A Friendly Accommodation in a Controversy with Mr Bedford

IT was my desire to have revised this Appendix, and have corrrected all harsher offensive passages, and blotted out whatsoever Mr. B. disowneth or hath since recalled which is here mentioned as his words; But seeing I cannot possibly in this straight have so much leisure, I must desire you so far to right both him and me, as to view over these following Papers, and whatsoever you find in the former that is here recalled, or contradicted, take it as non dictum or obliterated.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

I Have read over your book in which you have maintained the Truth against the Arguments of Mr Tombs, in the question of Pedobaptism. I confess myself so much taken with the Cleerness of the Judgment, and the Solidity of the Arguments produced by you for it: That when I came to that other part of your book which concerns myself, I began to question mine own Tenet, which I found opposed by him, whom I could not but reverence, whose labors and zeal for the cause of God I could not but admire and emulate. Add this also, I found many things in your book interlaced and Obiter touched, which did not a little confirm me in what resolution I had fixed on, as touching the pestilent Doctrine of the Antinomians: touching the Non-coherency of that Doctrine, that Justification is an instantaneous Act, simul & semel transacted in our first unition to Christ: touching the Combination and Co-adunation of renewed repentance, of the care and conscience of Holy duties, the combination of those I say with Faith in the perpetuation and continuation of the justified person in that estate of justification, in which upon his Faith he was first stated: That Faith qua opus is not so much a cause as the condition qualifying the party for justification: That the Covenant of Grace so far as it holdeth forth Christ upon the condition of Faith and Repentance, is not restrained to the elect only: Howsoever, by a special preventing Grace of God, they only are enabled to come up to the full performance of that condition which is required; Others so far carried on in the way as they do follow the conduct of Grace, but then justly left, when they grow weary and give off the care of Godliness; These and some other particulars which I found here and there hinted in your book I did not a little rejoice to find; For who is there that doth not congratulate the confirmation of his own Conceptions by another's? especially, so able an hand. And hereupon ut suprascriptum est, when I came to what concerned myself in your book. I began to stagger in what I had written; Till upon more mature deliberation, examining what I had written, and what you answered, I did plainly perceive, that in what you had not mistaken my meaning, a favorable construction might easily reconcile us; And the appearing differences would be found but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not worth the while to contest about them; Whereupon I resolved rather in this way to give you an account of those mistakes, and verbal differences, then to make a public business of it, and to give way to that bitterness of Spirit which commonly followeth the Reciprocation of the Law in matters of question and controversy; Subscribing wholly to that in your book page 284. that controversies occasion discontents and heart-burnings, tend to discompose our own Spirits, and much unfit us for life or death, &c.

Now then to the matter in your book against me; I observe these five particulars, in which lieth the greatest part of your opposition. 1. That my Tenet touching the efficacy of Infant-Baptism is not Orthodoxal. 2. That it is not consonant to what those two great Divines Bishop Davenant, and Doctor Ward have delivered. 3. That in the use of those terms Moral and Metaphysical there is gross ignorance. 4. That in the Tenet of Church-traditions there is too much looseness, and too much affinity with the Romanists. 5. That there is too much bitterness in censuring these for Schismatics which mislike the Ceremonies of the Church, whither Catholic or National. Those are the principal.

As touching this last (to begin there) I may justly reply: Your Animadversion cometh in too late: sc after the fault is mended: That part of my book which dealt with the Anabaptists Arguments I have since that time, reviewed, and (upon occasion of the growth of that error) printed again under this title, A moderate answer to those two questions: viz. whether Parents may bring their children to baptism; 2. Whether it be sinful to receive the Sacrament in a mixed Assembly; This was printed Anno. 1645. And howsoever I conceived no strength in that consequence, T. B. saith, this is the triumphing Argument of all Schismatics; ergo T. B. accounts them all Schismatiks that upon that ground do mislike the Ceremonies of the Church; Yet to avoid offense, I left out that passage wholly. In the same Edition I did also bring again to the hammer and Anvil, that Tenet touching Traditions; And I hope, freed it from all just exceptions. Which I doubt not may easily be done, in as much as all our Divines who dispute that Question with the Pontificians do still return to this distinction; Some Traditions are de Doctrina & cultu; and these we disclaim. Others are deritibus & Agendis Ecclesiae, These are not all of them disclaimed; I refer you to your own Doctor, (for the high esteem of Bishop Davenant, at whose feet I sometime sat, I cannot but love you) de Judice, Chap. 5. & sequentibus) and to your own book p. 151. God forbid that I should in any the least particular set up Tradition to the prejudice of the Scripture; Or account them all Schismatics which mislike the Ceremonies of the Church, whether more universal, such as Cruci-signation, Easter, Lent, &c. or National as the Vestures, and Gestures that our late Canons prescribed. Can. 25. 27. Add this, That in that first book of mine printed 1638. there was both castration, and interpolations used by an hand not mine; (which you may easily perceive in pag. 59. of my Sermon.) Particularly that Marginal note, Jus ad rem, & Jus in re, against which you take exceptions, was none of mine, though I see not but it may have a good construction▪ Since all men know there is a difference betwixt Right and possession; qui credit, hath right to Salvation, yet is he not in Possession; And had your books come to the Press when mine did, they would have suffered as mine did; And how to help it, when the books is printed, I could not devise. When it cometh to a second Edition, which I shall hasten as much as I can, peradventure it may be done. But to proceed. Touching that third point, viz. That in the use of those terms Moral and Metaphysical there is gross Ignorance, yea in this a contradiction betwixt Dr. Ward and me; I say no more but this, I am not much careful to wash away the imputation of ignorance, save in those things that are of prime Necessity; I do not arrogate to my self any great measure of human learning: Had I thought that definition of causa moralis to be sufficient which you set down, I might well have rested in it: For you may easily perceive that I aimed at no more but this, to show, that in the Sacrament God doth not only offer Grace to the eye, but also to the hand of the Soul: Not only represent it, but indeed present it to, yea and confer it upon the Receiver: God I say; For you will not find me to attribute any of this efficacy to the Sacrament, but only in a Metonymical predication. The which is in terminis asserted in my latin Tract. p. 74. And what if I had called the Sacrament, Instrumentum Metonymicum? What if I had explicated my term Metaphysical, to be talis causa, quae vere quidem non efficit, sed tamen talis est, ut ei imputetur effectus? This you say is Moralis causa; Had I set that down, as my meaning of Metaphysical; What great error had been committed? Unless any will so bind us to the School-terms and their explications, that we may not latum unguem discedere. But in this we will not differ. Let it be instrumentum morale, or what else you will; So that you deny it not to be (what Reverend Perkins asserteth it is) an instrument to convey to us Christ and all his Benefits. A mean by which we receive the Grace that is signifies.

I come now to the second exception, viz. That my Tenet is not consonant to what those two great Divines, especially, not to what Bishop Davenant doth deliver. Here you bestow some pains in translating much of that which is in his Epistle; I wish you had translated it all; I should have given you thanks. But truly, I am much mistaken if in this you do not mistake; And since you do highly esteem of him, in which I am loath to be behind you; Let me briefly reply; That I shall not unwillingly recall, whatsoever shall upon just examination be found contrary to his Assertions. I say of him, as Cyprian of Tertullian, Da Magistrum. Let me here acquaint you with how wary steps I walked in this business; I was in my younger days carried away with that conceit of the Sacraments, That the special end and use of them was to be but as verbum visible, I mean, that what the word presented to the ear, that did the Sacrament present to the eye; Nor did I take notice of any further efficacy in them; Afterward when I began to look into the efficacy of them, and did well consider what directions the Church gave us to desire some spiritual benefit for the Infant, (which I observed to be done by those Divines who yet in their Preaching would speak against the efficacy of the Sacrament) and withal did consider that still God's way in dealing with man, is that, officium propter beneficium; sc. not to require a duty, but in the way of rendering us capable of a mercy; I did begin to resolve, that since God did require the use of the Sacrament, he did hold forth some benefit in it for man to expect by it. But then I was puzzled in this, That the use of the Sacrament is the duty of all that live under the means; And yet I could not see what benefit any could have by it, save only the Elect. Nor they hardly till they came to be regenerate by the word. Though on the other side it seemed hard, that all should be bound to duty, and yet only some few be capable of benefit. I met with the book of Dr. Burgess, Of baptismal Regeneration; This did convince me of the efficacy of that Sacrament to the Elect; And notwithstanding those passages in the liturgy of Baptism, which contain the Doctrine of our Church touching that particular; yet durst I not extend that efficacy of Baptism further then to the Elect, for fear of that Rock, whereof I perceive you have also taken notice, page 91. of your book; Your words are, No scripture against them that say all Infants of Believers so dying are certainly saved; Nor Argument but only this, that then the children of the Faithful that prove wicked may fall from Grace. At this rock I stumbled; Till at last meeting with Suffragium Theolog. Magnae Britanniae. Artic, 5. Cap. 1. And with this Epistle of Bishop Davenant to Dr. Ward, I perceived that there was no necessity to restrain the efficacy of Baptism in conferenda gratia to the Elect; that a man may have temporaneam ordinationem ad salutem, who ye • is not praedestinatus ad salutem; and that the instance of Infants falling from Baptismal Regeneration is not to the purpose to prove the Apostasy of Saints; Hereupon I resolved upon this Tenet, which I have published. You urge, that there is much difference betwixt him and me, viz. That the prima gratia conferred in Baptism is (saith Bishop Davenant) Remissio peccati O • iginalis: but (saith T. B.) it is our Union with Christ; Then followeth our Regeneration by seminal Grace, and then Remission of Sin; You add, that if the two first, viz Union, and Regeneration be left out, then you and I shall be nearer to an Agreement.

But I beseech you (deer Brother,) Is this any whit more then a strife about words? Doth not Bishop Davenant, when he hath set down the Primarium effectum baptismi to be Remissio peccati Originalis, doth he not add, That out of this do result their Regeneration, Justification, Adoption, and Sanctification? The which, though they be not Univoce eadem with that Regeneration, and Adoption, which is afterward by Faith; Yet is it such as doth confer upon them a state of Salvation pro conditione parvulorum. Now then; I looking upon these benefits altogether, and seeking to cast them into the Order of Nature as I conceived, placed this first, viz. Our Union with Christ, Our incorporation into him, which I called the primarium effectum Baptismi, and which I take to be the formalis ratio of our Adoption; and then did I in this tanquam in massa wrap up the other which I call fructus Baptismi, viz. Regeneration, & Remission You will say, That that Regeneration whereof Bishop Davenant speaketh, is only relative, but mine is real; His standeth in translatione parvuli e veteri prosapia in novam— But mine in the collation of seminal Grace; But withal you will find, that his regeneration doth confer on them (whether Elect or Reprobate) Statum salutis pro conditione paroulorum; Nor do I seek for anything further; He seems to subscribe to that of Gerson and other School-men, cited by Dr. Ward Tract. 2. pag. 217. That what is not infused by Baptism into the Soul of the Infant, viz Habitus fidet, spei & charitatis, is infused in momento separationis animae, if the child die after Baptism; For which tenet, what Scripture have they? without regeneration, without Holiness none shall see God, Joh. 3. 3. Heb. 12. 14. This is their ground; How much more consonant is it to the text of Scripture, me saltem judice, to settle the collation of it in God's Ordinance? Since that text of Joh. 3. 5. Tit. 3. 5. give us such confessed ground for it. Especially since their is no necessity to multiply the ways of regeneration, for Infants dying, and for others surviving; And since, that Rock de Apostasia sanctorum is prevented ut suprà.

And so I come to the first Position, in which I can make it apparent, That I have not deviated from the text of Scripture and the truth of God; I may be excused, though none of those great Names mentioned in my Tractate do bear witness with me. I might here allege, That what I have set down, if taken in my meaning, is consonant to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, and the Ancient Fathers; that it is • nterminis the Doctrine of the Church of England. What is the inten • of my English Treatise, but to set down the Doctrine of the Church of England touching that Argument, which is sufficiently acknowledged, in that he who licensed it to be printed was but over-curious in this point, though not more curious then those times required. But I shall wave this; And deal by Argument, Your first and main Argument against me, is this; That Baptism was not instituted to be a Seal of the Absolute promise, viz. that in Jer. 32. Dabo cor novum, which is that that works a real change in man; Reason, Because, before the fulfilling of that promise, i. e. before men have a new heart they are uncapable of engaging themselves to God, as being till then altogether Aliens.-But Baptism is confessed by me to be a mutual engaging Seal.-Hence you argue: If not instituted to be the Seal of this promise, Then not to be an instrument to convey that Grace. To this I reply.

1. I admit, that Dabo cor novum doth indeed make the first real change: that dependeth not upon the well-using of Natural abilities, but is merely the effect of a preventing Grace: that those previous works which you grant are wrought in some in the way of preparing them for it, are some fruit, effect • or fluxes of that first Grace as the dawning of the day is from the Sun rising that followeth: So Christ hath a work upon the heart, before he take it into Union with himself. All this I do admit.

2. I add. What doth hinder, but that this Dabo cor novum, though it be absolute and a preventing Grace to the Infant; yet may be the effect and fruit of a conditional promise to the Parent, viz. What he by his Faith hath laid hold on for himself and his Infant. Is not circumcidam cor tuum & seminis tui, an explication of Ero Deus tuus & seminis tui? At least, it is an expression of one main benefit comprehended in that promise. Doth not God by that promise engage himself to do for them, whatsoever may be for the welfare both of Body and Soul? As for them, so for their children according to their capacity! Is there any exception to this, but that only, Modo non ponant obicem? And is not this promise, Ero Deus tuus & seminis, sealed to the Parent, in that Sacrament? Particularly, that branch Deus seminis tui, is sealed to the Parent in the Baptizing of his Infant; As e contrà the Parent by presenting his Infant to the Sacrament doth engage his Infant to the service of God; Thus it is easily seen, How baptism is a mutual engageing Seal; Not that the Infant doth or can engage himself; But that his Parent doth engage for him; So then▪ the Faith of the Parent accepteth of that promise for his Infant, tendereth his infant to the Sacrament that in it God may accept him and re-engage him to be his God: The Parent puts forth the Prayer of Faith, and closeth with that promise, that his Infant may be received into Covenant with God: and receive such benefits of the Covenant as he is capable of: In the number of which I doubt not but cor novum, so denominated from that Principle of Grace of which I speak, that this I say is one, I doubt not. And is not this the same that Mr. Perkins saith in that passage cited by you pag. 336? The faith of the Parent doth bring the child to have a title or interest to the Covenant of Grace, and to all the Benefits of Christ. If to all, then say I, to this for one. And (my D. Br.) weigh well I beseech you the force of this reason which I confess hath prevailed much with me: That according to this, we may see the abundant goodness of God in providing for the comfort of the Parent, who by the eye of faith looks upon his Infant in the guilt of that first sin, and in the pollution of Nature: Yea he looks upon himself as an instrumental cause in both: And what shall he do to help the poor Infant: Saith God, Bring him to me, I will cure his Malady, by incorporating him into Christ.—Believe, and he shall be cured: Now then by faith doth the Parent see a ground of comfort: If I bring him to Christ, I shall procure a blessing: the blessing of remission to take away that guilt. The blessing of regeneration to cure the pollution of Nature by little and little: So that in effect, the faith of the Parent doth set his Infant as one that is Rectus in curia: And if he do afterward perish, he shall not lay a • l the blame upon his Parent. This, to your first Argument, The rest I pass by, as not doubting but that, if you do rightly apprehend me in this, your own candour and ingenuity will satisfy yourself in all the rest. Especially in that; It is not the seal of the first Grace, to the Aged; ergo Not to infants, unless we say, that it sealeth one Covenant to the Parent and another to the infant. No, say I; Not a different Covenant doth it Seal; But a different benefit of the same Covenant may it seal to them. This Cor novum, and preventing Grace cannot be sealed to the Parent upon his faith; His faith is an effect of it; But to his faith may it be sealed for his infant; will not this evidently appear in the instance of Abraham? Not he prevented by his Circumcision; Already he is justified; But well may his son Isaac in his Circumcision receive upon the faith of Abraham challenging the promise, he may I say receive preventing Grace.

Thus have I endeavored in the spirit of meekness to give you an account of your mistakings; The result I hope will be, that in the main, I shall be found to have delivered nothing which is not consonant to the text of Scripture, the Doctrine of our Church, the determination of those Divines, and your own conclusions. I shall not add much more; This only I shall desire you to take into Consideration.

How can the Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, be an occasion of Anabaptism, This you allege as a reason why you did meddle with my Tractate, because you conceived it to be dangerous as well as erroneous; As likely a means to make men Anabaptists as most you know; Now say I, How can this be? When as this is the common saying of the vulgar, What is the infant the better for this water-sprinkling? And why do the Ministers cry down the Anabaptists for denying Infant-baptism, when they can show us no good that cometh by it! Doth it not hence appear that it is judged rather a National way to prevent the prevailing of Anabaptism viz. To make it good, that there is some good gained by it, which ordinarily is not gained without it. Some real good, some special Grace that is truly tendered by God in the Sacrament, and truly received by the Infants of believers, for the conveying and receiving of which (so far as it can be transacted by a Corporeal sign) was the Sacrament instituted to be a means thereof. And truly (me thinks) this should be a proper Argument to overthrow the Anti-pedobaptists. Mr. Tombs doth object to Mr. Marshal, that he doth allege the Ancients for the proof of baptism, but not upon their grounds; Had he and others taken up that Argument, I verily believe they had long since if not silenced him, yet provided for the staying of many from being led aside with the error of those wicked ones. So much the rather I do believe this, because so long as that Argument, I mean the efficacy of the Sacrament was acknowledged, viz. A Regeneration wrought in Baptism, the practice of Anti-pedobaptists was not received. Your self observe that Anabaptism rose not up till Luther's time. Mr. Tombs instance of the Albigenses and Waldenses you have very well and worthily confuted; They took occasion from that position of his, No faith, No Baptism. Co-etaneous with him was Zwingli and others, who to overthrow the real presence insisted much upon it that Sacraments were but signs for Representation; And when that Doctrine was once broached, it soon found them that could make bad use of it (Any thing that tends to de-dignify God's Ordinances is soon received.) The Anabaptists could easily make their advantage of it. If no benefit come to the infant by Baptism, because he wants Faith, Then to what purpose should he be baptized before he hath Faith? His Church-member-ship is (I grant) a benefit not to be contemned, even as it is an outward Privilege; Yet if you make it not a state of Salvation to the infant, They will not much regard the other. So then; I see not how this Doctrine of mine should occasion the error of Anabaptism. You urge some instances upon your own knowledge, and which is more to the point, your own Tentation; You make my book one part of that Tentation; I believe it was the least part, I may not enter into the heart to seek what was the other. It is well, that you did over master that Tentation; We all have cause to bless God for your labors; And shall have more, if you study out well this point, touching the efficacy of the Sacrament; that so God's Ordinance may receive the Honor that is due to it. The Papists give more to Baptism then is due; Many of our Divenes think to cure that, by giving too little; They built all upon the Sacraments, nothing upon the word; We take from the Sacrament, and give it all to the word; What is the issue? God hath suffered these Sectaries to rise up; by whom, in a just revenge of our partiality, he threatens to cast off the Ministry. The Gospel is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But is it not so, in respect of the Sacraments, as well as the Preaching of the word? Thus have I learned: Thus do I teach; I shall trouble you no further at this present; but only to request your candid interpretation of what I have written and with all, your prayers for me, that wherein I err, I may readily upon admonition reform it, and wherein I am right, I may proceed courageously, notwithstanding all opposition and discouragement.

Farewell, (my D. Br.) God Almighty guide you, guard you, and bless pou in your way and work for the Glory of his name, and the Good of his Church. So still prayeth for you and all faithful Laborers in God's Harvest,

Postscript.

FOr a further confimation of my conjecture touching the most prevailing Argument against the Anabaptists, I have sent you this letter of Mr. Cranford to me written with his own hand. Whose Epistle prefixed to my book, had you advisedly read it, you would have found to be more then a bare Imprimatur. Now, if by all this you receive satisfaction, I hope you will take it into your thoughts how to wipe off that blot, that you have cast upon me.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

YOu know my mind, that I conceive the ground of Anabaptism to have been the erroneous Doctrine de nudis signis, as is clear in the Ecclesiastical stories of old, and most arguings of our Anabaptists. I am more confirmed in this opinion by what I had once returned me in answer to an Argument drawn from Eph. 5. from the efficacy of Baptism to enforce the baptizing of Infants, by Mr. Tombs at Mr. Roberts his house in London; viz. if that tenent could be clearly proved, he would no longer oppose that Practice. I shall speak with you further about this business, and rest.

My Reverend and most honored Brother,

I Unfeignedly confess myself unworthy of so much esteem and respect as these your lines import, and of so tender and friendly dealing as they contain. I rejoice in your consent in the owning the Truths mentioned by you: And also to find by this your Epistle, that we are so much nearer in judgment about the point of Baptism then I thought we had been; and are so fairly accommodated, that you doubt not to say that [in what I have not mistaken you meaning, you plainly perceive, a favorable construction might easily reconcile us: and the appearing differences would be found to be but Logomachies, not worthy the while to contest about.] And should I deny that favorable construction, to one that so favourably construes me, it being the only necessary and sufficient means of Reconciliation, I should justly incur the censure of that unpeaceableness, which I so much abhor.

1. As to th • first and second points you speak of, (being the last of the five you number,) I am heartily sorry that I have done you • o much wrong, as to lay that to your charge which you have already revoked o • corrected, yea and that in your books, which was none of your own. Wherein I must both excuse and accuse myself. 1. This much in excuse I may truly say; that I could not possibly know of that Castration and Interpolation of your books; Nor well suspect it in that point which I saw again in your Latin Tractate: and that I never (to my remembrance) saw or heard of your book which you mentioned, wherein those things are reversed; nor yet have I seen it: (living so obscurely and ermote from that chief garden where such flowers grow. 2. Yet must I accuse myself, That before I adventured to mention your name, I had not inquired, whether you had not set out some other boks, wherein those points might be reversed. For I acknowledge to you it is injurious, to have that laid to your charge, which you have publicly disowned. I take it to be so when the case is mine own: Mr. Tombs sent me his Animadversions on my Aphorisms; Therein the chief thing he excepted against, was a word in my book of Rest: I told him that though I took that saying to be true in the sense which I manifested, yet I had left it out purposely in the second Edition of my book, which was extant before he sent me his exceptions; Yet doth he long after in his Precursor, publish me to be erroneous because of that saying, and directeth his reader to find it in my first Edition, which he knew was corrected in the second. I thought this not ingenuous; Your wrong is as much (it seems,) though I be not so guilty; For I did it in ignorance (mostly necessitated;) but he in wilfullness.

To the third point (about the distinction of Moral and Metaphysical,) I say, 1. It was far from my mind to accuse so learned a man of ignorance (further then as we are said truly, to know but in part,) in comparison of whom I am so ignorant myself; But indeed (as you may perceive by my words,) my sharpest speeches in this, were aimed at those that make this their last refuge in the Doctrine of [Faith's Instrumentality in justifying,] saying; It is not a Physical Instrument, nor a Moral, but a Metaphysical, or Hyperphysical. But as both to you and them, what phrase may be too unmannerly, I disown, and ask you pardon for, and confess myself to be too oft faulty in that kind. But for the thing itself, I am glad to find that we are of one judgment herein. Yet you could not well blame me, if when you termed it a Metaphysical cause, I did not understand that you meant causam Moralem; For though I would not so tie you to School terms, as you express; Yet when you are pleased to use them and tie yourself to them, I must needs understand them in the School sense; till you tell me, you mean them otherwise, and then I am satisfied. And where you ask [what if I had called it Instrumentum Metonymicum?] 1 say, you may call it what you please; but I must fobear such phrases myself, till I better understand them; I confess I know not what you mean by it; Only I understand this much, that you take it to be only Instrumentum Metonymice sic dictum, and consequently in proper speech to be no Instrument at all, and then I need not further contend with you; though what Metonymy you mean, whether Causae, Effecti, Subjecti or Adjuncti; I know not, nor yet fully how it should be any of these.

As to the speech of Perkins, it must needs be limited to those Benefits of Christ which the conditional Covenant makes over to Believers and their seed, and cannot extend to [all] unlimitedly, or to those of the Absolute Covenant. Is not the Grace of perseverance, a benefit of the death of Christ? And if all believers Infants have that, then according to you they are all certainly saved. To be bred up under the means of Grace, is a benefit of Christ, which they all receive not; To be the Children of believers, and thereupon to be within the Covenant, is a benefit of Christ, which Baptism conveyeth not; for it goeth before baptism. When Mr. Ball in his Catech. asketh [How we are made partakers of Christ with all his benefits?] & answereth [By faith alone] he must not be interpreted either to think that our first faith (and all the means to work it) is none of Christ's benefits, nor yet that we are made partakers of that Faith by that faith itself. But the word [benefits] is evidently limited to those particular benefits which are contained in that Covenant, whose condition Faith is.

4. To the next, which you call [the second Exception] whether you go not further then Dr. Davenant and Dr. Ward? I think I have made it manifest that you do; and though you now think I mistake, yet afterwards in your answer to the Objection, you seem to me to confess it. But I gladly accept of your double concession or regress. 1. Where you say, that you shall not unwillingly recall whatsoever shall upon just examination be found contrary to Dr. Davenants assertions. You cannot deny but that you must then recall the assertion of real Regeneration, Sanctification, or habits of Grace as given to Infants by baptism; or that baptism was instituted to that end. 2. Where you say [His Regeneration doth confer on them whether elect or reprobate, statum salutis pro conditione parvulorum; Nor do I seek for anything further.] I think then we stand at no great distance, But then remember that it is not all that the Church hath right to admit to baptism (that is, the Infants of Hypocrites) but only all that have true Right before God to the benefits of the Covenant and baptism (that is, to the Infants of true believers only;) And in this I think you will also agree with me. Now then all the question is, whether the habits or seed of real Regenerating, Sanctifying Grace, be absolutely necessary ad statum salutis pro conditione parvulorum? If you affirm it, you must prove it; which till you have done, I have no more to do.

But here you must understand that Davenant and I, do not mean by [Statum salutis] that state wherein one is immediately capable of enjoying God in Glory; but that state wherein we have right to both that enjoyment, and the immediate capacity thereto. For 1. Else no man living can be said to be in a state of Salvation (which is contrary to our sense, and common speech) For no man is in an immediate capacity to enjoy God in Glory, till he be perfectly sanctified and freed from each degree of sin; But no man is so perfect till-after Death, (in order of nature at least.) Indeed that perfection wherein this immediate capacity doth consist is our very Happiness and Glory subjectively, as God is Objectively.

Here therefore have you, I think, a just answer to your Question, viz [what Scripture have they (Davenant, Ward, Gerson and other Schoolmen) for their opinion, that habits of Faith, Hope and Charity, which are not infused by Baptism into the soul of the Infant, are infused in momento separationis animae, if the child die after baptism? How much more consonant is it to the Text of Scripture (say you) me saltem judice, to settle the collation of it in God's Ordinance?] To which I say, They can prove from Scripture that an Infant cannot actually enjoy God in Glory without real Sanctifying Grace, and therefore it must be given them at Death. This is all past dispute. But you cannot prove that an Infant cannot be in Statu salutis, that is, in God's favor, and have right to Salvation, without real Habitual Grace. Nor will you prove, that the Text doth settle the collation of it on baptism. I think you will as soon prove, that the perfection of sanctification in the Adult is not after Death, but by Baptism, as that the beginning of real sanctification in Infants must be by baptism. For I think, that the first Grace together with the perfection, is given to Infants dying or dead, to the same ends, as the perfection is given to the Adult dying, or dead. I confess to you, my opinion is, that Habits of the soul, and Acts are nearer kin, and do less differ then most judge, specially if Scotu's opinion should prove true, that immanent Acts (Intellection and Volition) are not in the predicament of Action, but of quality, viz. the same species of Habit. (Though he say, that the souls first Conatus or self determination to understand and will, is in the predicament of Action.) And if I must take anything in this part of Philosophy on trust, I confess Scotus his credit will go as far with me, as any man that ever writ, not guided by an unerring infallible Spirit. At least Habits are so properly for the sake of the acts, or connected with them, that you will hardly prove the absolute necessity of Habits, where the acts are neither necessary nor possible. 2. And that this is Davenants sense, you may see fully manifested, p. 26. Nam voluntas Dei peccatum Originale iis remittentis, eó{que} favore suo complectentis sufficit ad ponendum illos in statu salutis abs{que} praesentanea aliqua gratiae inhaerentis infusione, &c. Et page 19, 20. Where he approves of Austin's words, Parvulum non regeneratio illa, quae in Renatorum voluntate consistit, sed ipsius Regenerationis Sacramentum, Regeneratum facit. Et pag. 14. Quod Infantes dicuntur in Baptismo Regenerari, id etiam ita dependet ab hac remission Originalis peccati, ut vix aut ne vix quidem ab eadem distinguatur. But what need I say more when the third, fourth and fifth Propos. page 4. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. and 11. are so full, wherein the common judgment of fathers and our Divines is manifested as well as his own. And the like hath Dr. Ward.

3. And I would entreat you to consider well of this Argument. That which is the whole condition on man's part of his Justification and Salvation, is sufficient on his part to put him in a state of Justification and Right to Salvation: But it is the faith of the Parent that is the Infants whole condition of Justification and Salvation; therefore, &c. The Major needs no proof: For else it were no true and full condition. (Still remembering that by [sufficient] I mean not the totum quod debetur, but the totum absolute necessarium.) The Minor I think you will not deny; For you take not Habitual Grace to be the Infants condition, that he may have God's Covenant-benefits, but to be the benefit of the Covenant, fulfilled to him that before in his Parents had the condition. And indeed it is very plain in Scripture, that all the Infants Right is for the sake of the Parent or some other, as in him, and not his own. And therefore there are no promises to them merely as Infants, but as the seed of the Righteous; the children of believers; and consequently, the whole of their condition, is, that their Parents be believers. And if this be not maintained, I doubt, we shall give up all to the Anabaptists. And therefore I conclude that the Parents true faith is sufficient on the childes part, to put him in the state of Justification, and right to Salvation. (Though not into an immediate capacity of enjoying God in glory, for so is no believer till Death.)

The Texts John 3. 5. Tit. 3. 5. speak nothing for you, as I have shown.

Without Holyness none shall see God, nor yet without perfection. And yet as the Adult have right to see God, (and so to perfection itself,) before they are perfect; So Infants may have right to see God, (and so to real Holiness) before they are sanctified by Habitual Grace. This expounds Joh 3. 3. as well as Heb. 12. 14.

I conceive therefore that this is no strife about words (as you think;) or if it be, do you yield to Davenants words, and assert only the Relative change, as Baptismal? then you and I are pretty well agreed (only remembering that it is priùs & certo ex federe & parentum fide, and from Baptism only as to the moral Instrumental collation by way of obsignation and complemental Solemnization of that which before was effectually done.)

As to your wary proceeding in this point, I conceive that when you had attained to much of the truth by Degrees, when you went beyond. Davenant, you left it behind you, So hard is it not to go from extreme to extreme. But I congratulate your return, in promising to reverse all that is against him.

But I can nowhere find that [Supra] whereas you say the Rock de Apostasiâ Sanctorum is prevented. How Davenant and Ward avoid that Rock, I know; but, methinks they expressly leave you shipwrakt on it. Davenant, page 7, 8. Nec quenquam scio ex Nostris Theologis, qui Regenerationem illam quae sita est in spiritualium qualitatum creatione (quam nos Sanctificationem Pontificij formalem Justificationem indigitant) in ipso momento baptismi productam definiant. Immo omnes hanc Regenerationem sine Nativitatem Spiritualem ad illud aetatis adultae tempus referunt, quo in cord baptizati ex immortali semine verbi, & operatione Spiritus, vera ac viva fides enascitur. Cum igitur nec Arminiani, nec Pontificij, nec Protestants agnoscunt parvulos in ipsa baptismi susceptione fieri participes illorum habitualium donorum, aut spiritualium qualitatum quae proprie dicuntur constituere hominem justum & inbaerenter sanctum; nemo eorum potest amissionem fidei aut justitiae, aut sanctorum Apostasiam argumento ab Infantibus sumpto demonstrare. It is undeniable that you make seminal Grace (the same with that which the Schoolmen call infused Habits) to be ordinarily lost both totally and finally; but so doth not Davenant, and so dare not I. This therefore being against Davenant, I suppose you to recall, according to your promise.

5. Lastly, as to the question, whether your tenent be Orthodox? Where you say [It is consonant to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and Ancient Fathers,] I think not so; Nor do you prove it; Nor did Davenant think so, when he wrote that fifth propo. Patres neque actualem ne{que} habitualem fidem aut charitatem parvulis in baptismo donatam agnoscunt; Conversionem etiam sive Novi cordis creationem, quae proprie Regeneratio dicenda est, non nisi cum ad aetatem rationis capacem pervenerint, in iis produci docent. See the proofs.

But the main matter lieth in your Answer to my Arguments where you say (after some concessions) [What doth hinder but that this Dabo cor novum, though it be absolute, and a preventing Grace to the Infant, yet may be the effect and fruit of a conditional promise to the Parent, viz. what he by his faith hath laid hold on for himself, and his Infant? Is not Circumcidam cor tuum & seminis tui, an explication of ero Deus tuus & seminis tui? At least it is an expression of one main benefit comprehended in that promise. Doth not God by that promise engage himself to do for them whatsoever may be for the welfare of body and soul? as for them, so for their children according to their capacity, &c. To this and that which. followeth I Answer. These following Arguments persuade me that you err. 1. No such promise (that giveth cerly cor novum, or the first effectual Grace to all the rightly baptized, or to all the children of believers) can be shown in the Scripture; Circumcidam cor tuum & seminis tui, seems to me to be none such; 1. Because else it should not be the same Circumcision that is promised to the Parent and the child: but there is no intimation of two Circumcisions in the Text: One to the father, being only an increase or actuating of Grace; and the other to the child, being the giving of the first Renewing Grace. 2. The Text seems plainly to speak of [their seed] not in their Infant state, but in their Adult. Deut. 30. For 1. ver. 2. the condition of the promise is expressly required, not only of the Parent, but of the children themselves by name. 2. And that condition is the personal performance of the same Acts which are required of the Parents, viz. To return to the Lord and obey his voice with all their heart and Soul. 3. The circumcision of heart promised, is so annexed to the Act, that it appeareth to be meant only of those that were capable of the Act, verse 6. The Lord thy God will Circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God. So that it is not meant of those that are uncapable of so loving. The following Arguments prove this further.

And for that which you urge [Ero Deus tui & seminis] I doubt you will not prove that it reacheth so far as you speak. It sufficeth that God will be to them a God of mercy, and do for them all that is necessary to put them in statum salutis pro conditione parvulorum. But you have not proved that this cor novum is requisite to that state. The following Arguments will serve to this purpose.

2. If this Doctrine of yours stand, (that this be the promise to all the faithful for their seed, to give them cor novum) then all the seed of the faithful are certainly saved: (whether they die in Infancy or not.) But that is certainly untrue. The consequence is proved. 1. In that cor novum is given to the elect only, and is ever effectual to produce its Acts in time, and doth persevere. 2. If God do (as you say) engage himself to do for them whatsoever may be for the welfare of body and soul, then there is no doubt of their Salvation. Unless you will say, It is not for the well fare of their souls to be saved, and to believe when they come to age, and to persevere. If you deny the consequence of the Major proposition of this Argument (as I know you will) then you will fall on the following inconveniences.

3. By this Doctrine you feign Cor novum not to be proper to the Elect; which is contrary to all Antiarminians that I know of.

4. You will maintain that the most proper Renewing Grace may be lost, and so dash on the Rock de Apostasia sanctorum, which you say you avoid. For when the same promise, Dabo cor novum; is made good to the Adult, you will acknowledge that they are Saints, and have special Grace; therefore so have Infants if it be made good to them. If they lose cor novum, they lose that which Bertius saith the Adult lose. For to lose the Act of Grace is not so much.

5. You feign a cor novum which will not bring forth the good fruits of cor novum, when occasion is offered; whereas Christ saith, A good tree will bring forth good fruits; by their fruits ye shall know them. What is the use of Habits but to produce the Acts? And why then do not these habits bring forth actual Holiness, when they come to Age? Do they lose them before? Or what is it? And what a vain useless thing do you make of God's special Grace? But this Argument I have driven home before.

6. If you fly this, and say that this Grace doth act, then you assert the loss of Actual Grace, as well as Habitual.

7. And then you will make it a hard dispute, whether such can ever be saved. For total Apostates cannot be renewed by Repentance.

8. As it is Pelagianism to say that the first Grace is given secundum meritum. (though all acknowledge Relative Grace as Justification Adoption, &c. to be given on a condition, which the Fathers called meritum;) So you seem to be plainly guilty of it; For it is given (according to you) on the condition of the Parents faith.

9. According to your opinion, the absolute promise, Dabo cor novum, should never be made good to the child of any believer; (except you will say, it may be made good to him for a second Regeneration, after the loss of the first by Apostasy.) For if the new heart be given to them all by the conditional promise made to the Parent for himself and his seed, then it cannot be again given by the absolute promise. And so that promise should belong to none of all the Generations of true Christians, but only to the first Christian progenitor.

10. Nay (except you make the fruits of that promise loseable) it was never made good to any since Noah's flood, (that is, before it was made.) For upon Noah's believing, his Posterity should have all New Hearts; and so their posterity, and so to this day.

11. And so there should be never an unregenerate man in the world, either now, or since Noah.

12. The same promise that giveth the new heart, giveth other mercies that are proper to the saved; as the writing of God's Law in the heart, remembering no more their sins and iniquities, &c. And the like promise gives perseverance, [I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.] And it promiseth actual Grace [they shall all know me from the least to the greatest.] It seems to me therefore that you may as well say all these must be given to the children of believers as one; and may as well make all of them as one, to be common and loseable Grace. But some are not such, therefore none. I think cor novum is no common Grace (as it is in this promise meant.)

13. You make the Parents faith to do more for the Infants, then ever it did or could do for himself who is the principal: that is, To procure the Infant cor novum, or the first effectual Renewing Grace.

14. I think you will never prove that Baptism hath such different ends to the Adult and to Infants, as that it should convey that to one, which is the very condition prerequisite in the other. (But of this I spoke to you already.)

15. God hath not engaged himself to any certain time before death, for the bestowing of any Grace which is not necessary ad statum salutis. (He giveth such ut Dominus absolutus; As the degrees of Grace and comfort to his people: he may give them when and in what degree he will:) But cor novum is not to Infants necessary ad statum Salutis; (though it be ad ipsam salutem.) He that saith it is, let him prove it. Therefore God is not engaged to give cor novum to Infants in baptism.

These Arguments persuade me that you yet mistake in this matter. And now I expect that you recall all this according to your promise, it being against the express words of Davenant, page 8. Propos. 5. Conversionem, sive Novi Cordis creationem, quae proprie Regeneratio dicenda est, non nisi cum ad aetatem rationis capacem pervenerint, in ijs produci docent. Which I urge, because you yet profess (and iterate it) that you doubt not but cor novum is one of the benefits of the Covenant which Infants have title to.

For Mr. Perkins speech, I answered before.

As to your Reason drawn from the comfort of Parents, I say, 1. We must give no more comfort then God hath given. 2. Is it not a large comfort, that God doth pardon their Original sin, and put them in statum salutis, and will give them the means of Grace, and his own help when they come to age for the working in them a new heart, nisi ponatur obex; and will effectually work it in his elect in the fittest season? 3. Doth not experience evince de facto when they come to age or any use of Reason, that all such children have not cor novum? but Original sin is still predominant? The faith of the Parent (quoad conditionem) doth make the Infant Rectum in curiâ Relative: but you do not think sure, that all Original sin is taken away in Baptism, as the Papists do! Nor do you prove that it is mortified, or overcome.

To the second Argument, you give the same Answer, as to the first; and I return the same Reply. And where you say, that this will evidently appear in the instance of Abraham; I say, 1. Prove that Isaac had cor novum by virtue of that general Covenant to the faithful and their seed, and not from Election and special Grace. 2. If that be so, then Esau had a new heart as truly as Isaac and Jacob, which I see no likelihood of.

I am glad that among the rest, you seem to recall that over-ascribing to baptism, and derogating from the promise; (which Dr. Ward is more expressly faulty in then you) and now seem to yield that it is principally the Covenant and faith of the Parent; and this is the chief thing that I insisted on.

To your Question, How the Doctrine of baptismal Regeneration can make men Anabaptists, I gave you before a full answer. 1. I have known many that it hath almost made Anabaptists, that were sober people.

2. A discovery of one error in an adversary, is a most potent means to make us suspect all his Doctrine, and possess us with prejudice against it; Especially about the same matter. When men hear that the ground of our baptizing Infants, is 1. That they may all be Regenerate really, and have new hearts; 2. And that by the proper Instrumental efficiency of baptism; And when they see by Scripture and Reason, that this cannot be, and by experience that de facto it is not, but that divers such baptized ones never discovered any new heart; what likelier way to make them Anabaptists? They think that to overthrow our grounds, is to overthrow the lawfulness of that practice which is built on them. Even as it hardeneth Papists to read in many of our greatest Divines, that Christ's Active Righteousness as such is ours formaliter, and not only meritoriously: that we are justified by faith properly as by the Instrument of our justification: and that justifying faith is Assurance, (say some) or persuasion that we are pardoned (say others:) and that in these things are the main differences between us and Rome. Would not any inconsiderate Novice turn Papist, when he hath found that we err in all these, and yet make these the main difference? So in the present case. If (as you speak,) we could show men no other good that comes by baptism, but this; then it were time to make good this, or give it over: But I think there are other benefits, which we can better prove, when the asserting of one which we cannot prove, will shake all with the common sort. Your Argument [that Anabaptistry arose not while the efficacy of the Sacrament was acknowledged,] is a non Causa pro Causa. I deny not the unsoundness of Luther's Position, No faith, no baptism; Nor do I deny but Zwingli gave too little to baptism in terms, though I am ready to think he meant rightly. The avoiding of the extremes herein, is that which I endeavor.

As for Mr. Cranfords letter affixt, it speaks not against me. I own not the Doctrine de nudis signis; I acknowledge an efficacy to the uses which they are appointed to; that is, As Moral Instruments to convey relations and rights, though not as Physical Instruments to make real mutations; But this conveyance I take to be but by obsignation, and solemnization, and complement of that which was before conveyed by the Covenant effectually. I cannot blame Mr. Tombs to say what Mr. Cr. expresseth. He might say also to a Papist, If you can prove that the Sacrament of baptism doth ex opere operato take away all Original sin, I will baptize Infants: And good reason; Must we therefore think that ground necessary or good?

My Reverend and dear brother, how far I am satisfied with yours, and how far not, these few lines show. I see we are nearer much then at first I judged by your books. The d • fference is small; and indeed scarce any, when you have recalled what you here promise to recall. I acknowledge your condescension, and the Spirit of meekness in your lines; I crave pardon for the defects of it, which appear in mine, entreating you to remit all acrimonious and unmannerly expressions. And then that we publicly contradict each other, I think, is no disparagement or wrong; Nor do I know why the dearest brethren in the world, may not publish their different Judgments and reasons, without the least diminution of love; that so by comparing them, the world may have a further help to the discovery of the truth; yea, methinks, for that end, men should purposely agree to do so. Who knows not, that we all shall in some things differ, while we know but in part? and what hurt is it if they know wherein we differ? If men took it for no wrong or disparagement to be contradicted, (and there's little reason they should) then would our debates be placidly and lovingly managed, without any strife, exasperations or divisions; and so the Church might have the benefit, and we escape the hurt. For my part, I do but as I would be done by. I never felt that any man's writings against me, d • d make me smart. And I can truly say, that my small difference with you is accompanied with unfeigned love to you, and honoring of your worth, and prayer that God would preserve you, and bless your labors to the service of his Church.

To the BOOKSELLERS, Mr. Underhill and Mr. Tyton.

I Am desired to leave out the Appendix in the next Edition of my book of Baptism. I am loath to wrong the Church or my Reverend brother by being quarrelsome; and yet loath to withdraw it if it be of use towards the discovery of Truth. It seems to me that the most affectionate Brethren may well publish their differing thoughts and debates▪ without the least injury, alienation or mutual disparagement, that so others may have the help of finding out the right. I dare not be judge in this particular, nor have I those near me at present, that are fit to be consulted. I do therefore entreat you both to consult with the most judicious and Godly Divines whom you can procure to give their judgment in such a business; and if they tell you that it will be more useful to the Church to have that Appendix left out, I require you wholly to leave it out: If they judge otherwise, then print it, and after it put these Papers.