Quest. XXXV. Is it certain by the word of God that all infants baptized, and dying before actual sin, are undoubtedly saved; or what infants may we say so of?
Answ. I. 1. We must distinguish between certainty objective and subjective; or plainlier, the reality or truth of the thing, and the certain apprehension of it.
2. And this certainty of apprehension, sometimes signifieth only the truth of that apprehension, when a man indeed is not deceived, or more usually that clearness of apprehension joined with truth, which fully quieteth the mind and excludeth doubting.
3. We must distinguish of infants as baptized lawfully upon just title, or unlawfully without title.
4. And also of title before God, which maketh a lawful claim and reception at his bar; and title before the church, which maketh only the administration lawful before God, and the reception lawful only in foro ecclesia, or externo.
5. The word baptism signifieth either the external part only, consisting in the words and outward action, or the internal covenanting of the heart also.
6. And that internal covenant is either sincere, which giveth right to the benefits of God’s covenant, or only partial, reserved, and unsound, such as is common to hypocrites.
Conclus. 1. God hath been pleased to speak so little in Scripture of the case of infants, that modest men will use the words certainly and undoubtedly, about their case, with very great caution. And many great divines have maintained that their very baptism itself, cannot be certainly and undoubtedly proved by the word of God, but by tradition; though I have endeavoured to prove the contrary in a special Treatise on that point.
2. No man can tell what is objectively certain or revealed in God’s word, who hath not subjective certainty or knowledge of it.
3. A man’s apprehension may be true, when it is but a wavering opinion, with the greatest doubtfulness. Therefore we do not usually by a certain apprehension, mean only a true apprehension, but a clear and quieting one.
4. It is possible to baptize infants unlawfully, or without any right, so that their reception and baptizing shall be a great sin, as is the misapplying of other ordinances. For instance: one in America, where there is neither church to receive them, nor christian parents, nor sponsors, may take up the Indians’ children and baptize them against the parents’ wills: or if the parents consent to have their children outwardly baptized, and not themselves, as not knowing what baptizing meaneth, or desire it only for outward advantages to their children; or if they offer them to be baptized only in open derision and scorn of Christ; such children have no right to be received. And many other instances nearer may be given.
5. It is possible the person may have no authority at all from Christ who doth baptize them. And Christ’s part in reception of the person, and collation and investiture in his benefits, must be done by his commission, or else how can we say that Christ doth it? But open infidels, women, children, mad-men, scorners, may do it that have none of his commission.
6. That all infants baptized without title or right by misapplication, and so dying, are not undoubtedly saved, nor any word of God doth certainly say so, we have reason to believe on these following grounds.
1. Because we can find no such text, nor could ever prevail with them that say so, to show us such an ascertaining word of God.
2. Because else gross sin would certainly be the way to salvation. For such misapplication of baptism, by the demanders at least, would certainly be gross sin, as well as misapplying the Lord’s supper.
3. Because it is clean contrary to the tenor of the new covenant, which promiseth salvation to none but penitent believers and their seed: what God may do for others unknown to us, we have nothing to do with; but his covenant hath made no other promise that I can find; and we are certain of no man’s salvation by baptism, to whom God never made a promise of it. If by the children of the faithful, be meant not only their natural seed, but the adopted or bought also, of which they are true proprietors, yet that is nothing to all others.
4. To add to God’s words, especially to his very promise or covenant, is so terrible a presumption, as we dare not be guilty of.
5. Because this tieth grace or salvation so to the outward washing of the body, or opus operatum, as is contrary to the nature of God’s ordinances, and to the tenor of Scripture, and the judgment of the protestant divines.
6. Because this would make a strange disparity between the two sacraments of the same covenant of grace: when a man receiveth the Lord’s supper unworthily, (in scorn, in drunkenness, or impenitency,) much more without any right, (as infidels,) he doth eat and drink damnation or judgment to himself, and maketh his sin greater; therefore he that gets a child baptized unworthily and without right, doth not therefore infallibly procure his salvation.
7. Because the apostle saith, 1 Cor. vii. 14, “Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy;” and the Scripture giveth this privilege to the children of the faithful above others: whereas the contrary opinion levelleth them with the seed of infidels and heathens, as if these had right to salvation by mere baptism, as well as the others.
8. Because else it would be the greatest act of charity in the world, to send soldiers to catch up all heathens’ and infidels’ children, and baptize them; which no christians ever yet thought their duty. Yea, it would be too strong a temptation to them to kill them when they had done, that they might be all undoubtedly saved.
Object. But that were to do evil that good might come by it. Answ. But God is not to be dishonoured as to be supposed to make such laws, as shall forbid men the greatest good in the world, and then to tempt them by the greatness of the benefit to take it to be no evil: as if he said, If soldiers would go take up a million of heathens’ children and baptize them, it will put them into an undoubted state of salvation; but yet I forbid them doing it: and if they presently kill them, lest they sin after, they shall undoubtedly be saved; but yet I forbid them doing it. I need not aggravate this temptation to them that know the power of the law of nature, which is the law of love and good works, and how God that is most good is pleased in our doing good. Though he tried Abraham’s obedience once, as if he should have killed his son, yet he stopped him before the execution. And doth he ordinarily exercise men’s obedience, by forbidding them to save the souls of others, when it is easily in their power? especially when with the adult the greatest labour and powerfullest preaching, is frequently so frustrate, that not one of many is converted by it?
9. Because else God should deal with unaccountable disparity with infants and the adult in the same ordinance of baptism. It is certain that all adult persons baptized, if they died immediately, should not be saved; even none that had no right to the covenant and to baptism; such as infidels, heathens, impenitent persons, hypocrites, that have not true repentance and faith. And why should baptism save an infant without title, any more than the adult without title? I still suppose that some infants have no title, and that now I speak of them alone.
Object. But the church giveth them all right by receiving them.
Answ. This is to be further examined anon. If you mean a particular church, perhaps they are baptized into none such. Baptism as such is a reception only into the universal church, as in the eunuch’s case, Acts viii. appeareth. If you mean the universal church, it may be but one single ignorant man in an infidel country that baptizeth, and he is not the universal church! yea, perhaps is not a lawfully called minister of that church! However, this is but to say, that baptism giveth right to baptism; for this receiving is nothing but baptizing. But there must be a right to this reception, if baptism be a distinguishing ordinance, and all the world have not right to it. Christ saith, Matt. xxviii. 19, “Disciple me all nations, baptizing them — :” they must be initially made disciples first, by consent, and then be invested in the visible state of christianity by baptism.
10. If the children of heathens have right to baptism, and salvation thereby, it is either, 1. As they are men, and all have right; or, 2. Because the parents give them right; 3. Or because remote ancestors give them right; 4. Or because the universal church gives them right; 5. Or because a particular church gives them right; 6. Or because the sponsors give them right; 7. Or the magistrate; 8. Or the baptizer. But it is none of all these, as shall anon be proved.
11. But as to the second question, I answer, 1. It will help us to understand the case the better, if we prepare the way by opening the case of the adult, because in Scripture times, they were the most famous subjects of baptism. And it is certain of such, 1. That every one outwardly baptized is not in a state of salvation. That no hypocrite that is not a true penitent believer is in such a state. 2. That every true penitent believer is before God in a state of salvation, as soon as he is such; and before the church as soon as he is baptized. 3. That we are not to use the word baptism as a physical term only, but as a moral, theological term. Because words (as in law, physic, &c.) are to be understood according to the art or science in which they are treated of. And baptism taken theologically doth as essentially include the will’s consent or heart covenanting with God, as matrimony includeth marriage consent, and as a man containeth the soul as well as the body. And thus it is certain that all truly baptized persons are in a state of salvation; that is, all that sincerely consent to the baptismal covenant when they profess consent by baptism (but not hypocrites). 4. And in this sense all the ancient pastors of the churches did concur that baptism did wash away all sin, and put the baptized into a present right to life eternal: as he that examineth their writings will perceive: not the outward washing and words alone, but when the inward and outward parts concur, or when by true faith and repentance the receiver hath right to the covenant of God. 5. In this sense it is no unfit language to imitate the fathers, and to say that the truly baptized are in a state of justification, adoption, and salvation, unless when men’s misunderstanding maketh it unsafe. 6. The sober papists themselves say the same thing, and when they have said that even ex opere operato baptism saveth, they add, that it is only the meet receiver; that is, the penitent believer, and no other of the adult. So that hitherto there is no difference.
2. Now let us by this try the case of infants; concerning which there are all these several opinions among divines.
(1.) Some think that all infants (baptized or not) are saved from hell, and positive punishment, but are not brought to heaven, as being not capable of such joys.
(2.) Some think that all infants (dying such) are saved as others are, by actual felicity in heaven, though in a lower degree. Both these sorts suppose that Christ’s death saveth all that reject it not, and that infants reject it not.
(3.) Some think that all unbaptized infants do suffer the pœnam damni, and are shut out of heaven and happiness, but not sensibly punished or cast into hell. For this Jansenius hath wrote a treatise; and many other papists think so.
(4.) Some think that all the children of sincere believers dying in infancy are saved, (that is, glorified,) whether baptized or not; and no others.
(5.) Some think that God hath not at all revealed what he will do with any infants.
(6.) Some think that he hath promised salvation as aforesaid to believers and their seed, but hath not at all revealed to us what he will do with all the rest.
(7.) Some think that only the baptized children of true believers are certainly (by promise) saved.
(8.) Some think that all the adopted and bought children of true christians, as well as the natural, are saved (if baptized, say some; or if not, say others).
(9.) Some think that elect infants are saved, and no other, but no man can know who those are. And of these, 1. Some deny infant baptism. 2. Most say that they are to be baptized, and that thereby the non-elect are only received into the visible church and its privileges, but not to any promise or certainty of justification, or a state of salvation.
(10.) Some think that all that are baptized by the dedication of christian sponsors are saved.
(11.) Some think that all that the pastor dedicateth to God are saved (because so dedicated by him, say some; or because baptized ex opere operato, say others). And so all baptized infants are in a state of salvation.
(12.) Some think that this is to be limited to all that have right to baptism coram Deo; which some think the church’s reception giveth them, of which anon.
(13.) And some think it is to be limited to those that have right coram ecclesia, or are rightfully baptized ex parte ministrantis, where some make the magistrate’s command sufficient, and some the bishop’s, and some the baptizer’s will.
Of the title to baptism I shall speak anon. Of the salvation of infants, it is too tedious to confute all that I dissent from: not presuming in such darkness and diversity of opinions to be peremptory, nor to say, I am certain by the word of God who are undoubtedly saved, nor yet to deny the undoubted certainty of wiser men, who may know that which such as I do doubt of, but submitting what I say to the judgment of the church of God and my superiors, I humbly lay down my own thoughts as followeth.
1. I think that there can no promise or proof be produced that all unbaptized infants are saved, either from the pœna damni or sensus, or both.
2. I think that no man can prove that all unbaptized infants are damned, or denied heaven. Nay, I think I can prove a promise of the contrary.
3. All that are rightfully baptized in foro externo are visible church members, and have ecclesiastical right to the privileges of the visible church.
4. I think Christ never instituted baptism for collation of these outward privileges alone, unless as on supposition that persons culpably fail of the better ends.
5. I think baptism is a solemn mutual contract or covenant between Christ and the baptized person. And that it is but one covenant, even the covenant of grace which is the sum of the gospel, which is sealed and received in baptism; and that this covenant essentially containeth our saving relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and our pardon, justification, and adoption or right to life everlasting; and that God never made any distinct covenant of outward privileges alone, to be sealed by baptism. But that outward mercies are the second and lesser gift of the same covenant which giveth first the great and saving blessings.
6. And therefore that whoever hath right before God, to claim and receive baptism, hath right also to the benefits of the covenant of God, and that is, to salvation; though I say not so of every one that hath such right before the church, as that God doth require the minister to baptize him. For by right before God, or in foro cœli, I mean such a right as will justify the claim before God immediately, the person being one whom he commandeth in that present state to claim and receive baptism. For many a one hath no such right before God to claim or receive it, when yet the minister hath right to give it them if they do claim it.
The case stands thus. God saith in his covenant, He that believeth shall be saved, and ought to be baptized, to profess that belief, and be invested in the benefits of the covenant; and he that professeth to believe, (whether he do or not,) is by the church to be taken for a visible believer, and by baptism to be received into the visible church. Here God calleth none but true believers (and their seed) to be baptized, nor maketh an actual promise or covenant with any other; and so I say that none other have right in foro cœli. But yet the church knoweth not men’s hearts, and must take a serious profession for a credible sign of the faith professed, and for that outward title upon which it is a duty of the pastor to baptize the claimer. So that the most malignant, scornful hypocrite, that maketh a seemingly serious profession, hath right coram ecclesia, but not coram Deo, save in this sense, that God would have the minister baptize him. But this I have largelier opened in my “Disputations of Right to Sacraments.”
7. I think therefore that all the children of true christians, do by baptism receive a public investiture by God’s appointment into a state of remission, adoption, and right to salvation at the present; though I dare not say that I am undoubtedly certain of it, as knowing how much is said against it. But I say as the synod of Dort, art. 1. That believing parents have no cause to doubt of the salvation of their children that die in infancy, before they commit actual sin; that is, not to trouble themselves with fears about it.
The reasons that move me to be of this judgment (though not without doubting and hesitancy) are these; 1. Because whoever hath right to the present investiture, delivery, and possession of the first and great benefits of God’s covenant made with man in baptism, hath right to pardon, and adoption, and everlasting life: but the infants of true christians have right to the present investiture, delivery and possession of the first and great benefits of God’s covenant made with man in baptism; therefore they have right to pardon and everlasting life.
Either infants are in the same covenant (that is, are subjects of the same promise of God) with their believing parents, or in some other covenant, or in no covenant. If they be under no covenant, (or promise,) or under some other promise or covenant only, and not the same, they are not to be baptized. For baptism is a mutual covenanting; where the minister by Christ’s commission in his name acteth his part, and the believer his own and his infant’s part: and God hath but one covenant, which is to be made, sealed, and delivered in baptism. Baptism is not an equivocal word, so as to signify divers covenants of God.
Object. But the same covenant of God hath divers sorts of benefits; the special God giveth to the sincere, and the common to the common and hypocritical receiver.
Answ. 1. God indeed requireth the minister to take profession for the visible church title; and so it being the minister’s duty so far to believe a liar, and to receive dissemblers who had no right to lay that claim, you may say that God indirectly and improperly giveth them church privileges: but properly, that is, by his promise or covenant deed or gift, he giveth them nothing at all; for his covenant is one and undivided in its action, though it give several benefits, and though providence may give one and not another, yet the covenant giveth all or none. God saith that godliness hath the promise of this life and of that to come; but he never said (that I know of) to the hypocrite or unsound believer, I promise or give right to common mercies.
2. But suppose it were otherwise, yet either the children of true believers have the true condition of right to the special blessings of the covenant, or they have not the condition of any at all. For there can no more be required of an infant, as to any special blessings of the covenant, than that he be the child of believing parents, and by them dedicated to God. Either this condition entitleth them to all the covenant promises which the adult believer is entitled to, (as far as their natures are capable,) or it entitleth them to none at all; nor are they to be baptized; for God hath in Scripture instituted but one baptism, (to profess one faith,) and that one is ever for the remission of sins: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” Mark xvi. 16.
3. Or if all the rest were granted you, yet it would follow that all infants in the world, even of true believers, are left out of God’s covenant of grace, that is, the covenant or promise of pardon and life; and are only taken into the covenant of church privileges. And so, 1. You will make two covenants, (which you denied,) and not only two sorts of benefits of one covenant. 2. And two species of baptism; while all infants in the world are only under a covenant of outward privileges, and have no baptism, but the seal of that covenant, while believers have the covenant, promise, and seal of pardon and life.
2. And this is my second reason; because then we have no promise or certainty, or ground of faith, for the pardon and salvation of any individual infants in the world. And so parents are left to little comfort for their children. And if there be no promise there is no faith of it, nor any baptism to seal it; and so we still make antipædobaptism unavoidable. For who dare set God’s seal to such as have no promise? or pretend to invest any in a near and saving relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (which is the very nature of baptism,) when God hath given no such commission?
Object. Yes: baptism and the covenant of special promises are for all the elect, though we know not who they are.
Answ. 1. I deny not God’s eternal, antecedent election; but I deny that the Scripture ever mentioneth his pardoning or glorifying any, upon the account of election only, without certain spiritual conditions, which may be given as the reason of the difference in judgment. God may freely give the gospel to whom he will, and also faith or the first grace by the gospel, without any previous condition in man, but according to his free election only: but he giveth pardon and heaven as a rector by his equal laws and judgment; and always rendereth a reason of the difference, from the qualifications of man.
2. And if this were as you say, it would still overthrow infant baptism. For either we must baptize all indifferently, or none, or else know how to make a difference. All must not be baptized indifferently: and election is a secret thing to us, and by it no minister in the world can tell whom to baptize: therefore he must baptize none, if there be no other differencing note to know them by.
Object. God hath more elect ones among the infants of true believers than among others: and therefore they are all to be baptized.
Answ. 1. It will be hard to prove that much (that he hath more) if there be no promise to them all as such. 2. If he have more, yet no man knoweth how many, and whether the elect be one of ten, twenty, forty, or a hundred, in comparison of the non-elect; for Scripture tells it not. So that no minister of a church is sure that any one infant that he ever baptized is elect. 3. And God hath given no such rule for sealing and delivering his covenant with the benefits as to cast it hap hazard among all, because it is possible or probable it may belong to some.
Object. You have no certainty what adult professor is sincere, nor to which of them the special benefits belong; no, not of any one in a church. And yet because there is a probability that among many there are some sincere, you baptize them all. Take then the birth privilege but as equal to the profession of the adult.
Answ. This partly satisfied me sometimes: but I cannot forget that a visible, false, or hypocritical profession is not the condition of God’s own covenant of grace, nor that which he requireth in us, to make us partakers of his covenant benefits; nay, he never at all commandeth it; but only commandeth that profession of consent, which followeth the real consent of the heart: he that condemneth lying, maketh it neither the condition of our church membership, as his gift by promise, nor yet our duty.
And mark well, that it is a professed consent to the whole covenant that God requireth, as the condition of our true right to any part or benefit of it. He that shall only say, I consent to be a visible church member, doth thereby acquire no right to that membership; no, not in foro ecclesiæ, but he must also profess that he consenteth to have God for his God, and Christ for his Lord and Saviour, and the Holy Spirit for his Sanctifier. So that he must be a liar, or a sound believer, that maketh this profession.
But for an infant to be born of true believers, and sincerely by them dedicated in covenant to God, is all the condition that ever God required to an infant-title to his covenant; and it is not the failure of the true condition as a false profession is.
Indeed if the proposition were thus laid, it would hold good: As we know not who sincerely covenanteth for himself, and yet we must baptize all that soberly profess it; so we know not who doth sincerely covenant for his infant, and yet must baptize all whom the parents bring with such a profession, for themselves and them.
But if the sincere dedication of a sound believer, shall be accounted but equal to the lying profession of the adult, which is neither commanded, nor hath any promise, then infants are not in the covenant of grace, nor is the sincerest dedication to God either commanded or hath any promise.
If I were but sure that the profession of the adult for himself were sincere, I were sure that he were in a state of grace. And if I am not sure of the same concerning the parent’s dedication of his infant, I must conclude that this is not a condition of the same covenant, and therefore that he is not in the same covenant (or conditional promise of God) unless there be some other condition required in him or for him; but there is no other that can be devised.
Object. Election is the condition.
Answ. Election is God’s act and not man’s; and therefore may be an antecedent, but no condition required of us. And man is not called to make profession that he is elected, as he is to make profession of his faith and consent to the covenant. And God only knoweth who are his by election, and therefore God only can baptize on this account.
And what is the probability which the objecters mean, that many of the infants of the faithful are elected? Either it is a promise, or but a prediction; if no promise, it is not to be sealed by baptism; if a promise, it is absolute or conditional. If any absolute promise, as, I will save many children of believers, 1. This terminateth not on any singular person, as baptism doth, and, 2. It is not the absolute promise that baptism is appointed by Christ to seal. This is apparent in Mark xvi. 16, and in the case of the adult. And it is not one covenant which is sealed to the adult by baptism, and another to infants. Else baptism also should not be the same. But if it be any conditional covenant, what is it, and what is the condition?
And what is it that baptism giveth to the seed of believers, if they be not justified by it from original sin? You will not say, that it conveyeth inherent sanctifying grace, no not into all the elect themselves, which many are many years after without. And you cannot say, that it sealeth to them any promise, so much as of visible church privileges; for God may suffer them presently to be made janizaries, and violently taken from their parents, and become strangers and despisers of church privileges, as is ordinary with the Greek’s children among the Turks. Now God either promised such church privileges absolutely, or conditionally, or not at all. Not absolutely, for then they would possess them. If conditionally, what is the condition? If not at all, what promise then doth baptism seal to such, and what benefit doth it secure? God hath instituted no baptism, which is a mere present delivery of possession of a church state, without sealing any promise at all. True baptism first sealeth the promise, and then delivereth possession of some benefits.
Yea, indeed outward church privileges are such uncertain blessings of the promise, that as they are but secondary, so they are but secondarily given and sealed, so that no man should ever be baptized, if these were all that were in the promise. The holiest person may be cast into a wilderness, and deprived of all visible church communion; and doth God then break his promise with him? Certainly no. It is therefore our saving relations to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which the promise giveth, and baptism sealeth; and other things but subordinately and uncertainly as they are means to these. So then it is plain, that believers’ infants have a promise of salvation, or no promise at all, which baptism was instituted to seal.
I have said so much more of this in my Appendix to the “Treatise of Infant Baptism,” to Mr. Bedford, in defence of Dr. Davenant’s judgment, as that I must refer the reader thither.
8. I think it very probable that this ascertaining promise belongeth not only to the natural seed of believers, but to all whom they have a true power and right to dedicate in covenant to God; which seemeth to be all that are properly their own, whether adopted or bought; but there is more darkness and doubt about this than the former, because the Scripture hath said less of it.
9. I am not able to prove, nor see any probable reason for it, that any but sound believers have such a promise for their children, nor that any hypocrite shall certainly save his child, if he do but dedicate him to God in baptism. For, 1. I find no promise in Scripture made to such. 2. He that doth not sincerely believe himself, nor consent to God’s covenant, cannot sincerely believe for his child, nor consent for him. 3. And that faith which will not save the owner, as being not the condition of the promise, cannot save another. Much more might be said of this. I confess that the church is to receive the children of hypocrites as well as themselves; and their baptism is valid in foro externo ecclesiæ, and is not to be reiterated. But it goeth no further for his child, than for himself.
10. Therefore I think that all that are rightfully baptized by the minister, that is, baptized so as that it is well done of him, are not certainly saved by baptism, unless they be also rightfully baptized, in regard of their right to claim and receive it. Let them that are able to prove more do it, for I am not able.
11. Whereas some misinterpret the words of the old rubric of confirmation in the English liturgy, as if it spake of all that are baptized, whether they had right or not, the words themselves may serve to rectify that mistake, “And that no man shall think any detriment shall come to children by deferring of their confirmation, he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God’s word, that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved.” Where it is plain that they mean, they have all things necessary ex parte ecclesiæ, or all God’s applying ordinances necessary, though they should die unconfirmed, supposing that they have all things necessary to just baptism on their own part. Which is but what the ancients were wont to say of the baptized adult; but they never meant that the infidel, and hypocrite, and impenitent person was in a state of life, because he was baptized; but that all that truly consent to the covenant, and signify this by being baptized, are saved. So the church of England saith, that they receive no detriment by delaying confirmation; but it never said, that they receive no detriment by their parents’ or sponsors’ infidelity and hypocrisy, or by their want of true right coram Deo to be baptized.
12. But yet before these questions (either of them) be taken as resolved by me, I must first take in some other questions which are concerned in the same cause; as,
Since the writing of this, there is come forth an excellent book for Infant Baptism by Mr. Joseph Whiston, in which the grounds of my present solutions are notably cleared.
Mark xvi. 16; Acts ii. 37, 38; xxii. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Tit. iii. 3, 5, 6; Heb. x. 22; Eph. v. 26; Rom. vi. 1, 4; Col. ii. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 21, 22; Eph. iv. 5; Acts viii. 12, 13, 16, 36, 38; ix. 18; xvi. 15, 33; xix. 5; Gal. iii. 27.
Acts ii. 39; Gal. iii. 22, 29; 1 Tim. iv. 8; Eph. ii. 12; 2 Tim. i. 1; Heb. iv. 1; vi. 17; ix. 15; x. 36; viii. 6; 2 Pet i. 4, 5.
Acts ii. 38; xxvi. 18; Luke xxiv. 47.
Rom. x. 9; Acts viii. 37.
Matt. vi. 33; Rom. viii. 28, 32, &c.