Of Baptism, Chapter 16
CHAP. XVI. In which is handled, whether Baptiſme be to be repeated; but more eſpecially, whether ſuch as were baptized in infancy, ſhould be accounted baptized, or are to have that ordinance adminiſtred to them.
HAving givē the due bounds to the ordinance of Baptiſme, in reſpect of the ſubject of it, and ſayd what I judged cōvenient to that purpoſe, there is a very conſiderable queſtion yet remaining, and which cannot be left out in this diſcourſe, and that is, If infants ought not to be baptized, whether ſuch as were baptized in infācy ſhould be baptized againe?
Wherein firſt will come to be conſidered, whether Baptiſme be to be repeated or no?
I anſwer, there have bene ſome of that opinion, as Mercion and his followers, who had their firſt, ſecond and third baptiſme: Alſo a religion called the Hemerobaptiſtae, that is, the every day baptizers, that avowed, becauſe wee ſinned every day, therefore wee ſhould be every day baptized, and practiſed accordingly.
Secondly according to the received opinion, that I conceave it is not to be repeated.
Firſt becauſe the covenant of grace is but once made, and ſtruck with every man, & this is the ſeale of the Covenant, it is the Sacrament of regeneration, initiation and incorporation; but theſe things are not capable of being reïterated, therefore the ſeale and ſigne thereof ſhould not be, to this agrees that place Heb. 6.4.5.6. For it is impoſsible for thoſe vvho vvere once inlightned, and have taſted of the heavenly gift, and vvere made partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted the good vvord of God, & the povvers of the vvorld to come, if they ſhall fall avvay, to renevv them againe to repentance, &c.
The Apoſtle ſpeakes not here of theft, perjury, adultery, or any ſinne in particular, but of an intire revolting and falling away; when a ſinner offends not God in any particular, but renounces wholly to his grace, bids him adieu for ever; Now he falls thus, who revolts from the word of God, who extinguiſheth the light of it, & who deprives himſelf of the taſt of the heavenly gift, and quits the communion of the ſpirit, in the participatiō of its grace, which cannot be without the ſinne againſt the holy Ghoſt, and a totall falling from God: Now it is impoſsible, ſayes hee, thoſe ſhould be renevved by repentance, having ſinned againſt the holy Ghoſt, they have a heart that cannot repent; now they having broken covenant with God in the higheſt manner, and being uncapable of repentance, which is to precede Baptiſme, they are incapable of Baptiſme; for others though they ſinne, the ſame covenant, repentance, & Baptiſme ſtands good for ever.
Secondly becauſe the ſignification, the fruit & uſe of Baptiſme, is not for a moment, or reſpecting the time paſt onelyonly, but reſpects the future alſo, and the whole life of the baptized perſon, as appeares Rom. 6.2. So as the Baptiſme of repentance once receaved for remiſſion of ſinnes, remaynes as a pledge by us of the covenant of God, and that perpetuall waſhing which we have by the blood of Chriſt, Marke 14. Iohn did baptize in the vvildernes, and preach the baptiſme of repentance for the remiſsion of ſinnes; which is to be often thought of, for the full aſſurance of our pardō, for that promiſe is of perpetuall uſe and influence, He that beleeveth and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved; and Gal. 3.27. As many as have bene baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.
But thirdly the greateſt reaſon why Baptiſme is not to be repeated, is becauſe neither in precept or example wee find it repeated, which is the word of our inſtitutiō. But on the other ſide, There is one Lord, one faith, one Baptiſme, which is one, Ʋnitate uſus legitimi, in the unity of the lawfull uſe, as well as in other reſpects; ſo as there is no thought of leaving Chriſt, as if there were to be exſpected a new regeneration, and a new Baptiſme: The Fathers alſo were of this opinion, Tertull. lib. de Baptiſ. Semel lavacrum inimus, ſemel dilicta diluuntur. So Cyprian. lib. 2. Epiſt. 3. Baptiſma ſemel ſumitur, nec rurſus iteratur. Baptiſme is once received, nor is it repeated againe.
The queſtion then will be, what ſhall become of thoſe that have bene baptized into a falſe name by heritickes that erre about the Trinity, as the Arrians, Marcionites, &c.?
The receaved anſwer is that they are to be baptized aright, with the baptiſme of Chriſt, & in ſuch caſes, Baptiſme is not to be ſaid to be repeated, the former being no baptiſme or a nullity, and this according to the decree of the Counſell of Nice cap. 19. as Bucan quotes it p. 635. The like decree alſo hath a Counſell of Carthage, Ii ſunt baptizandi, de quibus incertum est, an fuerint baptizati necne, Concil. Carth. 50. cap. 6. They are to be baptized, of whom it is uncertain whether they were baptized or no. The like alſo ſaith Cyprian in his epiſtle 71. ad Quintum fratrem. Here was ſome difference in opinions, Cyprian and his Biſhops were of opinion that Baptiſme in an heretick church was null, and therefore thoſe who came to them were baptized, as ſuppoſing that vayne and nothing: others have thought that thoſe onelyonly were to be baptized againe, who had bene formerly baptized by ſuch a church and in ſuch a manner as the eſſentialls of Baptiſme were wanting, ſo the Arrians baptized, which rendred that ordinance vayne and null.
The ſame may be affirmed more fully of infant Baptiſme, that it is null and nothing, and therefore that the partie ſo ſuppoſed to be baptized, is indeed ſtill unbaptized, and therefore ought to be baptized according to the inſtitution of Chriſt, which Baptiſme, when he hath once receav'd, he cā in no way (as is before ſhewed) be ſayd to be rebaptiz'd; for thoſe thinges which cannot be ſhewen done, no reaſon allowes that they ſhould ſeeme to be reïterated.
To proceed therefore, The Sacraments in generall, & particularly Baptiſme, is that by which wee pledge our ſelves to God, or in which a formall covenant is made, in which wee promiſe obedience, and God protection & defence to be our God, and therefore 1. Pet. 3.21. it is ſtil'd a ſtipulation, or covenanting; alſo the word Sacrament, is from ſacring, making holy, dedicating, or initiating, as juramentum, an oath, is à jurando, from ſwearing.
In the civill law it ſignified an oath, Sacramenti praestatio, & recuſatio, the taking or refuſing an oath: The word Sacrament alſo is taken for a myſtery, for the viſible ſigne of an inviſible grace. In a word Baptiſme ſeemes to be nothing elſe, but the ceremony of a myſticall & ſpirituall marriage, for it is a dedication, a covenant, and a myſtery; and as in marriage beſides the words, there hath bene uſually ſome ceremonious ſigne, as the giving of a ring, or money, or a kiſſe, or the taking by the hand, ſo here, &c.
To examine this therefore by that ſimilitude and reſemblance, that which is the firſt and principall ingredient into marriage, is conſent, Nam nuptias non concubitus, ſed conſenſus facit; Not the bed, but conſent makes marriage; for otherwayes that joyning, which is fornication, or adultery, would be marriage: This ſtands by vertue of the firſt inſtitution, A man ſhall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his vvife, Ge. 2.24. How? By covenant and conſent.
This is ſo eſſentiall an ingredient, as Beza calls it the formall cauſe of marriage, others the efficient cauſe; therefore the lawyers ſay, Solus conſenſus matrimonium facit; OnelyOnly conſent makes the marriage. But then this conſent muſt be expreſt outwardly, Niſi quatenus conſentiunt, & conſenſum ſuum exterius exprimunt; becauſe the covenant & contract is externall.
But then laſtly and eſpecially, it muſt be the proper conſent of the parties married, for the conſent of the parents, who have ſome & the greateſt power beſides, cannot doe it; hence an error of the perſon, makes the marriage alſo null and invalid, as if I marry one, & another be put in the place, by the ſame reaſon, if one of the parties be mad conſtantly, becauſe they cannot conſent, becauſe that ſuppoſes not the conſent of the marryers, ſo as here is a formall or efficient fayle in reſpect of the conſent, and a materiall fayle in reſpect of the perſons married, which is as it were the ſubject matter of marriage.
Let us ſee what help this ſimilitude will give us to the notion of infant Baptiſme.
Firſt the great buſines of marriage is conſent of the parties married, this is the efficient or formall cauſe of it, ſo in our myſticall marriage, Baptiſme, the covenant ſtruck betweene God and us, implyes eſpecially the conſent of parties; But by infant Baptiſme the infant is not bound, for hee conſented not; againe conſent muſt be expreſt, but the child wantes the juſt ripeneſſe and formation of organs inward and outward for ſuch expreſſions, that cannot be, neither hee cannot will it, becauſe he cannot underſtand it, nor can hee expreſſe that which within he hath not.
But may not my friends doe it for me?
Perſonall conſent is required to carnall marriage, whē much depends upō the parents, much more to this myſticall; therefore as a mad man cannot conſent nor expreſſe it, for the trouble & diſtemper of his underſtanding, ſo nor an infant for the want of the uſe of it; and for parents, and Godfathers & Godmothers, as they call them, they provooke to duty, incite, and incourage, and teach; but as the covenant is made with us, ſo it muſt be made by us: A child may lawfully marry himſelf to Chriſt, without the conſent of his parents, which in the other marriage hee cannot doe; here is therefore no covenant, no bond, becauſe no conſent on one party, founded on a preſent impoſſibility, for a covenant is betvveene tvvo conſenting partyes.
It is not therefore the dipping of the child in water, gives baptiſme, no more then the bedd gives marriage, where conſent is wanting.
Here you ſee then a fayle of the great matter in the buſines of the covenant, namely the formall, or as ſome will have it the efficient cauſe; you will find a great fayle alſo in the ſubject matter, for here is an error of the perſon; Chriſt looks for a beleever, he makes his covenant in Baptiſme onelyonly with ſuch, the inſtitution is terminated upon them; but here is a poore infant as uncapable for the preſent of beleeving and repenting, as a mad man is of reaſoning, which yet hee may have in the habit, & therefore of covenanting & conſenting, which is a fruit of that faith; and therefore as a marriage made with a man mad, were null, ſo were it much more a madnes to bring to Baptiſme ſuch an one; and ſee whether it may not be thought to hold of the ſame diſtemper, to offer a child to that ſacred fountaine, that in the matter of reaſoning and covenanting can doe no more then a mad man: Yee ſee therefore the great and eſſentiall fayle of ſuch a Baptiſme, ſo eſſentiall as it makes it a nullity, as the like in marriage renders it null and voyd.
Now then to goe on, if there be no bond, no covenant in this infant Baptiſme, no obligation, which is the mayne of it, then there is no ſealing, for a ſeale ſerves but to ratify & confirme a bond and covenant. Againe, as there is no bond, nor ſealing, ſo there is no exhibition, or conveyance of any thing from Chriſt, for there are no pipes to duplicate page duplicate page receive it, that is, as an ordinance, there is no reaſon in the uſe of it, no faith, no ſence; you may ſpeake aloude, and ſay, this ſignifies the death of Chriſt, & this his reſurrection, by this you are buried and mortified, and by this quickned; but the child is aſleepe, or dead, or as good; here is no receptive faculty, proportionable to the ordinance, in the manner of conveighing it.
When Chriſt will ſpeake in an inviſible, ſecret, unknowne and unconceavable way, hee doth it without the help of an outward & viſible ordinance; when Iohn was ſanctified in the wombe, hee needed no word or ſigne to conveigh it to him; but here, if Chriſt conveighes not himſelf Sacramētally by words & ſignes, and repreſentations, hee conveyes not himſelf at all by vertue of the Sacrament. So that as there was a fayle in the forme of contract, or covenant, and in the ſubject matter of this ordinance, there is an error of the perſon, ſo alſo in the ends of this Sacrament on Chriſts part, of which you have heard, namely, ſealing up to us our union with Chriſt, and every good thing, and exhibiting & conveighing himſelf to us, in the uſe of this ordinance; and for us who by this meanes ſhould forme a formall cōtract with God, and ſhould give a teſtimony of our piety and obedience to God, Iohn 4.1. And ſecondly ſhould diſtinguiſh our ſelves by this badge, or charracter of our profeſſion, from the prophanes of the world, with ſome more of that kind, we are capable of doing nothing, in a buſines ſo active, no more then of receiving, ſo as upon the whole matter, & as the ſumme of this diſcourſe Infant Baptiſme is a nullity, as much as the marrying of infants, or the ordination of infants, which latter in ſome parts of the world is alſo in uſe, which all men will judge a nullity; the ordinance hath bene profaned to ſuch, out of a well meaning ignorance, and hee that will partake of that great ordinance, as it is our duty and priviledges, muſt knowingly & beleevingly be baptized in the name of the Lord Ieſus; which ordinance, when wee have once received aright, it is, as I ſaid in the beginning, not to be repeated.
If any man ſhall ſay, that conſent afterwards may make up the defect, and that there be many things which were ill done, which yet ſtand good when they are done? I anſwer, There may be many great fayles in an action, which may not make it null or nothing; as for one to marry one of another religion, or without ſome due conſents, makes it an ill or an unlawfull marriage, but it doth not make it no marriage; but thoſe eſſentiall fayles, which may be ſaid to nullify it, can never be repaired by any act afterwards; now ſuch are the fayles of infant Baptiſme, as I have prooved, ſuch as enter into the very eſſence of it, namely the formall and materiall cauſes, ſo as if you aſke what I lay to the charge of infant Baptiſme, I ſay that it is nothing, as the Scripture ſaith that an Idole is nothing, not but that there is a great deale of buſines made of it, as if it were ſomething, which all can contribute or conferre nothing to the eſſence or being of it, ſo as he that will affirme that after conſent may make that pretended Baptiſme reall & true, muſt proove firſt that it hath not failed in its eſſentialls, which I have already prooved Baptiſme to have done. To conclude, a man may receive many wounds, and be miſerably disfigured, looſe many members or parts, and yet remayne a man, but let out the rationall ſoule, which is his forme, but by the prick of a pin, and that which remaynes is no more a man, but a carcaſſe, becauſe the cōſtitutive eſſentiall, which is his forme, is gone, and it muſt be an Almighty power that muſt give him his being, and denomination of a man againe; of what act ſoever yee may juſtly ſay this is a nullity, that no after act can repaire to give it a being, it may now take upō it ſuch a being as that pretended to, but to that it can give no being.
But ſecondly, to urge the former objection a little farther, you will ſay parhaps, That that which is given, cannot be ungiven, but to Infants Baptiſme is given already. I anſwer, It is true that which is given cannot be ſayd to be ungiven, but to Infants the Sacrament of Baptiſme is not given, but onelyonly a certain externall waſhing, with certain externall rites & ceremonies: And the patrons of infant Baptiſme, I hope, will pardon me, if what Chamier affirme of Baptiſme, not given by a right Miniſter; I with much more equity and reaſon affirme here, that it is not a Sacrament, but a raſhe mockery or deceaving, by no meanes to be indur'd in the Church, Temerariam ludificationem nullo modo tolerandam in Eccleſia. Tom. 4. Panstratiae lib. 5. cap. 14. ſ. 8. The Imperiall Conſtitutions carry, Ʋt ea quae contra leges fiunt non ſolum inutilia, ſed etiam pro infectis habenda ſunt; That thoſe things which are done againſt law, are not onelyonly unprofitable, but are to be accounted for not done, which rule they ſay is to be underſtood of thoſe things where the cauſe of the prohibition is perpetuall, as for example, Ne filius contrahat cummatre, the ſon ſhould not contract with his mother; now the perpetuall cauſe of prohibition is the ſtanding law of God, not changed by God himſelf, and in which God himſelf hath not diſpenced, as is urged by a late & learned Author. So as that which contradicts the ſtanding rules of God, in the determination & regulating of his ordinances (as Baptiſme given to infants hath largely bene prooved to do) muſt by no meanes be accounted an adminiſtration or giving of that ordinance, but as before, a raſh and unadviſed mockery of it, or playing with it.
In the third place you may poſſibly object, That Baptiſme requires for the ſubject a true beleever, ſuppoſe an hypocrite profeſſe faith, and ſubmit himſelf to the ordinance, will not here be by the ſame reaſō cauſe of Baptiſme, the former being alſo a nullity in reſpect of the true intent of Baptiſme. Anſw. How farre ſuch a caſe may require another Baptiſme, I ſhall not need to determine, if it ſhould, that makes nothing againſt the other, but that that doth alſo and more. But here I ſhall put a cleare diſtinction, and help my ſelf by the former ſimilitude of marriage. There be ſome eſſentiall fayles, as I told you, that make marriage a nullity, no ſubſequent act can releeve that, as to give it the denomination of a being then, when it was a nullity; as for example, conſent afterwards cannot make the no conſent of infants to be a marriage, but it gives forme or being to a marriage, when the conſent is given, the like is true of Baptiſme.
But in marriage betweene perſons of yeares, there may be a formall marriage with an hypocriticall conſent, a man may profeſſe faith in marriage to ſuch a woman, but may intend onelyonly to gayne her eſtate by that pretence & leave her; now the great ingredient unto conſent, ſhould be truth and reallity, but the fayle of that ſhall by no meanes nullify the marriage, he ſhall be ever bound to the duty of a huſband, though hee ſhould profeſſe to have diſſembled his conſent, nor ſhall there be any need of a new marriage, or expreſſing of conſent to tye him to it, which the former doth ſufficiently, what ever his intents were. Becauſe that to the reaſon and being of marriage, there is nothing requiſite, but that there be a due externall performing of the eſſentialls of it. The like may be avowed of Baptiſme, if a man repenting and confeſſing his ſinnes, beleeving and profeſſing ſubjection, be baptized according to the right forme and ceremony of Baptiſme, I ſee not the ground of repetition, what ever the internall fayles may ſeeme to be either of true righteouſnes on mans part, or of preſent influence on Gods part, which are deſireable to the happy being of Baptiſme, elſe ſo often as men find not that preſent influence on Gods part, which to him is free, or doubt of their former ſtate and condition, ſo often there muſt be a repetition of Baptiſme, which I ſee no groūd for; the ordinance which is an externall ceremony, having all its externall eſſentialls to the true being of that ordinance; and as the remayning forme produces its effect, when the impediment is taken away, as for example, heavines in a ſtoane carryes it downe, when the impediment is taken away the hand that held it up, ſo Baptiſme externally rightly adminiſtred, may attayne his end, when God takes away the impediment.
The like may be ſaid of ordination, or admiſſion into church fellowſhip, which cannot be called a nullity, though the perſons ſhould proove hypocrites or unholy, as appeares by this, that ſuch perſons are capable of excommunication, which implyes them members, and the ordinance duly adminiſtred, notwithſtanding that there may be great internall fayles, but would be certainly a nullity, if ſuch admiſſion or ordination were in infancy, in ſleepe, or in the time of madneſſe, as I ſaid before; But what ever the caſe of the Baptiſme of hypocrites may proove (of which notwithſtanding I have told you my opinion) it makes not much to this queſtion, for if it proove not a nullity, it is becauſe they fayle not in the eſſentialls, if they ſhould require Baptiſme a new, then Baptiſme in infācy much more, in whom it is moſt cleare the fayles of Baptiſme were eſſentiall.
And it is not my part ſo much to proove, that there are no other cauſes of repeating of Baptiſme, as that in this there is cauſe full and ſufficient, to give them a true reall Baptiſme, whoſe pretended Baptiſme, in reſpect of its eſſentiall fayles, prooves voide and nothing.