareth by comparing Matth. 28. 19. with Rom. 6. 3. and 1 Cor. 1. 13, 14, 15. and 10. 2. that to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is not onely to be baptized by their authority, but also to be thus initiated into the relation which the Church standeth in to them, and to be consecrated to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as Musculus, Diodate, the assembly of Divines Annotations, and the generality of expositors do express. See Doctor Hammond, Pract. Catech. lib. 6. 5. 2. And especially on Matth. 28. 19. Grotius at large, and that it comprehendeth or presupposeth a profession of believing Son and Holy Ghost. For no man can devote himself solemnly by our ministry to the Holy Trinity, that doth not first profess to believe in them: therefore the Chuch over taught the Catechumeni the creed first, in which they profess to believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And before they actually baptized them, they asked them whether they believed in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? To which they must answer affirmatively, or not be baptized. And all that are baptized must first profess to believe in his Name, and so to receive him, and not onely promise to do it hereafter. I adde that the same faith that is mentioned in the ordinary Creed in the Church, is meant in the baptismal profession, and to be required before baptism; this will be confessed. 1. Because the creed it self hath been this 1300. years at least professed before baptism. 2. because the creed it self is but the 3. fundamental baptismal articles mentioned, Matth. 28. 19. enlarged and explained on subsequent occasions (as Sandford, and Parker, de Descensu have learnedly and largley proved, and Grotius in Matth. 28. 19. proves out of Tertullian, &c. that the creed was not then in the form of words as now, though the same doctrine was used in other words, to the same uses.

Pag. 68. Argum. 3. The foregoing Argument was taken from the prerequisite profession, the next shall be taken from the very work it self, viz. the presenting and offering our selves to be baptized, and willingly receiving baptism: thus,

If it be the very nature or appointed use of the ex [...]eanal part of baptism it self [Page] (yea essential to it) to signifie and profess (among other things) the saving faith and repentance of the baptized, then true baptism cannot go without such a profession. But the baptism of Infants is without such a profession, therefore the baptism of Infants is not true baptism. The minor is manifest by sense. The antecedent (which onely requireth proof) I prove thus: It is of the instituted nature of baptism to be in general, a professing sign as well as an engaging sign, de futuro, for the future: This I premise, as granted by all Christians that I know of that have written of baptism, and then let us consider of the several parts of the sign or external Ordinance, with the signification of each; that it is essential to it to be significant and obligatory on our part, as well as on Gods part, is commonly confessed. And 1. the Minister doth baptize him into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and the party doth consent thereto, 1. voluntarily offering himself to be bapitzed, and then 2. voluntarily receiving that baptism. And his offer of himself hereto, goeth before the Ministers baptizing him, and his reception of that baptism is essential to it: So that baptism essentially containeth on his part a signal profession of consent to that which is meant in the form used by the Minister [I Baptize thee into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost] And that is, that God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be mine, and I be theirs, in the relations in which they are offered in the Gospel to Mankind; for all confess that it is a Covenant that is here sealed, and so a mutual consent which the signs are instituted by Christ to signifie. Christ offereth himself to be related to me as my Jesus Christ; and by offering my self to baptism, and by voluntary receiving it, I do actually profess my acceptance of his offer, that is of himself so offered. God the Father offereth himself to be my God reconciled in Christ, and so my chief good: and by voluntary receiving baptism I do signally profess my acceptance of him so offered. The Holy Ghost is offered to be my Sanctifyer and guide; and by voluntary reception of baptism into his Name, I do signally profess my acceptance of him so offered: So that it is a most clear case, that baptism as baptism, according to its instituted nature and use, doth contain the persons actual signal profession of present assent to the truth of the Gospel, and acceptance of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as therein offered. And it containeth (as our Divines commonly maintain) an actual signal profession that we there presently consecrate or devote, or dedicate our selves to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the foresaid relations. 2. Another part of baptism is, the Ministers washing the person, and the person first offering himself to be washed, and after actually receiving it, doth thereby signally profess his consent. Now this washing doth essentially signifie our washing from our former filth of sin, together with the guilt; our putting off the old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts of the flesh. He that signally professeth his present consent to be washed by the blood of Christ from his former filthiness and guilt, and to lay by the filthiness of flesh and Spirit, doth co nomine profess saving faith and repentance. But all that are baptized with the baptism of Christs institution, do by the very voluntary reception of baptism, so profess; therefore they do thereby profess saving Faith and Repen [...]

3. Quad modum as to the manner; its commonly confessed by us to the [Page] Anabaptists (as our commentators declare) that in the Apostles times the baptized were dipped over head in the water, and that this signifieth their profession, both of believing the bu [...]ial and resurrection of Christ, and of their own present renouncing the world and flesh, or dying to sin and living to Christ, or rising again to newness of life, or being buried and risen again with Christ, as the Apostle expoundeth in the forecited texts of Col. 2. and Rom. 6. And though we have thought it lawful to disuse the manner of dipping, and to use less water, yet we presume not to change the use and signification of it: So then, he, that signally professeth to die and rise again in baptism with Christ, doth signally profess saving faith and repentance. But thus do all that are baptized according to the Apostles practice: Therefore, &c.

Pag. 74. Argum. 4. If we must baptize none that profess not their consent to enter themselves presently into the covenant of grace with God in Christ, Then we must baptize no Infant, but the former is true; Therefore, &c. The consequence is manifest, sith it is manifest even by sense, that Infants profess not their consent to enter themselves into the covenant of Grace with God in Christ.

The antecedent I think will be granted by many of the Papists, and it is the common Doctrine of the Protestants; and therefore as to them I need not prove it.

I confess, some of the Anbaptists, and some few others, do question whether baptism be a seal of the covenant of grace; but the quarrel is mostly, if not onely, about the bare word [Seal] for they confess that in sense which we mean by sealing; and particularly they confess, that we do in baptism enter into the convenant of God, and that it is a professing and engaging sign on our part, as well as an exhibiting, notifying, confirming sign on Gods part. It is confest it is the covenant of grace we are to enter, and that there is but one covenant of grace.

This Master Blake acknowledgeth, for all the mention of an outward covenant: it is also a confessed thing on all hands that it is God that is the first author and offerer of the covenant, that it is he that redeemed us, who made the promise or covenant of grace upon the ground of redemption; and that it is frequently called a covenant in Scripture, as it is a Divine Law or constitution, without respect to mans consent, as Grotius hath proved in the preface to his annotations on the Evangelists: much more (out of doubt) is it, that it is called a covenant before man consenteth, as it is a covenant offered, and not yet mutually entred; in the former sense the word is taken properly, but in another sense and for another thing then in the later. But in the later it is taken tropically, viz. Synedochically, it being but a covenant drawn up and consented to by God conditionally, and offered to us for our con [...]ent. It is the same covenant that is offered to us and not another, that we are called to consent to or enter in, and we cannot be truly said to enter into covenant with God if we make a new one of our own, and lay by his; for that's none of the covenant of God: he never offered it, nor will he ever enter it.

We are I hope agreed what the covenant of grace is, as offered on Gods part (or else its great pity;) viz. that on the title of cre [...]n first and redemption [Page] after, we being absolutely his own, it is offered to us, that God will be our God (our chief good and reconciled father in Christ) that Christ will be our Saviour (by propitiation teaching and ruling us) even from the guilt, filth, or power of sin, that the Holy Ghost will be our indwelling Sanctifier, if we heartily or sincerely accept the gift and offer, that God will consent to be our God, Christ to be our Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost to be our in-dwelling Sanctifier, if we will but consent. This is no doubt the gift or covenant so offered. These things being thus premised, I come to prove not onely the inseparability but even the identity of heart covenan [...]ing and saving faith, and of signal external covenanting and the profession of saving faith, without which we must not baptize any.

Pag. 79. Argum. 5. We must not baptize any without the profession of that faith and repentance which are made the condition of remission of sins. But Infants make no profession of that faith and repentance which are made the condition of remission of sins, therefore no Infants are to be baptized; The minor is manifest by sense, and the major I prove thus.

If we must not baptize any but intentionally for present remission of sin, then must not we baptize any without a profession of that faith and repentance which is the condition of remission. But the former is true, therefore so is the [...]uer; the consequence is past all doubt, for else we should imagine that men may have present actual pardon without that faith and repentance which are the condition of it, which subverteth much of the Gospel. The antecedent I prove thus:

If God hath instituted no baptism, but what is intentionally for the present remission of sin, then we must not baptize any but intentionally for the present remission of sin: But the former is true, therefore so is the later. I say [intentionally] in contradistinction from [eventually, or certainly and infallibly attaining that end] where further note, that I speak not of Gods absolute decrees, as if his intention in that sense could be frustrate; but of his ends as Legislator speaking of him after the manner of men, but principally of the instituted end of his ordinances; that is, the ends which he requireth the Minister and People to use them for, and so it is our intention principally that I mention. As the Gospel it self is said to be intentionally to save men, and though it condemn most, that is besides the first intention and but by accident; and though this be principally to be spoken of the prae-imposed intentions of their conversion and salvation; yet Christ is pleased in the word to ascribe such intentions to himself as attain not their ends, as professing that he came not into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him migh be saved: That is, to condemn them is not his direct principal intent, but onely on supposition of their wilfull final rejecting of him; and thus he speaks partly in the habit of a rector or promiser, and partly as man, or after the manner of men: and of the intention imposed on us there is no doubt.

Now I shall prove the antecedent (for the consequence is past doubt:) And first we are confirmed in this truth, because the Opponent (whom it concerneth) hath not proved any other baptism instituted by God, but what is for present re [...]ission of sins. If they can shew us one Text of Scripture that speaketh of any other, we shall give up all the cause; but yet they have not [Page] done it that I know of. In the mean time we shall prove the contrary, God hath instituted but one baptism: That one baptism is for the present remission of sins, therefore God hath instituted no baptism but what is for present remission.

The major is proved from Ephes. 4. 5. There is one baptism. In the minor we take the words [for remission] not to speak of somewhat accidental, or to be intended onely by the administrator, uncertainly or but sometime. And I prove it from Scripture, Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, as remission is here made the end of baptism so it is present remission. For 1. It is such as is the consequent of the repentance which Peter exhorteth them to, but that was present remission. 2. It was to precede the giving of the Holy Ghost in the sense there mentioned, therefore it was present remission. Beza in loc. upon the place, saith, [in nomen Christi] id est dans Christo nomen, cujus mortis, scpulturae ac resurrectionis simus in baptizo participes, cum peccatorum remissione, nec enim hoc declarat formulam baptismi s [...]d finem & scopum. In the name of Christ, That is, giving our name to Christ, of whose death, burial, and resurrection, we are made partakers in baptism, with the forgiveness of sins, for this doth not declare the form of baptism, but the end and scope. So Deodate [in the name] viz. [not onely for a mark of our profession of the Gospel, but also to participate of his spiritual virtue in the washing away of our sins, with which he accompanieth and ratifieth the external ceremony in those who are his] Bullinger in loc. saith, Baptiz [...]ri in nomine Domini Jesu Christi, est baptismatis signo testari se Christo credere ad remissionem peccatorum. To be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, is by the sign of baptism, to testifie that we believe in Christ for the remission of sins. 1. Mark, It is not onely an engagement to believe hereafter, but the profession of a present faith. 2. And that not a common faith, but that which hath remission of sin. 3. And this was not an accidental separable use of baptism; but he makes this the very exposition of baptizari in nomine Jesu Christi, to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. And thus he expoundeth the covenant, [est enim baptismus pactum seu foedus gratiae, quod init inter baptizandum nobiscum Christus] For baptism is an agreement or covenant of grace, which Christ enters into with us, when we are baptized. And that it is a professing sign of our true repentance, he shews before [& rectissime conjungitur paenitentia & baptismus, quia baptismus paenitentiae signum est] and most rightly is repentance and baptism joyned together, between baptism is the sign of repentance. Calvin in loc. upon the place, Per baptismum (ut Paulus docet) crucifigitur vetus homo noster, ut in vitae novitatem resurgamus, by baptism (as Paul teacheth) our old man is crucified, that we may rise to newness of life. Rom. 6. 4. 8. Item indutmus Christum ipsum, G [...]l. 3. 27. 1 Cor. 12. & passim docet Scriptura esse paenitentiae quoque Symbolum. Also we put on Christ himself, and the Scripture doth up and down teach it, to be also a badge of repentance. Calvin on Acts 22. 16. Non dubium est quin fideliter rudimentis Pietatis Paulum imbuerit Ananias; neque enim ver [...] fidei expertem baptizasset, nor doubt but Ananias did faithfully instruct Pa [...]l in the rudiments of Piety, neither would he have baptize [...] him▪ if he had been void of [Page] true faith. John 3. 5. [Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdome of God] though we are agreed against the Papists, that Christ intendeth not here to place the same necessity in baptism, as there is in or of the new birth by the spirit; yet it is by most acknowledged, that Christ doth here speak of the new birth as signified by baptism, and so hath respect to baptism, as the ordinary confirming sign: And so the Text fully sheweth us, that baptism is instituted to be the sign of our present regeneration, or else it could not be said that we must be born [of water and the spirit.]

Calvin saith, most are of Chrysostomes mind, who took it to be meant of baptism: (and so did the generality of ancient Expositors) and though himself and some more think otherwise, yet as long as they take it to be a metonymical expression, the sign being put for the thing signified, it doth as well acquaint us with the use of baptism, as if it were a proper speech. Bullinger in loc▪ upon the place, saith [Hanc Christi sententiam omnes pene de baptismo interpretantur] almost all interpret this Scripture of Christ to baptism. Beza believeth, that the Text speaketh of baptism either Christs or some other, but rather Christs, Justly doth Beza in Mark 1. 4. fall upon Erasmus sharply, for saying [ [...] [in] praep [...]sitio praeparationem significat, non effectum: the preposition in, signifieth a preparation, and not the effect: Because repentance and remission (saith Beza) cannot be separated; so that he took it not to be a common preparatory repentance or baptism.

Piscator on Mark. 14. saith, Its called the baptism of repentance for remission of sin, because John preached remission of sin to the penitent and believers, praecip iebatque ut inhujus rei testimontum atque professionem baptiz [...]rentur. He concluded that they should be baptized, in testimony and profession of this thing; and that is called [...] the baptism of repentance, id est, qui resipiscentiae testificandae atque profitenda adbibebatur: Neque enim baptizabat nisi eos qui confessione peccatorum [...]dita, resipiscentiam suam testatam reddebant: Caeterum nomine resipiscentiae per synecdochen membri simul intelligenda est fides in Christum, that is to say, was used to testifie and profess repentance; neither did he baptize any but those who by confession of their sins testified their repentance, but by a Synecdoche of a part for the whole, is also to be understood, Faith in Christ, And on Matth. 3. 11. Observe he shews that Christs baptism and Johns are the same, in that both have the same end and use, viz. obsignatio remissionis peccatorum & resipiscentiae, The sealing of remission of sins and repentance; that is, as already extant, as his judgement is oft delivered; as in his Schol. on ver. 11. he expresly faith [In resipiscentiam, id est in testimonium resipiscentiae; ut nimi [...]um susceptione baptismi testatum faciatis vor resipuisse, & indies magis ac magis resipiscere velle: sed simul hic intelligendum, Joannem baptizasse quoque in remissionem peccatorum, hoc est ut nimirum nomine Dei testatum faceret resipiscentibus & in Christum credentibus peccata ipsis remissa esse propter Christum agnum Dei] Unto repentance, that is, in testimony of repentance, viz. that by receiving of baptism you testifie that you have repented, and that you will daily renew your repentance more and more; but withal we must here understand, that John did baptize also for the remission of sins, that is, that he might testifie in the name of God, to the penitents [Page] and believers in Christ, that their sins were forgiven them for the sake of Christ the Lamb of God. And I pray mark his observation on Mat. 3. 6. 8. 10 concluding our present question: [Baptismus nulli adulto conferendus est nisi prius ediderit confessionem peccatorum & fidei in Christum, ac praterea promissionem sanctae vitae] Baptism is not to be administred to any of age, unless he first make confession of his sins, and of his faith in Christ, and besides a promise of a holy life, which he proves.

Calvin on Matth. 3. 6. saith [Ergo ut se rite ad baptismum offerant homines, peccatorum confessio ab illis requiritur, alioqui nihil quam inane esset ludicrum tota actio] Therefore that men may rightly offer themselves to baptism, confession of sins is required of men, otherwise the whole action would be nothing else but sport. If I had charged the guilty so of making the whole work of baptism Ludicrous, they would have been highly offended (and yet Paedobaptists do so.)

Paraeus on Matth. 3. 5. shews that the order was that confession as a testimony of true repentance go first, and then baptism for remission of sins [confessio postponitur; sed [...] constructionis—confessi baptizabantur: Pro, cum con [...]essi essent peccata, baptismum accipiebant sacramentum remissionis peccatorum: non prius baptizabantur, postea confitebantur —Auditores igitur primo in testimonium resipiscentiae confitebantur sua peccata, deinde baptizabantur, tertio fide baptismi fructum suscipiebant remissionem peccatorum. Docet hic locus varia. 1. Quod baptismus sit sacramentum remissionis peccatorum, ex parte Dei; spondet enim Deus ceu ju rejurande baptizatis remissionem gratuitam peccatorum propter Christum. 2. Quod sit etiam sacramentum resipiscentiae ex parte nostra; restipulamur enim Deo fidem & paenitentiam pro tanto beneficio. Confession is put after, but in construction the first is to be last; those who confessed were baptized, for when they confessed their sins, they received baptism, a Sacrament of the forgiveness of their sins; they were not baptized first, and confessed their sins after, the hearers then first confessed their sins in testimony of their repentance, then they were baptized, thirdly by faith they received the fruit of baptism; the remission of sins: this place teacheth divers things. 1. That baptism is a Sacrament of the forgiveness of sins, on Gods part, for God promiseth as by an oath, to those who are baptized, a free pardon of sin for Christs sake: 2. That it is also a Sacrament of repentance on our part, for we again engage to God, Faith and Repentance, for so great a benefit; That is, both profess it at present, and ingage to continue in it; answering the interrogation credis? with a credo, and not onely a credam. Doest thou believe; I do believe in the present tense, and not onely I will believe, in the future. Ad Sacramenta non esse admittendos impenitentes. Hoc enim damus (Anabaptistis) in Ecclesiam suscipiendos & baptizandes non esse nisi praevia confessione Fidei & paenitentiae: quem morem & vetus servavit ecclesia, & nostrae hodei observant, si vel Judaeus vel Turca adults baptismo sit▪ initiandus. Impenitents are not to be admitted to the Sacraments: for this we grant to the Anabaptists, that such are not to be required into the Church, nor to be baptized, who have not first made confession of faith and repentance, which custom both the ancient Church did observe, and ours observe at this day, if either a Jew or a Turk of age is to be admitted by baptism. And on verse 7. [Page] he saith, Ex concione ipsa datur intelligi, multos illorum simulata paenitentia etiam baptismum petivisse: Horum hypocrisin cum non ignoraret, non passus eos latere in turba, nec ad baptismum indignos admisit, sed acri objurgatione, hortatione & comminatione ad seriam resipiscentiam extimulat, & ad baptismum praeparat. From the sermon it self its to be understood, many of them also required baptism by a feigned repentance, when as he understood their hypocrisie, he suffered them not to lurk in the croud, neither admitted he to baptism those that were unworthy of it, but stirs them up to a serious repentance, by sharp reprehension, exhorting and threatning, and so prepares them unto baptism; after he shews, that there are hypocritae manifesti quos pastores admittere non debent sine examine, ne Sacramenta prostituant, sibi & ecclesiae reatum attrahant, Manifest hypocrites, whom Pastors ought not to admit without examination, least they prostitute the Sacraments, and contract guilt to themselves and the Church. And pag. 56. against Maldonate he proveth the baptism of Christ and John all one; and when Maldonate saith, that John baptized in panitentiam, & baptismus praecedebat, paenitentia sequebatur, unto repentance, and that baptism went before, and repentance followed, (confessing that in Christs baptism repentance precedes) he answereth [that it is faise, nam etiam in Joannis baptismo praecedebat paenitentiae, sequebatur baptismus] For repentance did also precede in Johns baptism, and baptism followed.

2 Pet. 1. 9. It is said of the barren ungodly professor [That he hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins,] where I take it for a clear case, that it is the baptismal washing which the Apostle there intendeth, wherein all profess to put off the old man, and to be washed from their former filthiness; for I suppose we shall be loath to yield that it was an actual cleansing either of remission or mortification, which the Apostle meaneth, lest we grant that men may fall from such a state; and therefore it must be a Sacramental washing, or cleansing, wherein the matter was appearingly and sacramentally transacted. From whence it is plain that the Apostle took it for granted, that as all the baptized were visibly Church-members, so were they all visibly washed from their old sins; which sheweth both what was their own profession, and what was the stated end and use of the ordinance. The Apostle saith not that [he hath forgotten that he promised or engaged to be purged from his old sins] but that [he was purged] from them. Paraeus in locum, upon the place, saith, [A veteribus peccatis purgatum, hoc est se esse baptizatum, seu se accepisse in baptismo purgationis signaculum. Omnes enim baptizati debent purgari a peccatis, sicut dicuntur induere Christum, Gal. 3. mori cum Christo, Rom. 6. sensus est, qui se volutant in sceleribus, non recordantur se baptizatos esse, abnegant ergo baptismum suum] That he was purged from his old sins, that is, was baptized, or had received in baptism the seal of purging, for all those who are baptized, ought to be purged from their sins, as they are said to put on Christ, to die with Christ, the meaning is, they which wallow in their sins, do not remember they were baptized, and therefore do renounce their baptism. 1 Cor. 6. 11. the Apostle saith of the visible Church of Corinth [such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, &c.] where it is evident, that all the visible members of the Church are visibly washed, sanctified, justified: And I think it is clear [Page] that by washing here he hath some respect to their baptism. So that I conclude that there is no baptism to be administred without a profession of saving faith and repentance foregoing, because there is no baptism that ever Christ appointed but what is for the obsignation of remission of sins, which is the consequent.

Master Blake, pag. 171. reciteth some words of mine containing this argument, thus; That faith to which the promise of remission and justification is made, must also be sealed to: Or that faith which is the condition of the promise, is the condition in foro De [...], in the Court of God, of the title to the seal: But it is onely solid true faith that is the condition of the promise of remission; therefore it is that which gives right in foro Dei, in the Court of God, to the seal. Who would think now but Master Blake had given some substantial answer to this and other Arguments, when himself and some others are so confident of the sufficiency of them? His answer is this: [To this I have answered, faith is not sealed to, but remission of sins or salvation upon condition of faith; and when I come to speak of the sealing of Sacraments, I shall (God willing) make this more evident, that the Sacrament qua seal immediately respects our priviledges, not duties] Reply 1. Is here one word of answer to any real part of this Argument. Is not this answer as little to the matter, as if he had talked of another subject. I think it my duty to say that Ministers of the Gospel do but proclaim to the Church the matter of our common lamentation, and the enemies joy, when some confidently publish such kind of Disputations, and others are satisfied with them; and I must say if all were such, they should never be angred with one word of mine in opposition to their assertions, though they would maintain that the Crow is white. 2. To that useless touch that he hath on a word (whose following explication might have spared him his labour) I may say that our Divines have ordinarily maintained hitherto that there is a mutual covenanting between God and us, (and no man more then Master Blake) and that there is in the Sacrament a mutual sealing; the receiving being our seal, as the act is Gods.

Pag. 88. Argum. 6. If baptism be instituted to be a seal of the righteousness of that faith which we have yet being unbaptized, then must we baptize none that profess not a justifying faith. But no Infants profess a justifying faith, therefore we must baptize no Infants; The minor is manifest by sense. The reason of the consequence is evident, in that we must use baptism onely according to its nature and to its instituted ends: The antecedent is proved thus:

Circumcision was instituted to be a seal of the righteousness of that faith which we have yet unbaptized. The consequence will not be denied by them whom we now deal with: because they confesse that baptism succeedeth circumcision. The antecedent is evident in Rom. 4. 11. it being expresly said of Abraham to whom circumcision was first given. I cannot imagine what they will say, unless it be by recourse to the Anabaptists shift, to say that circumcision was instituted to this end indeed, to Abraham himself, and others that were sincere, but not to all that had right to it; but God here tells us the established use and end of his ordinance, and in such relations, [Page] the end is inseparable. And as God hath not made many sorts of baptisms or circumcisions: So neither many meer inconsistent ends (or separable) and we are likest to know the true end of the institution, where the institution and first example are reported to us. Calvin in loc. saith, Duae denique ut baptismi hodie sunt, ita olim circumcisionis erant partes, nempe, tam vitae novitatem, quam peccatorum remissionem testari: Lastly, as there are two parts at this day of baptism, so of old there were two of circumcision, viz. to witness, as newness of life, so forgiveness of sins. Saith Piscator, in loc. upon the place, Sicut olim circumcisio signum suit faeleris gratiae, & figillum quo credentibus obsignata fuit justitia fidei, hoc est, quo illi certiores sunt redditi, sibi remssa esse peccata, propter futuram satisfactionem Christi, ac proinde se babere Deam propitium ac foventem; ita caetera quoque sacramenta, &c. similiter & finis seu scopus omnium sacramentorum unus idemque, viz. obsignatio justitiae fidei, quae vulgo dicitur fidei confirmatio. Paraeus in loc. saith [ita signum fuit dantis & accipientis respectu, &c.] Et [Justitia fidei est remissio peccatorum fide accepta propter redemptionem Christi] et [sic Sacramenta non sunt instituta justificandis, sed justificatis, hoc est non infidelibus sed conversis, non igiturnisi conversione & fide sumi debent: secus sigilla justitiae esse cessant: quid enim non babentibus fidem & justitiam obsignarent? As circumcision was of old a sign of the covenant of grace, and a seal whereby was sealed the righteousness of faith to believers, that is to say, whereby they were certified that their sins were forgiven them, by receiving of the future satisfaction of Christ, and therefore they had God propitious and favouring unto them, so also the other Sacraments, &c. Also the end or scope of all the Sacraments is as one and the same, viz. the signing of the righteousness of faith, which is commonly called the confirmation of faith, so it was a sign both in respect of the giver, and receiver, &c. and the righteousness of faith is the forgiveness of sins by faith, received because of Christs redemption, and so the Sacraments are not instituted for those who are to be justified, but for the justified, that is, not for unbelievers, but for those which are converted, therefore are they not to be taken without conversion and saith, otherwise they were to be seals of righteousness, for what would it seal to them, who have not faith and repentance?

Doctor Willet, in loc. saith [circumcision then did not conser upon him that grace which he had not, but did confirm and establish him in the grace and faith received: the sacraments then non instituta sunt justificandis, sed justificatis, are not instituted for those which are to be justified, but for them which are already justified Parae.] Peter Martyr is large, and makes these words Rom. 4. 11. of Paul to be the definition of a Sacrament, to be a seal of the righteousness of faith.

Pag. 91. Argum 7. We must baptize none but those that are first professed Disciples of Christ. But none are professed Disciples of Christ that profess not saving saith in Christ, therefore we may not baptize any that profess not saving faith in Christ: But no Infant doth profess saving faith in Christ, as is manifest by sense; therefore no Infant is a professed Disciple of Christ, nor must we baptize any. The major is proved from Matth. 28. 19. Go, Disciple me all nations baptizing them] As for those that say, they are discipled by baptizing, and not before baptizing, 1. They speak not the sense of that Text. 2. Nor that which is true or rational, if they mean it absolutely [Page] as so spoken, else why should one be baptized more then another? 3. But if they mean that by heart-covenant or Gods acceptance and promise they are Disciples before, but not so compleatly till the covenant be sealed and solemnized, as a Souldier is not so signally a Souldier till he be listed, nor a King till he be Crowned so fully a King, or a man and woman so fully maried till it be solemnized in the congregation; in this sense they say the same that I am proving: men must be first Disciples by the professed consent, before they are declared such by the seals or publick sacramental solemnization.

And that onely the professors of saving saith are Disciples, may appear by a perusal of the texts of Scripture that use this word, and it will not onely by found that this which I maintain is the ordinary use of the word (which should make it so also with us) but that no Text can be cited where any others are called the Disciples of Christ. For the major and minor both observe Piscators definition of baptism [on Matth 28. 19.] Baptismus est sacrimentum novi testamenti, quo homines ad ecclesiam pertinentes ex mandato Christi cultui veri Dei, qui est Pater, Filius & Spiritus sarctus per ministros verbi consecrantur, & in fide remissionis peccatorum & spe vitae aternae confirmantur. Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament, by which those men who belong to the Church, by the command of Christ, are consecrated to the worship of the true God, which is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by the Ministers of the word, and are confirmed in the faith of remission of sins, and of hope of eternal life. And he proveth this description, per partes, by parts. 1. That is a Sacrament. 2. That it belongeth to those that pertain to that Church, and that onely must be baptized, qui ecclesiam suerint ingressi, ac fidem Evangelii prosessi, who are entred into the Church, and have professed the faith of the Gospel. Which he proveth from Mark 16. 16. He that believeth, and is baptized shall be saved. Vult ergo (saith he) ut prius constet de alicujus fide quam baptizetur, unde Act. 8. Philippus Evangelista non prius baptizare voluit eunuchum illum Ethiopem quam is professus esse [...] fidem Christi. He wills therefore, that his faith be manifested, before he be baptized, whence Acts. 8. Philip the Evangelist would not baptize the Ethiopian Ennuch, before he had professed the faith of Christ. Calvin in loc. upon the place, saith [Bapti [...]ri Jubet Christus qui nomen Evangelii dederint, s [...]que professi fuerint discipulos, partim ut illis baptismus si [...] vitae aeternae tessera coram Deo; partim apud homines externum fidei signum: quem ad modum gratiam suam Deus hoc sigillo nobis confirmat, ita quicunque se ad baptismum offerunt, vicissim quasi data syngrapha obstringunt s [...]am sidem] Christ commands them to be baptized, who have given up their names to the Gospel, and have professed to be his Disciples, partly that baptism might be to them a sign of eternal life before God, partly an external sign of Faith before men, and as God confirms his grace to us by this seal, so whosoever offers himself to baptism, doth reciprocally engage his faith as it were by his bond. And after [verum quia docere prius jubet Christus quam baptizare, & tantum credentes ad baptismum vult recipi, videtur non rite administrari baptismus nisi fides pracesserit] But because Christ commands first to teach, then to baptize, and onely will have believers to be received to baptism, it seems that baptism is not rightly administred, unless faith doth precede. So [Page] that it is Calvins judgement, that this very Text which is the most notable copy of the Apostolical commission for the baptizing of the Disciple nations doth appoint that saving faith be professed before men be baptized. Paraeus in locum, from Mark 16. 16. sheweth that the order is, [...]redere & baptizari, to believe and to be baptized.

I agree with him and the rest in the main, that justifying Faith must be an act of the Will (embracing or accepting an offered Christ) as well as of the understanding, and that the profession of it must go before baptism.

But I shall further prove the minor from some other texts of Scripture, viz. that they are not Christs Disciples that profess not saving Faith. Luke 14 26, 27, 33. [If any man come to me and hate not his Father and Mother, and Wife and Children, and Brothers and Sisters; yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my Disciple: and whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my Disciple: whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my Disciple] This is spoken of true Disciples in heart (the first significatum) by him that knew the heart. From whence I argue thus:

[If none are Christs Disciples in heart, nor can be, but those that value him above all, and will forsake all for him if he require it, then none can be his Disciples by external profession, but those that profess to esteem him above all, and to be willing to forsake all rather then forsake him: But the former is proved by the Text; the consequence is clear, in that the world hath hitherto been acquainted but with two sorts of Christians, or Disciples of Christ; the one such sincerely in heart, and the other such by profession, and the later are so called because they profess to be what the other are indeed, and what themselves are if they sincerely so profess. And it is the same thing professed which makes a man a professed Christian, which being found in the heart doth make a man a hearty Christian. John 13. 35. [By this shall all men know that ye are my Disciples, if ye love one another] Here Christ giveth a certain badge by which his true Disciples may be known. If onely those that love one another are true Disciples in heart, then onely those that profess to love one another are Disciples by profession. Joh. 8. 31. If ye continue in my word then are ye (that is you will approve your selves) my Disciples indeed]

If onely those are Christs Disciples indeed as to the heart, that have the resolution of perseverance, then onely those are his professed Disciples that profess a resolution to persevere. But therefore all this I have said, is no more then we have ever practised, when in baptism we renounced the world, flesh, and devil, and promised to fight under Christs banner to our lives end. Saith Piscator in John 13. 35. Si pro Christianis, id est, Christi Discipulis haberi volumus, oportet ut nos mutuo quam ardentisaime diligamus, &c. If we will be accounted Christians, that is, Christs Disciples, we ought most ardently to love one another.

Object. Any one is a Disciple that is willing to learn of Christ.

Answ. No such matter: in an improper sense you may so call them, but not in Scripture sense; where 1. A Disciple and a Christian are all one, Acts 11. 26. but every one that is willing to learn of Christ is not a Christian, therefore not a Disciple. 2. A Disciple of Christ is one that will take him [Page] for the great prophet of the Church [which whosoever heareth not shall be cut off from Gods people] and will learn of him as of the Christ: but so will not all that will learn of him: for a man that taketh Christ but for a common wise man, as Socrates or Plato may be willing to learn of him: And so may be his Disciple in another sense, but not in the Christian sense as a Christian.

Pag. 96. Argum. 8. We ought not to baptize those persons that do not so much as profess their forsaking of the childhood and Kingdom of the Devil: But no Infant doth profess its forsaking of the childhood and kingdom of the Devil, as is manifest by sense, therefore we ought to baptize no Infant. The maior is proved thus:

If we must baptize none but for present admission into the Kingdom of Christ, then we must baptize none but those that promise a present departure from the Kingdom of the Devil; but the former is true, therefore so is the later. The antecedent is granted by those that I have to do with; the reason of the consequence is evident, in that all the world is divided into these two kingdomes, and they are so opposite that there is no passing into one but from the other. The minor of the first argument I prove thus. All they are visiby in the kingdom of the Devil, or not so much as by profession removed out of it, who profess not a removal from that condition in which the wrath of God abideth on them, and they are excluded by the Gospel from everlasting life, but such are all that profess not a justifying faith. The major is proved, in that it is the condition of the covenant of grace performed that differenceth the members of Christs Kingdom from Satans; and so it is that condition profest to be performed that visibly differenceth them before men. It is the promise of grace that bringeth them out of Satans Kingdome, therefore it is onely done visibly to those that profess the performance of the condition: moreover to be out of Satans Kingdom visibly, is to be visibly from under his government, but those that profess not saving faith are not visibly from under his government.

Lastly, to be visibly out of Satans Kingdom, is to be visibly freed from his power, as the executioner of Gods eternal vengeance; but so are none that profess not saving faith.

The minor is proved from John 3. 36. Where it is plain, 1. That the unbelief spoken of is that which is opposed to saving faith, even to that saith which hath here the promise of everlasting life, 2. And that this leaves them visibly under the wrath of God.

So in Mark 16. 16. compared with Matth. 27. 19. In the later Christ bids them make him Disciples, and in the former he describeth those that are such, and those that remain still in the Kingdom of Satan [He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned] Here it is evident that the unbelief threatned is that which is contrary to [and even the privation of] the faith that salvation is expresly promised to, and that all that profess not this saving faith are not so much as professedly escaped a state of damnation, and that this is the differencing character of Christs Disciples to be baptized [of which yet more afterwards.]

Pag. 98. Argum. 9. If it be the appointed use of all Christian baptism to solemnize our mariage with Christ, or to seal or confirm our union with [Page] him, or ingraffing into him, then must we baptize none that profess not justifying faith [because this is necessarily prerequisite, and no other can pretend to union, mariage or ingraffing into Christ] But no Infant doth profess justifying Faith, as is manifest by sense; therefore we must baptize no Infant.

Both the antecedent and consequent are evident in Gal. 3. 27, 28, 29. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ: Ye are all one in Christ Jesus, and if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to promise. Here 1. we see that it is not an accidental or separable thing for baptism to be our visible entrance into Christ, our putting him on, our admittance (by solemnization) into the state of Gods children and heirs according to promise. For this is affirmed of all the baptized with true Christian baptism. If we be truely baptized, we are baptized into Christ, if we are baptized into Christ, then we are Christs, and have put on Christ, and are all one in Christ, and are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to promise. If any object that the Apostle speaks this but of some of them, even of the regenerate, because he saith [as many of you] I answer,

It is manifest that he speaks of all, 1. because it was of all them that were baptized into Christ, 2. he expresly saith as much in the next foregoing words [ver. 26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus] To which the words recited are annexed as the proof [for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ] the assumption is implied [but you have all been baptized into Christ] therefore ye have all put on Christ, and so in him are all the children of God. 2. Note that they are the special gifts of saving grace that are here ascribed to all the baptized. 3. Note also that all this is said and proved to be by faith. 4. Note also that it is expresly said to be a justifying faith, before vers. 24. [that we might be justified by faith.] Indeed this text affordeth us divers Arguments. 1. The Apostle supposeth all the baptized to profess a justifying faith, among the Galatians, therefore so must we suppose of others, and expect that they do it. The antecedent is proved from vers. 24, 25, and 27. compared. 2. All the baptized are said to have put on Christ, therefore they are supposed to profess that faith by which Christ is put on: But that is onely justfying faith. 3. All that are duely baptized are baptized into Christ, therefore they are supposed to profess that faith by which men are united, or ingraffed into Christ, but that is onely justifying faith; but the rest of the Arguments here will be further touched on anon.

Master Rutherford saith that Scripture no where calleth Christ the head of the visible Church as such, as it is after cited.

I conclude then that Christ hath app [...]inted no baptism but what is for a visible mariage of the soul to himself (as Protestants ordinarily confess) Therefore he hath appointed no baptism but for those that profess to take Jesus Christ for their Husband, and to give up themselves to him as his espouse: but this is a profession of justifying faith, for heartily to take Christ for our head and husband is true saving faith, and proper to his own regenerate pecple if any thing in the world be so; and no man can profess to be maried to Christ that doth not profess to take him for a husband. Therefore for my part [Page] I never intend to baptize any without profession of saving faith, Amen. And let the Lord God say so too, that Mr. B [...]xter may baptize no more Infants, nor defend so palpable an abuse, but may wipe away the reproach he hath cast on Gods people and ordinance: He goes on thus.

Pag. 100. Argum. 10. If Paul account all the baptized Saints or Sanctified men dead with Christ and risen with him, such as have put on Christ, sons of God by adoption, Abrahams seed, heirs according to promise and justified; then they did all profess a true justifying faith. But no Infant did profess a true justifying faith: if they did let it be sh [...]wed when, and where, and to whom: therefore no Infant was then baptized, nor are now to be.

The antecedent Master Blake confesseth, and I shall prove it by parts. The consequence is that which lyeth chiefly on me to prove, and I shall do both together.

The Apostle in the beginning of his Epistle to the Corinthians, and in many other places calls the whole Church Saints, 1 Cor. 6. 11. He saith to them [but ye are washed, ye are sanctified] That part of the antecedent then is certain; the consequene I prove thus.

There are none called Saints in all the New Testament, but onely such as were in heart devoted to Christ by a saving faith, or professed so much, therefore the word Saint in this case must signifie onely such. If any will prove a third sort of Saints, viz. such as profess a faith not saving, they must do that which I never saw done.

The first and most famous signification of the word Saints or Sanctified in the New Testament, is onely of them that are in heart devoted to Christ by true faith; therefore the borrowed, or Analogical, or less proper signification (call it what you list) must be of that which hath the likeness or appearance of this, and that is onely the profession of it. Profession maketh Saints visible, or by profession, as hearty dedication to God by faith maketh real or heart Saints.

Master Blake addeth [we read of Churches of the Saints, 1 Cor. 14. 33. And they were taken to be Church-members as soon as they made profession, as they ceased to be Jews or Pagans, and took them to the way of Christianity, as we see, Acts 2. Acts 8. 12. 13. 38.]

Answ. 1. They renounced the way of ungodliness, and wickedness in general by a profession of repentance, as well as the way of Paganism and Judaism in particular. There were no Christians that professed not repentance towards God from dead works 2. We believe that there were Churches of the Saints, and therefore that none should be of the Church that profess not to be true Saints. But prove if you can that there was ever either Church or Church-member called Saints in Scripture, that had not either special sanctity or a profession of it. And as for those Acts 8. you cannot prove that any of them were either called Saints or baptized without a profession of a justifying faith: as shall further be shewed afterwards. The Galatians I find not called Saints, but to call them a Church of Christ or believers is equipollent: and what Saints were they? Why they were all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus, having been baptized into Christ, and put him on, and were all one in him, and were all Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise, Gal. 3. 26, 27, 29. A Church in Scripture sense, is a society of [Page] men professing true saving faith. And thus we see what a Church was, and what Saints were, and what believers and Disciples were supposed to be by the Apostles, and what is the signification of these words in Scripture, for they are all of the same extent. Thus much I have said to prove that all the baptized are accounted Saints, and therefore professed a saving Sanctity.

The second title which I mentioned follows (of which I shall be more brief) All the baptized are accounted to be dead and risen with Christ, even dead to sin, and risen to newness of life; therefore they all profess a saving faith. The proof of this is full in the two Texts already cited, Rom. 6. and Col. 2. 11, 12. Rom. 6. 3. &c. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together into the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurection, knowing this that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that hence forth we should not serve sin; for he that is dead is freed from sin.

Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.

Likewise, reckon ye also your selves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Here is a full report of the use of baptism, and the profession of all that are baptized, and the state they are supposed to be in. So that I cannot speak it plainlyer then the words themselves do. So Col. 2. 11, 12. which I shall not stay to recite, because it is to the same purpose, and before cited.

The third title mentioned in the argument is this: All that are baptized have professedly put on Christ; therefore they have professed saving faith. The Antecedent is expressed Gal. 3. 23. [for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ] the consequence is proved in that to put on Christ heartily, is to be made true partakers of him, and living members of him, therefore to profess this is inseperable from the profession of saving faith; yea by that faith he is truly put on. Putting on Christ is the same with [putting on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness, being renewed in the Spirit of our minds, Ephes. 4. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Col. 3. 10. It is putting on the new man which is renewed in knowledge according to the image of him that created him] and putting on the Lord Jesus Christ is put for the state of Sanctity in opposition to a fleshly life, Rom. 13. 13, 14.

Saith Calvin on this Text [induere Christum bic significat virtute spiritus ejus undique nos muniri, qua idonei ad omnes sanctitatis partes reddamur: sic enim in nobis instauratur imago Dei quae unicum est animae ornamentum. Respicit enim Paulus ad vocationis nostrae finem, quia Deus nos adoptans in corpus unigenti filii sui inserit, & quidem hac lege, ut nos abdicantes priore vita fiamus in ipso novi homines. Quare etiam alibi fideles dicit Christum induere in baptismo, Gal. 3. 27.] To put on Christ signifies here to be defended in all points with the virtue of the Spirit, whereby we may be fit for all parts of holiness, for thus the image of God is renewed in us, which is the onely ornament of the soul, for Paul hath respect to the end [Page] of our vocation, because God adopting us, hath ingraffed us in the body of his onely begotten Son, and that upon those terms, if we deny our former life, and become new men in him: wherefore he saith elsewhere, that believers put on Christ in baptism. Aud upon Gal. 3. 27. he saith [Quum dicit, Christum induisse, intelligit Christo sic esse infitos; ut coram Deo nomen ac personam Christi gerant, ac in ipso magis quam in seipsis censcantur. When he saith they have put on Christ, he understands that they are so ingraffed in Christ, that they carry that name and person of Christ in the sight of God, and are rather reckoned in him, then in themselves. And he comes to the objection, How all that are baptized can be said to put on Christ, when baptism is not effectual with all? And he answereth in summe, That to Hypocrites it is uneffectual, qui nudis signis superbiunt, who are proud with the bare signs. But then he saith, that the Apostle speaking of these non resspicit Dei institutionem, sed impiorum corruptelam. He hath no respect to Gods institution, but to the corruption of the wicked. (But doubtless it is Gods institution that we must look to in our administration) Qaum autem fideles alloquitur, qui rite utuntur illa, tunc conjungit cum sua veritate, quam figurant. Quare? neque enim fallacem pompam ostentat in sacramentis, sed quae externa caremonia figurat, exhibet simul reipsa. Hinc fit, ut veritas, secundum Dei institutum, conjuncta sit cum signis] But when he speaks to believers, who use it rightly, he joyns them with their truth, which they typifie. Wherefore? for he doth not make shew of a deceitful pomp in the Sacraments, but what the external ceremony figures, he exhibites together in very deed. Hence it comes to pass that truth, according to Gods institution, is joyned with the signs. To the same purpose say other Protestants.

The next title mentioned in the Argument was, Sons of God. All that are baptized are the visible or esteemed sons of God by saith in Christ; therefore they all profess that justifying faith to which that real or special sonship is promised. The antecedent is expressed in Gal. 3, 26, 27. [For ye are all the sons of God by saith in Christ Jesus] which he proveth in the next words [For as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ] What Sons of God are in Scripture sense may be seen, John 1. 12. Rom. 8. 14, 15. Phil. 2. 15. 2 John 3. 1, 2. Gal. 4. 1, 2, 5, 7. and Rom. 8. 17. [if sons, then heirs, heirs of God, and joynt heirs with Christ] was a good consequence in Pauls judgement [In this (saith John) the children of God are manifest from the children of the Devils: Whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother, 1 John 3. 10. See also John 11. 52. Rom. 8. 16. 21.

But Master Blake objecteth Rom. 9. 4. [To them pertained the adoption] and Gomarus his comment.

Answ. 1. Gomarus saith not, that any were in either sense Sons of God without a profession of a saving faith. 2. It was not after their unchurching or unbelief, that the adoption is said to pertain to them, but before, and then, let Master Blake prove [if he can] that any Israelites were adopted without profession of that faith, which was then saving: I doubt not to prove the contrary anon. And 3. If he could prove that such there were among the Israelites, yet he will never prove that they are called Sons, though the Nation were; because the denomination was principally from the true Sons, and [Page] next from the professed ones: None are visibly sons that be not visibly true believers.

The next title mentioned in the Argument is [Abrahams seed] All that are baptized are called Abrahams seed, Gal. 3. 17, 18, 19. Therefore they all profess a justifying faith. The consequence is proved, in that none are Abrahams seed in Gospel sense, but those cordially that are true believers, and those appearingly that profess true faith. This is proved, Rom. 9. 4, 6, 7. Rom. 4. 11. [that he might be the Father of all them that believe, that righteousness might be imputed to them also] this therefore is a justifying faith, and the priviledge of the justified that is here mentioned. Its added vers. 12, 13. [And the Father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision, but also walk in the steps of the faith of our Father Abraham yet uncircumcised. For the promise that he should be heir of the world was not to Abraham or his seed by the Law, but by the righteousness of faith—Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, even to that also which is of the faith of Abraham the Father of us all.]

So Gal. 3. 6, 7, 8, 9. [Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness: Know ye therefore that they which are of saith, the same are the children of Abraham; And the Scripture fore-seeing that God would justifie the Heathen by faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham; In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then, they which be of saith are blessed with saithful Abraham] So vers. 14. 16. [That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Now to Abraham, and his seed were the promises made; he saith not, and to seeds as of many, but as of one; and to thy seed, which is Christ, and so to those that are in him. It is hence most undeniable, that all Abrahams true seed are justified, and have a justifying faith; and all his professing seed do profess this faith.

The next title mentioned in the Argument is, [Heirs according to the promise.] All the baptized were heirs according to the promise: None that profess not a justifying faith are heirs according to the promise (either really or appearingly) therefore none that profess not a justifying faith should be baptized. the major is expressed, Gal. 3. 17, 18, 19. the minor (of which is all the doubt) is proved from Rom. 8. 17. where there is an express concatenation of [children, heirs of God, coheirs with Christ, that suffering with him shall be glorified with him] Gal. 4. 1, 6, 7. The heir is Lord of all and a Son, and therefore hath the Spirit of the Son, by which they cry Abba Father. So Tit. 3. 5, 6, 7. [According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us, &c. that being Justified by his Grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life] The heirs then are regenerate, justified, and have the hope of eternal life. So Ephes. 3. 6. The Gentiles being made fellow-heirs, and of the same body are partakers of the promise in Christ by the Gospel, even the unsearchable riches of Christ, Heb. 6. 17. The heirs of promise have their salvation confirmed by Gods oath. And Heb. 1. 14. they are called the heirs of salvation. And Heb. 11. 6. 9. It is true justified believers that have that [Page] title, and James 2. 7. [They are called heirs of the promised Kingdom] and 1. Pet. 3. 7. they are called coheirs [of the same grace of life] So that to be heirs in the first and proper notion is to be Sons that have title to the inheritance of glory: and therefore to be heirs in the second analogical notion is to be such as seem such by profession of that Faith which hath the promise of that glory.

The last title that I mentioned in the Argument was [Justified] Paul calleth all the baptized Church of Corinth Justified; None that profess not a justified Faith are called Justified, therefore none such should be baptized. The major I proved to Master Blake out of 1 Cor. 6. 11. [Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.]

Master Blake doth not at all deny the major or the sense of the Text alledged to prove it; but darkly in generals intimateth a denial of the minor, silently passing over that particular title [justified] as if he durst not be seen to take notice of it. I confess its sad that good men should be so unfaithful to the truth, which is so precious, and is not their own, and which they should do nothing against (as Master Baxter hath done) but all they can for it.

Having gon thus far about titles, let me add another; the title [Regenerate] Christ hath instituted no baptism, but what is to be a sign of present regeneration. But to men that profess not a justifying faith it cannot be administred as a sign of present regeneration; therefore he hath instituted no baptism to be administred to such.

The major I have proved already in the first Argument, and its plain in John 3. 5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God] And so in Tit. 3. 5. where it is called the laver of [regeneration] In both which though I am of their minde that think that the sign is put for the thing signified; yet it may thence plainly appear what is the thing signified, even regeneration, or the new birth: Yea so commonly was this acknowledged by all the Church of Christ, that there is nothing more common in the writings of the Fathers then to take the terms [regenerate, illuminate, &c. and baptized] as signifying the same thing, or at least spoken of the same person, which occasioned one of our late Antiquaries so stifly to plead that regeneration in Scripture signifyeth meer baptism, and that all the baptized are regenerate.

I grant that it oft falls out that baptism being misapplied sealeth not regeneration at present, and that the same person may afterward be regenerate, and his remembred baptism may be of use to him for the confirmation of his faith. But this is not the institutes commanded use of it, to be so administred at first, if the party profess not saving faith, though this review of it is a duty, where it was so abused at first. The minor I shall take for granted, while regeneration in Scripture stands so connexed to salvation; I know no regenerate ones, but the justified, or those that profess to have a justifying faith, nor hath he proved any more.

Pag. 118. Argum. 11. All that are meet subjects for baptism, (are after their baptism without any further inward qualification, at least without any other species of saith) meet subjects for the Lords Supper: But no Infant [Page]is a meet subject for the Lords Supper, as is acknowledged, therefore no Infant is a meet subject for baptism: Or thus, Those whom we may baptize, we may also admit to the Lords Supper: But we may admit no Infants to the Lords Supper, as is acknowledged by baptizers of Infants, therefore we may baptize no Infants.

The major Master Blake will easily grant me, and if any other deny it I prove it thus.

1. It is the same covenant that both Sacrament seal, one for initiation the other for confirmation and growth in grace; therefore the same saith that qualifieth for the one, doth sufficiently qualifie for the other, for the same covenant hath the same condition.

2. They are the same benefits that are conferred in baptism and the Lords Supper to the worthy receiver. Therefore the same qualification is necessary for the reception: The antecedents is commonly granted. Baptism uniteth to Christ, and giveth us himself first, and with himself the pardon of all past sins, &c. The Lords Supper by confirmation giveth us the same things; it is the giving of Christ himself, who saith by his Minister, Take, Eat, Drink; offering himself to us under the signs, and commanding us to take himself by faith, as we take the signs by the outward parts. He giveth us the pardon of sin, sealed and procured by his body broken, and his blood shed.

3. A member of Christs Church, against whom no accusation may be brought from some contradiction of his first profession, must be admitted to the Lords Supper; but the new baptized may be ordinarily such: therefore if he can but say, I am a baptized person, he hath a sufficient principal title to the Lords Supper, Coram Ecclesia, before the Church. [I mean such as we must admit] though some actual preparation be necessary, unless he be proved to have disabled his claim on that account either by nulling and reverting that profession, or by giving just cause of questioning it.

4. The Church hath ever from the Apostles dayes till now without question admitted the new baptized at age to the Lords Supper, without requiring any new species of faith to intitle them to it. I take the major therefore as past denial: I must confess as much as I am against separation, I never intend to have communion with Master Blakes congregation, if they profess not saving repentance and faith, And if he exact not such a profession, I say still he makes foul work in the Church, and when such foul work shall be voluntarily maintained, and the word of God abused for the defilement of the Church, and ordinances of God, it is a greater scandal to the weak and to the schismsticks, and a greater reproach to the Church, and sadder case to considerate men, then the too common pollutions of others, which are meerly through negligence, but not justified and defended.

Let Master Baxters own words judge him, who makes the same foul work in the Ordinance of baptism by admitting Infants to it upon a Parents or Proparents (as he terms them) profession, when all his proofs of the necessity of profession to go before baptism are of the profession of the party himself to be baptized, and this device of a Parents or Proparents profession instead of the Infants, is his [Page] own invention that hath not any intimation in Scripture, and by his own proofs makes Infants capable of the Lords Supper, and perverts the nature of Sacraments, which his own words do fully express, thus.

Pag. 123, 124. The first Argument of Master Gillespies 20. is from the nature of Sacraments, which are to signifie that we have already faith in Christ, remission of sin by him, and union with him. The sense of the argument is, That seeing Sacraments, (according to Christs institution) are confirming signs presupposing the thing signified both on our part and on Gods; therefore none should use them that have not first the thing signified by them. Though I undertake not to defend all the Arguments that other men use in this case, yet this doth so much concern the cause of baptism, which I am now debating, that I shall give you this reply to it. What Divines are there that deny the Sacraments to be mutual signs, and seals signifying our part as well as Gods? And how ill do you wrong the Church of God by seeking to make men believe that these things are new and strange? If it be so to you, it is a pity that it is so; but sure you have seen Master Gataker's Books against Doctor Ward, and Davenant, wherein you have multitudes of sentences recited out of our Protestant Divines, that affi [...]m this which you call new.

It is indeed their most common Doctrine, that the Sacrament doth presuppose remission of sins, and our faith, and that they are instituted to signifie these as in being.

It is the common Protestant Doctrine, that Sacraments do solemnize and publickly own and confirm the mutual covenant already entred in heart, as a King is Crowned, a Souldier Listed, a Man and Woman maried after professed consent: So that the sign is causal as to the consummation and delivery (as a Key or Twig and Turff in giving possession) but consequential to the contract as privately made, and the right given thereby; so that the soul is supposed to consent to have Christ as offered first [which is saving faith] and then by receiving him Sacramentally delivered, to make publick profession of that consent, and publickly to receive his sealed remission. Master Cobbet [cited by you] might well say, that primarily the Sacrament is Gods seal; but did he say that it is onely his, and not secondarily ours? And in the next words you do in effect own part of the Doctrine your self, which you have thus wondered at, as new and strange, saying; [I confess it is a Symbol of our profession of faith.

If you mean as you speak [taking profession properly] then 1. you yield that the Sacrament is our symbol, and so declareth or signifieth our action as well as Gods. 2. And it is not onely a sign of our profession, but a professing sign, and therefore a sign of the thing professed; for the external sign is to declare the internal acts of the mind, whi [...]h without signs others cannot know. As therefore the words and outwards actions [...] [...]wo distinct signs of the same internal acts, so are they two wayes of profess [...] My signal actions do not signifie my words (which are plainer signs the [...], and therefore need not darker to express them) but they both expre [...] mind; So that they are not only symbols of our professi [...] as you spea [...]t professing symbols 3. And if so, then they must be signs and professions of those internal acts, which correspond with them.

[Page] The Fourth Argument of Master Gillespy is from Rom. 4. 11. Circumcision was a seal of that righteousness of faith; therefore so is baptism, therefore it belongeth onely to justified believers. He that maketh it the instituted nature or use of circumcision to be a seal of righteousness of faith, which the person had before, doth make his circumcision a proof of his foregoing righteousness of faith.

Pag. 133. You cannot shew where ever the wicked are commanded to communicate with the Church in the Sacrament, but in this order; First to be converted and repent, and so baptized, and so communicate, Gillespy Aarons rod blossoming, pag. 514, 515. The assumption [that baptism it self is not a regenerating ordinance] I prove thus.

1. Because we read of no Persons baptized by the Apostles, except such as did profess faith in Christ, gladly received the word, and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of grace did appear (I say not that it really was in all, but somewhat of it did appear in all.) Baptism even of the aged must necessarily precede the Lords Supper.

Pag. 144. My Twelfth Argument is from Matth. 22. 12. [Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having on a wedding garment? and he was speechless] To [come in hither] is [to come into the Church of Christ.] By the wedding garment is undoubtedly meant, sincerity of true faith and repentance, so that I may hence argue:

If God will accuse and condemn men for coming into his Church, or the communion of Saints without sincere faith and repentance, then it is not the appointed use of baptism to initiate those that profess not sincere faith and repentance. But Infants profess not sincere faith and repentance, as is manifest by sense, therefore it is not the appointed use of baptism to initiate Infants.

Pag. 145. The Thirteenth Argument is this: We must baptize none that profess not themselves Christians; But no Infants profess themselves Christians, as is manifest by sense, therefore we must baptize no Infants. The major is certain, because it is the use of baptism to be our solemn listing sign into Christs Army, our, initiating sign, and the solemnization of our mariage to Christ, and professing sign that we are Christians, and we do in it dedicate and deliver up our selves to him in this relation as his own. So that in baptism we do not onely promise to be Christians, but profess that we are so already in heart, and now would be solemnly admitted among the number of Christians; the minor I prove thus.

1. No man is truely a Christian that is not truly a Disciple of Christ [that is plain Act. 11. 26.] No man is truly a Disciple of Christ that doth not profess a saving faith and repentance, therefore no man that doth not so profess is truly a Christian. The minor I prove thus: No man is truly a Disciple of Christ that doth not profess to forsake all contrary Masters, or Teachers, and to take Christ for his chief Teacher, consenting to learn of him the way to salvation: but no man maketh this profession that professeth not saving faith and repentance; Therefore no man that professeth not saving faith and repentance is truly a Disciple of Christ.

The major is evident in the nature of the relation, the minor is as evident, in that it is an act of saving Faith and repentance to forsake other Teachers, [Page] and to take Christ for our sole or chief teacher in order to salvation. 2. No man is truly a Christian that professeth not to take Christ for his Lord and King, forsaking his Enemies: But no man doth this but the professors of a saving faith. Therefore, &c. 3. No man is a true Christian that professeth not to take Christ for his Redeemer, who hath made propitiation for sin by his blood, and to esteem his blood as the Ransom for sinners, and to trust therein; but none do this but the professors of saving faith, therefore none else are Christians. The major of all these three Arguments is further proved thus:

No man is professedly a Christian that professeth not to accept of Christ as Christ [or to believe in Christ as Christ] but no man doth profess to take Christ as Christ, that professeth not to take or accept him as his Priest, Teacher and King; therefore. &c. The major is plain in it self: the minor is as plain, it being essential to Christ to be the Priest, Prophet, and King, and from these essentials related to us and accepted by us, doth our own denomination of Christians arise, and that a bare assent without acceptance doth not make any one a Christian is past doubt, and shall be further spoken to anon.

If baptism then be commonly called our Christening, and so be our entrance solemnly into the Christian state, then is it not to be given to them that are not so much as Christians by profession. And furthermore if a Faith defective in the assenting part about the essentials of its object, serve not to denominate a man justly a Christian, then a Faith defective in the consenting or accepting part above the essentials of the object serveth not to denominate a man a Christian; but the antecedent is true, therefore so is the consequent. The antecedent is proved, because else the Turks are Christians, because they believe so many and so great things of Christ; and else a man might be a Christian that denied Christs death, or resurrection, or other essentials of Christianity. The consequence is good, for Christianity is as truly and necessarily in the will as in the understanding; consent is as essential an act of covenanting as any. So that I may conclude that as he is no Christian that professeth not to believe that Christ is the Priest, Prophet, and King, so he is no Christian that professeth not to consent and accept him for his Priest, Prophet, and King.

The fourteenth Argument is this: Our Divines ordinarily charge wicked men with contradiction of profession which is made in baptism, and they expound many places of Scripture, which the Arminians take as favouring their cause, to be meant according to the profession of wicked men. But it chargeth not such contradiction on persons baptized in Infancy, therefore it supposeth no profession or baptism of theirs: and if we must baptize none that profess not saving faith and repentance, we must not baptize Infants, who make no profession.

Pag. 177. Argum. 15. If all that are baptized must engage themselves to believe presently (in the next instant) yea, or at any time hereafter, with a saving faith, then must they profess at present a saving faith; or if we must baptize none that will not ingage to believe savingly, then must we baptize none that will not profess a saving faith; But no Infant will profess a saving faith, as is manifest by reason and experience, therefore we must baptize no Infant.

[Page] The antecedent is Master Blakes Doctrine; who affirmeth, That it is not necessary that they that come to baptism do profess a present saving faith, but its sufficient that they engage themselves to believe by such a faith. The consequence is proved thus▪

1. It is not the beginning of saving faith which we are to engage our selves to in the Sacraments, but the continuance, therefore the beginning is presupposed in that engagement, and so we must no more baptize without a profession of faith in present, then without an engagement to believe hereafter; the antecedent is proved thus;

There is no one word in Scripture either of precept or example where any person in baptism doth engage, or is required to engage to begin to believe with a saving faith, or to believe with a faith which at present he hath not. Shew but one word of Scripture to prove this (if you can) if you cannot, I may conclude, that therefore we must not require that which we have no Scripture ground to require.

Let Master Baxter shew but one word in Scripture to prove this (if he can) that any person in baptism doth engage or is required to believe, or profess to believe that another, an Infant may be admitted to baptism by virtue of it; if he cannot, I may conclude, that therefore we must not require that which we have no Scripture ground to require, nor admit any Infant or other, by reason of a Parents, Proparents, or sureties profession or promise to believe for an Infant.

Pag. 149. Argum. 16. If there can be no example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the profession (and that his own, by his own self and no other Parents, Proparent or surety) of a saving faith, nor any precept for so doing, then must not we baptize any without it; but, the antecedent is true, therefore so is the consequent, and therefore we must baptize no Infant, who makes no such profession, as all examples in Scripture of any baptized are of, and every precept for baptism requires. Let us review the Scripture examples of baptism, which might afford us so many several Arguments, but that I shall put them together for brevity.

1. I have already shewed that John required the profession of true repentance (by the baptized himself) and that his baptism was for remission of sin.

2. When Christ layeth down in the Apostolical commission, the nature and order of his Apostles work, it is first to make them Disciples, and then to baptize them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and as it is a making Disciples, which is first expressed in Matth. so Mark expoundeth who those Disciples are by patting believing before baptism, and that we may know that it is a justifying faith (of the Disciple himself) that he meaneth, he annexeth first baptism, and then the promise of salvation, Math. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. [He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. This is not like some occasional mention of baptism, but its the very commission of Christ to his Apostles for preaching and baptism, and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and order. Their first task is to make Disciples, which are by Mark called believers. The second work is to baptize them, whereto is annexed the promise of their salvation. The third work is to teach them all other things, which are afterward to be learned in the [Page] School of Christ. To contemn this order (as Master Baxter doth in Infant baptism) is to contemn all rules of order: For where can we expect to find it, if not here? I profess my conscience is fully satisfied from this Text, that it is one sort of faith, even saving, that must go before baptism, and the profession whereof (by the Party himself to be baptized; He that believeth and is baptized, not another then the believer, make Disciples and baptize them, not others then the Disciples made) the Minister must expect, of which see what is before cited out of Calvin and I [...]scator.

I shall be amazed reading this passage, at the blindness of Master Baxter, if he see not how unanswerably his own words overthrow Infant baptism, or his hypocrisie, if being satisfied, as he saith, in conscience of his own exposition he do not deny Infant baptism, and bewail his alledging of Matth. 28. 19. in his Book termed, Plain Scripture proof of Infants baptism, Part. 1. chap. 3. And I pray God to deliver me from such hardness of heart, be adds,

That it was saving faith that was required of the Jews and professed by them, Acts 2. 38, 41, 48. is shewed already, and is plain in the Text. Acts 8. The Samaritans believed and had great joy, and were baptized into the name of Jesus Christ, vers. 8. 12. whereby it appeareth that it was both the understanding and will that were both changed, and that they had the profession of a saving faith (even Simon himself) Acts 8. 37. The condition on which the Eunuch must be baptized was [if he believed with all his heart;] which he professed to do, and that was the evidence that Philip did expect. Paul was baptized after true conversion, Acts 9. 18. The Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles, Acts 10. 44. before they were baptized, and they magnified God. And this Holy Ghost was the like gift as was given to the Apostles, who believed on the Lord Jesus; and it was accompanied with repentance unto life, Acts 11. 17, 18. Acts 16. 14, 15. Lydia's heart was opened before she was baptized, and she was one that the Apostles [judged faithful to the Lord] and offered to them the evidence of her faith, Acts 16. 30, 31, 33, 34. The example of the Jaylour is very full to the resolution of the question in hand.

He first asketh what he should do to be saved; the Apostle answereth him; [Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved and thy house] so that it was a saving faith that is here mentioned. He rejoyced and believed with all his house, and was baptized that same hour of the night, or straightway. It is here evident that he professed that same faith which Paul required, Acts 18. 8. [Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord with all his house [...] and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized] Here we have two proofs that it is saving faith that is mentioned, Those in Acts 19. 5. were baptized as believers in Jesus Christ. In a word, I know of no one word in Scripture that giveth us the least intimation that ever man was baptized without the profession of a saving faith. There is constantly this order in the prescribed duty, that no man should seek baptism but a true believer, and no man should baptize any but those that profess this true belief, Acts 8. 37. Philip is determining a question, and giveth this in as the decision [If thou believe with all thy heart thou mayest] And to say that this is but de bene esse, meaning that it includeth not the negative, [otherwise thou mayest not] is to make Philip to have deluded and not decided [Page] or resolved. Use that liberty in expounding all other Scripture, and you'l make it what you please. A Dogmatical faith is not the Christian faith, nor any where alone denominateth men believers in Scripture. I remember but one Text, John 12. 42. where it is called believing on Christ; and but few more where it is simply called believing, but none where such are called believers, Disciples or Christians, or any thing that intimateth them, admitted into the visible Church without the profession of saving faith. I conclude that all examples in Scripture do mention onely the administration of it to the professors of saving faith, and the precepts give us no other direction; and I provoke Master Blake (as far as is seemly for me to do) to name one precept or example for any other, and make it good, if he can.

I conclude that all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention onely the administration of it to the same persons who in their own persons were professors of saving faith; and the precepts give us no other direction. And I provoke Mr. Baxter (as far as is seemly for me to do) to name one precept or example for baptizing any other, and make it good, if he can, and if not, by his own reason he ought to baptize no other, but must reject baptism of Infants who do not in their own persons profess saving faith, and give over his vain Plea of Parents or Proparents profession of saving faith, as entituling Infants to baptism, which (unless his violence and wilfulness of spirit blind him) his own words and arguments will inforce to do.

Pag. 156. Argum. 17. is from 1 Pet. 3. 21. [The like figure whereto even baptism doth also now save us: Not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good Conscience toward God] whence I thus Argue:

If baptism be appointed for our solemn admission into a state of salvation, as Noahs Ark received men into a state of safety from the Deluge, then none should be baptized but those that profess that faith which entereth them into a state of salvation; but no Infant professeth that faith which entereth them into a state of salvation, as is manifest by sense and reason, therefore no Infant should be baptized. Here it is implied plainly that this is quoad finem instituentis, as to the end of him that instituted it, the common appointed of baptism, which the Text mentioneth, though eventually it prove not the common effect through the errours of the receivers: and this appeareth, 1. In that it was spoken plainly in the text of the very nature and appointed use of baptism, and so of baptism as baptism, without any exception, limitation, or distinction. Therefore it is not spoken of any different use that it is appointed for to the elect, as distinct from its common use to others. Its spoken of that signification and common use to which baptism is appointed, viz. to save, else we shall never be able to understand the use of it, or any ordinance from Scripture, if we shall take liberty to say [It is this to one, but not to another] when the Scripture saith no such thing, but speaks of the nature and use of it without distinction. Else when it saith, [circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith] we may say with the Anabaptists, it was so to Abraham, but not to all others [And when the Lords Supper is said to be appointed for the remembrance of Christ] we may say, That is but to some, and not to others, when as the Text plainly speaks of the stated use of the ordinances to all. 2 And in the type it is clear; for it was not some onely, but all that entered [Page] Noabs Ark, that entered into a state of salvation from the Deluge; therefore so it is here as to the commanded use. 2. When baptism is said to save us, its plainly meant of the state of salvation that baptism entereth us into and not of baptism ex opere operato, by the work done, effecting our salvation: And so baptism comprehendeth the state into which we are solemnly by it initiated. As a woman that is maried to an Honourable man, or a Souldier listed under an Honourable Commander, is said to be honoured, the one by mariage, the other by listing. Where antecedent consent is the foundation on both sides of the honourable relations, and the subsequent state is the condition or state it self which is honourable, but the solemn signation is but the expression of the former, and passage to the later.

3. Hereby it is apparent, that though the answer of a good conscience be the principal thing intended, and that saveth, yet the external baptism is here included as the sign and solemnization, so that when the Apostle saith [not the putting away of the filth of the flesh] he means [not the bare outward act of washing alone, or as such] but baptism as it is entire, having the thing professed on ou [...] part, together with the professing sign.

4. It is therefore but by way of signification, obsignation and complemental exhibition, that baptism saveth, it being neither the fast or principal efficient or condition of it, but is valued as it is conjunct with the principal causes and condition for the attainment of these ends.

5. It is not a meer remote means leading towards a state of salvation that baptism is here affirmed to be, but an enterance or means of entrance into that state of salvation it self. As the heart-covenant or faith doth it principally, so baptism signally and complementally. This is plain. 1. Because it is not said to help us towards a state of salvation, but expresly to save. 2. Because the type which is here mentioned, viz. the Ark, was such a means, that all that entered into it for preservation from the Flood were actually saved from it.

All this laid together doth confirm both the antecedent and consequence, of my Argument. Calvins words on the Text signifie, 1. that no baptized men are excluded from salvation but Hypocrites. 2. That they that are excluded from salvation for all their baptism are such as did dep [...]ave and corrupt it, and not justly use it.

Yet another Argument may hence be raised, thus. Argum. 2. If, according to the institution, the answer of a [...]ood conscience must be joyned with baptism for the attaining of its end, then we must admit none that profess not that answer of a good conscience: But no Infant doth profess that answer of a good Conscience, as is manifest by sense: Therefore we must admit no Infant to baptism. But the former is certain from the Text, for baptism is said to save; that is, its appointed use, yet not the external washing, but the answer of a good conscience doth it; therefore this is of necessary conjunction, and without it baptism cannot attain its end, but it is to be administred and received onely in order to the attainment of its end, and therefore never in a way by which the end is apparently not attainable. What this answer of a good conscience is, we shall further enquire anon. Both the common exp [...]sitions fully confirm the point which I maintain. The assemblies Annot. recit: both thus:

[Page] [Hence by the answer of a good conscience we may understand that unfeigned faith, whereof they made confession at their baptism, and whereby their consciences were purified, and whereby they received the remission of their sin, &c. Some understand by the answer of a good conscience, that covenant whereinto they entered at their baptism, the embracing whereof they testified by their unfeigned confession of their faith] viz. such a faith as is aforesaid.

Pag. 160. Argum. 18. No one may be admitted to baptism, who may not be addmitted a member of the Church of Christ. No one may be admitted to be a member of the Church of Christ without the profession of a saving faith; therefore no one may be admitted to baptism without the profession of a saving faith. But no Infant doth profess saving faith, as is manifest by sense, therefore no Infant may be admitted to baptism. I speak of such admission to Church membership as is in the power of the Ministers of Christ, who have the Keys of his Kingdom to open and let in, as well as to cast out. The major is past question, because baptism is our solemn entrance into the Church, who were before entred by private consent, and accepted by the covenant of God. All the question is of the minor, which I shall therefore prove.

1. It is before proved that all the members of the Church must be such as are visibly, solemnly, or by profession, sanctified from former sin, cleansed, justified persons of God, the heirs of the promise, &c. But this cannot be without the profession of a saving faith; therefore, &c. 2. This is also before proved, where it was shewed, that no other are Christians or Disciples. 3. In Acts 2. 41, 42. &c. The many thousand that were added to the Church were such as gladly received the doctrine of saving faith and repentance, and continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread and prayer, and so far contemned the world as to sell all, and make it common. And doubtless no man continued in those ways (of doctrine fellowship, prayer, &c.) without the profession of saving faith and repentance, for the very use of these is such a profession, of which saith Calvin in Act. 2. 42. [quaerimus ergo veram Christi ecclesiam; Hic nobis ad vivum depicta est [...]jus im [...]g [...], ac initium qui [...]em facit a doctrina, quae veluti ecclesiae anima est, (not as barely heard, but as professed and received) nec quamlibet doctrinam nominat, sed Apost [...]lorum; hoc est quam per ipsorum nanus silius Dei tradiderat: ergo ubicunque personat pura vox Eva [...]gelii, ubi in ejus professione m [...]nent homines, ubi in ordinario ejus auditu ad profectum se exercent, illic indubio est ecclesia &c. Quare non temere haec quatuor recenset Lucas, quum desserib [...]re vult nobis rite constitutam ecclesiae statum. Et nos ad hunc ordinem eniti convenit, si cupimus vere censeri ecclesia coram Deo & Angelis, non inane tantum ejus nomen apud homines jactare] Therefore we seek out the true Church of Christ: its image is here painted to the life, and verily it begins from the doctrine, which is as it were the soul of the Church, neither doth he name any doctrine, but of the Apostles, that is to say, which the Son of God had delivered by their hands, therefore wheresoever the pure voice of the Gospel sounds, where men remain in the profession of it, where they exercise themselves to profit in the ordinary hearing of it, there undoubtedly is the Church. Wherefore Luke mentions these four things not without just ground, [Page] when he would describe the duly constituted state of the Church, and its convenient that we should endeavour to attain to this order, if we desire to be a true Church in the sight of God and Angels, and not onely to boast of [...]he vain name thereof before men. And vers. 47. it is said that the Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved. It describeth them that were added to the Church viz. that they were such as should be saved, or as Beza yieldeth to another reading [and so Grotius and many others] such as saved themselves from that untoward Generation [qui sese quotidie servandos recipiebant in ecclesiam] Who daily added themselves to the Church that they might be saved.

The Church is the body of Christ, Col. 1. 18. 24. and none are members of his body but such as either are united to him, and live by him, or at least seem to do so. The Church is subject to Christ, and beloved of Christ, and cherished by him: We are members of his body, of his flesh, and his bones, Ephes 5. 24. 25, 30. And those that are against the general redemption, me thinks should be moved with the consideration, that it is the Church that Christ gave himself for, even the visible Church which he purchased with his own blood, Acts 20. 28. Ephes. 5. 25. and he is the Saviour of his body, vers. 23. But so he is not effectively the Saviour of the professors of a faith that doth not justifie: [...] according to opinion, he is the effective Savior of those that profess a justifying faith, and [...] of the sincere: but of others neither way.

Hitherto Divines have gathered from the plain Texts of Scripture, that there is but one Church, one faith, and one baptism; and those that had this faith really, were to be baptized, and were real members of the Church, and that those that professed this faith, and so seemed to have it when they have it not, are visible members of the Church, and are so taken, because their profession is sensible to us; and by that they seem to have the thing prof [...]ssed; but Pae [...]obaptists, and chiefly Master Baxter are fallen into new conceits in these.

1. They feign a new Christian faith to themselves, to wit, a believing immediate by the faith of a Parent or Proparent; so that before there was but one Christian faith, and now they have made two. 2. And so before, there was but one sort of real, serious, or sincere Christians, consisting of such as had that real Christian faith, (in their own persons) and now they have found out another sort of them, to wit, believers by anothers faith. 3. So they have feigned a new baptism, for the old baptism was for remission of sin, and burial and resurrection with Christ, and to ingraffe men into the Church, which is the body of Christ, upon the profession of a saving faith: But now they admit to baptism, as they term it, Infants without any profession of saving faith, made by them to seal an imaginary covenant of grace made by God to believing Parents and their seed, without any covenanting or sealing by the baptized person, upon a pretended title of Parents and Proparents faith, and instead of baptizing [as of old they did] by putting under Water and coming out again, so as to resemble Christs burial and resurrection, and their conformity thereto, they call that baptism, and say falsly they baptize when they onely sprinkle or pour water on an Infant without such dipping, as of old Master Baxter pag. 70. confesseth was used and expressed by the Apostle, [Page] Rom. 6. 4, 5. 4. And they have feigned also a new kind of Church: For the Church of Christs constitution is but one, which is called visible from mens profession, and invisible from the faith professed. But they have made a Church which consisteth of a third sort of members; that is, of men that neither have saving faith nor profess it, but onely are Infants, whose Parents or Proparents have faith.

5. To this end they have confounded the Church and the Porch, the Vineyard & the adjac [...]nt part of the wilderness: those that heretofore were not so much as Catechumeni, o [...] men in preparation for the Church, but onely designed to holiness, and hoped and expected to be in after time when they came to understand the Christian faith, Church-members, are now brought into it, and are annumerated to true Christians, before they once profess themselves to be such. 6. And hereby [by Infant baptism] also one of the two sorts of teaching, which Christ distinguisheth, Matth. 28. 19, 20. is taken away, to wit, that teaching which draweth men to Christ, and maketh them Disciples, and perswadeth them to receive Christ Jesus the Lord. For they take him for a Disciple (so Master B [...]xter of baptism, part. 1. chap. 3.) that is not learning to be a Disciple, yea, though he do not so much as submit to learn, nor hath learned any preparatory truths, though yet he be not made a Disciple indeed, nor profess to be.

Master Baxter is deeply offended with Master T. for denying Infants to be Christians or members of the Church mediately, &c. But I shall say somewhat more concerning those Infants that are asserted by him to be Disciples, who do not so much as profess a saving faith, viz. that they are no members of the Church at all, and are not so much as to be named Christians, nor to be admitted into the visible Church. No man can prove that ever one man was admitted a Church-member in all the New Testament, without the profession of a saving faith. Otherwise we should have two distinct Churches specially different, or two sorts of Christianity, and Christians differing tota specie, in the whole kind, because the profession by a Parent and Proparent which is made by him, their qualification doth make a difference specifical between such Christians and Church-members, and other Christians and Church members. When the Jaylor Acts 16. 30, 32, 33, 34. was admitted into the Church by baptism, it was upon the professing of such a believing, by which both he and his houshold might be saved, as is before shewed. And so of all others in those times.

Pag. 163. Argum. 19. If we once admit men to baptism without their own personal profession, we shall be utterly confounded, and not be able to give any satisfactory resolution whose profession may be a sufficient qualification to entitle to baptism, and so never be able to practice the Doctrine of Pae [...]obaptism, as being utterly uncertain what Infants to baptize. This might be manifest by considering the several conceits of Paedobaptists, some whereof make the faith of the Church sufficient, some the faith of albelieving Nation, some of any ancestors, some of the sureties, some of the next Parents, some of the Parent inchurched, some of the Parent or Proparent, and this they claim by a covenant which they can extend to no other then the Parent, who is believer, not onely by Profession, but also really before God, which can be known to no administrator of baptism ordinarily.

[Page] Paedobaptists speak so much and purposely of this point, particularly Master Baxter of baptism, Part. 1. chap. 29. that one would think we may expect an exact resolution of this point from him, if from any man, and yet he is uncertain what to fix upon, and if he resolve on any thing it is without proof, as is shewed by Master T. Review, Part. 1. Sect. 35. 37. Exercit. Argum. 9. 11. Review part. 2. Sect. 10. 12. 17. Part. 3. Sect. 50. &c. And I perceive that the stress of the differences between Master Baxter and Master T. did rest much in this, and no wise man will leave his grounds till he see where he may have better (especially when the grounds are so plain as those of the Antipaedobaptists are from Christs institution, Matth. 28. 19. Mark. 16. 15, 16. and the Apostles practice, which Master Baxter hath here so amply proved to be of the baptizing onely of persons who themselves profess a saving faith) unless he mean to be for nothing, or of no Religion. No man can tell where to fix, nor what we must consent to, to procure a title, if we once forsake the present ground of the Persons own profession of saving faith who is to be baptized. What is said to the contrary is answered in the books forenamed, and it is not meet to be still writing for those lazie Readers, that had rather erre then be at the pains of reading what is already written. None are Disciples upon the account of your other faith, but of either saving faith or the profession of it; none are Christians on the account of your lower kind of faith, but onely of saving faith or the profession of it. Once for all I let you know, that I take saving faith to be the constitutive or necessary qualification of a real or mystical member; and profession of that faith to be the qualifying condition of visibility of membership. I confess still that the sealis to others besides believers, but though the promise be conditional, we must not seal to any but those that profess consent to the conditions; and therefore not to any but those that profess to be true believers.

Pag. 190. I find by sad experience (to my sorrow) that a considerable part of some Parishes, or Villages are ignorant of the Fundamentals. I have spoken with abundance that that know not Christ is God or man, or either (but they say he is a Spirit) nor that the Holy Ghost is God, nor why Christ died, nor that any satisfaction is made for our sins, or any thing done, or necessary to their pardon, but our own repentance and amendment, and with some that know not that the soul goes to heaven before the resurrection, nor that the body shall ever rise again.

Now I would know of Master Blake whether all the children of these Parents must be baptized again or not? For certainly these have not a Dogmatical faith, which is the thing that he saith entituleth to baptism. And then what certainty have we that any of our ancestors had a true Dogmatical faith: And I would know of Master Baxter whether such children are not to be baptized agian? Sure if he say no, how can he allow that baptism which is without a Profession of saving faith? If he say yea, how can he assure himself that any of our ancestors had right baptism? Me thinks few that hold Master Baxters Tenets should allow of the baptism of the greatest part of English People who are no better then those Master Baxter mentions, and yet neither Master Baxter nor other Paedobaptists do baptize such when they come to profess understandingly the faith of Christ.

Pag. 195. My Twentieth and last Argument is drawn from the constant [Page] practice of the universal Church of Christ. It hath been the constant practice of the Catholick Church from the Apostles practice till now to require that profession of saving faith and repentance, as necessary, before they would baptize; therefore it must be our practice also. But it is otherwise in Infant baptism, as experience shews, therefore the practice of it is not right. For the proof of the Churches practice,

1. I have already said enough about the Apostles own practice and the Church in their days.

2. The constant practice of the Church since the Apostles to this day is undoubtedly known. 1. by the very form of words in baptism, and 2. by the history of their proceedings therein. 1. It is certain that the Church did ever baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And as I have proved before, the voluntary seeking and reception of that baptism containeth the actual profession of saving faith. 2. It is certain that the persons to be baptized (if at age) did profess to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 3. It is also certain, that they did profess to renounce the Flesh, the World, and the Devil. 4. And it is certain that they promised for the future to live in new obedience, and thus they publickly entered the three stipulations; Credis? credo: Abrenuncias? abrenuncio: Spondes? Spondeo. Doest thou believe? I believe. Doest thou renounce? I renounce. Doest thou promise? I promise.

It was the constant doctrine of the Fathers and the Church then, that faith and repentance (given in vocation) did go first, and that Justification, Adoption, and Sanctification followed after. And so they took this justifying faith and repentance to be prerequisite to baptism, therefore they ever required before hand whether they believed in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and renounced the Flesh, the World, and the Devil (as is aforesaid) and caused them to profess this before they would baptize them. And as it is true of the ancient Church, that they never baptized any without the profession of saving faith and repentance, so it is true of all the Christian Churches in the world that I can hear of to this day.

The Papists themselves do use the same words in baptism, as are before expressed, and require a profession. And though their false doctrine force them to misexpound their own words, yet custom hinders them from changing them; and for the reformed Churches it is past all question, by their constant practice, that they require the profession of a saving faith. The practice of the Church of England till the late change, may be seen in the Common prayer book, wherein all that is fore-mentioned is required, even from the infant, to whom the question is propounded, doest thou renounce? doest thou believe? wilt thou be baptized? although they took the answer of the sureties as if it were the childes, and say in the Catechism they now promise, and perform faith and repentance by their sureties. In the confession of faith of the Assembly at Westminster, cap. 28. and again in the shorter Catechism, profession of faith in Christ, and obedience to him is the thing required. They add also in the Directory [that all who are baptized in the name of Christ do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the Devil, the world and the flesh.]

Calvin in Acts 8. 37. saith [Quod non admittitur Eunuchus ad baptismum,[Page]nisi fidem professus, hinc sumenda est universalis regula, non ante recipiendes esse in Ecclesiam qui ab ea prius fuerant alieni, quam ubi testati fuerint Christo se credere. Est enim baptismus quasi fidei appendix: ideoque ordine posterior est. Deinde si datur sine fide, cujus est sigillum, & impia & nimis crassa est prophanatio.] That the Eunuch was not admitted to baptism till he professed faith. Hence this universal rule is to be gathered, that those are not to be received into the Church, who before were strangers from it, till they first testifie they believe in Christ: for baptism is as it were an Appendix to faith, and therefore is later in order: then if it be given without faith, of which tis the seal, tis a wicked and too gross a prophanation. Here note. 1. That baptism (as received) is the seal of our faith (how much soever denied by Master Blake) as it is the seal of Gods promise as administred. 2. That the constant order is that baptism follow faith. 3. And that it is no better then an impious profanation of it, if it go without faith; that is. 1. if the party seek it without the presence of faith. 2. if the Pastor administer it without the profession of faith.

To like purpose speak many more, but to salve Infant baptism they say that Gods promise to an Infant, whom they imagi [...] be born in the Church, is instead of profession, that for it they by a judgement of charity are taken to be regenerate, and that it is as much as we have of persons of age, and is sufficient warrant to baptize them. But 1. they prove none of these. 2. nor are they true. 3. nor were they true would they warrant Infant baptism, when the Institution is (as they confess) to baptize them who believe by the Preaching of the Gospel to them, Matth. 28. 19. Mark. 16. 16. whereby the inadvertency of the generality of Protestant Divines in this point may be discerned, and by the reading of this book all intelligent persons may perceive Master Baxters deceitfulness or heedlesness, and, if he perfist in defending, Infant baptism, his unreasonable pertinacie in his conceit, and, if he do not declare his forsaking his Doctrine in his book of baptism, his impenitencie and unrighteous dealing with the Church of God which he hath injured.

§

[Page]

[Page]

Felo de Se. OR, Mr. RICHARD BAXTERS Self-destroying; MANIFESTED In twenty Arguments against Infant-Baptism, Gathered out of his own Writing, in his Second Disputation of Right to SACRAMENTS.

BY John Tombes, B. D.

PSALM 64. 8, 9.

So they shall make their own Tongues to fall upon themselves: all that see them shall flee away.

And all men shall fear, and shall declare the work of God, for they shall wisely consider of his doings.

LONDON: Printed by Henry Hills, next door to the Sign of the Peacock in Aldersgate-steeet, 1659.

To the Christian READER.

[Page]

[Page]

MAster Richard Baxter in his Second disputation of right to Sacraments, begins thus; It may seem strange that after 1625. years use of Christian Baptism, the Ministers of the Gospel should be yet unresolved, to whom it doth belong; yet so it is. And I observe that it is a question, that they are now very sollicitous about, and I cannot blame them, it being not onely about a matter of Divine appointment, but a practical of such concernment to the Church. The true reason hereof seems to be, that Ministers have for many Ages left the true Baptism of believers which Christ appointed, and like Michal, instead of it have substituted an Image or Idol of their own, to wit, Infant Baptism, Which being quite besides the rule of Christ, Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. and the Apostles practice throughout the Acts of the Apostles, they have been at a loss about the ground of it, and almost at Daggers drawing about the use of it. As it happens to fellow-travellers, when they are all out of the right way, one conjectures this way they should go, another that, aud sometimes they are at hot disputos and contentions about their way, and many by-ways are attempted, yet still the farther they go the more out of the way, till they come into the Road again: So it hath been with Baptizers of Infants; they are fallen into many new devices to maintain Infant Baptism, the ancients with the Papists imagining that by it Gods grace was given, and that it was necessary to save the child from perishing, the Lutherans that by Baptism a seed of faith and some relative grace was given to Infants (to which Doctor Samuel Ward, Bishop Davenant, Doctor Cornelius Burges, Master Thomas Bedford, Master James Cranford, and others have of late much inclined) others opposing these have fallen into as bad conceits of the Covenant of Gospel grace, as made to a believer and his seed, Baptisms succession to Jewish Circumcision, and fetching a rule from thence, as others from the Jewish Baptism. Master Baxter having found these unsafe to rest on, sub they will bring the assertors to the avouching Jewish tenets, hath devised another (as he conceives) more refined and subtile way, making Infants Disciples of Christ mediately by the parents, or proparents (as his new term is) faith (which he never proves) and an imagined ordinance or law of Infants visible Church-membership (no where extant) [Page] unrepealed, and in following these by-ways, they have been at variance among themselves. Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen onely allowing Infant Baptism in case of manifest danger of imminent death, others to take away original sin, Baptizing all, weak or strong, believers or unbelievers children; which had almost quite thrust Baptism of believers out of the World, and under colour of Christening, (as they fasly term their Infant Baptism) and making Christian souls by throwing water on them, they have so polluted the Churches of God with the dregs of the nations, I mean, innumerable ignorant, scandalous, prophane, superstitious haters, scorners, and persecutors of Christianity, that nothing but the mighty power of God is sufficient to purge the Churches of God of that loathsome and infectious filth, which these have brought into it. The Papists themselves do in a sort confess that Infant Baptism is an aberration from the first rule, in that they count it not perfect till their Mimical, and ludicrous Sacrament of Confirmation be added, which was used with some reformation in respect of the right, and disclaiming of some errours affixed to it, and with the appointment of Catechizing by the late Bishops, and from them termed Bishopping, though without any remarkable emendation of the intrusion of ignorant, ungodly, unchristian persons into the society of Christians and the Lords supper. Some of those who of late have sought reformation herein, begin to devise how they may remedy this evil, and yet keep the multitude in their Communion, by refining that which is called Confirmation. To this purpose, lately is published by Master Jonathan Hanmer, An exercitation or Confirmation, to which Master George Hughes, Master Richard Baxter, and Master Ralph Venning, have prefixed their Epistles; concerning which, how he is mistaken in the laying on of hands used by the Ancients, and the application of Heb. 6. 2. to Confirmation after Infant Baptism, is perceptible by Sect. 23. of the second part of my Review, and sundry passages in his own book, in which many things besides are vented without proof, about difference between the Church of Infants and Adult members, of the effect of Confirmation, of compleat and incompleat visible Church-members, &c. the errors of which it is unnecessary to refute, there being no proof of them offered, but his own and other Divines mistakes, and the main of the design being to set up another humane inventi [...]n, which hath no precept or promise of God, that he may uphold or colour over an old corruption. It pleased God lately to begin to bring the truth concerning Baptism of believers to light in this Nation, which stirred up many to contend for Infant Baptism, and having, as they imagined (though the three parts of my Review now published do sufficiently shew they are deceived) made that sure, they have of late fallen to dispute whose Infants are to be Baptized. Mr. Thomas Hooker, Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Firmin, and others, pleading against the Baptism of the Infants of the national and parochial Church-members, and some of them restraining it to Infants of inchurched Church-members, and those who are judged to be real visible Saints, have been opposed by Master Rutherford, Master Cawdery, Master Blake, and others. Master Blake to maintain his tenet, hath asserted that a Dogmatical faith intitles to baptism: to oppose which, Master Baxter, however in his Letter to me he pretends the unpleasantness and non-necessity of meddling any more about the point of Infant Baptism, the want of time and health for work of greater moment, that he might decline [...]ing where his law of Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed is, and [Page] thinks a man cannot justifie it to lay out the hundreth part, or perhaps the thousandth part of his time, study, talk, or zeal, upon this question, yet here he blames not them that are sollicitous about it, being of Divine appointment and practical, of such concernment to the Church, and hath himself, besides his Apology before this last year, published a large Book of disputations concerning right [...]o Sacraments, the second whereof is against Master Blake; which though it was intended onely to overthrow his tenet, yet indeed the middle terms and proofs of his Arguments do beat down his own tenet of Infant Baptism, and direct into the right way of restoring believers Baptism, To demonstrate which, that those who have adhered to Mr. Baxter may see how ill Master Baxter hath dealt with them, and may, if God give them wisdom to discern the truth, be brought into the right way of believers Baptism, is this writing framed, in which thou hast presented to thee, a remarkable instance of Gods providence, in clearing truth by the Pen of its most eminent adversary, and of his he [...]le [...] writing, not observing how his own Arguments against another sight against himself. The urging thereof, is that way which Logicians [...]prove of, and against the person is ever counted a good plea to Argue for his own condemnation out of his own mouth, and in this matter is good as to the thing, it being not onely asserted by him, but also largely proved. In the publishing hereof the [...]e is no more wrong done to him, then was done by Bishop Morton in his Apology, in aliedging the Romanists words in their writings, as an Advoca [...]e for the Protestants, against themselves, but much right to the truth and Church of God; nothing i [...] [...]ere set down as his but his own words, what is added be may discern'd by the different letor some other mark. His caution, that he means his propositions in the case of Baptism of adult persons, and that he hath elsewhere proved Infant Baptism, are without wrong to him left out, sith his Arguments do as strongly prove there should be none but Adult Baptism, as that none should be Baptized upon the profession of a bare Dogmatical Faith; for though his aim be onely to prove that the faith professed which intitles to Baptism must be justifying, yet his Arguments to prove this prove more, that none but such as profess such faith are to be Baptized, and that this profession is to be by each Baptized in his own person, and no other to be Baptized. Not one Text he brings proves that a Parents or Proparents profession doth intitle to Baptism; what he hath disputed elsewhere for Infant Baptism is all now answered and published in the three parts of my Review; no where doth he prove (though that is it be should chiefly have proved) that in order to Baptism a Parents or Proparents profession is by God allowed as the Infants own, but still be supposeth it, which is the main point to be proved, which Logicians know is of all fallacies the grossest, to wit, the begging of the question. Yet lately Master Baxter hath Printed a book about Confirmation, in which he dictates many things which he should prove, of Infant visible Church-members and their priviledges, and repeats his ol [...] Arguments for Infant Baptism, and acknowledging onely his sorrow for provoking words, saith he will give some account, and in his preface to his book of Justification tells the Reader, he shall yet vindicate his Papers written to me, where he gives some reason also of Printing my Animadversions on his Aphorisms of Justification. His sorrow for his provoking words is some good sign of Gods touching his heart, and so far as belong to my person I heartily forgive him, though they have been extreamly injurious to me, to the tr [...]th and Church of God. [Page] And for my Animadversions he hath now Printed, he may understand that I intend (if God vouchsafe me life, and strength, and leisure) to shew the insufficiency of his answers. If he give an account and vindicate his Papers, I expect he should do it otherwise then he did in his Praefestinantis Morator, and his usual fashion is. Let him do that which becomes a Replicant, set down mine own words to which he answer, and answer them fully and distinctly without interrogations & exclamations, proving such distinctions, definitions, assertions, expositions, as I deny, and making good by solid proof his Arguments, which that learned man mentioned in my preface to the third part of my Review counted not like an Argument for Infant Baptism, and allows me to tell him, that if he will choose his best Argument, he is ready to demonstrate his censure of his book to have been just. In the mean time I judge it necessary that this book be Printed, that if God shall vouchsafe him such mercy he may understand his error from his own writing, and the Reader may judge whether the Lord doth not now abundantly refute Infant Baptism, and require him to practise that command of Christ of being Baptized after believing, which however now reproached, was by all Christians observed heretofore with much zeal and conscience of their duty and honor, and is commended to him from Christ and his Apostles. Remember the words of Christ, John 14▪ 15. If ye love me keep my commandments. Luke 6. 46. And why call ye me Lord Lord, and do not the things which I say? Matth. 15. 9. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Farewel.

LONDON, 12th. Moneth, the 21. day, 1658.

Thine in our Lord, JOHN TOMBES.

Information about this book

Title statement

Felo de se, or, Mr. Richard Baxter's self-destroying manifested in twenty arguments against infant-baptism / gathered out of his own writing, in his second disputation of right to sacraments by John Tombes.

Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.

Edition statement

1659

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A62868

ID [STC]

Wing T1806

ID [STC]

ESTC R33836

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

13576588

ID [OCLC]

ocm 13576588

ID [VID]

100458

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A62868)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 100458)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1053:11)

Source

— Felo de se, or, Mr. Richard Baxter's self-destroying manifested in twenty arguments against infant-baptism / gathered out of his own writing, in his second disputation of right to sacraments by John Tombes., Tombes, John, 1603?-1676..

Extent

[5], 37 p.

Printed by Henry Hills ...,. London :: 1659.. (Imperfect: pages stained.) (Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary Library, New York.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.