Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending…

Arg. 9. If no Children of notorious ungodly parents have Right to Baptism, 1. then is their Baptism Null. 2. And then ours is Null which we received, on supposition of the Right of such parents. And 3. then must many be baptized again; For if Ministers had no power to do it, it must needs be Null. The determination of this Question about the nullity of Baptism, depends upon the true definition of Baptism: some only put Gods part and the Ministers into the definition, and not the receivers act of profession, covenanting or self-resigning to Christ; taking him to be no Agent in the Essentials of the Ordinance, but a recipient; and that the Acts on his part are only Integrals, or Duties necessary to his participation of the benefits of the Covenant. If this definition hold (most common with our Divines) then the resolution is most easy. For the Minister performed all that was essential to Baptism: And therefore that which is undone, is only the mans duty on his own or child's behalf: that which was well done (as to the act) is not to be done again, that is, the Ministerial Baptism (though sinfully misapplied;) but that which was undone; that is▪ 1. the persons duty; 2. and thereupon Gods Grant (actually) of the benefits. According to this definition of baptism, if through error a Pagan be baptized in the true form, it is not Null as to that form of the Ordinance, nor to be done again when he is converted; but only his own duty was Null, and to be done again For example; if one that cannot speak ⟨p. 316⟩our Language should be thought to profess faith in Christ by signs, and be baptized thereupon, and it after appear that it was no such profession, but contrary: so if we should mistake a Pagans child for a Christians. I pretend not to decide the Question, Whether this be the rightest definition of Baptism, or best Answer to the present Doubt; but if this hold (as it is common) all is clear against the pretended Nullity or re-baptizing.

Arg. 9. If no Children of notorious ungodly parents have Right to Baptism, 1. then is their Baptism Null. 2. And then ours is Null which we received, on supposition of the Right of such parents. And 3. then must many be baptized again; For if Ministers had no power to do it, it must needs be Null. The determination of this Question about the nullity of Baptism, depends upon the true definition of Baptism: some only put Gods part and the Ministers into the definition, and not the receivers act of profession, covenanting or self-resigning to Christ; taking him to be no Agent in the Essentials of the Ordinance, but a recipient; and that the Acts on his part are only Integrals, or Duties necessary to his participation of the benefits of the Covenant. If this definition hold (most common with our Divines) then the resolution is most easie. For the Minister performed all that was essentiall to Baptism: And therefore that which is undone, is only the mans duty on his own or childs behalf: that which was well done (as to the act) is not to be done again, that is, the Ministerial Baptism (though sinfully misapplyed;) but that which was undone; that is 1. the persons duty; 2. and thereupon Gods Grant (actually) of the benefits. According to this definition of baptism, if through error a Pagan be baptized in the true form, it is not Null as to that form of the Ordinance, nor to be done again when he is converted; but only his own duty was Null, and to be done again For example; if one that cannot speak