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

2. And consequently I deny the two later Consequences.

3. Yea if our Parents Infant-Baptism were null, it followeth not that so is their children's, which they had on their account. For our Parents might get a Personal Right in Christ and the Covenant after their Baptism, before they presented us in Baptism, though themselves had not been Baptized. 4. And I believe it will be no easy matter to prove that our Parents (any, or many at least) were notoriously ungodly at our birth. 5. Lastly, if all this satisfy not, but any man will yet needs believe, that it is an unavoidable consequence of our Doctrine, that [The Baptism of the Infants of Notoriously Ungodly Parents is null] though I am not of h•s mind, yet I think it is a less dangerous opinion, and less improbable then theirs whom we now oppose. I know no such great ill effects it would have, if a man that mistakingly did suppose his Baptism Null, to satisfy his Conscience were baptized again, without denying the baptism of Infants, or any unpeaceable disturbing of the Church in the management thereof. I confess I never had any Damning or Excommunicating thoughts in my mind against Cyprian, Firmilian, and the rest of the African Bishops and Churches, who rebaptized those that were baptized by Heretics, and in Council determined it necessary, and were so zealous for it. And, though ⟨p. 322⟩while I captivated my judgement to a Party and to admired Persons, I embraced the new Exposition of Acts 19. which Beza thankfully professeth to have received from Marúixius, who as some say was the first Inventer of it; yet I must confess, that both before I knew what other men held, and since I better know who expound it otherwise, and on what grounds, I can no longer think that is the meaning of the Text, especially when I impartially peruse the words themselves. Calvin did not think that the 5th vers• was Paul's words of John's Hearers, but Luke's words of Paul's Hearers: and had no way to avoid the Exposition which admitted their rebaptizing, but by supposing that Paul did not Baptize them again with Water, but with the Holy Ghost only. (and that of that, the fifth verse is meant.) I never read that John Baptist did Baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus expressly and denominatively, but only as Paul here speaks, that they should believe on him that should come after, whom Paul here Expositorily denominateth the Lord Jesus.