The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 9

The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity · Book 7 · Controversy 9

p. 664Ninth Controverſie, OF THE SEVENTH BOOK. Of the NECESSITY OF BAPTISM.

CHAP. 1. Cardinal du Perron's reaſon for the abſolute neceſsity of Baptiſm. Examination of the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon that point. How they abuſe this text, John 3.5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

THE diſpute about the neceſſity of Baptiſm with water, might eaſily be compoſed, if we had to do with equitable perſons. For while the Romaniſts accuſe us to have taken away the neceſſity of Baptiſm, themſelves ſay ſuch things as make it unneceſſary. And ſetting forth our doctrine in odious terms, they fight againſt Chimera's of their own making. Yea, it will be found, that inſtead of impugning, our cauſe, they defend it.

Pag. 672.Cardinal du Perron treats this queſtion in the ſixth Chapter of his third Obſervation. It is made plain enough (ſaith he) by the precedent reply, that we tye not the power of Gods grace to that means, (that is, to Baptiſm with water) ſince God might have ſaved us, if it had been his pleaſure, without any of thoſe means which he inſtituted. Theſe means are the death of Chriſt, the preaching of the Goſpel, the Sacraments, Faith in Chriſt, repentance, and ſtudy of good works. The Cardinal ſaith, that God might have ſaved us without any of theſe means, if it had been p. 665his pleaſure, and thereby he pretends to ſhew that the Roman Church holds not the Baptiſm with water to be of ſimple and abſolute neceſſity, ſince God could ſave us without that, as well as without all the other means. Upon this then he grounds the neceſſity of the Baptiſm of Infants. We tye (ſaith he) the effect of Gods grace to his own proteſtations, that is, to the means without which he proteſted that he would not give it; namely, before all things to faith in Chriſt, and to Baptiſm; of which he ſaid, He that believeth not in the only Son of God, is judged already; And except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

In theſe words there is either much ignorance or much foule dealing. For he conceiveth amiſs of the neceſſity of the means of our ſalvation, that puts Baptiſm with water in equal degree of neceſſity with the other means without which none can be ſaved. Without the merit of Chriſts death none can come to ſalvation; and of all them to whom the Goſpel is announced, none are ſaved but ſuch as believe in the Goeſpl; but an infinite number of perſons are ſaved without the Baptiſm of water, as the Cardinal acknowledgeth in the following lines, in which he ſaith,(a)(a)Thomas in Joh. 6. Lect. 7. Oportet quod Sacramentum baptiſmatis habeatur in re, vel in voto. Eadem habet part 3. Sum. q. 68. Art. 2. Et in Joh. 3. ait. Baptiſmum eſſe neceſſarium vel in re, vel in voto, vel in figura.John 6John 3 that Baptiſm may be ſupplyed by faith, and by the vow of Baptiſm. This cannot be ſaid of faith in Chriſt, which cannot be ſupplyed by Baptiſm nor by the vow of believing or being baptiſed. Theſe very texts which he alleadgeth ſhew how the neceſſity of thoſe two things is unequal. For Scripture ſaith that whoſoever believeth in Chriſt ſhall be ſaved, but ſaith not that whoſoever is baptiſed ſhall be ſaved. And our Adverſaries confeſs that many adult perſons ſhall be ſaved without Baptiſm with water, if they have but the vow, that is the deſire and the will to be baptiſed.

The(*)(*)Pag. 672. Cardinal asketh his Majeſty of great Britain, With what conſcience the Church of England can communicate with the Proteſtants of France which differ from her in a point ſo important to ſalvation? The difference he finds between the Engliſh and us conſiſteth in two points; The one, that the Proteſtants of France (if he muſt be believed) deny the neceſſity of Baptiſm; The other that they deny that Baptiſm conferreth grace, but affirme only that it ſignifieth grace, and ſay that it is not unto them a means of ſalvation but only a ſign. Whereupon he chargeth us in odious terms, that we fruſtrate children in caſe of danger of the only way which God hath inſtituted unto them to attain ſalvation.

This man ſpeaks according to his cuſtome, that is, againſt his conſcience, attributing ſuch things to us which he knoweth that we believe not. For we hold that it is neceſſary in the Chriſtian Church to baptiſe. It is neceſſary to obey Chriſts command, Go Baptiſe all nations, &c. Alſo we believe Baptiſm to be of ſuch neceſſity, that one that ſhould deſpiſe Baptiſm, and not care to be baptiſed, could not be ſaved. Circumciſion was of the like neceſſity, for whoſoever deſpiſed it, God declareth that he ſhould be cut off from his people. The queſtion is only whether in caſe of impoſſibility of being baptiſed, a man is therefore excluded from the Kingdom of heaven. We agree with our Adverſaries about adult perſons, that in caſe of impoſſibility they may be ſaved without Baptiſm. And it is well that ſo much is granted already. The difference then is only about infants that dye without Baptiſm, our Adverſaries ſend them into a Limbus, of which the word of God ſaith nothing, and(b)(b)Catecheſ. Trid. cap. de Baptiſmo dicit. Omnes homines niſi per Baptiſmi gratiam renaſcantur, in ſempiternam miſeriam & interitum à parentibus procreari. exclude them for ever from the Kingdom of heaven. To prove the neceſſity of Baptiſm of water unto little children they bring but one text which ſpeaks of adult perſons. For when Chriſt ſaid, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, he ſpake to Nicodemus, who, becauſe he was old, asked How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the ſecond time into his mothers womb? And it is certain that Chriſt in that place ſpeaks of a ſecond birth without which Nicodemuus could not be ſaved; To whom nevertheleſs Baptiſm was not neceſſary becauſe he was circumciſed. Our Adverſaries themſelves ſay that he might be ſaved without Baptiſm, if he had dyed p. 666before he could be baptiſed; and that before Chriſts reſurrection, Baptiſm was not neceſſary to ſalvation.

In the ſecond place Monſieur du Perron attributes unto us a doctrine remote from our belief, making us ſay that we denie, that Baptiſm conferreth grace to little children, and that we ſay only that it ſignifieth grace. It is not ſo. For although it be hard for us to define how, and how far Baptiſm worketh with efficacy in little children, yet we doubt not of the vertue thereof, nor of the remiſſion of original ſin which is applyed and ratified in the ſame. Neither do we reduce it to a bare and ineffectual ſignification. God in his own time makes the godly ſenſible of the fruit of their Baptiſm, and of the effects of that Covenant of which they have received the ſeal.

That which the Cardinal addeth [that Baptiſme is the only means which God hath given to Infants to attain ſalvation] cannot ſubſiſt. For the death of Chriſt, and Gods promiſe, that he will be our God, and of our ſeed, are alſo means which ſerve for the ſalvation of our children, and are far above Baptiſm, both in excellency and neceſſity.

Our adverſaries to prove the neceſſity of the Baptiſm of water, bring the example of Circumciſion of which it is ſaid, Gen. 17.14. that every uncircumciſed mal ſhall be cut off from his people, but they fraudently omit the following words, for he hath broken my Covenant; Words which cannot belong but to adult perſons, and teach us that God puniſhed the contempt of Circumciſion, not the privation in caſe of impoſſibilty.

Alſo they diſpute thus, Every means which God uſeth to ſanctifie and ſave us, is neceſſary to ſalvation. But the Baptiſm of water is a means which God uſeth to ſanctifie and ſave us, as St. Paul teacheth us, Eph. 5.25, & 26. Chriſt gave himſelf for his Church, that he might ſanctifie and cleanſe it with the waſhing of water by the word. And Tit. 3.5. He ſaved us by the waſhing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghoſt. Then the waſhing of water is neceſſary to ſalvation.

Of this argument the firſt propoſition is falſe, for God uſeth many means to ſanctifie and ſave us, as the holy Communion, and miracles and afflictions and perſecutions for the Goſpel, without which things nevertheleſs many are ſaved. As for the ſecond propoſition we have great reaſon to make a queſtion, whether by the waſhing of regeneration, whereby the Apoſtle ſaith that God hath ſanctified and ſaved his Church, the Baptiſm of water muſt be underſtood? For within that Church the Church of the Old Teſtament is alſo comprehended, which was not baptiſed with water: And our Adverſaries confeſs that many are ſaved, which are not baptiſed with water: Very often in Scripture remiſſion of ſins, and regeneration is compared to waſhing with water, Iſa. 1.16. Zech. 1.13. Ezek. 36.25.

As for the text of John 3.5. Except a man be born again, and Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, whereby they will eſtabliſh the neceſſity of Baptiſm, I will not oppoſe the opinion of many Antients who hold that in this text the Baptiſm of water is underſtood; But I wonder how our Adverſaries forgetting themſelves make this Baptiſm of water unneceſſary, ſaying that there is a Baptiſm of Blood, and a Baptiſm of the Spirit, which may be inſtead of the Baptiſm of water. I wonder noleſs that they conſider not that Chriſt ſpeaks to Nicodemus in this text, and declareth to him, that though he be old, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God unleſs he be born again, and yet themſelves hold that Nicodemus might be ſaved without the Baptiſm of water, becauſe he was circumciſed, and that Baptiſm was not yet neceſſary at that time, Hinckmar in the book of the fifty five chapters, ch. 47. expoundeth thus this text.(c)(c)Pag. 243. Niſi quis renatus fuerit, &c. Scilicet aut inviſibili gratia cum viſibili Sacramento, aut inviſibili gratia ſine viſibili Sacramento. Except a man be born again of water and of the ſpirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, that is, Except he be born again by the inviſible grace with the viſible Sacrament, or by the inviſible grace without the viſible Sacrament.

It were eaſie to come out of this difficulty, if they would uſe here the ſame diſcretion p. 667as in expounding John 6.53. Except you eat the fleſh of the ſon of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, a text ſpeaking as they think of the neceſſity of the Euchariſt. There they reſtrain Chriſts words to the perſons that have age, capacity, and opportunity to receive the holy Sacrament. Why ſhall we not ſay the ſame here, that Chriſt ſpeaks to perſons come to an age capable of inſtruction, and that have the opportunity to be baptiſed, who cannot be ſaved if they deſpiſe Baptiſm?(d)(d)Lomb. lib. 4. Sent. Diſt. 4. litera E. So much Lombard acknowledgeth ſaying, that this muſt be underſtood of thoſe who having the opportunity to be baptized deſpiſe Baptiſme. But to exclude infants from the Kingdom of Heaven, if they dye when they are carried to Baptiſm, or if their Parents take no care that they be baptized, it is a tenet ill ſorting with the wiſdom and goodneſs of God: For God tyeth not his grace unto the element, as if he could not or would not ſave without waſhing with water. Neither is it ſuitable with his wiſdom to make the ſalvation of children to depend upon the will of another; For according to the Cardinals doctrine, he that hath a child dying in his power, may ſave or damn that ſoul; For if it pleaſeth him to baptiſe that child, he ſhall be ſaved, but if he will not baptiſe him, he ſhutteth the gate of Paradiſe againſt him, and excludes him for ever from the Kingdom of heaven. By this means eternal election ſhall depend upon the proviſion of Baptiſm, and it ſhall be in mens power to make it void.

This alſo is repugnant to the goodneſs and juſtice of God, to exclude an infants ſoul from ſalvation for the fault of another; The ſon ſhall not bear the iniquity of the Father, Ezek. 18.20.

In the fourth ch. of Exodus God offereth to puniſh Moſes for neglecting his ſons circumciſion, but he offereth not to puniſh the child. If Circumciſion, which under the old Covenant held the place of Baptiſm, had been abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation, God would not have deferred it till the eighth day, before which ſo many children dye. If it was of that abſolute neceſſity, we muſt ſay, that all the women of Iſrael, and ſo many men born and dead in the wilderneſs in the ſpace of forty years without circumciſion, and the converted Ninivites were excluded from eternal ſalvation. It is not credible that God made the condition of his Church worſe under the New Teſtament; Which ſhould be, if before the coming of Chriſt the godly might be ſaved without any Sacrament. But now their ſalvation is made to depend upon the Baptiſm of water, of which many are deprived for want of poſſibility, and from the Prieſts intention which muſt be preſumed by conjecture, and a ſoul may be damned by the negligence of another.

God ſaid to Abraham, I will be a God unto thee and to thy ſeed after thee, Gen. 17.7. How many perſons of his ſeed are dead without circumciſion, of whom nevertheleſs God declareth himſelf to be the God and the Saviour.

The Prophet Jeremy was ſanctified from the womb and before he was born, as God himſelf told him, Jer. 1.5. The ſame is ſaid of John the Baptiſt. Cornelius and his family received the Holy Ghoſt before they were baptiſed, Act. 10.47, & 48. All theſe were ſanctified by the Holy Ghoſt, and by conſequent capable of ſalvation before they received any Sacrament. Whence it followeth that neither Circumciſion nor Baptiſm were unto them neceſſary for Salvation.

Act. 2.39. St. Peter ſaith to the Jews, The promiſe is unto you and to your children; Now the children not yet baptiſed, were no leſs their children then after Baptiſm.

1 Cor. 7.14. St. Paul ſpeaking of a husband and wife, one of which is a Chriſtian, the other an Infidel, ſaith that their children are holy, Elſe (ſaith he) your children were unclean but now they are holy. If when one party only is believing, the children are holy, that is, conſecrated to God, how much more when the child hath two believing perſons for his Parents?

Upon that text the Cardinal labours very much to find what the word Holy p. 668Pag. 675.importeth, and according to his cuſtom he clogs his own way with troubleſome diſtinctions ſaying that there is a legal and an Evangelical pollution, one abſolute, another relative, one in it ſelf, another in relation to another, one in the being, another in the uſe. He taketh a long way beſet with thorns, having a plain and eaſie way at hand. For what he ſaith, comes to the ſame thing that we ſay, but he is aſhamed to borrow it from us, namely, that the children of believers are dedicated and conſecrated unto God, and eſteemed to be of his people; in the ſame manner as all the people of Iſrael was holy, and the Temple, and the Sabbath, and the victims; Which holineſs neither in infants, nor in adult perſons doth neceſſarily import ſalvation.

Pag. 674.By the way I comprehend not why the Cardinal corrupts this text, and inſtead of ſaying with St. Paul, now your children are holy, ſaith your children are clean.

And whereas our Adverſaries hold, that the Baptiſm of blood ſerveth inſtead of the Baptiſm with water, let them tell us whether that Baptiſm of blood be a Sacrament or no, if it be a Sacrament, hangmen have conferred it, who yet had no intention to confer it. And if in a perſon not baptiſed with water, martyrdome is a Sacrament, ſhall the ſame matyrdome in a baptiſed perſon be alſo a Sacrament? For if it be ſo, that perſon hath twice received the Sacrament of Baptiſm; or if it be not ſo, it will follow, that in one, martyrdom is a Sacrament, in another, it is not.

And ſince the ſatisfactions, faſts, and ſelf-whippings of Dominick and Francis may be imputed to others, and in the Roman Church one whips himſelf for another; if the father makes a vow to cauſe himſelf to be baptiſed, why may not that vow be imputed to the child? eſpecially ſeeing that in Baptiſm the Godfathers anſwer for the child, and the Prieſt asking the child whether he believeth and renounceth the world and the Devil, the Godfather anſwereth for the child, Credo & Abrenuntio. If the child in Baptiſm believe by Atturney, why may he not alſo vow by Atturney? Whereas alſo the Roman Church holds that for want of Baptiſm the vow is ſufficient, let them tell us whether by that vow original ſin be blotted out, for if it be not blotted out by that vow, it followeth that the perſon not baptiſed cannot be ſaved by that vow; But if the vow of Baptiſm blots out original ſin, it will follow that the Baptiſm received after the vow, doth not blot out original ſin, and by conſequent becomes uſeleſs. For one cannot blot out that which is blotted out already, nor take away a ſpot which is no more.

What may be the reaſon why the Roman Church will have God to be more rigid to little children, then to adult perſons, of whom they hold that they may be ſaved without Baptiſm? Why may not God ſave infants without Baptiſm, by the efficacy of his Spirit working in them? eſpecially ſeeing that the Roman Church holds, that by the Baptiſm of infants, their original ſin is not only remitted but alſo wholly blotted out, and that they are made altogether pure and without ſin; by which doctrine they acknowledge that infants are capable of a perfect regeneration.

And ſeeing that to children dead without Baptiſm the Romaniſts appoint an underground dungeon which they call Limbus; we deſire to know of them what quarters the Roman Church aſſigneth for them after the day of Judgment when the earth ſhall be no more? and whether they ſhall riſe again with others? what ſentence the Judge ſhall give about them? and whether they ſhall be placed at the Lords right hand or at the left? For of all that no more then of Limbus Scripture ſpeaks never a word, and it belongs to them that have forged that Limbus to inſtruct us about theſe difficulties.

Beſides ſince many children not baptized have ſuffered martyrdome, as the new born infants which Herod cauſed to be ſlain at Bethlehem whom the Roman Church puts indifferently among Saints and Martyrs, how doth that agree with their doctrine, that the Baptiſm of water is abſolutely neceſſary to infants, and (as the Cardinal ſaith) that it is the only way that God hath given them to be p. 669ſaved? Do they not ſay themſelves, that the want of Baptiſm with water is ſupplyed in infant with martyrdom? So that it will be found, that the Roman Church holds not the Baptiſm of water neceſſary to infants, no more then to adult perſons.(e)(e)Pag. 245. Et ſicut parvulis naturali i. e. alieno peccato obnoxiis aliorum id eſt patronorum fides pro eis reſpondentium in baptiſmate ſit ad ſalutem, ita parvulis quibus baptiſmum degenari juſſiſti, parentum vel patronorum corde credentium, & pro parvulis ſuis fideli verbo baptiſma expetentium, ſed non impetrantium, fides & fidelis poſtulatio prodeſſe potuerunt; Dono ejus cujus Spiritus, quo regeneratio fit, ubi vult ſpirat. Hinckmar Arch-biſhop of Rhemes, a man of great name in his time, in his book of the fifty five chapters ch. 48. taxeth Hinkmar Biſhop of Laon his nephew, that to many other crimes he had added this, that he had hindred the Baptiſm of infants in his Dioceſs, whereby many children were dead without Baptiſm. Whom Hinckmar of Rhemes affirmeth to have been ſaved by the faith of their parents or their Godfathers, who had preſented themſelves to anſwer for them, and had required that theſe children might be baptiſed. For (ſaith he) the Spirit of God by whom regeneration is made, bloweth where he liſteth. This Prelat who writ about the year of the Lord 865. believed not, that it was juſt and agreeing with Gods goodneſs to exclude infants from ſalvation for the fault of another.

The Roman Church ſhuts up theſe children in a dark perpetual and burning priſon, where though they be in a vehement fire,(f)(f)Bell. l. 6. de amiſſione gratiae & ſtatu peccati. c. 3. & 5. they feel no pain. For (ſay the Doctors) original ſin deſerveth only privation of happineſs, which they call poena damni, not a pain of ſenſe and dolour. Yet it is certain that Chriſt hath ſuffered dolors and felt torments to expiate original ſin. A certain proof, that original ſin deſerveth the pain of ſenſe, and that infants both before and after baptiſm ſuffer dolors and torments, which cannot be pains of any ſin but original, ſince they have commited no actual ſin. But what may that pain be which is not felt, ſeeing that every puniſhment is impoſed that it may be felt? If theſe children in the Limbus are without any knowledge, they are no reaſonable creatures, and have nothing of Gods image in them. But if they know and feel that they are deprived of the preſence of God, they are very wicked and deſtitute of all love of God, if they feel not an extream dolor for that privation.

Truth is ſo ſtrong in all this, that it comes from our Adverſaries mouth againſt their will.(g)(g)Gerſon Tom. 3. de nativitate Virginis Conf. 2. Conſtat Deum &c. miſericordiam ſalvationis ſuae non ita Sacramentis alligaſſe quin abſque praejudicio legis poſſit pueros nondum natos extra uterum intus ſanctificare gratia ſuae Baptiſmo vel virtuti Spiritus ſancti. Gerſon Chancellor of the Univerſity of Paris. It is certain (ſaith he) that God hath not ſo tyed the grace of ſalvation unto the Sacraments, but that without pejudice of that law he may ſanctifie within, by the baptiſm of his grace, the children not yet come out of the womb. (h)(h)Lomb. l. 4. Diſt. 4. lic. E. Illud intelligendum eſt de illis qui poſſunt & contemnunt Baptizari. Vide Extrav. de Baptiſmo & ejus effectu Tit. 42. & Tit. 43. de Presbytero non baptizato, & Diſt. 4. de Conſecr. Can. Non ratione. & Can. Duo tempora. & Can. Si quis & Aug. lib. 4. contra Donatiſtas cap. 22, 23, 24. & 25.And Lombard ſaith, that this ſentence, Except a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghoſt, &c. muſt be underſtood of them that can be baptiſed and deſpiſe it. And he proveth his ſaying by Auſtin, Gabriel Biel ſaith the ſame upon that Diſtinction of Lombard. And Caietan in his Comment upon the third part of the ſumm of Thomas, qu. 68. Art. 2.

That place of Auſtin which Lombard mentioneth in the fourth book of Baptiſm ch. 22. is this, that Baptiſm which was hindred, not by the contempt of religion but by the term of neceſſity is inviſibly adminiſtred. And it is alleadged in the 43. of the Decretals.(i)(i)Decretal. tit. 43. De Presbytero non baptizato cap. Apoſtolicam. Fides tua ſalvum te fecit, & remittuntur tibi peccata, credenti utique nec tamen tincto.

The ſame Father in the ſecond Book againſt Creſconius ch. 33. moveth this difficulty againſt Cyprian, who maintained, that the Baptiſm conferred by Hereticks was null. He asketh what will become of thoſe, who before were converted unto the faith, and were received into the Church without Baptiſm? He anſwereth that in the very words of Cyprian, (k)(k)Poteſt Dominus miſericordia ſua indulgentiam dare & eos qui ad Eccleſiam ſimpliciter admiſſi in Eccleſia obdormierunt ab Eccleſiae ſuae muneribus non ſeparare.The Lord by his mercy may grant them pardon, and not exclude from the gifts of his Church thoſe that being received with ſimplicity into the Church, are dead in the Church.

Tertullian in the book of Baptiſm, ch. 12. Thy faith hath ſaved thee (ſaid p. 607Chriſt) and thy ſins are forgiven thee, namely to him that believed, although he was not baptiſed.

Had Gregory Nazianzen believed, that infants cannot be ſaved without Baptiſm, he had not adviſed the Parents(l)(l)Greg. Orat. de Bapt. Edit. Pariſ. p. 658. to defer their Baptiſm, till they were come to age of inſtruction.

Had the antient Church believed, that Baptiſm was abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation, Chriſtians would not have put off Baptiſm to the laſt part of their life, as it was then the cuſtom of many.

The antient Councils are full of Conſtitutions that forbid to baptiſe at any other time but Eaſter and Whitſuntide, ſo that no baptiſing was ſeen in the Church for ten moneths together every year. How many infants dyed in thoſe ten moneths? and how many adult unbaptiſed perſons were overtaken with ſuddain death? It is true that in many Canons this clauſe was added, ſaving only in caſe of neceſſity. But every one knoweth that mans life is ſubject to ſuch ſuddain accidents, that many times one hath no leiſure to think of any thing, much leſs to take an order for Baptiſm.

It is very obſervable, that the Emperor Valentinian, who in his life had opportunity enough to be baptiſed, dyed without Baptiſm, and yet Ambroſe in his Oration upon his death holds that he enjoyeth eternal felicity.

Againſt the abſolute neceſſity of Baptiſm of water, I could bring many teſtimonies, not only of the Antients, but alſo of the chief Doctors of the Roman Church. The authentical definition of Pope Innocent the III. will be one for all. It is in the third book of the Decretals, Tit. 43. de Presbytero non Baptiſato, where he declareth that a Prieſt unbaptiſed yet was ſaved.(m)(m)Presbyterum quem ſine unda Baptiſmatis extremum diem clauſiſſe ſignificaſti, quia in ſanctae Matris Eccleſiae fide & Chriſti nominis confeſſione perſeveraverit, ab originali peccato ſolutum, & coeleſtis patriae gaudium eſſe adeptum aſſerimus incunctanter. We affirm (ſaith he) without demurring, that the Prieſt of whom thou haſt ſent us word, that he died without the water of Baptiſm, is delivered from original ſin, and hath got the joy of the heavenly countrey, becauſe he perſevered in the faith of the Church our holy Mother, and in the confeſſion of the name of Chriſt. And a little after,(n)(n)Qui Chriſtum habet per fidem, etiamſi baptiſmum non habeat, habet utique fundamentum, praeter quod aliud poni non poteſt, Jeſum Chriſtum. He that hath Chriſt by faith, although he hath not Baptiſm, yet hath the foundation, out of which there is none, even Jeſus Chriſt. It is very like that this unbaptiſed Prieſt had baptiſed many children.

The Council of Trent in the ſeventh Seſſion, and fourth Canon pronounceth anathema to all that ſay that the Sacraments of the New Teſtament are not neceſſary, or the vow for want of the Sacrament.

As for Auſtin, by the like error whereby he believed the perception of the holy Communion to be neceſſary to infants, he believed alſo that every infant that dyed unbaptiſed was eternally damned in Hell fire, and was with the Devil, For in thoſe dayes the Limbus of infants was unknown. Wherein M. du Perron excuſeth him, ſaying that herein he was a pious Father, charitable, and compaſſionate, becauſe he took care that theſe poor little creatures ſhould be ſuccoured by the diligence of their parents. Upon which we deſire not to diſpute, being inclined to cover the defects of ſuch an excellent man. Yet ſince in this point he agreeth not with the Roman Church, the Romaniſts ſhould not uſe his authority in this queſtion.

Pope Leo the I. in the firſt Epiſtle to the Biſhops of Sicily in the third ch. holds, that Baptiſm was not effectual and neceſſary but after Chriſts reſurrection, and(o)(o)Chriſtum regenerationis gratiam ex ſua reſurrectione coepiſſe. that Chriſt by his reſurrection began the gift of regeneration. According to which doctrine Bellarmine in ch. 5. of the firſt book of Baptiſm ſaith, that(p)(p)Baptiſmus Chriſti non fuit neceſſarius neceſſitate medii aut praecepti ante mortem Chriſti. The Baptiſm of Chriſt, that is, the Baptiſm conferred by Chriſt, and his Apoſtles before the Lords death, was neither a neceſſary means, nor a neceſſary command.(g)(g)De Conſecratione, Diſt. 4. Can. A quodam. A quodam Judaeo neſcitis an Chriſtiano an Pagano multos in patria veſtra baptiſatos aſſeritis, & quid ſit inde agendum conſulitis.

To this join the doctrine of Pope Nicolas the I. (q) who judged and pronounced p. 671that Baptiſm conferred by a Jew, or by a Pagan is good and valid, if the man did but baptiſe in the name of the Trinity, or only in the name of Chriſt. And the cuſtom of the Roman Church, in which women confer the Sacrament of Baptiſm, without which they hold that theſe children could not be ſaved. For hence it followeth that the Sacrament conferred by a Jew or a Mahumetan who are Chriſts enemies, hath more efficacy then that which Chriſts and his Apoſtles have conferred, and that a Pagan or a woman do more good to a child, which but for them had dyed unbaptiſed, then all the Apoſtles together could have done.

If one receiveth Baptiſm out of hypocriſie, as the Marranes do in Spain to avoid the Inquiſition, Shall that Baptiſm blot out his ſin? Shall his crime be profitable to him? Shall the grace of God be ſo tyed to the water that it turn into a bondage unto God himſelf, ſo that God be obliged to do good unto hypocrites, and to give his grace for a reward of the profanation of his holy Sacrament?

Beſides, all this efficacy of Baptiſm upon which they pin ſalvation, depends upon the intention of the perſon that baptiſeth, which muſt be gheſt at, and preſumed by conjecture. For if we believe the Roman Church, he that baptiſeth, may by taking off his intention take away the efficacy of the Sacrament; And the grace of God to the child is ſubjected to another mans intention.

CHAP. 2. Senſe of the forealleadged text, John 3.5. How unworthily and unjuſtly Cardinal du Perron deals with Calvin. A notable ignorance of the Cardinal.

IOhn Calvin, whom, becauſe he is ſo odious unto men, we preſume to be eſpecially beloved of God, in his Comment upon John 3. expounding theſe words of our Saviour, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, is of opinion that in that text it is not ſpoken of Baptiſm, but of ſpiritual regeneration, and expounds theſe words to be born of water and of the Spirit, to be regenerated by the Spirit, waſhing the heart, or, by a ſpiritual waſhing; in the ſame manner as John the Baptiſt, Matth. 3.11. exhorting the Phariſees and Sadduces to repent, tells them that one was coming after him who ſhould baptiſe them with the Holy Ghoſt and with fire, that is, with a fervent ſpirit, heating and purifying their hearts. Which is a familiar and frequent figure, called by the Grammarians foreign, as when Virgil ſaith molem & montes, inſtead of moles montoſas, and pateris libamus & auro, inſtead of pateris aureis. Thus Luke ſaith, Act. 14.13. That the Prieſt of Jupiter brought foreign, bulls and crowns, inſtead of crowned bulls. Thus Rev. 14.10. Fire and brimſtone, inſtead of burning brimſtone. And 2 Tim. 1.10. Life and Immortality, for immortal life. And Joh. 14.6. Chriſt calls himſelf the way and the truth, that is, the true way.

This expoſition of Calvin is grounded upon theſe reaſons,

1. Becauſe Chriſt having ſaid, Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, addeth a little after, ſo is every man that is born of the Spirit, taking to be born of the Spirit, and to be born of water and of the Spirit, for the ſame thing, and declaring that the Spirit alone is ſufficient for that regeneration.

2. Becauſe it is the ſtyle and ordinary language of Chriſt, to underſtand by water the grace of the Spirit, as John 4, 14. he promiſeth to give water which whoſoever drinketh ſhall never thirſt, and the water that he ſhall give him, ſhall be made in him a well ſpringing into everlaſting life. And Job. 7.37. If any man thirſt, let him come to me and drink. He that believeth in me, as the Scripture hath p. 672ſaid, he ſhall flow with rivers of living water. Ʋpon which St. John addeth, This ſpake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him ſhould receive.

3. This ſentence of Chriſt according to Calvins expoſition is abſolutely true, and admitteth no exception; for no man is ſaved unleſs he be regenerated by the Spirit of God. But if one will underſtand it of the Baptiſm of water, he is forced to bring multitude of exceptions which turn that rule into ſmoak, and bring it to nothing. For our Adverſaries except adult perſons, who have made a vow to be baptiſed; And thoſe that are regenerated by Gods Spirit; And Martyrs unbaptiſed, And thoſe that have believed in Chriſt before his reſurrection; And the infants ſlain for Chriſts cauſe, who are dead without Baptiſm, as thoſe that were put to death by Herods command. Thus then our Adverſaries expound theſe words of Chriſt, Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, that is, None can be ſaved, except he be baptiſed with water, or except he be regenerated by the Holy Ghoſt, or except he hath vowed to be baptiſed, or except he hath ſuffered Martyrdome, whether he be adult or an unbaptiſed infant. Which are terrible Gloſſes, and an interpretation which ſaith openly, that the Baptiſm of water is not neceſſary.

4. Chriſt ſaying, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he ſhall not enter into the Kingdom of God, ſpake to Nicodemus, and for Nicodemus, to whom our Adverſaries themſelves hold that the Baptiſm of water was not neceſſary. This Phariſee that had the dye of Phariſaiſm, which was a diſcipline of pride and of opinion of ſelf-righteouſneſs, and a doctrine which made the ſervice of God to conſiſt in petty outward obſervations, is brought back by Chriſt to the elements of true piety conſiſting in changing a mans nature, and in regeneration by the Holy Ghoſt. It may be alſo that Nicodemus being imbrued with the opinion of the(r)(r)Joſeph. Origin. lib. c. 2. Metempſychoſis held by the Phariſees (which made the ſouls to paſs into other bodyes by a new birth) Chriſt would ſpeak to him of another birth which he had not yet comprehended.

5. That which Chriſt addeth is conſiderable. The wind bloweth where it liſteth and thou heareſt the ſound thereof, but canſt not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; So is every one that is born of the Spirit. For this compariſon of the wind is fit to repreſent the ſecret vertue of the Holy Ghoſt, not the efficacy of waſhing with material water. And truly in the tongue which Chriſt ſpake,(s)(s)foreign the ſame word ſignifieth both wind and Spirit.

6. With theſe reaſons(t)(t)Tolet Com. in Joh. 3. Abuſi ſunt hoc Servatoris loco Haeretici dicentes, Neminem poſſe ſervari qui non ſit ex aqua & Spiritu regeneratus, quantumvis cum contritione & deſiderio Baptiſmi morte praeventus decedat.John 3 Cardinal Tolet found himſelf ſo convinced, that he calleth them hereticks, that out of this text of Joh. 3.5. will infer the abſolute neceſſity of Baptiſm.

Againſt this the Cardinal is ſtorming and raging with great impetuoſity. He ſaith that giving this interpretation to the text, is playing with Scripture with childiſh and ridiculous eluſions, and deſtroying the faith of the fundamental Sacrament of the Church. He wonders at Calvins ignorance, ſaying that God hath blinded Calvin by his juſt judgement; That by his ignorance he hath killed all little chilren dead without Baptiſm; That he hath given a mortal wound unto his Church, &c.

To that clattering haile of words, he addes a ſpecious reaſon; That according to Calvins expoſition there ſhould be a battologie (that is, a vain repetition) in Chriſts words. And that if water ſignifies here Spirit, then theſe words, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, will ſignifie, Except a man be born of the Spirit and of the Spirit. This Prelat ſhould have been put to his Grammar again, where he might have learned that in this figure where two ſubſtantives are joined together, one of them muſt be interpreted as an adjective, Pateris & auro for pateris aureis; The Spirit and the fire for the fervent Spirit; the water of the Spirit for the ſpiritual water, or the ſpiritual waſhing, or the waſhing and cleanſing Spirit; for theſe come all to one.

To anſwer the example of Matth. 3.11. where John the Baptiſt ſpeaking of Chriſt ſaith, He ſhall baptiſe you with the Holy Ghoſt, and with fire, the Cardinal ſpeakes as ſitting down to take breath after a long race. Here (ſaith he) I will p. 673take a little breath to give me time to contemplate and admire the prodigious ignorance or inadvertence of Calvin, whoſe paſſion hath ſo blindfolded him that he is now by his paſſion put in the rank of thoſe of whom God ſpeaks by his Prophet, I will blind the eyes of this people that they ſeeing ſee not. Theſe high ſwoln words promiſe to make us ſee ſome groſs ignorance of Calvin. Let us ſee it. For (ſaith the Cardinal) the Lord in this place hath not added the word Fire(u)(u)This is an odd and dark expreſſion of the Cardinal, which the Tranſlator leaveth as he finds it. to repeat the intelligence of the word Spirit. This Prelat believed that it was Chriſt that ſpake theſe words, whereas they are the words of John the Baptiſt ſpeaking to the Sadduces and Phariſees. Truly this Cardinal ſhould not have pranced ſo high to ſtumble ſo foully at the very firſt ſtep. But this is worſe, The Lord (ſaith he) in that place hath not added the word Fire to repeat the intelligence of the word Spirit, but to expreſs the external and viſible kind of the fire, which goeth along with the Baptiſm of the Spirit, wherewith our Lord baptiſed his Apoſtles and his other Diſciples upon the day of Pentecoſt. A wofull ignorance. This man thinks that theſe words of John the Baptiſt, He ſhall baptiſe you with the Holy Ghoſt, and with fire, are ſpoken to the Apoſtles, and that it is a promiſe made to them that the Spirit ſhould deſcend upon them in the ſhape of fiery tongues. For when John the Baptiſt ſaid, He ſhall baptiſe you, the Apoſtles were not preſent, and were not yet Chriſts Diſciples. Who ſo will read the text may ſee, that this you, is not ſpoken to the Diſciples of Chriſt but to Sadduces and Phariſees, to whom John the Baptiſt promiſeth that if they would be converted, Chriſt would baptiſe them with a better Baptiſm then that of water which John adminiſtred, yea that Chriſt would baptiſe or cleanſe them with the fervent and purifying vertue of his Spirit. Had the Cardinal been verſed in the ſtile of the Prophets, he might have known that this expreſſion of John the Baptiſt is taken from Iſa. 4.4. where God promiſeth to purge the blood of Jeruſalem, that is the grievous and bloody ſins of that people, by the Spirit of judgement and by the Spirit of burning.

Out of all this it is evident, that the more violently the Cardinal is ſtorming, the more is his ignorance to be laughed at, or pitied.

CHAP. 3. How contemptible Baptiſm is in the Roman Church, and miſerably diſgraced.

THe doctrine of the neceſſity of Baptiſm muſt be attended with the doctrine of the vertue of the ſame, for it is for the fruit that we hope from Baptiſm, that we preach the neceſſity thereof. The Cardinal ſaith that we have taken all the efficacy from Baptiſm, and that we make it only a bare ſign without any vertue.

We on the contrary accuſe our Adverſaries, that they have clipt the efficacy and ſignification of Baptiſm, reſtraining the vertue thereof only to ſins committed before Baptiſm. For as for the ſins committed ſince baptiſm, they have reſerved the remiſſion thereof to the Sacrament of Penitence, becauſe that Sacrament is far more lucrative and beneficial unto them then Baptiſm. For baptiſing will afford but little gain. But by the Sacrament of Penitence they give the abſolution of ſins, pardon in quality of Judges, the offenſes committed againſt God, and make themſelves Judges in Gods cauſe. By Confeſſions they ſearch the conſciences and the ſecrets of families. And by Penitences and Satisfactions they impoſe corporal and pecuniary pains upon ſinners, even upon Princes and Kings. This is one of the main pillars of the Papal Empire, and the principal revenue of the Roman Clergy. Wherefore we muſt not wonder, that they have clipt off the greateſt part of the efficacy of Baptiſm inſtituted by Chriſt, to p. 674beſtow it upon the Sacrament of Penitence invented by men.

With the like diſgrace of Baptiſm our Adverſaries prefer the Sacrament of Confirmation which is an humane tradition before Baptiſm. For in the fifth Diſtinction of Conſecration Can. de his, they make Pope Melchiades to ſay that(a)(a)Sicut unum majoribus, id eſt, ſummis Pontificibus eſt accommodatum, quod niſi à majoribus p…rfici non poteſt, & majori veneratione venerandum eſt. Et Can. Omnes. Omnes fideles per manus impoſitionem Epiſcoporum Spiritum Sanctum accipere debent, ut plane Chriſtiani inveniantur. Et Can. Ut Jejuni. Nunquam erit Chriſtianus, niſi in Conſtrmatione Epiſcopali fuerit Chriſmatus. Be…l. lib. de Confirm. cap. 1. Tam ratione Min…ſtri q…àm ratione ſubjecti praeſtat Confirmatio Baptiſmo, ut recte docet Magiſter. Et. cap. 11. Confert gratiam gratum facientem & quidem majorem quàm ipſe Baptiſmus in ordine ad roborandam animam adverſus diaboli impetus. Confirmation ought to be more honoured then Baptiſm.

And Lombard Father of the School, and after him Bellarmin in the firſt book of Confirmation, maintain, that Confirmation is more excellent then Baptiſm, both becauſe of the ſubject which is the forehead, and becauſe of the dignity of the Miniſter which is the Biſhop. And in ch. 11. Confirmation confers a grace which makes us acceptable, and that grace greater then that which is conferred in Baptiſm, as for ſtrengthening the ſoul againſt the aſſaults of the Devil.

The ſame diſtinction in the Canon Omnes, ſaith that by Confirmation men are made fully and perfectly Chriſtians, as though men were made but half Chriſtians by Baptiſm. And the Canon Ʋt Jejuni declares the ſame, that none can be a Chriſtian unleſs he hath received the Chriſm in the Epiſcopal Confirmation.

For theſe cauſes in the Roman Church a porter, a woman, an hermaphrodite, a Jew, a Pagan, yea a Pagan-whore, may baptiſe; and this holy Sacrament is proſtituted to the moſt infamous unbaptiſed perſons. But Confirmation, as more hohonorable, is adminiſtred by the Biſhop only, who conferreth it with great apparat and ſolemnity. See the Definition of Pope Nicolas the I. Can. A quodam Judice, in the fourth Diſtinction of the Conſecration, where he pronounceth that Baptiſm conferred by an Impoſtor, though a Jew and a Pagan, is good & valid. Neither is it enough for them to have ſo diſgraced Baptiſm, but they make that ſmall vertue which they leave to it to depend upon the intention of the Prieſt that batiſeth, which intention muſt be gheſt at by a pious conjecture; For when all is ſaid, no perſon in the Roman Church is certain that he is baptiſed. For who knoweth the intention of a mans heart? eſpecially in an age ſwarming with Atheiſts? And if the Prieſt that baptiſeth was baptiſed by another Prieſt, baptiſed by another that had no intention to confer the Sacrament, his Prieſthood is null, and his Baptiſm null, and ſo by remounting the uncertainty groweth ſtill, and is multiplyed to infinity.

To theſe you may add the ſpittle, the ſalt, the oyl, the exorciſms, whereby the Roman Church hath defiled the ſimplicity and purity of Baptiſm, as it was inſtituted by Chriſt and practiſed by his Apoſtles.

CHAP. 4. The doctrine of our Churches about the vertue and efficacy of Baptiſm.

THat man honoureth the Sacraments as he ought, who yields unto them that degree of honour which God hath conferred upon them; and receiving them with faith and reverence, yet bewareth of attributing that to the ſignes and the Miniſtry of man which is proper only to the vertue of Gods Spirit. This we do in our Churches. For we ſay that in Baptiſm the waſhing of all our ſins by the blood of Chriſt, is not only repreſented and figured unto us, but alſo preſented and applyed: the Sacraments being not only figurative but alſo exhibitive of the grace of God. By the waſhing of our ſins we underſtand the remiſſion of our ſins, and together regeneration or ſpiritual renewing, according to the ſtile of Scripture, Act. 22.16. Iſa. 1.16. Zech. 1.6. Hebr. 10.22.

p. 675The adult that receive Baptiſm feel the effects of the ſame; God working in them, not by the water, but with the water of Baptiſm. As for infants that are baptiſed, it is a hard matter for us to ſay, how far Baptiſm is effectual in them as for regeneration, ſince Scripture gives us no inſtruction upon that point. If one would judge by the apparent ſignes, as by their cry, and by their ſtirring and ſhrinking when they feel the cold water of Baptiſm, one might judge rather that they are diſpleaſed with that action. Yea it is but too ordinary, that when they have got ſome years and ſtrength, they ſhew by the perverſity of their nature that Baptiſm had done them but little good. Only we ſay that when we baptiſe little children according to Chriſts ordinance, God thereby declareth that he receiveth them into his Church, and marketh them with the outward ſign of his Covenant. And that if they belong to Gods Election, they ſhall one time ſhew really how effectual Baptiſm was with them, and that the grace of God in Chriſt was not in vain offered unto them, for the Sacraments have not the ſame effect with all perſons.

CHAP. 5. How the Romaniſts after they have depreſs Baptiſm, exalt it with improper praiſes.

FAlſe praiſes are a kind of reviling. The abuſe is much alike, whether we take away from Baptiſm the honour due to it, or attribute unto it that honour which God gives not to it in Scripture; For both the wayes the nature of the Sacrament is corrupted, and with the Sacrament the doctrine of the Goſpel. Our Adverſaries ſin in both the extreams; on the one ſide debaſing Baptiſm with great contempt, and on the other ſide exalting it with abſurd praiſes, ſo that the preaching of the Goſpel ſheweth but ſmall in compariſon.

The firſt error of the Roman Church in this matter, is this tenet, That by Baptiſm both original ſin, and all the actual ſins committed before Baptiſm, are not only pardoned but alſo removed; ſo that in baptiſed perſons there is no more original ſin, nor any ſpot, nor any thing diſpleaſing to God, or that may properly be called ſin. They are the very words of the Council of Trent in the 5. Seſſion, and of the Catechiſm of Trent in the Chapter of Baptiſm.

Thus theſe Gentlemen ſtuffed with righteouſnes and holineſs boaſt themſelves to be without ſin, becauſe Baptiſm hath taken away all ſtain from them, and whatſoever is diſpleaſing to God. Yet they confeſs that all men ſin venially, thereby unſaying what they have ſaid, and undoing what they have done. And becauſe they cannot deny that they have luſts, and are tempted with evil deſires, they ſay that luſt is no ſin.(a)(a)Hanc concupiſcentiam quam aliquando Apoſtolus appellat peccatum, ſancta Synodus declarat Eccleſiam Catholicam nunquam intellexiſſe peccatum appellari, quod vere & proprie in renatis peccatum ſit, ſed quia ex peccato eſt, & ad peccatum inclinat. The Council of Trent in the V. Seſſion acknowledgeth that the Law ſaith, Thou ſhalt not covet, and that St. Paul calls luſt ſin, Rom. 7. and yet the ſame Council maintains that this luſt in baptiſed perſons is no ſin. Only they call that luſt which leads to evill(b)(b)Andradius Denfenſ. fidei Trid. lib. 5. part. 2. fol. 327. & 328. Catech Trid. cap. de Baptiſm…. a match, a vice, an iniquity, and furies of luſt, but not ſin.

This doctrine of pride is contrary to Gods word, to experience, to reaſon, to common ſenſe, and contradicts it ſelf.

1. For by this doctrine baptiſed perſons are ſaid to be altogether without ſin, which is repugnant to Gods word, where we learn, that if we ſay that we have no ſin, we deceive our ſelves and the truth is not in us, 1 Joh. 1.8. And that in many things we offend all, Jam. 3.2. Wherefore alſo the Apoſtles ſaid in their ordinary prayer, Forgive us our treſpaſſes.

2. The Apoſtle St. Paul was baptiſed; Yet Rom. 7.17. ſpeaking of his natural corruption, he ſaith that ſin dwelleth in him; And two verſes after he acknowledgeth, that he did the evil which he would not. Of that ſin abiding in him p. 676he ſaith, v. 23. that it is a warring againſt the law of his mind, that is, againſt the law of God printed in his mind, and bringing him into captivity to the law of ſin which is in his members.

3. We are more obliged to believe the Apoſtle who ſaith, that luſt is ſin, Rom. 7.7. And the Law of God, ſaying, Thou ſhalt not covet, (whence it followeth, that coveting is ſin, ſince it is a tranſgreſſion of the law) then the Council of Trent, whoſe impious boldneſs is come ſo far as to charge the Apoſtle, that he ſpake neither truly nor properly when he called luſt ſin.

4. The ſame Apoſtle ſaith, Rom. 6.23. that the wages of ſin is death. Since then infants baptiſed are ſubject to dye, and many dye ſoon after Baptiſm, it followes that they are not without ſin, and that original ſin abideth in them ſtill after Baptiſm.

5. And whereas none can give what he hath not, the children of baptiſed perſons, ſhould be born without original ſin, if the parents were without original ſin.

6. If baptiſed infants ſhould be without original ſin, they ſhould be alſo without actual ſin all their dayes; For actual ſin proceeds from original ſin, and from our natural corruption.

7. Take two children, the one baptiſed, the other unbaptiſed, it may happen that the baptiſed child ſhall become more wicked then the unbaptiſed, according to the inſtructions and examples which ſhall be given him. If both be wicked alike, murtherers, blaſphemers, adulterers, is it like that whereas the ſins of the unbaptiſed proceed from original ſin, the ſins of the baptiſed muſt be aſſigned to ſome other cauſe which brings forth ſuch wicked effects, and yet be no ſin?

8. As for adult perſons that receive Baptiſme, as when a Jew or a Pagan turns Chriſtian, may it be affirmed that Baptiſm takes original ſin from them, ſeeing that many receive Baptiſm out of hypocriſie? Shall that impoſture and profanation of Baptiſm be profitable unto them? Shall that actual ſin ſerve to aboliſh original ſin in them?

9. It is certain that adult perſons cannot receive Baptiſm worthily, and to ſalvation, unleſs they have faith and repentance. They had then faith and repentance before they were baptiſed. Whence it followeth that faith and repentance are things compatible with original ſin. Such was Cornelius, a man full of faith and vertue, who received the Holy Ghoſt before he was baptiſed. If faith and repentance hath blotted out original ſin in them before they were baptiſed, then there are ſome perſons in whom original ſin hath not been put out by Baptiſm.

10. If any deſiring to receive Baptiſm is prevented by death, our Adverſaries hold that ſuch a man is ſaved nevertheleſs, and that the vow ſupplyeth the want of Baptiſm. I ask the Romaniſts, whether ſuch a man dyeth having original ſin? They anſwer, No, becauſe no man can be ſaved unleſs he be purged before death from original ſin. Let them tell us then by what means he was purged from original ſin, ſince he was not baptiſed? If they give us another means, they ſhall make Baptiſm unneceſſary.

11. If by the Baptiſm of water original ſin is altogether taken away, it was a great error in the antient Chriſtians to put off their Baptiſm to mans age, yea to the laſt part of their life. No doubt but that their Biſhops and Paſtors of the Church would have ſeverely rebuked them, becauſe when they could put off original ſin by Baptiſm, yet they would purpoſely keep and retain it. Yet we ſee no ſuch reprehenſion in the books of the Fathers.

(d)(d)Andrad. Ibid. Concupiſcere neque ſcelus eſt, neque praecepto illo, Non concupiſces, tanquam, praeſtandum ſed tanquam optandum prohibetur.12. Our Adverſaries themſelves, being convinced in their conſciences, contradict themſelves. For while they maintain that there is no ſin properly ſo called in baptiſed perſons, yet they ſay in other terms, that luſt remaining after Baptiſm is ſin, yea a very great ſin. For they call it vice and iniquity, and moſt grieveous furies. And the Catechiſm of the Council of Trent ſaith, that(c)(c)Acerrimam eſſe pug…am cupiditatis adverſus Spiritum, Andrad. Defenſ. Fidei Trid. l. 5. p. 327. Auguſtinus hanc concupiſcentiam non modo malam ſed vitium, ſed languorem, ſed divinae legi contrariam, ſed iniquitatem ſaepius appellat. Et paulo poſt vocat graviſſimas farias. this luſt fighteth moſt fiercely againſt the Spirit of God. What are vices and iniquities but ſins? Is it not a ſin to tranſgreſs Gods law, Thou ſhalt not covet? St. John affirmeth ſo much, 1 Joh. 3.4. Sin is the tranſgreſſion of the Law. And according to the verſion of the Roman Church, Peccatum eſt iniquitas. But theſe men conceive an iniquity p. 677without ſin, and a tranſgreſſion of the law which is no ſin. So far that Andradius who was one of the Council of Trent maintaines, that we are not obliged to obey that commandment, Thou ſhalt not covet. He ſaith that it is well done to wiſh, that we may fulfil that commandment, but that we are not bound to it: Thus that commandment ſhall be a commandment no more, and muſt be razed out of the Tables of Gods Law. It ſhall be a matter for good wiſhes, not a rule for a good life. If a Turk or a Jew covets the wife or houſe of his neigbour, it will be a ſin. But a Chriſtian by coveting his neighbours wife ſhall not ſin. For, according to the doctrine of the Roman Church, in baptiſed perſons luſt is no more ſin. A thing ſo far from truth, that it is certain that a Chriſtian coveting his neighbours wife ſinneth more then a Pagan, becauſe having more knowledge he hath leſs excuſe, and having received more graces, he is more obliged to love God, and obey his law.

13. Let our adverſaries tell us, whether, when they ask of God pardon of their ſins, they ask together that he forgive them that luſt, that vice, that iniquity, that fury reſiſting Gods Spirit, which they acknowledge to be within them? For if they ask pardon for it, they confeſs it to be a ſin. But if they ask not pardon for it, is it material whether they be damned for their vices, iniquities, and perverſe luſts; or for their ſins? What eaſe is it to them that they are not damned for their ſins, but muſt go to hell upon another ſcore? Why do we ſeek for new names while the thing remaineth?

14. As for the aſſertion of the Council of Trent, That God ſeeth nothing in baptiſed perſons which he hates or diſlikes; Doctor Andradius, who was preſent, and actor in that definition, yet aſſerteth the contrary, and ſaith, That(e)(e)Andrad. Def. Trid. lib. 5. fol. 327. 6. Concupiſcentia non poteſt non Deo juſtitiae amatori eſſe magnopere inviſa. this luſt in baptiſed perſons is moſt odious unto God. For who will believe that God hateth not iniquity and diſliketh not the tranſgreſſion of his law?

15. In vain they ſay that Baptiſm is diſhonoured and debaſed, if we believe not that it makes man perfect, and altogether without ſin, and if we teach that it leaveth man in the ſink of his natural corruption. For by the ſame reaſon, one may ſay that Baptiſm is diſgraced if we believe not that it makes a man immortal. And our Adverſaries acknowledge that after Baptiſm vice remaineth, and iniquity, and luſt contrary to Gods law. Sacraments ſhall be honoured as they ſhould be, when they are put in the rank which the word of God aſſigneth them. Now the word of God aſcribeth not to them that vertue, to make a man perfect and without ſin. Our Adverſaries aſcribe not that effect to the Euchariſt, which they make a thouſand times more miraculous then Baptiſm. The grace of Chriſt is offered to us in Baptiſm, as alſo in the preaching of the Goſpel, and in the holy Communion, to bring us to perfection and immortality. But God worketh that by degrees; not in an inſtant. Neither are the Sacraments diſgraced, becauſe they make not a man perfectly juſt and immortal, preſently, and in a moment.

16. If our Adverſaries ſay that luſt remaineth in man after Baptiſm to be to him an exerciſe, the ſame I may ſay of original ſin, and of the relicks of ſin. Thoſe ſouls remain not mired in corruption, in whom ſin reigneth not, but is decreaſing daily.

17. Indeed the Apoſtle Rom. 6.4. ſaith, that we are buried with Chriſt by Baptiſm. But in theſe words the Apoſtle ſpeaks not of the efficacy of Baptiſm as the Doctors of the Council of Trent eſteem, but of the ſignification of the ſame; in the ſame manner as the Apoſtle ſaith to the Galatians,Gal. 3.1.Gal 3:1 that Chriſt was crucified among them, becauſe his death had been repreſented to them by the preaching of the Goſpel and by the Sacraments. For dipping in water repreſents to us, that we dye to ſin with a conformity to the death and burial of Chriſt. Our Adverſaries themſelves acknowledge that after Baptiſm, vice and iniquity is living within us, a thing ill ſuiting with that burial which they imagine.

With the like abuſe they ſay, that the water of Baptiſm waſheth ſins, and that Baptiſm regenerateth him that is baptiſed, powring into him the habits of hope and charity, and that (as they ſay) ex opere operato, by the work wrought, that is, by the bare and ſingle action of Baptiſm, the diſpoſition of the baptiſed perſon p. 678being not requiſite for it. So that if one baptized a Jew ſleeping or thinking on other things, and having neither faith nor charity, that Baptiſm will nevertheleſs confer juſtifying grace upon him, with regeneration & the habits of faith and charity, one condition only being requiſite in him, that he make no reſiſtance againſt it. They ſay that the water of Baptiſm hath that vertue becauſe it hath toucht the body of Chriſt in his Baptiſm, as the Catechiſm of the Council of Trent ſaith,(f)(f)Conc. Trid. cap. de Bapt. Chriſtus cum à Johanne baptizatus eſt, ſanctificandi virtiuem aquae tribuit. Chriſt when he was baptiſed by John, gave to water the vertue of ſanctifying. For it is their Doctrine that when Chriſt was baptiſed in Jordan, by immerſing his body into the water, he thereby ſanctified the water of Tyber, and of the Lake of Geneva, and the whole water of the Sea. To this end alſo ſerveth the conſecration of the baptiſmal water by the Biſhop, when he bleſſeth the font. For to a thouſand ceremonies, as ſignes of the Croſs, aſperſions with ſalt and oyl, and exorciſmes, the Biſhop addeth a prayer whereby he asketh of God, that the Godhead be mingled with that water, that it may become a new creature, a fountain of life, and a regenerated water. All theſe myſtical inventions go beyond the antick borders of hangings in extravagancy. Theſe ſubtile Doctors have ſtretcht their wit to forge an infinity of Chimera's, and obtrude them for myſteries, without the word of God, and againſt common ſenſe.

It is a great abuſe to aſcribe unto water the vertue proper to the Holy Ghoſt, and to teach that Baptiſm formeth the habit of faith in children, ſeeing that they are without knowledge, and the habit of charity, ſeeing that they have no uſe of their will. How could they have charity, ſeeing that they are incapable of loving? For one muſt know before he can love. How could Baptiſme powre the habit of faith into adult perſons, ſeeing that they muſt have faith before they receive Baptiſm? How could infants receive the habit of faith, ſeeing that they cannot believe? And what becomes of thoſe habits of faith and charity, when they come to age? ſeeing that they ſhew themſelves prone to evil, and for the moſt part rejecting the doctrine of faith and rules of charity?

But who will believe that water can act upon ſouls, and that a corporal and inaminate thing can have a ſpiritual vertue? If the water of all the world received the vertue of regenerating the ſoul, becauſe the water of Jordan touched Chriſts body in his Baptiſm, we muſt alſo attribute the ſame vertue to all the bread, and to all the wine of the world; For Chriſt hath handled and eaten bread, and drunk wine in the Euchariſt, and hath conſecrated them with a conſecration far more expreſs then the ſanctification of the water of Jordan.

1. That opus operatum, work wrought, is a Chimera forged in the School, full of abſurdity, whereby they will have the Sacraments of the New Teſtament to regenerate and ſanctifie the ſouls by the ſingle action, that is, by the meer aſperſion of water poured upon the head of the infant, or of an adult perſon, and by the ſingle fraction or manducation of bread, the devotion or attention of the communicant being not required for it. It is as if one ſaid, that the preaching of the Goſpel regenerates ſouls by the only ſound of words and ſyllables, and that there is no need of the peoples faith and attention. If that be abſurd in the preaching of the word, how much more in the adminiſtration of Sacraments, ſeeing that Scripture exalteth the efficacy of the word incomparably more then that of the Sacraments.

2. They make the error more evident, by putting this among the prerogatives of the Sacraments of the New Teſtament above thoſe of the Old, which (if we muſt believe theſe Doctors) profited only opere operantis, that is, by the piety or devotion of thoſe that adminiſtred the Sacraments, or of thoſe that received them, in the ſame manner as prayers profit. Whence it followeth that circumciſion profited nothing, when it was conferred by a man deſtitute of the fear of God, and that the childs ſalvation depended on the diſpoſition and devotion of another.

3. Thence alſo it follows, that if Baptiſm be conferred by a Pagan or an impoſtor Jew, it profiteth and ſanctifieth by the bare action; But the Sacraments of the Old Teſtament though conferred by a Prophet had not the ſame vertue.

p. 6794. Obſerve alſo the goodly prerogative, which they attribute to the Sacraments of the New Teſtament, whereby devotion or attention is become unneceſſary, ſo that there is no danger in receiving them without devotion. This is then the advantage of the Roman Church above the Patriarchs and Prophets, that one may want devotion without peril, and be baptiſed in his ſleep, and that there is no danger for one to think of the wars of Piemont, or his private buſineſſes, whileſt he is receiving the Lords ſupper. Theſe Doctors will corrupt men that they may honour the Sacraments, and by exalting their vertue, they diminiſh the vertue and piety of thoſe that receive them. This tends to raiſe the dignity of Clergymen, who boaſt that they adminiſter the Sacraments, with ſo much efficacy, that their ſingle action ſupplyeth the want of piety, and that by pouring water upon the body they poure together vertues into the ſoul, although the man that conferreth that Sacrament be many times without any vertue. All that taken from the unwritten word, for Scripture ſaith nothing of that, and the Apoſtles were ignorant of all that doctrine.

To theſe two doctrines, whereby they exalt the efficacy of Baptiſm, they add a third; holding that Baptiſm prints an indelible character upon the ſoul, which the Pope himſelf cannot take away, and which remaineth even after this life, inſomuch that damned ſouls carry it into Hell. May it not be thought that the ſouls marked with that character are reſpected by other ſouls in Hell, and that the Devils make low congies to them? But who can boaſt that ever he ſaw that character, or that ever he felt the impreſſion of the ſame? In what place are thoſe ſouls marked? What is the form or the colour of that mark? The Apoſtle ſaith indeed that God marketh us with the ſeal of his Spirit, Eph. 1.13. & 4.30. and 2 Cor. 1.22. But in thoſe texts he ſpeaks not of the Sacraments which are adminiſtred to the wicked promiſcuouſly with the good. But he ſpeaks of the teſtimony of Gods Spirit, which is the Spirit of adoption bearing witneſs to our hearts, that we are Gods children. That teſtimony is proper to none but the right godly, and Infants are not yet capable of it.