Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants Professed by the Church of England

CHAP. 1. The introduction, declaring the occasion and necessity of this treatise.

THere is no Ordinance set up by Christ in his Church, more useful and comfortable unto a Christian, throughout the whole course of his Militant condition, then sacred Baptism, the Laver of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Nor is there any fountain which the Arch-enemy of mankind, hath more endeavored to trouble, and corrupt with multiplicity of poisonous errors, then that which is set open to all the inhabitants of spiritual Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.

For proof hereof, I shall not need to thrust any man's head so much as Within the door of that Augaean stable of Popish absurdities. we have too many instances else where. Some advance Baptism too high: Others depress it as much too low. There are, that hold it so absolutely necessary, as that none can be saved without it. On the contrary, there are, that in scorn call it Elementish water. Others, that think it a thing indifferent; and deny it to infantes, notwithstanding that to them belongs the kingdom of God: Others that make it a bare sign, and badge to distinguish the members of the visible Church from the rest of the World, some, in terms, yield it to be somewhat more; yet deny to it all present efficacy in, & upon infants, ordinarily, in the act of administration. Some grant an efficacy, but such as is equally communicated to all infantes that are outwardly baptized. Some admit the efficacy of it unto remission of sin in Infants elect: but, any present work of the spirit, unto Regeneration in them, they either flatly deny, or refuse to acknowledge. Against all these errors, and particularly against the last, the Church of England hath justly opposed her self, in her Public Doctrine, for the defense whereof have I taken upon me this difficult province. The occasion this.

In the course of my ministry, in mine own cure, I was lately cast upon this point: viz: That all elect infants, do, ordinarily, in Baptism receive the spirit of Christ, to seize upon them for Christ, and to be in them as the root and first principle of regeneration, and future newness of life This I speak (as then I expressed myself,) with reference only unto such Infants as die not in infancy, but l • ue to years of discretion, and then come to be effectually called, and actually converted by the ordinary means of the word applied by the same spirit unto them, when and how he pleaseth. As for the rest of the elect who die infants, I will not deny a further work, sometimes in, sometimes before baptism, to fit them for heaven.

For this, am I peremptorily censured and condemned by many, as guilty not only of Arminianism, but even of direct Popery, and of teaching a Doctrine of devils. To make good what they have done, they lay to my charge sundry passages, as branches of my position, which, not only in stating the question, but also in the prosecution of it, I often and often disclaimed as errors, in express terms. This they know well enough; & it hath been made manifest to some of their faces by others also. Howbeit, they owing me a spite for something else, (as by the effect appears) take no notice of their willful mistakes. That which they have once reported, they are resolved to maintain; therefore they cease not to pursue me with clamors, slanders, and revilings without end or measure. No protestations of mine own, either public or private, no Apologies made by my friends, are able to shelter me from their virulent darts which daily fly in my face where ever I become.

This alone were cause sufficient of publishing this Treatise, that I may purge myself of these odious crimes so unjustly imputed. He that being a Minister is not careful to uphold his necessary reputation among the people of God, as well as to keep a good conscience towards God, is both cruel to himself, and injurious to his Master. His Ministry must needs be of less esteem, if not despised out-right, who shall suffer himself to be proclaimed guilty of Error, and Heresy; and sees his Good Name hanged up in chains by the giddy multitude, even before his own doors, and he not endeavor, in a meet & temperate manner, to declare himself innocent, when he is well able to plead, not guilty, to the indictment.

If any man shall say; Jt is a man's honor to pass by offenses, and therefore it had been far better to have endured a while, with patience, the tongues of intemperate men, then thus to have spread the cause before the whole world: this course being likely more to exasperate, rather then to satisfy or mollify such as have appeared in opposition against me. To such a person mine answer is this. If the wrong had not trenched so much upon the credit of my Ministry (which ought to be as dear unto me, as any man's is to him;) or if I had been handled thus in private only, by private men, I could willingly have borne all that reproach and infamy that is laid upon me, without complaining; but, not without bewailing, with a bleeding heart, the strange pride and insolency of such spirits as dare thus willfully to traduce any Minister of Christ.

That which hath imbarked me in this public action is of more importance then the maintaining of mine own innocence against the murmur of private persons: yea there are many weighty causes concurring to put upon me a necessity of doing something in this kind. If any shall take occasion hence to be more exasperated, it shall be only his own fault: for I hope I shall so manage this work, that it shall evidently appear to all Godly, Judicious, temperate men, that I nowhere give any cause of offense unto any peaceable Christian; but endeavor only, in a modest and humble manner, to clear and maintain a Truth, and to give all satisfaction that I may, unto such as love Truth better then Victory.

Breifly, the Causes chiefly enducing me to send these Papers unto the Press, are these Three.

1 The just Defense of the public doctrine of our Church, which hath been by some, upon this occasion, publicly opposed so far as they durst. For, how freely sundry Ministers do cry down this Position (and that publicly too) notwithstanding that this truth is so clearly consonant to the Liturgy and Public Catechism of the Church in which we live, is too well known. Through my sides therefore have they gored and wounded our common Mother, who suffers in the cause, much more then myself, or then any Particular either doth, or can.

2 I find that sundry sober and well affected Christians are often puzzled, and at a loss in this particular, for want of information; yea in danger to be drawn unawares into Schism; not unlike those 200 men that followed Absalom, in the simplicity of their hearts, not knowing anything of his conspiracy. For their sakes therefore it is very requisite that this point should be thoroughly searched into, and made public. This is not a quarrel about Goats hair; nor so poor a business as should deserve (in a Pulpit) to be compared to the action of a Famous General that levies a strong Army, draws them out into the field, sets them in order or battle, and raiseth a great expectation of some honorable exploit, which in conclusion proves to be no other then the breaking of an Egg-shell

3 Nor was there ever such need of opening this truth unto the people, as now: because, never, since the heresies of the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists were hissed out of the Church of Christ, were men so violent against it, and so impatient of contradiction. They cry out, What use, what use of such a Doctrine? Whether doth it tend? Mee thinks they should be able to answer themselves, without help. Is it nothing unto a Christian, in time of a violent temptation, when he hath lost all sight of his Savior, to be assured that even in his Baptism he received the Holy Ghost as an anointing that shall abide with him forever? Is the consolation of God a small matter unto a Christian Parent, that in obedience to Christ, and in faith in his promises, hath presented his child to the sacred Laver , where the Holy Ghost hath seized upon him for Christ, so as, whether himself live or die, he may conceive good hope that Christ hath taken the charge of his child, & will provide all things needful for it, and give it both grace and glory? What a comfort (saith a learned writer vpō Tit. 3.5. making it one Use of this very Doctrine) is it for a father to see his child washed with the blood of Jesus Christ? Clensed from sin? Set into the visible Church, yea, into the Body of Christ, in the right use of this Sacrament? Wherein a Parent ought more to rejoice, then if he could make it heir of the world.

All these considered, I appeal to any Understanding Man, whether I have not cause to publish my Labors upon this subject, out of duty that I owe to the Church of Christ; and whether (considering how little is done in this kind) it were not worth the best search, and greatest labor of the most able Divines in the kingdom, to clear this point to the full, for the edification and comfort of pious and peaceable Christians †.

What I have performed herein, I humbly offer to be freely censured by the more Judicious who, truly and indeed, are both able and willing to maintain the public Doctrine of this Church already established. I will not take upon me to tie all men, or any man, to my private opinions. I know that the Learned may without blame, dissent from each other in many things, so long as they obtrude them not upon others, nor trouble the peace of the Church thereabout. Howbeit if this, of mine, be a private opinion, I renounce it, and crave pardon of the whole Church of God for troubling the world with such a toy. But, if it appear, to impartial Judges able to weigh it in the balance of the Sanctuary, to be a truth, & such a truth as the whole Church of England is as much engaged in, as myself; I trust that then, it shall find acceptance with all sober men; and, by God's blessing, prove profitable to all, that in humility and love, desire & endeavor to embrace the truth. As for others, I shall pass them by with pity, and prayer that they may at length come again to themselves.

CAP. 2. The State of the Position.

NOt to trouble the Reader with any discourse touching the Name, or Definition of Baptism; nor yet with the efficacy of Baptism touching Remission of sin, which I willingly admit: let us now fall upon the state of the Position touching the efficacy of this Ordinance, upon the Elect, unto Regeneration. I shall have occasion to declare myself in the other particulars, as I pass along.

There is no term in our Position needing explication unless Two, the Spirit, and Regeneration. By Spirit, I mean not only grace wrought by the Spirit; but the Holy Ghost dwelling in every true Christian and working Grace. Howbeit I consider this Holy Ghost, not essentially, not personally as the third Person in Trinity; but, operatiuely as the Spirit of Christ communicated from him to all his members, to unite them unto himself, and to be in them the first principle, and as it were the soul of spiritual life. It is the Spirit himself, and not his Graces that first knits us to Christ. Graces are effects of the union, not the bond it self. Nor can some of those things which are attributed to the Spirit dwelling in a Christian, possibly be applied to any created Gift or grace infused, but only to the Holy Ghost himself: as for example, our Savior's speaking of that Comforter which he would, after his departure, send to his Disciples to dwell in them, saith that, when he is come he will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, John▪ 16.8. which must needs be the act of a person, not of a created inanimate gift, and in ver. 13. whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will show you things to come, He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you, &c. In brief no place of Scripture can be produced, wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The HOLY GHOST is put only for grace wrought or bestowed, and not for the Author of it. I am not ignorant that some moderne writers do hold otherwise: but saving their judgments, I cannot but follow the Fathers, & soundest schoolmen, who soundly maintain this truth. I will not trouble the reader with heaps of Authors . I only pray the learned to consider well, whether the admitting of this exposition of such texts of Holy writ as mention the dwelling of the Holy Ghost in a Christian, viz. that by the HOLY GHOST is meant only Grace wrought or working, doth not (unawares) give some countenance to the heresy of the Pneumatomachists. Sure I am S. Augustine was wont to prove the Godhead of the holy Ghost by this very argument, that we are said to be his Temples; and he, to dwell in us.

That other of regeneration, I take to be all one with spiritual life, taken in the largest sense; which life, according to the Scriptures, I distinguish into Initiall and Actual. For as in the natural, sometimes the soul which is usually called the form by which, and sometimes the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 esse the being it self of such or such a creature animated by his soul, is put for life; as that learned Zanchius well observeth : so is it in the Spiritual life whereof we are now to treat. And upon this foundation it is that we rightly build our present distinction, which hath clear footting also in the sacred Volumes of Eternal Truth.

1 Initiall (which we may also term Seminall or Potentiall life, I call that which consisteth in participatiō of the spirit of Christ, as the form of this spiritual life: the spirit being the first principle of Regeneration, by whom the first seed and foundation thereof is laid in a Christian. And this is life as it were in the root, like unto the first principles of reason laid up in the soul rational, before it have actually enabled the body to move, and act rationally. And of this, saith acute Junius , our Savior spake in John. 3. more clearly to our purpose is that of the Apostle, Rom: 8.10. The spirit is life, because of righteousness. where the spirit which is the cause of life, is put for life it self: and by the spirit is meant; not the reasonable soul, but the Holy Ghost; if Calvin, (and before him Chrysostom and Ambrose, and after him Peter Martyr ) hit right in the exposition of it , whereof for my part (after serious pensitation, of all that any have said to carry it to another sense) I make no question.

2 Actual, I call that, which consisteth properly in the very spiritual being it self actually produced in a Christian, by the spirit bringing him forth a new man in Christ, in the ordinary course of Regeneration of such as live to years, whereby he is enabled actually to believe repent, &c. Rom. 6.11. Likewise ye, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin: but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So Galath. 2.20. and elsewhere.

The several members of this distinction, I further illustrated, thus.

The former of these is as the transplantation of a tree into a new soil; the later, as drawing the fatness of the soil into the tree; causing it to shoot up, spring, blossom, and bear fruit. The former, saith Junius, is as the transplanting of a man out of the first Adam, into the second; the later, as his drawing virtue from him, and living thereby. The former is as the stretching of Elisha upon the dead child, the first time, whereby the flesh of the child waxed warm, but as yet it moved not ; the later is as his stretching himself upon it the second time, which caused it to neese seven times and to open his eyes . The former of these is like unto the first incubation or resting of the spirit upon the face of the waters, while the earth was yet without form, and void, Gen: 1.2. the later, as the production of each particular creature, afterwards in his kind, time, and order, appointed of God, when it pleased him to speak the word. The Spirit rested upon the waters from the beginning; yet the creatures were not presently produced by the spirit: they came forth in their due time, and place, when God gave his Fiat and not before.

This Distinction laid as a ground, will of it self bear us out in this conclusion.

This being granted, I add further, touching the ordinary means of manifest conferring on us and confirming to us the Spirit of grace, a second Conclusion, which is this.

This is our first certain and manifest initiation into Christ, ( Rom. 6.) and receiving of the Holy Ghost, in the ordinary way of divine dispensation; by means (Act: 2.38,) and our ingrafting into the body of Christ. 1. Cor. 12.13. So also saith the 27 Article of our Church. This is the Block at which so many have stumbled. This is the Arminianism, Popery, and Doctrine of Devils, that I am charged with▪ This therefore is the Point I am now to Labor in, after I shall have stated it somewhat more distinctly and fully: for the effecting whereof, I must first more punctually set down.

• 1 How far, all that are not Papists, Lutherans or Arminians do agree with me herein.
• 2 what be the differences between me and some others, that though they hold neither with Papist, nor Arminian do yet dissent from me.

The things on all hands agreed upon are these.

• 1 That some Infantes may & do receive the spirit to unite them unto Christ, before Baptism. The question here is only of the first certain reception of it, by external ordinary means applied.
• 2 That by Baptism is understood the whole Ordinance, consisting of the inward grace as well as of the outward sign
• 3 That there is as much efficacy in Baptism unto Remission of sin, as unto Regeneration; although we are now to treat only of the latter.
• 4 That the spirit is not given to all, but to the Elect only.
• 5 That the outward element hath not in it any physical force, either by virtue of the consecration, institution, or administration, to confer the spirit to any at all: but the spirit is communicated immediately from Christ himself, when the Sacrament is administered, if then it be at all conferred.
• 6 That God both may and doth even in Baptism, bestow the spirit upon some infants that live and come to years, as well as upon other some that die in infancy.

The differences then, are only two; which will be most briefly discerned in these 2 Quaere's.

• 1 whether the communication of the spirit unto infants, from Christ himself, for their first apparent engrafting into his body, and to be in them as the first seed & principle of Regeneration, in the ordinary course of regenerating such, as after Baptism, do live to years of discretion, be ordinarily, in the baptism of the Elect?
• 2 whether the former, being granted, it doth also follow, that All the Elect do ordinarily, receive the spirit in baptism; so that such as receive him before, or after, and not in Baptism, are to be held to receive the spirit in an extraordinary, and not in the ordinary course of divine dispensation thereof?

I hold the Affirmative in both these Questions▪ and determine them thus: viz:

This Position I am now to make good to be agreeable to the Doctrine.

• 1 Of the Church of England: by which it appears to be no private fancy.
• 2 Of the Holy Scriptures, upon which this Doctrine of our Church is founded.
• 3 Of the Ancient Fathers of best note in the truly Primitive church.
• 4 Of the Reformed churches beyond the Sea; and particularly of Geneva.
• 5 Of the most famous and eminent Divines both at home and abroad; & particularly of calvine, and D ^r Whitaker, beside sundry others.

Lastly, I will add Answers to all the Objections, that ever I could hear of, against this Assertion.

CAP. 3. This agrees to the Public Doctrine of our Church.

BEfore I go further, I must advertise the Reader of one thing constantly to be observed throughout this Treatise; and it is this. Wheresoever I shall for brevities sake, only say thus much, that the Elect do receive the spirit in Baptism; my purpose is to have it understood with all those conditions and limitations before expressed, in the stating of the Point. So that it must always be thus interpreted. viz: That it is most agreeable to the Jnstitution of Christ, that All Elect Jnfants that are baptized (unless in some extraordinary cases) do, ordinarily, receive, from Christ, the Spirit, in Baptism, for their first solemn initiation into Christ; and for their future actual renovation, in God's good time, if they live to years of discretion, and enjoy the other ordinary means of Grace appointed of God to this end. This premized, I may more securely go on with my work. Nor shall any man that finds oftentimes, in that which follows, a more compendious expression of this Position, have cause to complain, that I deal ambiguously and sophistically; because my resolution is to be always tried by this Conclusion so largely delivered, and so bounded as in the former Chapter you may behold it.

The first part of my task is, to make it good, that this assertion is agreeable to the public, and established Doctrine of the Church of England. And this I propound in the first place; not as if I meant to tie any man's faith to believe the point, merely because the Church of England saith it. For She will not assume so much Authority over any man's faith; having declared her self expressly in the 21 Article of her Doctrine, that even General Councils (which represent the whole Church of Christ on earth) in things ordained by them as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture. I urge not then the Doctrine of our Church to prove the point by it; as some have given out: but only to show the agreement that it hath with our Public Doctrine, that no man might proclaim it to be a piece either of Popery, or Arminianism; nor yet a private conceit of mine own dissonant from the Churches of Christ: but that it is a branch of that truth to which all the Ministers of our Church either have subscribed, or ought so to do; and so, are as deeply engaged in the defense of it, as myself whom some of them (either ignorant or careless of what they subscribed to) do now so much oppose.

That this accordeth to the Doctrine of our Church, may appear in one or two plain Syllogisms; the first whereof shall be this.

Syllogis. 1.
• Major. That which the Church in the Public Leiturgie thereof, exhorteth, & requireth us to pray for, when any Infant presumed to be truly and indeed within the covenant of Grace, is brought to baptism; and, that which it also teacheth us to pronounce concerning that and every such infant, so soon as he is baptized, must needs be granted to be agreeable to the Public Doctrine of our Church touching all elect Infants that are baptized, ordinarily.
• Minor. But the Public Leiturgie of our Church exhorteth and requireth us, at the baptizing of every infant presumed to have interest in the Covenant of Grace, as being within God's Election , to pray for the Spirit of Regeneration to be given unto him: and, so soon as he is baptized, to conclude him to be regenerated with the Holy Spirit; and accordingly to give thanks for this, in Prayer, unto God.
• Conclus: Therefore it is agreeable to the Public and established doctrine of the Church of England, that all elect Jnfants do, ordinarily, receive the spirit of Christ, in Baptism, in such manner and sense as is before expressed.

The Major Proposition cannot be doubted of▪ unless we shall say that, the Doctrine and Leiturgie of our Church are contrary to one another: which no man, well in his wits, will affirm, and yet subscribe to both.

The Minor, or, as some term it, the Assumption, is the only Proposition, then, that must be proved. I pray you therefore, with patience, see it done, in the several branches of it. There are in it these two particulars.

• 1 The Church, in her Leiturgie requireth us to pray for the spirit of Christ to be communicated to every particular infant brought to baptism, presuming of the particular that he is within the election of Grace.
• 2 She concludeth him to be regenerate so soon as he is baptized: that is, to have received the Spirit of regeneration, as the first principle thereof.

1. For the former, let the Leiturgie it self be produced, wherein the Church enjoineth.

• 1 The Minister alone thus to bespeak the Congregation, when any children are presented at the Font; I beseech you to call upon God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy, he will grant to these children that thing which by nature they cannot have, that they may be baptized with water and the HOLY GHOST. The Church enjoineth further.
• 2 Both Minister and People, to pray; We beseech thee for thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt mercifully look upon these children; sanctify them and wash them with the HOLY GHOST. Again, in the second Prayer; We call upon thee for these infants, that they coming to thy Holy Baptism, may receive remission of their sins by SPIRITVALL regeneration: Yet again, in the Third Prayer; Give THY HOLY SPIRIT to these infants, that they may be borne again, and be made heirs of everlasting salvation.

The purpose of the Church, then, is to teach us, that we should expect the Spirit of Christ to be communicated in Baptism, to elect infants: or else it must be concluded that the Church meant to mock us, by putting us to pray for that which she doth not believe we shall receive.

If any shall say; the Church teacheth us to pray, indeed, for the Regeneration of a child, when he is baptized; but not for his present regeneration? I answer: yes, for his present Regeneration; not actual, ordinarily, such as that he after attains unto, in his effectual calling by the Word; yet Initiall, and Potentiall, (as was before distinguished:) as shall appear in the proof of the second branch of the Assumption, which is this: viz:

2 The Church concludeth, in her Leiturgie, that the child is initially regenerate, in his Baptism. For

• 1 It pronounceth him to be regenerate; enjoining the Minister thus to speak unto the people: seeing now, D. B. that these children be regenerate, and grafted into the Body of Christ's congregation, let us give thanks unto God for these benefits, &c. And least any should shift this off by saying they are Sacramentally regenerated, but not spiritually by any actual reception of the spirit at that time; the Solemn Thanksgiuing following is added to cut the throat of this shiftless gloss. Let us examine it in the next place.
• 2 It teacheth us all thus to join in Thanksgiuing unto God: We yield thee hearty thanks; most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant (how? and with what?) with thy HOLY SPIRIT, to receive him for thine own child by Adoption. what words can more fully manifest the Churches intention to teach us that all infants truly belonging to the covenant of grace, do ordinarily receive the spirit in Baptism: not as a thing which none of them had before but as that of which there was no certainty unto us, nor confirmation unto them before, in the ordinary course of divine Dispensation of the Spirit, by means?

If the matter be not yet clear enough to such as shut their eyes against it. Let them further attend to what the Church requireth us that are Ministers to pronounce touching a child baptized, rightly, in private: I certify you that in this case, all is well done, and according to due order, concerning the baptizing of this child, who being borne in Original sin, and in the wrath of God, is now, by the Lauer of Regeneration in baptism, received into the number of the CHILDREN OF GOD, AND HEIRES OF EVERLASTING LIFE: for our Lord doth not deny his grace and mercy unto such infants, but most lovingly calls them to him, as the Holy Gospel doth witness unto our comfort, on this wise; At a certain time they brought Children to Christ, &c. Picke any other sense then I have done out of the Liturgy, especially when it shall be further cleared by the Doctrine of the Church; & eris mihi magnus Apollo.

But some will be readdy to stop me here with sundry Objections, which must be answered, before my way will be clear to go forward.

[Object: 1] 1 Some will be apt to say: The Church perhaps teacheth us thus to pray, and judge of infants baptized; but doth not well in so doing; and that if this be the meaning of our Book of common prayer, we ought not to join in such a prayer?

To this I answer, that it is indeed very true that some have been so bold as to put the lie upon that which the Minister pronounceth touching regeneration of the infant baptized; saying, in plain terms, That is a lie. Bvt saving their fowl mouths, I trust this shall appear even out of the Scriptures themselves, in our next chapter, to be the truth; and that God's own infallible truth will bear us out in it. I may not here prevent myself. Howbeit, something (to stay the stomachs of such as quarrel our Church for this point; or me, for misinterpreting our Church:) let me allege out of a good Author (whom both they and I do reverence) and show his judgment in the point. The person I mean, is, the learned & industrious author of the English Comentarie upon S. Paul's Epistle to Titus. He in writing upon the 3 cap. and ver. 5. of that Epistle, is so expressly engaged in this point, that all the wit of man cannot fetch him off, without tergiuersation: which is the judgment of all men that ever I yet met with, who have thoroughly read and considered both the place and ALL THAT EITHER GOES BEFORE OR FOLLOWES AFTER in that Author, to that purpose. Nor am I afraid to refer myself to be judged by the whole World, whether I have abused him or not: promising that if it appear to able and impartial judges, that in what I have alleged out of him, I have wronged him, I will ask him forgiveness upon my knees; as public as ever I made the fault·

That Author having treated of the efficacy of Baptism, and proved that in men of years, faith is required to receive the grace offered therein, descends to a Question, which in the margent of Pag. 642. he thus gives the Sum of; How baptism is effectual to infants. His words in explication hereof are these.

These are his words. Do they need any interpreter? Do they require any labor to draw them home to my present point, viz. that it is most agreeable to the institution of Christ, that all elect infants do, ORDINARILY, receive the spirit in baptism: especially considering that this Author in the end of the 639 page, had laid out this for a Doctrine raised out of Tit. 3 5. that, God in baptism not only offereth and signifieth, but truly exhibiteth grace, whereby our sins are washed and we renewed by the HOLY GHOST; and in explication of this Doctrine, he clearly delivereth his mind (in the words before quoted) how far forth this Doctrine concerneth INFANTS, and how far forth it may be granted as true even of them also. I am afraid I shall abuse the Judicious Readers Patience to stay him so long, as to show how all that I collect out of this Author (who lately professed unto me, viva voice, that he will stand to whatsoever he hath written, which makes me the bolder with him;) comes full up to my purpose. Howbeit because I am published to the world for a corrupter of this man's writings in this particular; and, by that, is my sincerity judged in the allegation of all others that I make use of in this Treatise, I must entreat the intelligent reader, for a little while to Imagine himself to be some puny that knows not how to construe plain English; and to be contented to learn of me that, which a boy of 14 years old would deserve to be whipt for, if he could not understand without teaching.

It is said I have corrupted my Author. In what? in falsifying his words; or wresting the sense? The sense. How so? He never meant that elect infants DOE receive the inward grace, but only that they May do it? No? doth he not say that God ordinarily accompanieth it with his grace? and is not this all one with this specch; GOD DOTH ordinarily accompany it with his grace? His meaning is mistakē: he doth not say it is done; But, WE MAY CONCEIVE it is done? Good: But upon what ground are we to conceive so? Is it not this▪ BECAUSE THE LORD DELIGHTETH TO PRESENT HIMSELFE GRATIOVS IN HIS OWNE ORDINANCE? or is it this BY VIRTVE OF HIS PROMISE We may expect it? or is it this, HERE WEE MAY AND OVGHT SEND OUT THE Prayer of FAITH for it? Or is it because this Author hath searched both SCRIPTURES & EXPOSITORS, and finds this most agreeable to them? Now when a man tells me that, because this is MOST agreeable to Scriptures and expositors; because the Lord delights to present himself gracious in his own Ordinance; because this is according to his promise; and because here J may and ought send out the Prayer of FAITH for it; that therefore J may conceive that God ordinarily accompanies it with his graces: do I abuse him to say, that he is of my mind, that it is most agreeable to the institution of Christ, ordinarily, to do this.

Oh, but he adds; in the right use of this Sacrament, &c: which perhaps in his sense; implies as much as a receiving by faith? Nay; he himself confesseth in the very place alleged, that in infants we cannot expect faith. Therefore he can mean no other by the right use of this Sacrament, then a Reverend administration of it according to the Institution of our Lord, both for matter & man • , unto one within the Covenant.

But, he saith not this of ALL elect Infants? In common construction his speech must be equivalent to an Universal. For, when he distinguisheth of infants, whereof, he saith, some are elect, and some belong not to the Election of Grace: doth he not give us a general distribution? Be there, in his judgment, some infants that are neither elect, nor not-elect? Again, when he speaketh of such as are not elect; and saith, these latter receive only the outward element; doth he not mean, in any man's apprehension, ALL these receive only the outward element? Then, by the rule of opposition, when he comes to speak to the other member of his Distinction; and to say, the Former (viz: the Elect) receive, in the right use of the Sacrament the INWARD GRACE; can any reasonable Creature of the slendrest capacity beyond a child, take him to mean less then ALL the Elect?

Yes, you will say, they may, and ought to take him to mean less; for himself saith expressly, not that hereby we tie the Majesty of God to any time or means, whose spirit bloweth when and where he listeth; on SOME, BEFORE; on SOME, AFTER? Well. And what follows hence, but only this; that however God hath set down this to be the ordinary course which he ties Vs unto; yet it is not to be denied, but that he can, and sometimes doth, extraordinarily, bestow his spirit, at other times? Now this makes nothing against me: for I never said that All ABSOLUTELY; but, All, ORDINARILY, do receive the Spirit, in Baptism. And so much this Author must yield me out of his own words. For he that saith that the Elect do receive the inward Grace; and that God, ordinarily, doth accompany the Sacrament with his Grace; although he put a correction of his words, for the explication of himself, that he speaks not this as laying an absolute tie upon God; he can be no otherwise understood then thus: viz. that in some extraordinary and special cases, it may be, and is otherwise. To what end else should he add the word, ORDINARY. It is true that God is not absolutely tied to times, and means: and, what ever he doth, he doth it most freely: but yet when God hath set up a standing Ordinance in his Church, and made such a promise of the presence and bestowing of his grace, as may give his people ground to expect it; and hath bound them to send out the Prayer of FAITH for it; he that shall say that God hath not tied and engaged himself ORDINARILY to give the Grace promised; or, that to believe this, is, to tie God, where he hath not tied himself; speaks not like a Divine, but makes God a Liar.

But the Author hath expressed himself, that it is but sometimes, and in some special cases, wherein the Elect receive the Spirit, in Baptism? Then he contradicts himself, when he saith, that God, ORDINARILY, accompanies it with his Grace? I took not upon me to quote what he speaks either in private or public; but what he hath written upon Tit. 3.5. where he saith, this is done ORDINARILY.

Well, but when all is done, this Author doth not positively determine the point, but only speak what, in charity, may probably be conjectured: for he saith, We want wherewith to draw certainty of resolution? It is true, He saith so indeed: but what then are those collections out of the SCRIPTURES, and EXPOSITORS, he after talks of? They are but probable conjectures, you will say. True: yet he saith, that, what he here delivereth, is MOST PROBABLE. I look for no more: for what could he say more, that is not divinely inspired with an infallible spirit, which no man takes this Author to be. Yet he saith enough afterwards, to make the last words a plain contradiction to the first, if he would be taken in this sense; viz: that he speaks only coniecturally; and professes, that, if any should ask him, whether any elect infant do receive the spirit in Baptism? he would answer, that he cannot tell. For mark, he that saith, first, that this is not certain whether elect infants receive the inward grace, in Baptism, or not; yet afterwards saith, that they do receive it; that, by virtue of HIS PROMISE, we may expect it; and, here we MAY, and OVGHT send out the PRAYER of FAITH for it; what doth he but contradict himself? Will not a PROMISE, (where, the promise is to be found, lies upon the Author to show; if any man doubt thereof;) will not the Prayer of Faith, which we OVGHT to put up to God, make this thing certain? Again, if the thing be yet uncertain, why doth he collect such a certain use of comfort from this very discourse of his? For afterwards, making use of the point, he saith ( pag. 647.) What a comfort is it for a Father to see his child washed with the blood of Jesus Christ? cleansed from sin? Set into the visible Church; YEA, INTO THE BODY OF CHRIST, in the right use of the Sacrament, wherein a Parent ought more to rejoice, then if he could make it heir of the world. And do I yet mistake this Author? Or rather, are not they Incendiaries Who have bruited it abroad; endeavoring to set him and me at odds, if it were possible? Yea, do they not by such reports (as daily fly up & down) of the contrariety of his judgment to this point, do what in them lies to endamage him more then either he ( I hope) will deserve; or then those Boutifeu's will be able ever to recompense again unto him; if notice should be taken thereof, by some, that watch for our halting, and make a man a transgressor for a word?

Thus have I cleared both my Author, & quitted myself of the unjust imputation of doing him wrong. His judgment, thus according with mine, will, I hope, somewhat allay their heat and fury, who, for this point, accuse both me of Arminianism; and our Church, of Popery.

[Object: 2] 2 It is objected further: Our Leiturgie is to be understood to speak thus, in the judgment of charity only; and not as binding us to believe infants to be so regenerated indeed?

Ans: It is true, our Church doth indeed teach us to hope well of every infant that she admits to baptism; and, in charity, to believe it is indeed regenerated; because, for ought any man knows touching any particular infant, it is elected; yet binds us not absolutely to believe it, de fide, of all infants collectiuely taken, because it is certain, that all are not elected. But the judgment of charity must have a certain foundation to build upon; else it is not the judgment of charity, but foolish and sinful credulity void of all judgment. For, unless such a thing be true indeed of some infants, yea, ordinarily, of all that belong to God's election, I am not bound to believe it of everyone, in the ordinary course of divine dispensation; nay I am bound, not to believe it, no, not so much as in charity. For charity believes nothing but things possible, and probable; yea, more probable then the contrary; and things sometimes certainly true of some particulars of the same kind.

No charity could bind me to believe Peter to be a reasonable creature, if it were not certain to me that some men, that all men were such. I am not tied to believe this Professor to be an honest man, no not by the bonds of charity, if it were certain to me that no Professor is an honest man. I were not bound, in the judgment of charity to believe that any of those straggling Athenian Hearers that in such multitudes, flocked about me, while I preached this point, more then at other times, did come for any other end then either to bear some new thing, merely out of curiosity; or to catch & carp, to wrest my words, to run away with willful mistakes, to censure and judge, to hope to see me foiled and shamed, because forsooth I delivered that which they have heretofore rashly and unsoundly taught, or unprofitably learned; and because I will not conceal a truth which might convince them of error, &c. unless it were either certainly known unto me, or upon certain ground to be presumed, that some, yea that many are better affected, and more humbly and devoutly minded.

There must be a certainty in the Thesis; else no judgment of charity binds a man to believe anything in the Hypothesis. Nor is it charity, but folly, that I should believe Peter receives the spirit, in Baptism; if he that bids me believe it of him, will not warrant me to believe it as a thing certain of any at all. And it were a very uncharitable speech to say, that our Church meant to stretch my charity to believe impossibilities or improbabilities, or that which is never, yea; not (ordinarily) certainly done. Therefore when the Church (when it teacheth me to believe, in charity, that this, and that, and toother infant receive the spirit for initial regeneration, in Baptism) teacheth and requireth me, (upon this ground, that, for ought I know of those particulars they are elected,) to believe her meaning to be this, that there are some, yea, that all elect infants, do ordinarily, receive the spirit of regeneration, in Baptism, from the hand of Christ, truly and indeed

3 Lastly, it is objected, The Liturgy of our Church is not the Public Doctrine of our [Object: 3] Church: therefore it follows not that this is the Doctrine of our Church, because found in the Liturgy thereof?

Answ. I grant that the Leiturgie is not formally the Doctrine of our Church; no more then the superstructure is formally the foundation. Howbeit the Liturgy is founded upon the Doctrine, and the Doctrine upon the Scriptures, as shall anon appear. If the Church teach me such a prayer, it is because it presupposeth the Doctrine to allow it; else the prayer were without Ground. The prayers of the Church are not intended principally for doctrinal instruction, but yet they take this for granted that the doctrine is correspondent, and warranteth such prayers; else were they but blind devotions. Notwithstanding to put the matter out of all doubt, and to drive the nail to the head, let me in the next place show what is the formal Doctrine of our Church in this point. And here, I must give you the substance and force of my proof in another Sylogisme.

Syllogis. 2.
• Major: That which the Public Catechism contained in our book of Common prayer, and which the Articles of Religion concluded in 1562. teach, is to be acknowledged for the Doctrine of our Church.
• Minor. But both our Catechism, and those Articles do teach thus much:
• Conclus: Therefore this Position is agreeable to the Doctrine of our Church.

There will be no Question of the Major, by any understanding man, therefore the Minor only requires proof. This is proved by the parts, thus.

1 For the Catechism. The Answer to the Second Question teacheth every child to profess this: viz. that in Baptism he was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheriter of the Kingdom of heaven. But no man can be made such, without the spirit of Christ to initiate him into Christ; for by one spirit are we all baptized into one body. 1. Cor. 12, 13. yea, it cannot be that infants should be truly members of the Church of Christ, unless they were endowed with the Spirit, saith Peter Martyr . Therefore every elect infant receives in his Baptism, ordinarily, the spirit to initiate him, according to the Doctrine of our Catechism.

2 Touching the Articles of Religion, I allege only the 27 Art▪ which is this. Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are distinguished from others that be not Christened; but it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive, baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin; and of our adoption to be the sons of God, BY THE HOLY CHOST, &c.

In which words we are to observe three things especially.

• 1 what Baptism doth, outWardly: It doth visibly sign and seal regeneration, and is not only a bare sign of profession, &c.
• 2 What inwardly. Tbey that receive it rightly are grafted into the Church▪ the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of adoption to be the sonnnes of God by THE HOLY GHOST.
• 3 who they are that are partakers of this inward grace, they that receive it rightly: and this the Article delivers indefinitely, which in common construction of Logic, must be understood as excluding none, in the ordinary course. An indefinite Proposition, in a matter necessary is equivalent to an Universal.

So then we are now come home to the very head of the point: viz: that All elect infants by the Doctrine of our Church, are, ordinarily partakers of the spirit in baptism; for they that receive it rightly, all that so receive it, are partakers of the Spirit.

[Object.] But soft and fair; the article saith not, all elect Infants, but they that receive it rightly?

[Answ.] Answ. The Article, in those words, speaks the same thing for substance, that I now contend for, as may appear by showing what it means by receiving rightly.

To receive Baptism rightly imports two things: viz.

• 1 That Baptism be for matter, and form the same that Christ appointed; namely, that the Baptized party be dipped in or sprinkled with water, in the name of the Father and of the son and Holy Chost, with all due reverence for the manner also.
• 2 That the Person to be baptized be sufficiently qualified to give him right to baptism: viz. that he be within the covenant of Grace; at least so far forth as the Church can judge of him. Else he doth but usurp the Ordinance: for what hath he to do with the seal of the Covenant, if he be not comprised in the Covenant? Now then to qualify an infant, it is sufficient that he be within the Covenant. If he be borne of Christian parents, he is so far forth to be held within the covenant, that the Church ought to admit him to baptism, if he be presented to it. But yet we say not that he is, instantly or at all, partaker of the inward grace of baptism, unless he be truly in the covenant of Grace, and under election: Howbeit, supposing him to be such an one, we say, that this is enough to make him capable of the Spirit, and to receive the Sacrament of Baptism rightly. For, more then this is not required at his hands, by the consent of all judicious Divines that understand what they say, or whereof they affirm. And it is a blind conceit of Anabaptists to say, that no infants are capable of the inward Grace of baptism, unless they have actual faith and do actually believe.

But least any should take offense, if I bring not proof of what I say; I will produce a few, of many, Divines that plainly affirm that it is not required of infants that they have actual faith to make them capable of the inward grace of Baptism, & that, notwithstanding they want that faith, they may and do partake of the inward grace, by the spirit. For this purpose I propound unto you.

1 Peter Martyr, Jn Jnfants, saith he, who by reason of their tender years cannot believe, the holy Ghost supplies the room of faith▪ And the effusion of the Holy Ghost is promised in Baptism, as the Apostle expressly writes to Titus: who saved us by the Lauer of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed abroad on us abundantly .

2 Zanchius, upon those words in Ephes. 5.26. washing it with water through the word, thus writeth, On the behalf of the receiver, if he be of years▪ faith is required: but this faith is not here expressed, because the Apostle speaks of baptism wherein infants, although destitute of actual faith are grafted into the body of the Church . And least any should take him to mean only an outward admission, he afterwards adds; The external means are the word, and water administered by the Minister of Christ; the effectual means on his part that is cleansed, is faith, in one of years; at least the spirit of faith, as in infants: for to them the spirit applies, the blood of Christ.

3 That renowned Frenchman Daniel Chameir, wi lingly yields that elect infants may be in some sense termed Faithful: but how? not actual believers, but only potential: because no man believes (actually) but he that is capable of discourse .

4 Doctor Ames, being to prove against the Anabaptists the lawfulness of baptizing Infants, of 5 Arguments, he reserves this to the last place, as if he set most by it: In the very beginning of regeneration, whereof Baptism is the seal, a man is merely passive: and hence it is that of a man that is to be either circumcised or baptized, no external act is required, as in other Sacraments there is; but only a capacity passive to receive. Infants therefore are as capable of this Sacrament, in respect even of the CHEIFE VSE thereof, as men of years themselves. And indeed it is absurd to say that the grace of that Sacrament cannot be attained by infants without faith actual in them, when as it is clear that one part of the inward Grace thereof is the Spirit, the worker of Faith. Now, no man well in his wits will say that no person can first receive the spirit but by the hand of actual faith: for how should he have faith, without the spirit to work it in him ? He must therefore first be partaker of the Spirit of faith to beget faith in him: which spirit, then, he may receive in Baptism, without actual faith to take him in. These new lingles in Divinity, against the current of all judicious Divines, are most intolerable, and good for nothing, that I know, but to breed quarrels, to work distractions, to increase doubts, to make all things uncertain, and to bring in Atheism I never yet saw that Divine of note in the Church, that ever durst to say & stand to it, that any infants, though dying in infancy, were of necessity actually to believe, or else they could not be united unto Christ so as to be saved: nor yet, that no man can, ordinarily, have the spirit of Christ in baptism or at any other time, till by faith he lay hold upon him and so receive him into his heart. But this by the way.

5 That Reverend Bishop, D ^r Davenant, in his elaborate and solid Lectures upon S ^t Paul's Epist. to the Collossians, answering that Objection so much bawled by the Anabaptists (one of the most ignorant Sects in Amsterdame) viz: that Baptism hath mortification &c. annexed to it, whereof infants are not capable because destitute of knowledge, and faith to apprehend it; and therefore not to be baptized? Thus saith, If they speak of actual faith, and of the actual study and profession of mortification and vivification, thos • Scriptures which require these in persons to be baptized, are to be restrained to those of years. Touching Infants, because they are sinners, not actual, by any proper act of their own, but by an hereditary habit; it sufficeth them to have faith, not actually exercising it self, but included in the habitual principle of Grace: and, that the Spirit of Christ can work this habitual principle of grace in them, and useth so to do, none but a cracked brain will deny .

6 The Author of the Comment: on Tit: answering an objection which some might make against that resolution of the Question touching the ordinary reception of the inward Grace in baptism; viz: that infants want faith? He saith; that they want indeed actual faith which presupposeth hearing, understanding, &c. He further saith with Musculus that children may be called faithful, although they have no faith, and with Zanchius, that it is probable that elect infants have the spirit of faith▪ &, in such as live to years, he adds that the spirit worketh in thē the seeds or inclinations of faith, which in due time shall fructify unto eternal life.

Now, we have witnesses enow, and sufficient, to prove, that to receive baptism rightly so as to partake of the spirit in it, faith is not required. And I think every man will acknowledge that all these Authors were far enough off from Popery & Arminianism, that thus witness for me. And will men yet lay both these to my charge?

If this be Arminianism, or Popery, to say that, all right receavers do, ordinarily, receive the spirit, in Baptism: so long as I restrain it only to right receauers, and declare, that by right receauers I mean only those that belong truly and indeed to the election of Grace: I must be content to bear this brand; as many do the name of Puritan, without desert.

[Object.] But they will say. Both the Leiturgie, Catechism, and Article speak generally, excluding none: therefore, if you be, in sober sadness, resolved to stick so close to the Doctrine of the Church of England, you must hold this, not of the Elect only, but of all infants whatsoever?

Answ: It is very true that our Church excludes none from participation of the inward Grace in the Sacrament; but, knowing for certain that all the Elect do partake of it, and not knowing at all that this or that particular infant is not elected, suffers not any of her children to speak or judge of any particular infant that he doth not receive the inward grace; no more then she permits him to say that such a particular is not elected. For, who hath known the mind of the Lord ? And who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? Howbeit our Church knows very well, and presumes that all her children know also, that, in respect of Election, known only to God, They are not all Israel that are of Israel : and that of those many that be called but a few be chosen . But who those few be, she will not determine, yet thus much she doth determine, that any particular infant rightly baptized is to be taken and held, in the judgment of charity, for a member of the true invisible elected sanctified Church of Christ, and that he is regenerated indeed▪ in the sense aforesaid. And so do I. Notwithstanding, mistake not Her, or me. It is one thing to speak of all infants distributiuely, singling them out individually one by one, and passing judgment of each particular apart; and another thing to speak of them collectiuely, and in the lump, without restraining our speech to any particular. To say, that we cannot judge of any particular son of Adam, not discovered by God himself to be rejected, that he is rejected of God; doth not prove that no son of Adam is rejected; when we speak of all mankind in the general Mass or Lump: for then, what need of a Hell, for cast awaies? Thus, that learned Bishop; By the judgment of charity, the Faithful judge every professed member of the visible Church, when they speak of the particular persons, to be a member of the invisible, elected, called, justified, sanctified; howbeit they know in general, that many are in the church, which be not of it, and that many be called, but few are chosen . The like phrase we have in the form of Burial, wherein when we bury any particular person whatsoever, we are taught to say, and pray, that we with this our Brother, &c. may have our perfect consummation and bliss, &c. and yet no man will say that all men that die do go to heaven: for even in that very prayer we are taught to restrain this only to the elect: Almighty God, with whom do live the Spirits of them that depart hence in the Lord, and in whom the Souls of them that be elected, after they be delivered from the burden of the flesh be in joy and felicity.

So then, neither our Leiturgie (in the Public Form of Baptism ) nor Catechism, nor Article do intend to bind me or any man else to believe that every man without exception doth indeed partake of the inward Grace of Baptism, although it bind me and every man to conclude no other, when we pitch our speech upon any particular. Nor is this my Gloss alone; but that Judicious Hooker saith also, that all receive not the grace of the Sacrament that receive the Sacrament of his Grace . So M ^r Tho: Rogers in his so often printed Commentary on the Articles of Religion. For in Article 25, he makes this one of the Propositions coutched in that Article; All which receive the Sacraments, receive not there with all the things signified by the Sacraments . And before, in explication of the third Proposition, he saith; In some the Sacraments do effectually work in process of time by the help of God's word read or preached which engendereth faith. Such is the estate principally of infants elected unto life and salvation, and increasing in years. And upon Art: 28. Prop. 4. The life spiritual is PECVLIAR to God's elect. M ^r Hooker delivers as much, for having said that infants receive the divine virtue of the Holy Ghost, in baptism, which giveth to the powers of the soul their first disposition towards future newness of life; afterwards adds, Predestination bringeth not to life, without the grace of external vocation, wherein our Baptism is implied. For as we are not naturally men without birth, so neither are we Christian men in the eye of the Church of God, but by new birth, nor according to the ordinary manifest course of divine dispensation new borne, but by that Baptism which both declareth and maketh us Christians. In which respect we justly hold it to be the door of our actual entrance into God's house, the first apparent beginning of life, a seal perhaps to the Grace of ELECTION before received, but to our sanctification here a step that hath not any before it . Some it may be, will cavil at the word, PERHAPS: and say, that he makes it but a Perhaps, that men receive baptism as a seal of Election. But before they do so, let them duly weigh the place, and they shall find that he makes no PERHAPS of this, that such as partake of the Grace of Baptism are elected: but only of this, that they do, perhaps, receive Baptism as a seal of grace of election before bestowed on them. For he is dealing with T.C. about Baptism. T.C. affirms, that Baptism is only the seal of Grace before received. M ^r Hooker answers by distinguishing of Grace, into Grace of Election and grace of Sanctification; admitting his words (with a perhaps ) to be true, in the former sense; but not in the latter, ordinarily . And doth not that Reverend Prelate, D. Francis White , in answer to the calumny of the Jesuit Fisher say as much? For, first, he makes good the efficacy of Baptism, out of Scriptures, Fathers, our own Church, & Forraine Divines, and particularly out of Calvin: Then, he adds, not without approbation of it▪ (why else should he speak it? And what use would it be of, against Fisher?) The same Author, with others of his part, maintain the former Doctrine concerning the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism, and they differ only from Lutherans and Pontificians: first, in that they restrain the grace of sanctification only to the Elect. Secondly, in that they deny external baptism to be always effectual at the very instant time when it is administered .

To make an end, our own Catechism teacheth as much in express terms. What need we further witness? That, teacheth me to believe in God the Holy Ghost, who hath sanctified me and all the elect people of God. The elect; all the elect; only the elect if my learned friend Doctor Jackson's word may be taken for the exposition: for he would have the Reader to observe a difference between the extent of the sufficiency (for so I take him) of christs death, and the efficacy of Christ's Spirit. Although, saith he, in that place we are taught to believe in the Holy Ghost; yet this we are taught with this caveat, that he doth sanctify all the elect people of God, not all mankind . Now, compare our Leiturgie, Article, and Catechism all together. The Leiturgie teacheth me to believe of this and every particular infant considered single and apart that he is indeed regenerate with the Holy Spirit. The Article saith, that they (that all they) that receive baptism rightly are grafted &c? by the Holy Ghost. The Catechism shows how this is to be limited, and extended, saying; that the Holy Ghost sanctifies me and all the elect people of God, Therefore by the doctrine of our Church, all the elect and only the elect do certainly & indeed, ordinarily receive the Spirit, in Baptism. Yea our very Leiturgie is clear in this point, as I have before shown, in that it presumeth the child to be one to whom belongs the kingdom of God; upon which ground we are taught not to doubt but steadfastly to believe that he will favorably receive the present infant; that he will embrace him with the arms of his mercy, that he will give unto him the blessing of eternal life, and make him partaker of his everlasting kingdom. Again in the end of the prayer which is appointed to be used immediately before the act of baptism in the name of the Father & of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we pray that the children may receive the fullness of God's Grace and ever remain in the number of his faithful and ELECT children: which shows plainly that the Church supposeth that all such as do indeed receive the Spirit in their baptism, be of the number of God's Elect. And so Bucer expounded it of old, as shall hereafter appear in due place , when we come to show the judgment of foreign Divines in this point.

Nor is this to be put off with that new coined distinction of election to Grace and not to Glory. For the Leiturgie speaks only of Election to glory, inasmuch as it had assured us before, that God will give unto the infant baptized, the blessing of eternal life, and make him partaker of his everlasting kingdom & so concluds this prayer, that the infants may be inheritors of his everlasting kingdom through Christ our lord. And why should any presume to obtrude upon the Church such a distinction which hath not the least show of any footing in the word of God? For how ever I deny not but that the scripture sometime speaketh of a temporary election of some persons unto some particular offices & services in the Church of God; yet it never speaks of election unto the grace of sanctification, but as it is a beginning of glory which certainly follows sanctification and is undoubtedly conferred on all that are sanctified: so as no man is elected to the one but he is elected unto the other also. For such grace is but glory begun, 2. Co • : 3.18. And when S. Paul, Act: 20.32. commends the Ephesians to God, that is able to give them an inheritance among all that are sanctified he most evidently shows that, as none partake take of the inheritance but such as are sanctified; so none that are sanctified can miss of the inheritance. The like might be demonstrated out of Rom: 8.29▪ 30. where the Apostle shows that all predestination to effectual calling and justification ends in glorification, as S. Augustine doth most soundly & unanswerable collect from this very text.

Yea this is so clear a truth that Bellarmine himself could not but confess & maintain it against all opposers, although he could not but know it to be contrary to the doctrine of many of his own side, who were the first authors of the distinction of election, into election to grace, and election to glory, which is still maintained by the later Jesuits, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, from whom the Arminians have made bold to borrow it, as they do sundry other wares of that society. But Bellarmine is peremptory that whosoever is under the decree of God's election, how perverse and cross soever he be to the means of his conversion, and perseverance in grace , and in respect of the liberty of his will may be yielded to be such an one as may possibly refuse grace, yet it is certain that he will not refuse it, because God will call him, in such manner as may best agree to his disposition to the end that he might not reject God calling him. For by this means it comes to pass that the true grace of God is refused of no hard heart, because grace is given to this very purpose that it might mollify the heart. And all this he speaketh to show that God's decree cannot fail; but that all who are elected freely to true grace are as freely elected to glory, and do as certainly obtain the one, as they do the other.

But yet some may here object one thing more, and that is this. The Church teacheth to believe all the elect to be regenerate actually, and not only, initially, as you say? Why may not any man expound it in that sense, as well as in yours; the terms are general, Seeing this child is regenerate, &c.

Answ. If by Actual regeneration be meant an actual change of the heart by the infusion and operation of particular habits of grace, the best expositors of the Doctrine of our Church run otherwise, and the very doctrine of the Church doth it self declare the contrary, in the ordinary course of such as liu • t • years. For expositors; take M. Rogers, in the place before cited, where, he is allowed to deliver this to be the sense of the Church In some the sacraments do effectually work in process of time by the help of God's word read or preached which engendereth faith, such is the estate principally of infants elected unto life & salvation, and increasing in years. And this book hath been printed with public allowance many times . If the Church will not be tried by him, then mark what M ^r Hooker hath to this purpose. Baptism is a sacrament which God hath instituted in his Church to the end that they which receive the same might thereby • e incorporated into Christ, & so through his most precious merit obtain as well that saving grace of imputation which taketh away all former guiltiness, as also that infused Divine virtue of the Holy Ghost whi • h giveth to the powers of the soul their first disposition toward FVTVRE NEWNESSE OF LIFE .

But you will say, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the words of our book are plain? True: so is HOC EST CORPVS MEVM, for you know what: yet you and I know these words must be expounded according to the true sense of them explained by other Scriptures which make plainly against both Trans-substantiation, and Consubstantiation. So then, the words of our book in the Liturgy must admit of what sense our Doctrine elsewhere doth set upon it. Now, our Doctrine is it self clear against certain actual regeneration in Baptism of infants living to years. For, in Act. 17. touching Predestination, it is said; they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his spirit, working in DVE SEASON they through grace obey the calling, they be justified freely, they be made the sons of God by Adoption, &c. So much of what Our Church holdeth herein.

CAP. 4. The point proved by authority of Scripture.

MY next work is to make good the point in hand, by Divine and infallible Testimony of Holy Writt. And this is that foundation only, which I build upon, for proof of the Position. If any shall convince me to have failed in this, I will forever abandon this opinion, (although it should be with peril of life,) what ever all the men and Churches in the world should profess, and bind me to believe to the contrary .

That I may more methodically proceed, and dispatch more speedily that which I have to allege out of the Scriptures, I must necessarily bind myself to the laws of Argumentation, wrapping up the force of my Arguments in some plain Syllogisms (as as I have done in the former chapter,) and confirming the several propositions that need proof, by express scriptures, expounded by such learned expositors, as mine adversaries pretend most respect unto. By this course I shall be sure not to abuse my Readers, if they be able to judge of reason When they see it.

My first argument shall be drawn from [Arg. 1] the Nature of Baptism in respect of the several Parts of it which the scripture continually joins together, when it speaks of that Sacrament; and I frame it thus.

Major. That which the Scriptures attribute to Baptism, as the chief part and as it were the soul of that ordinance, is ordinarily communicated to all the elect, when they partake of Baptism.

Minor But the Scriptures do attribute the confirming of the Holy Ghost, to that ordinance, as a principal part of it.

Conclus. Therefore it is consonant to the Scriptures that all elect infants baptized, do, ordinarily receive the spirit in Baptism.

The Major Proposition, me thinks should not be doubted of by any; unless by Sacramentarians: for, will any man of understanding deny unto the elect that wich the scriptures do everywhere attribute as the chief part, and as it were the soul and life of that ordinance of baptism? If any man shall do so, he must grant that elect infants do receive but a piece of baptism; the shell, without the Kernell; the body, without the soul. And if this be true, to what end are they baptized? If they be not, even in infancy, capable of the principal part of baptism, why are they admitted to it? How shall we answer the Anabaptists who plead from hence, against the baptizing of infants, that they are not capable of the inward grace? If that be true Which D ^r Ames affirmeth, that they be as capable of baptism, in respect of the chief use thereof, as persons of years; who shall deny them the inward grace? Do we not know that in God's account, the sacrament of circumcision was not accounted circumcision, when it was only outward in-the flesh, and not inward also in the heart? For, he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God. Rom. 2. Circumcision We know, was a seal of the righteousness which is by faith . Now I demand, whether any sound divine did ever affirm that only the outward ceremony of circumcision of the flesh, was unto the elect the proper and only seal of the righteousness which is by faith? Sure I am, the Scripture everywhere teacheth that the spirit is the seal of God set upon the faithful . If then Circumcision were accounted uncircumcision, where it was not accompanied with the inward grace; what shall we say other of baptism, where the spirit is not communicated? Therefore also in baptism of the elect (for whose sakes only, this and all other ordinances of Christ were set up in th • Church) there must be, ordinar • lie, not only the outward element of water sprinkled on the child, but the inward grace also: else it must necessarily follow • hat either in the baptizing of elect infants, but hal • e baptism is ordinarily conferred, which in God's account is no better then no baptism; or, Baptism is not to infants what the scriptures affirm it to be to men of years. And if this last be true, in the ordinary course of divine dispensation; I will maintain, that infants are not to be baptized. If those infants which may be saved without baptism receive no more then the outward sign when they are baptized, why are they baptized? Can the outward sign save them; or make them more certain or more capable of salvation then they were before, so long as they remain void of faith? Were it not as good to defer their baptism till they be of years; as to offer them to baptism in infancy which doth them no more good, then it doth to a reprobate, till their actual conversion? To say that Baptism admits them to the outward means, is to say just nothing to the purpose. For, ask these men, what is it that makes a person capable of the inward grace of baptism. They will answer; faith. But, how is this faith wrought? By preaching of the word; say they. Well; admit this: may not an infant unbaptized come to hear the word read or preached: Anabaptists do not shut their children out of the Church when the word is preached, but only exclude them from the Sacraments. And we also permit excommunicate persons to hear Sermons, however we debar them from other ordinances. Therefore infants need not baptism merely for their admission unto the outward means of faith and conversion, for as much as they may participate of the word without baptism, and the word being, by these men's telling, the only outward ordinary means of begetting faith. If Anabaptists might as freely show themselves here among us, as they do in other countries, this doctrine of Baptismal grace would be better entertained by such as now oppugn it without consideration of this sequel. This therefore to me is without all controversy, that, What the Scriptures do attribute to Baptism as the principal part and as it were the soul of Baptism, is, ordinarily, communicated from Christ unto the Elect, although infants (because in them actual faith is not required) in their baptism. Where the Scripture makes no difference, why should we?

What else doth the Author of the Commentary on the Epistle to Titus mean, where he saith , We must conceive that in every Sacrament there be three essential parts, the absence of any of which destroy the whole; 1. The Sign, 2 the thing signified; 3. the analogy between them, which is the union of them both. The first is some outward and sensible thing; the second inward and spiritual; the third, mixed of them both? To this agree all learned Divines, and confessions of Reformed Churches so far forth at least, that they unanimously conclude Sacraments to be not naked signs, but cert • ine sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by which he doth work invisibly in us and convey some inward grace, ordinarily, from Christ unto all that have true interest in the covenant of Grace, whereof Sacraments are the Scales. And so my Major stands good against all Sacramentarians, and their unwitting Proctors whatsoever. I come therefore to the Minor.

The Minor Proposition now to be proved is this. But the Scriptures do attribute the conferring of the Holy Ghost to that ordinance, as the principal part of it, This I make good by all such Scriptures as mention the conferring of, and washing with the Holy Ghost, as well as with the outward element; without difference of years, and without mention of actual faith to apply the same.

I might begin with that place in John. 3.5. Except a man be borne of WATER and of the SPIRIT, &c. where Water and the Spirit are joined, as going together into all heirs of the Kingdom. Which place, (how ever some make a doubt whether it be meant of the Sacrament of Baptism, yet) not only the Ancients, but Beza also without all doubt, do interpret of Baptism, so also, the learned Bucer . But because I did not use it in my Lectures, and some may wrangle at the exposition, therefore resolve to wave it: and quote only three other Texts.

The first is that in Math: 3.11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier then I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. In which place John makes the Baptism of Christ to consist non only of Water, but of the Holy Ghost, and of the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost metaphorically described under the term of Fire. Nor can it be understood, either of baptism administered by Christ in his own person, ( for Jesus himself baptized not; but, his Disciples ) or only of extraordinary gifts of the spirit conferred on the Apostles to work miracles, and to speak with tongues : but it is meant also of that which all the elect may expect in the right use of that ordinance, by virtue of Christ's Institution, ordinarily, when his Ministers do rightly dispense the outward element. For mark, John speaks not this to Christ's Apostles afterwards assembled at Jerusalem; but to the promiscuous multitude, that came unto his Baptism. Therefore it cannot be meant only of those extraordinary gifts bestowed on the Apostles in the day of Pentecost; but of the ordinary course of Divine dispensation unto all the elect.

The better to justify this exposition, consider the Apostle Peter speaks unto such as upon hearing of him, were pricked in their hearts; and demanded what they should do? For he answers thus; Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost . He requires them to repent, indeed, before Baptism, because they were of years: but, upon their baptism, he assures them of the Holy Ghost to be bestowed on everyone of them. True, you will say; but that was, because they repented? I deny that; for however, if they had not repented, being such grown persons as they were, they had not received the Holy Ghost: yet their repentance was not the cause of their receiving the spirit in Baptism; but, Christ's own institution & promise to accompany his own ordinance with the inward grace. Else, what needed they to be baptized? For if repentance would certainly fetch the spirit; baptism in that respect, should be superfluous. It cannot honestly be denied that those very persons had received the spirit, in some measure, before baptism: how else could they have repented? If then they received not the spirit first, upon their repentance; but before it: shall this seem a truth impregnable, that infants who cannot actually repent, do not, ordinarily, receive the spirit in baptism, for want of repentance? Or can it be inferred from any of the places before quoted, that they speak of the efficacy of Baptism in persons of years only? Some perhaps will be ready yet to press me, that both the place in Matthew, and those alleged out of the Acts also, do clearly intend an extraordinary manifestation of the spirit visibly upon the men there spoken of; and of extraordinary gifts bestowed on them; and so cannot be drawn to prove what is ordinarily conferred in Baptism now. But let such consider that how ever the places do indeed comprehend an extraordinary manner and measure of conferring the spirit to those that were then baptized; yet baptism was the ordinance wherein those extraordinary gifts were given. And what can this teach us but that in baptism the spirit is still bestowed, although not in like manner or measure as at the first? That miraculous way of conferring the spirit was then necessary to gain honor to the Gospel from unbelievers. This necessity being removed, we have no reason to expect the like extraordinary manner of dispensation. But because we have as much need of the spirit to regerate and sanctify us, as ever they had, therefore have we even from thence as good warrant as they to expect the donation of the spirit in our baptism, so far as the spirit is useful and necessary for us in these times to fit us for Christ's work, and kingdom.

But some will yet object, that place in Matthew is so far from proving the actual conferring of the spirit, in baptism; that it rather proves the clean contrary: for John speaking unto such as he had baptized; saith, of Christ, HE SHALL baptize; not, HE HATH baptized you, with the holy Ghost, they therefore did not receive the spirit in baptism, but were to expect it as a thing then to come. How then can it follow hence that Water and the Spirit do ordinarily go together in Baptism of the Elect?

To this I answer, 1. That it cannot be proved that this speech was directed unto such as were baptized; although it were uttered at that time it was spoken to such as came to his Baptism, to be rather spectators, then to be baptized of him. For the 7 ^th verse makes it manifest that this was spoken to the Pharisees & Sadducees; who if we believe S. Luke, rejected the council of God against themselves, and were not baptized of him i. If this answer will not pass, then I add. 2. The Bapist meant not to show a difference of time between the outward washing, and cōferring of the Holy Ghost: but only to note a difference between him the ministerial Agent, and Christ the Author of that Sacrament; thereby to raise their thoughts higher and to teach them to depend upon Christ for the conferring of his spirit, which John, his Minister, could not confer, although he baptized them outwardly with water. He distinguisheth, not de Baptismis, as if his baptism differed from that of Christ: but de baptizantibus of the persons baptizing, showing what was proper to himself; namely to baptize outwardly with water; & what to Christ; namely to confer the Holy Ghost, saith the Learned Chamier who makes good his exposition, out of Augustine, Chrystome, and Jerome; The speech therefore notes, not a distance of time, but a difference of Agents; it shows, not what they that were then baptized, did not receive at the present; but from whom that gift is received, and to whom the conferring of it is to be ascribed . He speaks no otherways of Christ baptizing them, in the future tense, then he doth of his coming, in the same tense also He that cometh after me, saith our Translation, shall baptize you, &c. But in the original it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; which, word for word, is to be rendered thus, qui venturus, he that is coming, or about to come after me; as if he were not presently come: and yet we know that he was come, even at that time, therefore both Beza and our translators render the text in the present tense, Qui venit, he that cometh: and in the same sense must we understand that which follows of Christ's baptizing with the Holy Ghost: he shall baptize; that is, saith Beza , he doth Baptize you with the Holy Ghost. To this I may add that which learned Bucer saith of so many of them as were truly baptized unto repentance; that, to the intent they might escape the wrath to come, it must of necessity follow that they received the Holy Ghost as the spirit of saving repentance, and faith in Christ, even in that Baptism of John . The reason of this exposition is that which was given before: viz that the scope of the Baptist is not to point at the time when, but at the Person who baptizeth with the Holy Ghost: nor, to restrain his speech only to such as were then baptized; but to assure all other the elect of God of like benefit of baptism, when thy should, by God's providence, be partakers of it. Which being so, I conclude hence that the Baptist, in that passage, declares what in baptism is ordinarily communicated to all the elect, infants themselves being not excluded. For as D ^r Ames saith well , it is not in baptism as in other ordinances of God, that a man must necessarily lay hold on the thing signified, by an act of his own, or else he should not receive it, here receptio tantum passiua only a passive capacity to receive grace offered is sufficient , which unto elect infants is never wanting, because theirs is the kingdom of God.

A Second place is that in 1 Cor. 12.13 For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, &c. Here the Apostle makes baptism to consist chiefly in the spiritual insition of a man into the body of Christ by the Holy Ghost: as if he would give us to understand that, that deserves not the name of baptism wherein the spirit doth not ingraft us into Christ. Nor doth he note this, as some special privilege in extraordinary, conferred only upon a few; but he manifestly declareth it to be the common benefit of all that by election belong to Christ, when he saith; by one spirit are we ALL baptized into one body.

This is true, saith Calvin upon the place, of all the faithful for however unto many, baptism is but a symbol without any further effect: yet the faithful do, together with the outward Sacrament, receive the thing represented thereby. And therefore in respect of God it is always true that baptism is an insition into Christ: because God doth not represent anything but what he is ready to fulfill, if we be capable thereof. Now that infants are capable hereof, he proves in his Commentary upon the 7 ^th chap: of this same Epistle; where he shows, that the children of faithful parents are holy, ex beneficio faederis; by virtue of the covenant: and, if holy; then faithful, although not yet endowed with actual faith saith Musculus .

Another place to prove that the Scriptures do attribute the conferring of, and washing by the Holy Ghost, unto baptism as a principal part of that ordinance, is that in Tit. 3.5. where the Apostle speaking of Baptism, describes it to be the Lauer of Regeneration, and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost: in which words it is as clear as the sun at noon day, that baptism is not the Lauer of Regeneration alone, but of the renewing of the Holy Ghost also: so as he that is partaker only of the former, is but half baptized: that is, he is partaker but of the body of the sacrament, without that which gives life, form & being unto that ordinance. And, to make the baptism of the elect to be no more ordinarily, then a participation of the carcass of Christ's institution, would, I think, be an harsh doctrine even in their own ears, that deny the spirit to elect infants. More soundly Calvin . The Apostles, saith he, are wont even from sacraments to draw arguments to confirm us in assurance of our participation of the things therein signed and sealed to us. For this ought to be an undeniable principle maintained by all the Godly, that God useth not to abuse his people with empty signs, but by his power doth inwardly make good, what by external signs he representeth to us. Wherefore, fitly and truly is Baptism styled the Lauer of Regeneration. Now, if Baptism be fitly and truly invested with this title, because God, doth undoubtedly make good unto his own, inwardly, that which is externally signified; who will call that baptism, in the language of scriptures, that is destitute of inward grace?

I know the shift which is laid hold on, [Object.] to beat off all these plain & pregnant proofs: viz. that none of these places speak of baptism with reference unto any, but such as bring with them actual faith to lay hold upon the grace of Baptism: and that therefore these texts prove nothing touching the communicating of the spirit to Jnfants.

Answer. [Answ.] Although I have said enough before to keep off any intelligent Reader from this evasion: yet, for their sakes, who think no objection sufficiently answered that is not fully removed every time it is urged, I will be content to take the pains of giving a fowrefold answer hereunto.

[ 1] 1 I answer by denying the proposition objected: viz. that all the places before cited speak only of persons grown and endowed with actual faith. This were answer enough till the thing objected be proved, as well as said. For that which is but only affirmed without proof, may be denied without wrong to any. I willingly admit that some places of scripture speak of faith; some, of repentance, when the speech is of actual sensible apprehension and application of the inward grace of baptism, by an act of the person himself making use of, & receiving comfort sensibly from his baptism , But this proves not that the inward grace is never at all conferred upon the elect where there is not actual faith to apply the same: no more then those places which require actual faith in all persons of years, upon pain of damnation if they be capable of the ordinary means of grace, & admitted to them, doth prove that not so much as an infant can be saved, without actual faith. An opinion so harsh and rash, as no learned man would willingly be guilty of.

2 I answer that of infants actual faith [ 2] is not required: for that cannot be justly required, whereof, in the ordinary course, their very infancy makes them altogether incapable. This I have so largely proved in the former Chapter, as I should rightly be condemned of tautologizing, if I should stand to repeat all the testimonies before alleged out of Zanchius, Martyr, Chameir, D. Ames, D. Davenant, and the Author of the Com. upon Tit. who all confess that in infants it is enough to make them capable of the inward grace in Baptism, that they have the Holy Ghost in them instead of faith to apply the same.

3 I answer that (if these men will yet [ 3] so far gratify the Anabaptists as to contend further that elect infants cannot be capable of the inward grace in baptism, without faith;) infants may, in some sense, be admitted to have faith; and so, not incapable of the inward grace of that Sacrament. He that said, whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me , would give us to understand that it is no extraordinary thing for infants elected to have in them some degree of faith: not actual, but potential, initial, & seminal, which is no other then the spirit of faith communicated, as Zanchius, and Peter Martyr, well.

If my words be worth nothing with these men, if none of the worthies before alleged may prevail; let them yet give some credit to M ^r Ainsworth, a man far enough off from from Popery, and also from conformity to our present Church. He, in his Censure of a Dialogue of the Anabaptists, when he comes to that objection of theirs against the Baptizing of Infants: viz: that if it cannot be proved that infants have their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, have faith, repentance, &c. they ought not to be baptized; gives a double answer; 1. That this makes as much against circumcision of old, as against baptizing of infants now. 2. That Christian infants have the graces they speak of, repentance, faith, regeneration, &c. though not actually, or by way of declaration to others: yet they have through the work of the SPIRIT the seed and beginning of faith, virtually, and by way of inclination; so that they are not wholly destitute of faith and regeneration, though it be a thing hid and unknown unto us, after what manner the Lord worketh these in them. This he proveth solidly and fully: and among other his arguments this is one: They to whom God giveth the sign and seal of righteousness by faith, and of regeneration, they have faith and regeneration; for God giveth no lying sign; he sealeth no vain or false covenants: But God gave to infants circumcision, which was the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith and regeneration. Gen. 17.12. Rom 4.11.2.28.29. Col. 2.11. Therefore infants had (and consequently now have) faith and regeneration, though not in the crop or harvest by declaration, yet in the bud and beginning of all Christian graces. Then mark his censure of such as deny this. They, saith he, that d ny this reason, must either make God the Author of a lying sign & seal of the covenant to Abraham & his infants, or they must hold that infants had those graces then, but not now: both which are wicked and absurd to affirm. Or they must say that circumcision was not the sign and seal of the righteousness which is by faith; and then they openly contradict the Scripture, Rom. 4.11. And after more full proof, he makes this sharp conclusion; Wherefore they are but a faithless and crooked generation, that notwithstanding all that God hath spoken and done in this kind, do deny this grace of Christ to the infants of his people, and the seal or confirmation of this grace by baptism now, as it was by circumcision of old. Thus He, pressed hereto by the Anabaptists, whom it is not possible otherwise to shake off.

[ 4] 4 Lastly I answer by retorting the argument upon them that make it. The same necessity which lies upon an infant to have actual faith, ere he can partake of the spirit of Regeneration by his baptism, will also be as strong to exclude him from participation of the outward sign. For, baptismall washing is (at least) significant and obsignant too, sealing to the party baptized the inward grace signified and exhibited, by their own confession that so much quarrel me for this Position of Baptismal Regeneration. And if so, what should an infant do with this honorable mystery and sacred Ordinance, he being not able to put any difference between baptismall washing by the Minister, and ordinary washing of his face at home by his Nurse? Now then, if his present incapacity hinder not his partaking of the outward element, which yet, in the ordinary course of dispensation, requires faith to discern the use and mystery of this Divine Institution, as well as to apply the inward grace thereby signified; what should hinder but that an infant belonging to the election of grace, should partake initially of the grace of the Sacrament, by the Spirit which is in him instead of actual faith? Deny him this, and deny him the Scacrament it self.

By all this I hope it is now evident out of the Scripture it self, that either elect infants do ordinarily partake of the spirit, in Baptism; or else, they receive not whole Baptism, but only a piece if we consider this Ordinance, as the Scripture doth: viz: not only as an outward sign, but as that which ever is accompanied with the inward grace to all that are elected.

My other Arguments drawn from Divine Testimony, are two: and both taken from two distinct uses of Baptism, which now follow in order.

[Arg. 2] 2. Argument.

Major. That which was ordained to be the Laver of spiritual regeneration & renovation unto all that are saved by it, must needs contain in it the donation of the spirit, by which this work may be done.

Minor. But Baptism was ordained unto this end that it should be the Laver of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost unto all that partake of it and are saved, ordinarily.

Therefore Baptism (taken as the Scripture takes it, for all that which, in baptism, is usually given to the elect) contains in it, ordinarily, the conferring of the spirit to all the elect that partake of it.

The Major is undeniable; unless we will maintain, that the effect may be produced without it's proper cause: for how can Baptism wash and renew a man spiritually, without conferring of the Spirit? This is as if I should grant a man to speak, yet deny him to have a tongue; or, to admit him to act and move rationally, and yet not yield him to have a reasonable soul. This Proposition therefore I take for granted.

The Minor is express Scripture, Tit. 3.5. Of his mercy he saved us, by the Laver of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior. Therefore the Conclusion is sound.

But you will perhaps except, and say, that the Apostle speaks here of Actual Regeneration, which, by my former distinction and foundation, cannot agree to infants?

Answ: That he speaks of Regeneration, the Text it self will clear it: but that he speaks only of actual Regeneration wrought by the Word, is not apparent; yea no circumstance of the Text will warrant any man so to restrain it. The Text tells us that Baptism is the Laver of Regeneration; but that it is only to actual believers such, what words will bear such an exposition? But to make all sure, let us hear what Judicious Calvin, and other of the Learned speak of the true meaning of this place: that so in the mouths of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

1 M ^r Calvin, in his answer to the Anabaptists who deny baptism to infants upon pretence of their incapacity of the end of Baptism, to wit, Regeneration, till they be able to make use of the Word brings them in thus objecting: But how, say they, are infants? regenerated in baptism, they being not capable of so much as any knowledge either of good or evil? To this, saith he, we answer, that this is the secret work of God, which, although to us it be not evident, yet we may not say, that therefore it is none at all . Now, if he meant not this of what God ordnarily works in and at baptism, it were no answer to their objection which lies only against all present efficacy of Baptism, in the ordinary course, in and upon Infants.

The same Author, prosecuting the same business, to that objection which they further make▪ viz. that Circumcision, and therefore Baptism, is the sacrament of repentance and faith? Saith thus; Although infants, in the moment of their circumcision, were not able to comprehend what that sign meant, they were yet, truly, circumcised for the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, which, after they came to years, they meditated on. In a word, this objection is easily answered: they are baptized unto future repentance and faith, which graces although they be not formed (actually) yet by the secret operation of the spirit the seeds of both do lie hid in them. By this answer, is at once overthrown whateuer these men object against us from the signification of Baptism: such as that, for example, where Paul calls baptism the Lauer of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Ghost, from whence they would conclude that this sacrament is to be administered unto none, but to such as are capable of these graces . So then Calvin you see, avoucheth infants to be partakers of Regeneration, in Baptism, although not actual, yet seminal and initial; and that from this very place of the Apostle.

2 Zanchius, in his Confessions, affirmeth that not only those of years, but infants also, if they do truly and indeed belong to the covenant; are, in baptism so sealed, as they that even now are incorporated by the Holy Ghost into Christ; and that therefore among other titles given unto baptism, in scripture, it is called the Lauer of regeneration .

3 Peter Martyr expounds this place not only of that which is conferred on persons of years endued with actual faith, but even upon elect infants also, by virtue of the Holy Ghost supplying in them the room of faith. I alleged the place before: yet because he speaks so fully to this purpose, I will repeat the same again. This Author having declared himself for the efficacy of baptism, doth with all give us to understand that in persons of years faith is so requisite that without faith they neither receive the seal of justification, nor yet of sanctification, in their baptism? For as Austin well, the efficacy of baptism is from the word of institutiō indeed; yet not as it is pronounced by the minister, but as it is believed by the receiver. But what benefit then can baptism (may some say) bring to Infants who cannot actually believe? This, our Author wisely and roundly prevents, by adding, that in Jnfants who by reason of their tender years cannot believe, the Holy Ghost supplies the room of faith. And, to assure us that such infants have the spirit, he allegeth this very place of our Apostle to Titus, saying; The effusion of the holy Ghost also is promised in Baptism, as the Apostle expressly writes to Titus, (where he saith) who saved us by the Lauer of regeneration, and of the renewing of the Holy Gost, which he shed on us abundantly by Jesus Christ our savior. Lastly, the Author of the Commentary upon Titus, as hath been already declared at large in our former chapter, is express for this, that not only persons actually believing, but even elect infants also do, ordinarily, receive, in the right use of Baptism, the inward grace. And this he speaks as grounded on this very text, unless we will say that he forgot his text, when he spake it; which to impute unto him, were, in my apprehension, a wronging of him.

wherefore I conclude this argument thus. If the judgment of Calvin, Zanchius; Peter Martyr, And the Author of our English commentary on Titus, be sound in exposition of this scripture, it doth prove the ordinary communication of the spirit of Regeneration as well to infants elect; as to persons of years that actually believe; which is the substance of our main Position.

My third and last argument is drawn [Arg. 3] from another use of baptism; to wit our insition and incorporation into Christ. I frame it thus.

Major. That which baptizeth elect infants into the death of Christ, & initially incorporateth them into the true mystical body of Christ, in their baptism; must needs be, ordinarily, communicated to them, in that ordinance.

Minor. But it is the spirit of Christ that thus doth.

Conclus: Therefore the spirit of Christ, according to the scripture, is ordinarily given to the elect in Baptism

The Major is confirmed thus. The elect are baptized into Christ's death, when they are baptized outwardly and sacramentally; therefore they must needs then receive that by which this is done. The Antecedent is express scripture. Rom. 6:3.4. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into death, &c. What is this to infants? May some man say, Yes, saith S. Augustine, it doth pertain even to infants also, when it is said we are buried with him by baptism into death. And Learned Danaus, commenting on that passage of Austin, defends him in it, if it be restrained to the elect, and understood only of initial regeneration .

And doth Calvin set narrower bounds unto this Text? Calvin doth not say, as some do, that the Apostle wrote thus, because they were actual believers to whom he writeth: but, he affirms it to be, from the very institution it self, the common benefit of all us that are now baptized; although he could not but know and remember that we were not baptized at man's estate, but in our infancy. His words are these. It is a thing, saith he, out of all controversy true, that we put on Christ in Baptism, & were baptized upon this very ground, that we should be one with Him . Was Calvin think we, asleep, when he wrote this; or, they, not in a dream rather, that do deny it? Let no man tell me that, he, and all the Authors I have named or can name, do more often speak against this very Position, then for it; and that it is easy to produce them, in more then an hundred places, avouching this expressly, that the sacraments do profit no man but him that hath faith to apply the grace offered in them: and so Calvin himself speaks plainly, in that very place, besides sundry other passages that he hath elsewhere to this very purpose touching the efficacy of Baptism.

I am not either so ignorant, as these men would make me, in the Authors I quote; nor yet so impious as to corrupt mine Authors in such manner, as some insinuate. It is very true that Calvin and other reverend Divines do often require faith as the hand of the soul; to apply unto the believer the grace offered in the Sacraments. But is it not also as true, that both Calvin and the rest have also written all that which I have alleged out of them? If not, then let me bear the blame forever: If so: why do men complain that I wrong mine Authors? If I allege a passage out of Bellarmine against the Popish Tenet in any particular, will any man conclude that I have wronged him because they are able to show that Bellarmine himself writes the quite contrary in some other parts of his works? If I find an Author speaking for me, I cannot be justly taxed of falsifying him, although he speak never so directly against me in another place; unless it appear that he retracted the first, and professeth an alteration of his judgment. So then these Quick and Great-Read men, are too hasty in their sentence that, J have wronged mine Authors, although I had no other Plea in Barre, but only this.

Howbeit that I may give them a little further satisfaction then they deserve, know all men by these presents, that for as much as Calvin and the rest do acknowledge a present efficacy of Baptism in infants elected, although they do not actually believe; and for as much also as these Authors have never recanted such their judgment of those infants; those other speeches of theirs, which require actual faith, must of necessity be understood with limitation and reference only to such as are of years ; for as much as none of these can have any actual comfort and sensible evidence of the inward grace conferred upon him in his Baptism, nor be actually a partaker thereof, on his own part without actual faith to apprehend and apply the same. Thus that Acurate Chameir expresseth himself, in treating of this very Argument; sometimes he affirms Justification & Regeneration to be conferred in baptism ; yet in some places seems to deny either Justification or Sanctification to be given to any, till they come to age and believe . Howbeit the clear expression of his meaning purgeth him from the guilt of contradictiō, & preserveth his Reader from stumbling and mistaking. For, in one place for all, he shows what he means by that sanctification and Justification proper unto such as are of years, that, in the moment of baptism of infants is not conferred: viz: 1. Not any justification or sanctification at all, by any physical efficacy in the external Sacrament, either in; or after the administratiō of it. 2. Neither the sense of justification, nor yet sanctification, as it imports an actual change. By the former he means that by which actually a man applies that justification unto himself which is properly not in us, but in God: which sense can be in none but such as are of years: by sanctification he understands an actual change both of the understanding and will from falsehood to truth, from evil to good . This is that which he denies to be ordinarily communicated to Infants, So did Calvin, and so do I .

But least any should imagine that I cunningly play the Lapwing in carrying away my Reader from the Objection made against me out of Calvin, with telling him a fair tale out of Chameir; I will return to Calvin again, and make good what exposition I formerly gave of such passages as may be urged against me out of Calvin, or others; and that by Calvin himself.

This learned man having largely confuted the blind error of the Anabaptists that furiously deny the baptism of Infants, shows also that, how ever he admit of some present efficacy of Baptism even in and upon them; his meaning is not that they do ordinarily partake of actual Regeneration in that Ordinance, unless they be such as die in their infancy. For thus he explicates himself in this particular. Whom God vouchsafeth to elect, if after they have received the Sacrament of Baptism they die before they come to years, them he doth renew by the power of his spirit, by us incomprehensible, as it seemeth best unto himself. But if they live to years of discretion, whereby they may be instructed touching the truth of their Baptism, they are then thereby the more provoked to the study of newness of life, the impression whereof they then come to learn that they were endowed with from their very infancy, whereby they ought more seriously to meditate upon the same all the days of their life. And hither is to be referred that which Paul teacheth touching our burial with Christ by baptism, in those two places, (Rom 6.4. Col. 2.12.) For there the Apostle meant not to show that it is necessary for him that is to be baptized, to be thus buried with Christ before hand; but what simply baptism doth effect in and upon them that are now baptized . By this all men may perceive that however he affirms that the vigor & life of this Sacrament cannot be sensibly applied on the part of the Receauer, by any but by persons of years that have actual faith, yet he admits of some initial work of the spirit even upon infants, if they belong to the election of grace. The like may be said of all other moderne Divines that require actual faith for the application of the inward grace of baptism, on the part of the Receauer. Thus much be spoken to this so often iterated objection, by which so many do think to strip me at once of all those Testimonies of Calvin, or others whom I have produced. And so much also of the Major Proposition of my present syllogism.

The Minor Proposition was this: Jt is the spirit that thus incorporateth us into Christ. This is evident in the express words of S ^t Paul. For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, 1. Cor. 12.13. Upon which words the learned Morton thus writes. Why doth not the Apostle say simply that, by one spirit we are made one spiritual body: but rather thus, we are baptized into one body? certainly that he might show that a man is then incorporated into the Church in the beginning of his conversion and regeneration; at what time Christ communicating his spirit unto him, makes him a member of the invisible Church, as the Minister in the administration of baptism doth admit and engraff him into the body of the Church visible .

If it be answered, that all this may be granted, and yet the main point still denied: because the spirit may be given to the elect, not at the moment of baptism, but at their effectual calling by the Word: I reply; then, between the time of Baptism and effectual calling outwardly by the word, baptism is but a bare sign, to such as live to years. But this is confessed by all sound Divines to be a mere fancy derogatory to Christ's Institution; and is condemned in the Sacramentarians This Marlorat upon Ephes 5.26 well saw, and therefore saith, that therefore the Apostle teacheth that in Baptism we are washed, because there God doth both testify our ablation, and also effect what he represents. For unless the truth of the thing were joined with the outward sign, it were improper to call Baptism the Laver of the soul . And in that very place, saith Calvin, Paul comprehends the whole church of Christ, no less then where he saith in another place that by baptism we are engraffed into the body of Christ: so as from both we collect that infants, whom Christ reckons among the rest of his members, are to be baptized, least they should be torn from his body .

If yet they answer; that this follows not by their doctrine: viz: that baptism is a bare sign; because they grant it to be also a seal of after Grace: I rejoin: this helps not (unless they grant, as Calvin freely doth some principle and seed of grace bestowed, ordinarily, in Baptism:) because by their opinion it is a seal of something absent that is to be expected in reversion only. They deny all present exhibition and collation of any grace in the moment of Baptism, by virtue of Christ's institution; and so they do not make it a sign signifying but rather prognosticating only some future effect: which is a new kind of Divinity, that, so far as I am able to judge, destroys the nature of a Sacrament, by denying to it both the chief part of it, viz: the inward grace thereby signified and together with the sign exhibited and conferred on those that truly and indeed be within the covenant; as also the vigor and efficacy of the word of institution which makes the union between the sign and the thing signified; & lastly this spoils elect infants of the inward seal; to wit, the spirit of Christ which incorporates them into Christ as members of his body. Were not such possessed with too much prejudice they would not so easily leap over all these material arguments, but be more sober in their censures, and wary in their doctrines. I deny not future efficacy of baptism after the act of administration; but I only plead for some efficacy of it when it is administered. In a word, I will conclude this matter in the very terms of Calvin before alleged: Infants are baptized unto future repentance and faith; which graces although they be not yet formed in them; yet, by the secret operation of the spirit the seeds of them both lie hid within them .

I see, me thinks, some ready to wrangle further, and to object [Object.] to me after this manner: Some places have been alleged indeed to prove, that in baptism the spirit is given to the faithful: but yet we hear not of one text that saith directly and expreslly that elect infants, do, then, receive the spirit?

To this I answer That when any of you will show me any express text of scripture that in direct terms mentions the baptizing of infants, I will also show you an express Text to prove their reception of the spirit in Baptism. But if you cannot do the one (nor is it much material, so long as there is such solid ground in the scriptures, and such undoubted arguments may be thence drawn to prove the lawfulness and necessary use of Paedobaptism;) what equity is it to require of me the other? How is it possible to show an express text proving that infants do receive the spirit in Baptism, when no text is found that mentions their baptism. If in the judgment of all the Churches of Christ, it be sufficient (as indeed it is) to confute all the Anabaptists in the world, that infants are within the covenant, & therefore ought not to be debarred of the seal of it, no more then infants of old were debarred of Circumcision by reason of their inability and incapacity to understand that mistery; that to them belongs the kingdom of heaven, and therefore the admittance into it must be yielded them; that they are a part of Christ's Church, yea of his body; lastly, that, although they have not actual faith, yet, they have the spirit of faith to apply unto them the grace of baptism, if God so please: and therefore in all these respects they may be baptized, notwithstanding that no Text of scripture enjoin it in so many words: Then this also ought to satisfy all ingenuous and moderate men, that by like sound and necessary consequences I have from the scriptures made good this point in hand. The places alleged I have seriously weighed, and found them all clear for the proof of my conclusion. Nor have I been mine own judge, or expounded them out of mine own head, but taken such expositions as the most Learned Judicious, Reverend, and eminent Divines of this last age, as well as others of less note had set upon them, long before I meddled with them: least any man should say, that I take upon me to coin expositions of mine own, that might look favorably upon that which is taken to be mine own cause.

One thing more remains that in a word must be dispatched. There are some I know, will like well enough the allegations of Scripture brought to prove that the Elect, that all the elect do receive the spirit in Baptism: but with all they find fault at the restraining of those scriptures to the Elect only: for they will have it thus, that the scriptures are clear to prove, that all that are baptized, do receive the spirit in Baptism, as well as the Elect.

To this I briefly say thus much: The scriptures do not warrant any such extent of baptismall grace; but plainly teach the contrary. For What do these men make of that place, in Rom. 8.30. Whom be did predestinate them he also called, and whom he called, them he also justified, and whom he justified, them he also glorified? The Apostle restrains justification and effectual calling to those that are predestinated, to what? to Grace only? No; to glory, saith the Text expressly.

The ground of these men's mistake is this, that they think the efficacy of baptism depends so certainly and universally upon the Jnstitution, that where there is no willful actual opposition in the party baptized he cannot miss of the effect; to wit, the spirit of grace. But they must know that however by virtue of the institution we may assure our selves that the elect partake of the inward grace yet it is not the institution alone, but God's preordinatiō of them unto grace and glory, that makes the sacrament effectual upon them, and not upon others. We admit the word, in its kind, to have efficacy to beget faith as an instrument in the hand of the spirit: yet it begetts not faith in all? Why? Because they do resist? That may be true, but why doth it work faith in others? Cheifly, because they are elected unto eternal life: so saith the scripture, as many as were ordained to eternal life believed . Doth S. Luke in that place, think we, mean other then this; that they, and only they that were elected, did believe. Lastly, do but consider one plain place more, it is in Gal. 4.6. Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of his son into your hearts, crying Abba Father. He doth not say, because they had received the sacrament of Baptism, which yet they had done; nor yet, because they did believe, which no doubt many of them did; but, because ye are sons: now this sonship depended not upon the sacrament, or any ordinance of Christ; no nor yet upon their faith & inward grace; but upon the eternal decree of God's free Election. Ephes. 1.4.5. So much of •• e Proof of this point by the Holy Scriptu •

CAP. 5. The judgment of the Fathers in this point.

I Am now come to the third part of my task, which is, to prove that this hath been the judgment and Doctrine of the chief and best approved Fathers of the Primitive Church. In this, I will enforce myself to all possible brevity, contenting myself with a few instances, least the work grow too large and tedious to the reader. And that I may be as good as my word, I will mention only such as lived within the first 500 years after Christ: because they that came after may be liable to challenge.

1 Then, to begin with Cyprian that eminent Doctor, and famous Martyr, who is styled by Gregory Nazianzen, the chief and most approved Pastor of his time, and the principal light: so as not only the Churches of Carthage, and Afric; but throughout the whole Christian world, his fame and admiration did spread it self . He in his epistle ad Pompaeium De Haeret: baptizandis, gives this for a reason why such as were baptized by Heretics cast out of the Church, were to be rebaptized; viz because there is no presence of the spirit among such as are not of the Church of Christ; and therefore their baptism is not sufficient. His words are these. Wherefore, saith he, let them grant that, either the spirit is present where they say true baptism is; or, that it is no true baptism, where the spirit is not: because baptism cannot be without the spirit . It is true that out of his zeal against Heretics of that time, who grossly erred in main Fundamentalls, he was over vehement against baptism administered by such as the Church had then ejected out of her society; because he thence inferred a necessity of rebaptization of all such as were so baptized by such Heretics: yet the allegation reacheth home to our present purpose, in that this shows his judgment to be clearly for this truth, that the spirit is ordinarily communicated in Baptism. Hence he afterwards infers, in the same Epistle; The nativity of Christians is in their baptism . And to make it evident that he understood this to be the ordinary effect of baptism, even upon Infants, he elsewhere declares himself expressly. For, in his epistle ad Fidum de Infant. Baptiz. he useth this as an Argument proving the lawfulness of baptizing of infants; that, the spirit refuseth not to communicate himself even to them. The Holy scripture, saith he, declares, that divine grace is dispensed unto all, as well infants as others: which was shadowed out in Elisha's stretching of himself upon an infant insensible of the Good which the Prophet did unto him . By which it is manifest that, had not Cyprian believed that the spirit communicats himself to infants in their baptism, he would scarce have allowed them to be baptized; for as much as this is the chief ground that he builds upon, to justify their admittance unto the same. If any shall except against what is urged out of this last epistle, as being no other then an Heterodox opinion; Goulartius will defend it, if it be restrained to the Elect; and Chameir justifies Goulartius in that assertion .

2 Gregory Nazianzen calls Baptism That Good thing which gives us initiation into Christ; which common benefit, and foundation of new life we all receive from God . In his Oration or Homily touching baptism, after a large and eloquent narration of the efficacy of baptism, he saith, that it hath force even upon Infants also, and therefore would have them baptized upon this ground, that he takes it for granted, that they also are, in some degree, sanctified even in baptism. Witness that speech of his, It is better that they be sanctified without any apprehension of the thing done, then that they should depart this life without baptism and initiation And of this thing circumcision may afford us president: for; that, being the fore-runner of baptism, was administered unto such as could n thy the use of reason discern what it meant . which place I urge not, to prove the necessity of Baptism, as if without reception thereof it were impossible for infants to be saved: for I make no doubt that in the time of the Law many infants were saved that died before the eighth day wherein they were to be circumcised. But I make use hereof, only to show what that Gregory believed and taught touching that which is ordinarily communicated in Baptism, even unto Infants as well as others; supposing them to be admitted thereunto.

3 That Great Athanasius, who, in his time, was the chief, and, in a manner, the only professed Champion the Truth had left her, when (as Jerome complains) the whole world seemed to be turned Arian: A man that was, by the sentence of all Divines, the most approved Doctor, as Vigilius the Martyr titles him: He, in his Book of Questions dedicated to Antiochus, Quaest: 2. propounds this Question, Whence may a man know plainly that he hath been baptized and received the Spirit in baptism, seeing he was but an infant when he was baptized? The answer he gives unto it is this: As a woman with child by the springing of the babe in her womb, knows for certain that she hath conceived fruit: so the soul of a TRVE CHRISTIAN knows, not by the reports of his parents, but by the springings of his heart, (especially upon those solemn days wherein Baptism, and the Lord's Supper are administered) and by the inward joys that then he conceives, that he received the Holy Ghost when he was baptized . This testimony is so clear and full, that I know not what can be said to evade it He speaks indefinitely, therefore he excludeth none that are Christians indeed: but unto them he doth restrain it in express terms; & so, he speaks directly to our present point.

4 Chrysostom, one of the best and clearest Expositors of the New Testament, among all the Fathers; calls Baptism our initiation into Christ . And to let us see that he means it not of an outward admission only into the visible Church, he afterwards declares himself, when he makes the spirit to be the chief part of baptism, as if there were no baptism worth that name, which is not accompanied with the presence of the spirit to make it efficacious. Jn Baptism the chief part is the spirit, by which the water becomes effectual . If any shall say, that this proves not that the spirit doth always accompany the outward washing; but rather the contrary, because Chrysostom speaks this of the Apostles that had been baptized, and yet were commanded by Christ after his resurrection to stay at Jerusalem in expectation of the Holy Ghost; saying, Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence I answer, that Chrysostom admits, that in them, the case was such indeed: but, saith he, in us, both are performed together . I stand not to justify his Exposition of the place in respect of what he saith touching the bestowing of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, as if they had not received of the spirit in some measure before that time. Let that opinion shift for it self as it can. I only urge the words to show his judgment of this thing: viz: that now, we Christians receive the spirit in bapt • sme as well as the outward sign . And yet least any should imagine him to be so gross as to think that all that partake of the outward washing do receive the inward grace hear him afterwards in the same Homily, expressing his grief for the contrary. What anguish of heart, saith he, do J sustain so often as I see some, even when they are ready to breath their last, run unto Baptism, and yet are never a whit the more purged by it . This Father therefore did not hold, that all that are baptized do partake of the Spirit in Baptism; how ever his judgment were clear for it, in the Ordinary course of Divine dispensation. Nor let any Arminian think to take me tardy, as if I abused the Reader by alleging that which mine Author speaks of Persons of years (who do oftentimes ponere obicem, actually oppose the spirit of grace even while they be present at the means of grace;) to prove the like in the case of Infants. For however it be too true that Persons of years do oft times resist the spirit by a wicked heart and corrupt life; yet this Father speaks of men of another disposition: for he speaks of men even at the point of death, apprehending a necessity of remission of sin by Christ, and hastening to Initiation , which argues an earnest desire after the grace of Baptism; and yet they go away without it. Therefore they of whom he speaketh, are not such as do resist the spirit when they are baptized: and so, the words are pertinent unto my purpose.

5 Basil, to that Question, How Christians are saved? Giues this answer; By being regenerated by the grace received in Baptism . And a little after, Baptism is unto me the beginning of life and the day of regeneration is the beginning of days, in that respect . In another place, speaking of Baptism, he saith that it is the death of sin, the new birth of the soul &c. I will not add more out of him. This may suffice.

6 Jerome, in his third book of Dialogues against the Pelagians, brings in the Pelagian thus cavilling with the Orthodox; I pray thee tell me, why are Infants baptized? To which he shapes this answer; that in baptism their sins might be remitted . And in the conclusion of that book, that he might at once hiss that absurd distinction of the Pelagians (that, children are baptized not for remission of sin, but to make them partakers of the kingdom of heaven ) out of the Church, he thus speaks in the person of the Orthodox, unto the Pelagians . That I may at length put an end to this discourse, I will say but this one thing: either you must forge a new Creed, and, after that form of baptism, I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, add this, that thou mayest partake of the kingdom of heaven; or, if ye do believe that there is but one baptism of persons of years and of infants, ye must hold that infants also are baptized for remission of sin, as well as others. But this cannot be without the spirit in an infant (then, at least, if not before) communicated to apply the blood of Christ unto him, as the same Father, against the Luciferians , expressly teacheth. Sins are remitted to none, without the Holy Ghost. And a little before, thus: How can that soul be purged from old sins that hath not the holy spirit? And again, in the same Tract; It is not water that washeth the soul, but the water it self is first sanctified by the spirit; not unlike to that speech of Moses in another case, The spirit of God moved upon the waters: whence it is evident that baptism cannot be without the spirit. To conclude, Christ, saith he, was baptized, and received the spirit in Baptism; not that he had it not before, for he never was without it; but that it might be manifest to us, that true baptism is that wherein the Holy Ghost is present. And to this also Calvin gives testimony, in his Institutions .

7 Ambrose, speaking of the parts of baptism , There are, saith he, in Baptism, three things, Water, Blood, and the Spirit. Take away but one of these, and ye destroy the Sacrament. For what is water without the blood of Christ; or a common element, without any effect of the Sacrament? If any shall say, that this is not clear for the efficacy of Baptism at the time of administration; he shall therein show so much ignorance in that Fathers Writings, as that the Learned would justly blame me, if I should take up more time to demonstrate this unto him, and gnash their teeth at such an Ignoramus.

8 Lastly, Augustine that great & famous Doctor of the Church is known to all to be very frequent in this very Argument. It shall suffice to quote a place or two. There is not, saith he , the least doubt to be made by any man, that then everyone of the faithful is made partaker of the body and blood of our Lord, when in Baptism he is made a member of Christ. If any think that by the faithful, he means only persons of years actually believing, let them consult his Epistle to Boniface a devout Earl touching the baptizing of Infants; wherein they shall find that Father to comprehend infants in the number of the faithful, and that by reason of the Sacrament of faith. Again , We say that in infants baptized, although they be not aware of it, the Holy Ghost doth dwell. For so are they without knowledge of his being in them, although he be in them; as they are, of the reasonable soul; reason being in them who yet cannot make use of it) like a little spark raked up under ashes, and is not stirred up but by access of years. And in the same Epistle, with which I will make an end , The Holy Ghost is said therefore to dwell in them, because he secretly works in them, that they may be his temple; which he afterwards perfecteth in those that profit and make further proceedings, & persevere in the same. Then which speech what can be said more plain and full to my present purpose touching the Holy Ghosts ceazing upon infants, even in baptism, to prepare them in his own time to be Temples for himself?

Such as would extend the efficacy of baptism indifferently to all infants, will be perhaps ready to wrest all these testimonies out of my hand & make use of them against me? for as much as all these allegations do seem to make for the universal extent of grace to all that are baptized, without restraining it to the Elect as I do.

It is true the Fathers except none, yet this proves not that therefore they held that none are exempted by God: nay they often declare the contrary. They, considering the charge which Christ hath laid upon his ministers to deny baptism to none to whom belongs the kingdom of God, and not taking upon them to pry into God's secrets to know who they be that belong to his election; and who, not: as they baptize all, so they pronounce of each one, that his sins are remitted, and the spirit is given him in baptism: yet withal, confining the donation of these gifts only to such as have indeed interest in the kingdom; although they take not upon them to declare who they be in particular that have no share therein. Now, that notwithstanding their indefinite and illimited speeches, touching the efficacy of Baptism they did hold and declare that all are not indeed partakers of the grace of baptism, shall appear by one or two of them, which I think is enough to declare the judgment of the rest that were sound among them.

Not to repeat what I formerly urged out of Chrysostom, to show that he was not of opinion that all, without exception, did certainly receive grace in baptism, although they did not actually resist it when they were baptized: I will mention only one passage out of Jerome, and another out of Augustine concerning this point.

S ^t Jerome, if it be not falsely fathered on him, writing on Galath. 3. . As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ, hath these words; If they who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, it is manifest that they who have not put on Christ were not baptized into Christ. For unto such as were thought to be faithful, and to have attained the baptism of Christ, it is elsewhere said, put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ. If any hath received only that which is corporal and visible, viz: the Lauer of water, he hath not put on Jesus Christ. For even Simon magus received the external washing, yet because he had not the Holy Ghost, therefore he did not put on Christ. And so Heretics Hypocrites, & wicked livers seem indeed to receive baptism, but I know not that they have put on Christ as a garment. Therefore let us lay this to heart, least any man be found among us that being not clothed with Christ, should prove not to have been baptized into Christ.

Some perhaps may snatch at this testimony and say that S ^t Jerome speaks here of such as are of years that do obicem ponere, make resistance to grace; and not of infants of which the question is: & if he did speak of infants, yet here is not a word of election, as the reason why some do receive that which others go without. To these two cauills I must make answer in order. First I deny that he speaks only of persons of years, for from the general observation, th • t, there be some who were not indeed baptized into Christ, he makes application in particular to himself and others, most of which were baptized in infancy, (though some of years were daily added) and even them would he have to consider seriously whether it were not thus with themselves, although baptized in infancy. Nor doth he make reluctance in Simon Magus to be the reason why he was not baptized into Christ; but his not having of the spirit: and this is as much in effect, as if he had said, he was not baptized into Christ, because he was not in the number of God's sons by election: for the scripture assigns this as the reason why some do partake of the spirit; because they are sons . The rule of opposition therefore, must needs make the contrary true: no son no spirit: no spirit, none of Christ's . Wherefore, secondly, I say, that in effect he restrains the grace of baptism only to the elect; and for this reason, that they be elected. For if Simon could not be baptized into Christ, for want of the spirit: it is true that he could not be baptized into Christ, because not elected: for if he had been a son by election, he could not have missed of the spirit, as is clear both in Galath. 4.6. and in Rom 8.14. Now, forasmuch as the Holy scriptures do so clearly teach that none partake of the spirit unto sanctification and salvation, but only the elect, (as by and by we shall, by occasion, see confessed also by Lombard himself;) it were too great a wrong to so worthy a Father as S ^t Jerome was, to interpret his speech uttered according to scripture, as having in it a meaning contrary to the Scripture, to bolster up a tottering error of some that drew it immediately from Bellarmine and the rest of that crew.

What need many words. If Jerome be not thought clear enough, then see my other witness, S ^t Augustine; who, if Lombard abuse him not, I am sure, will put all out of doubt. The sacraments, saith he, do effect or work that which they signify, only in the elect. I willingly admit that Lombard seeks to give an answer to him; but such, as rather stablisheth then opposeth our present position. See what he writes.

Peter Lombard takes upon him throughout his fourth distinction of his fourth book , to show the efficacy of baptism. He begins with infants, & as his own opinion, affirms first, that they all obtain remission of sin in baptism. Then he allegeth the opinion of others that seemed to thwart his, Some, saith he, think that some infants notwithstanding baptism may perish, grounding themselves upon that of Augustine, the sacraments do effect that which they represent, only in the elect. But to evade this, he saith, that they want understanding in S. Austin who do not so interpret him, as that the Sacraments do not procure remission of sin unto salvation, but only unto the elect. In which answer of Lombard to the allegation of the adverse parties out of Augustine, we may behold these three particulars. 1 A distinction between that remission of sin which is indifferently sealed unto all in baptism, and that grace which is necessary for them to obtain in it, that are undoubtedly saved by it. 2 A confession that this last to wit, grace unto salvation, is peculiar only unto the elect . 3 A concession that all they do receive in baptism what is represented thereby in the outward sign. I willingly acknowledge that his own opinion is, that in some sense, all infants do receive remission of sin in baptism; but yet, in such a sense, as doth not suffice for their salvation, if they be not of the number of the Elect, as his own words do expressly manifest in the place alleged, which restraint of his is full the same with that I hold .

And thus out of the first Father of the Popish schoolmen that ever reduced the body of Divinity into a method out of the Fathers, you have a confession that S Augustine was clearly of this judgment, that only the elect do receive the spirit, & grace in baptism; which therefore we have reason to believe to be also the judgment of all the Fathers that lived in his age or before him; unless we will make him a private opinionist that dissenteth from the rest, which were a miserable shift, with palpable injury offered to so eminent a Lamp in God's Church, who hath on his side Chrysostom & Jerome, that for substance speak as much as he doth; which is enough to acquit him of the stain of a private opinion, and sufficient to stop the mouths of all gainsayers, that would fain shake out this arrow shott out of his bow into the sides of that error touching the equal efficacy of baptism upon all that are partakers of the outward Element; an absurdity not hatched in the Church by the spirit of error, till after Peter Lombard was dead & rotten.

It may not be denied that the Fathers in many passages speak not so distinctly & cautiously, as the gross mistakes of after ages would have required; yet their excessive speeches and flowers of Rhetoric must not be so far urged, as to weaken their authority in what they took upon them to speak positively, properly, and determinatiuely, according to the Scriptures. When no Adversary as yet appeared to abuse their speeches to a wrong sense; they spake more securely and freely, not giving such exact bounds to their words, as otherwise they would have done. If they found any that would presume upon salvation, because they had been outwardly baptized; whether they were Heretics, Hypocrites, or lewd livers, Chrysostom and Jerome (as we have seen) begin then to restrain the saving grace of Baptism only to such as believe and live as they ought. And if any think that Election makes no difference between man and man, but that such as are not elected, as well as the elect, may be partakers of Baptismal grace equally; S. Austin will take off that opinion with protestation, that the Sacraments do not effect what they signify, but only upon the elect: and this, Lombard himself will confess to be true, of the efficacy of baptism unto salvation. When therefore we meet with any of the Ancients that do not thus limit their assertions, we must yet conceive them to be of the same mind with S. Jerome, & S. Augustine in this point; especially considering that the Scriptures themselves (as in the former Chapter hath been declared) do so bound the same, from which we ought not to conceive that those sounder Fathers would dissent, forasmuch as those three Worthies before alleged (who are better Expositors of the minds of the rest of their Brethren that lived with them or before them, then any perverse Papist or Arminian either is, or can be,) have so fully and perspicuously declared themselves agreeable thereunto. And thus much concerning the judgment of the Fathers.

CAP. 6. The Confessions of Reformed Churches.

I Doubt not but that I shall meet with some spirits that will deride and scorn all these testimonies of the Fathers, as the dreams of erring men ; and so will be ready to say; it is not much matter what the Fathers speak, forasmuch as they spake and wrote a great deal more than any sound Divine will take upon him the justification of, or is able to defend. Therefore it is requisite that I now show what the Churches of Christ, since the last happy Reformation, have all conspired to acknowledge and profess in their several Public confessions, printed at Geneva, concerning this point: by which it will appear, that herein they do, in substance, concur with those Fathers that some shallow brains please to set so light by. The judgment of our own Church, as it is expressed in the Form of Baptism, the Catechism, and Articles of Religion, we have already seen at large We are therefore now to produce the Confessions of foreign Churches only, which here follow in order.

1 The Helvetian confession, cap. 20 runs thus: To be baptized in the name of Christ, is to be inroled, initiated, and received into the covenant and family, and so into the inheritance of the sons of God: yea to be even now called by the name of God, that is, to be called a son of God; to be purged from the filth of sin, and to be endowed with the manifold grace of God, unto a new and innocent life. And a little after: for we are inwardly regenerated, purified, and renewed by God through the Holy Ghost. And for a close of that Chapter, they add; We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny young infants borne of faithful parents to be admitted unto baptism. For according to the doctrine of the Gospel, theirs is the kingdom of God, and they are within the covenant of God: why therefore should not the sign of the covenant of God be given unto them? Why should they not be initiated by holy baptism, that are God's peculiar, and within his Church?

2 The confession of Scotland. We do certainly believe that by baptism we are engraffed into Jesus Christ, and made partakers of his righteousness whereby all our sins are done away.

3 The Belgic confession. art. 34. thus speaks. Therefore did the Lord command all of his to be baptized with pure water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; that he might signify that the blood of Christ by the Holy Ghost doth perform inwardly in the soul, that which the water doth effect outwardly upon our bodies. And that they understand this of Infants also, they afterward express thenselves, by declaring against the Anabaptists, that even infants partake of Christ in baptism, pro modulo suo, according to their capacity, as well as others: saying, certainly Christ shed his blood that he might no less wash infants of faithful parents, then those of years; and therefore it is requisite they should also receive the sign or Sacrament of that thing which Christ for their sakes accomplished.

4 The confession of France, which is also the confession of Geneva, professeth this, We acknowledge only two Sacraments common to the whole Church, the former whereof is Baptism, given unto us to witness our adoption, because in it we are engraffed into the body of Christ, that being washed with his blood we might also be renewed by his spirit unto holiness of life. Again in the 37. Art: We believe, as is aforesaid, that as well in the Lord's supper, as in baptism, God doth bestow upon us in very deed; that is to say, truly, and effectually whatsoever he therein sacramentally doth represent unto us: and therefore with the signs we join the true possession and fruition of that thing which is therein offered to us. And in Art. 38 thus .

5 The Argentine confession, cap. 17. thus determineth; Touching Baptism we confess that which the scripture everywhere affirmeth of it: that, thereby we are buried into the death of Christ, knit together in one body, we put on Christ; it is the laver of Regeneration to wash away our sins, and to save us, Rom. 6 3. 1. Cor. 12. Gal. 3. Tit. 3. Act. 22. 1. Pet. 3.

6 The Augustine confession. art. 9. teacheth that infants being by baptism commended unto God, are received into the favor of God, and made his sons as Christ testifieth: Math. 18. saying; it is not the will of your father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

7 The Saxon confession cap. 14 thus. We retain the baptism of infants also, because it is most certain that the promise of grace belongs even to infants &c. nor do we judge this a mere idle ceremony, but that then they are truly received by God, and sanctified.

8 The confession of Wirtemberg, cap. de Bapt. to the same effect: We teach, that he that is baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is anointed with a spiritual chrysme: that is, he is made a member of Christ, and endowed with the Holy Ghost.

9 To all these we may add the pious and orthodox confession of the Palatine, extant in the same Harmony of confessions; Touching the force and efficacy of holy baptism, I believe & confess that our children (forasmuch as they also are included together with us in the covenant before spoken of) when they are baptized into the Articles of the ancient and catholic faith (as in them also they ought to be trained up and instructed) are made partakers as well as we of the bloody death of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of all other good things which in that his death he hath procured: and that in this manner; viz: that as they receive the outward seal, to wit the holy Sacrament, the elementary water from the Minister of the word externally in the body; so also together & at once by Christ they are washed with his blood in their souls; that is to say, they are internally baptized, and are regenerated a new as new creatures by the Holy Ghost.

But some may object that, this last is not the Confession of the Church of the Palatinate, but only of Frederick the third, the Palsgraue of Rhene? To which I answer, 1. By confessing it to be true that it was indeed the Confession of that religious Prince; yet such as was approved of by that whole Church, as appears by the inserting of it among the public Confessions of the Churches, nor is there any other confession of that Church to be found in the Harmony of Confessions, but only this; by which it is evident that the whole Church of the Palatinate, considering how full this confession was, & how exactly according with their public catechism, thought it needless to draw any other public body of confession, but rather to rest in this so well performed to their hands. 2 I say that it doth fully agree to the established doctrine of that Church set forth in their public catechism. For in the 69 Quest of that Catech: this is demanded; By what ground art thou admonished and confirmed that in thy baptism thou art made a partaker of that one and only sacrifice ef Christ? The answer to it is this. Because Christ enjoined that outward laver of water, with this promise annexed to it, that J should be no less certain that J am washed by his blood and spirit frō all the filth of my soul; that is from all sins, thē that I am externally washed with water, whereby the stains of the body are wont to be purged away.

To which I may further add, that learned Pareus, in his larger explication of that catechism, how ever he require faith in the receiver that will have sensible possession & benefit of the graces of that Sacrament; yet in his commentary upon the 74 Question of the same, undertaking to prove against the Anabaptists the lawfulness of baptizing of infants, the second argument which he there useth is this; that remission of sins by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost the worker of faith, is promised to infants; as well as to those of years, and that therefore infants ought to be baptized Again, in his answer to the second objection of the Anabaptists by which they would prove that infants ought not to be admitted unto baptism; namely, because they believe not. he thus saith; they have faith, although not actual; yet, potential, and by inclination; or at least the holy Ghost himself supplieth the room of it, and so sufficeth for their baptism: For he that hath received the holy Ghost ought not to be excluded from baptism; according to that of the Apostle in Act. 10.47. which that Author applies to this very purpose.

Thus have we the Confessions of nine several Churches of chiefest note beyond the seas, professing and publishing as much as those eight Fathers of old, and as our own Church at home, touching the efficacy of Baptism of elect infants; or, if you will, indefinitely of all infants supposed to be truly and indeed within the election and covenant of grace.

Some, haply, will be meddling here again, and say that all these confessions do not set such a restraint upon the efficacy of baptism, as our present position doth, but extend it indifferently unto all. But to such I must give the same answer that I did before, because the objection is the same and because also it is set upon the same sandy foundation: viz. that the Confessions are indefinite, so as none are excluded from the grace of the sacrament, that are partakers of the outward washing. The form of expression which the churches use is indefinite, and it is necessary it should be so, because they speak of baptism considered in the nature of it when it is applied to those within the covenant, to all which the grace of baptism is ordinarily given: yet well knowing that all are not indeed within the covenant, although borne of parents that are members of the visible Church; they do not say universally that all infants are partakers of the grace of baptism; but indefinitely, that infants are partakers of it. Now, although oft times an indefinite proposition in materia necessaria, be equivalent to an universal: yet it is not always so, (as, hath been formerly sh wed) when some circumstance doth occur that may vary the condition of the party to whom it is applied As for example, to say that persons so & so educated in their youth do prove wise and able men for such or such an employment, makes the proposition to be taken as generally true, by reason of the sufficiency of the means of their education: yet because there may be, and oft is, some inward impediment or incapacity in some particulars, that proposition is by no wise men believed to be meant as, universally true of all that are under the same helps and means. Yea some propositions that are universally propounded, have yet their limitations implied which are discerned by all rational men that either hear or read them: as for instance; ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus saith the Apostle, Gal. 3.26. yet who can be so charitable as to think that there was not so much as one Hypocrite in all the Church of Galatia? doth not the same Apostle say elsewhere, that all men have not faith? and again, they are not all Israel which are of Israel? What then? Why, this. The Apostle looking upon the powerful means of begetting the Galatians unto God, viz the word and Sacraments; and considering their outward submission and conformity thereunto, he professeth of them in the Lump, ye are all the Children of God, &c. Howbeit no man will take him otherwise then this; ye are all his children if ye he indeed inwardly, what ye seem outwardly to me, that am willing thus to hope and speak of you.

In like manner then, must the Churches be understood, if they should deliver themselves in universal terms; for as much as all are not partakers of the spirit and blood of Christ, that are partakers of the outward Laver of regeneration, as some of the Fathers have soundly taught us, in the former chapter. Because in the sacrament, by virtue of Christ's institution, ordinarily, grace is given to all that are by election capable of it; and it being known to none who they be that are not elected, it is more apt and proper to speak indefinitely, rather then restrictiuely, in public Confessions of Churches, that so all may with more care and reverence attend the Ordinance of Christ, and expect that in it, which how ever it be not of a certainty universally communicated to all indifferently, yet is not denied to this, or that, or any particular, presented unto baptism, for ought any mortal man can judge, or may take liberty to presume of any one in particular, however in the general he may set it down for a conclusion of truth, that there are some which go without it.

If yet I should be further pressed, that at least all the Lutherans do expressly and stiffly declare themselves to believe that all infants do certainly receive the inward grace of baptism, so as to be indeed regenerated in the very instant of the administration? To this I answer, that it is perhaps true of some particular men among them, that, as all men who profess themselves stiff followers of such or such a master, do usually in tract of time and through heat of disputation, go further then their master, or then those more moderate men that in former times did add here unto him, as they now do; so these (who therefore, for some errors which they unjustly father upon that Worthy, are termed pseudo Lutherans ) going further then ever L • there did, may take upon them the defense of this error, which yet may justly pass as a private fancy of their own, and no true issue of his that they seem so much to glory in; at least no public definition of any of those Churches, which are at this day (through the violence of some particular men in them) nicknamed Lutherans Sure I am, and so also may all others be that will take the pains to pervse their confessions, that no such thing can be necessarily proved thence: but that the contrary thereunto may as probably be defended, as that which some would deduct from those public Instruments and declarations of their faith generally agreed upon amongst them all. And how the rest; to wit, the French, Genevean, Heluetian, Netherland, and Palatinate Churches are to be understood in their Confessions, let the most learned and judicious among them declare unto us in their public writings, which is the next thing that I am to show.

CAP. 7. The judgment of Forraine Divines.

I Shall not need to be long in this, because I have in great part shown the judgment of Calvin, Peter Martyr, Zanchius, Junius, Bucer, Beza, Marlorat, Daneus, and Chameir; so far as they have opened or cleared any of those places of scripture before alleged in my fourth chapter, for the proof of my position by Divine testimonies of holy Writ. Notwithstanding, for my words sake, I must do something, & set down here also a brief of their opinions concerning this matter, who are of most eminent note in the Church, that it may be yet more manifest that I have not set abroach any new doctrine of mine own. My purpose is not to be curious in marshalling the several Authors which now I am to produce; but rather to rank them so as I may soonest have done.

I have every wherein my Treatise made use of Calvin, so as I have not much more to allege out of him then that which I have alleged before. Howbeit, because he is one of the principal moderne Writers that I build upon, as being very clear for this opinion, and of best reckoning with those that oppose me herein, I will here also produce him again, and lay nearer together all such passages of his, as are more scatteringly dispersed, in my former chapters, upon the occasions there offered unto me. And because I may be thought to mistake his meaning, I will together and at once show you how that renowned and invincible Chameir doth also understand Calvin's writings touching this point: and so I shall dispatch both Calvin and Chameir with one and the same labor.

Chameir, dealing against the Pontificians, especially against Bellarmine, touching the efficacy of the Sacraments of the New Testament, doth disclaim that position that, Sacraments are without all efficacy; and complains of it as a wrong done to all sound Protestants, (whō everywhere he calls by the name of Catholics, which title the Papists unjustly attribute, and appropriate unto themselves) that they are charged with such an error: For, saith he, The Catholics teach that in receiving of the Sacraments, grace is wrought in the faithful, and that the Sacraments are to be held efficacious to the ends for which they were ordained. Nor do they unwillingly hear that from, Greg: de Valentia, viz: it ought not to be doubted but that in some manner, what ever that be, the Sacraments are causes conferrring grace. For in very deed the words of Calvin are these; God doth truly perform what ever he promiseth and representeth in the outward signs; nor do the outward signs want their effect, that He who is their Author might prove himself true and faithful of his word. Then Chameir, goes on to explicate how and in what manner they work grace, not as the principal cause, but only instrumental; and that not physical, but moral. The same in effect he speaks again in the same Book, cap. 3. par. 10. Verily both Calvin, and all Catholics acknowledge an efficacy of Baptism.

But here some will be ready to object: What need all this? Who denies this? All the Question is, what efficacy doth he, & Calvin mean? Answ: Let Chameir himself explicate their meaning in his own words. They are these. The doctrine of us Catholics is less g • rgeously set out (then that of the Papists) but more solid: There be two parts of man's restauration unto salvation, Justification and Sanctification: both of which he briefly explicateth, then, concludeth, Unto both these parts the Sacrament of Baptism is applied, to wit to represent, and to effect them. This he makes good out of Calvin's catechism, which is the publicly authorized Chatechisme of Geneva and the Church of France. Thus runs the Catechism. What is the meaning of Baptism? Ans. Jt hath in it two parts: for therein both remission of sins, and also spiritual regeneration is represented. And a little after thus the Catechism explains the former word representation, I judge it to be so a figure, that the truth of the thing figured is also annexed to it. For God doth not frustrate our expectation when he promiseth us his gifts; and therefore it is certain that both remission of sins, and regeneration is both offered to us, and also received by us in Baptism. Thus far the Catechism of Calvin, which doth fully agree to all those passages of his formerly cited; if not only I, but that Reverend Chameir be not mistaken in construing of his words. [Object.]

There is no question, say some, but that you are both out, if you say Calvin meant this, of the efficacy of Baptism before faith. For Calvin even in that very Chapter so often before quoted, saith expressly; There is no more to be required in the baptism of infants in respect of present efficacy, than this, that the covenant of God made with them should be ratified & confirmed: the rest that is signified in that Sacrament, shall follow after, in God's good time. To which I answer, that this is as much as I contend for; viz: so much efficacy as may for the present confirm an elect infant in God's covenant. But this confirmation is not, in Calvin's judgment, the bare reception of the outward sign, but a conferring of the inward earnest of the spirit to assure thē thereby of after grace and glory. For so himself speaketh in the 15. chap. and 12. Section of the same book. The Apostle, saith he, having shown that we are accepted of God through Christ, he subjoins, That they all who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ, are also regenerated by his spirit, and the earnest hereof we have in our baptism. There is then a confirmation by an earnest, and this earnest is part of the whole benefit promised, and by him assigned in express terms to be the Spirit • yea look but into the very last words of the next Section immediately preceding the Section now quoted, and you shall find him there affirming; ⁱ That we are baptized unto the mortification of our flesh, which mortification is begun in us from our very baptism, we daily go forward in it, and it shall be perfected in us when we depart hence unto the Lord. Loe here, what Calvin means by confirming and ratifying the covenant unto an elect infant; and what it is that is to be expected to follow after in God's good time, even the breaking out, growth and perfection of that grace, which was begun even from his baptism wherein he receives the spirit as the earnest penny & Author of the same.

But Calvin directly affirmeth, that, Till by faith we lay hold upon the promise sealed in baptism, our baptism is not worth a rush unto us? To this I have sufficiently answered more then once before; and particularly, in chap. 4. in confirmation of the major Proposition of my third argument: the sum whereof is briefly this; The Sacrament profits no man of years, without faith to apprehend the promise: nor can the elect themselves sensibly perceive the fruit and comfort of their baptism, in the ordinary course, until after they have obtained actual faith at their actual conversion. Nor doth it follow that they had not the spirit in baptism, because they were not capable of so much as knowing the same at that time; much less, of believing; for so saith the same Author: Although infants in the instant of circumcision were not able to comprehend what that sign meant they were yet truly circumcised unto the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, which after they came to years they meditated on. And a little after; infants are baptized unto future repentance and faith, which graces although they be not (actually) formed in them, yet by the secret operation of the spirit the seeds of both do lie hid in them. Now these two places laid together do make it evident that, when this Author said that Baptism profits nothing till the promise be apprehended, his meaning was not that the Spirit of God doth nothing at all at the time of baptism in an elect Infant; but only this, that the party cannot have any actual sensible benefit till actual faith be begotten in him, and the same actually employed in the application of those good things which were exhibited and sealed unto him in his baptism.

But it will be yet further objected, that, admit Calvin were of opinion that some infants are endowed with the spirit in their infancy, yet he meant not to ascribe the communication of it to Baptism; but rather declares himself to mean it of grace received before Baptism; as appears by the instances he gives of John the Baptist, which he contendeth to have been sanctified in the womb by God, who therein gave us an experiment of his power to sanctify others in like manner: now, what is this to the reception of the spirit in Baptism? To this I answer, first, that his main scope is to confute the Anabaptists touching their supposed impossibility of the capacity of regeneration in an infant, for which reason they would not have him admitted to sacred baptism, as appears in the beginning of the same Section. Therefore hence I collect that his purpose was to overthrow this imaginary bulwark, by making evident not only a possibility, but (in that particular of John ) a certainty of regeneration even in the womb, which was sooner then baptism; so as their argument could not hold against Baptism: for, if an infant be capable of the spirit in the womb, much more then in baptism, and therefore he ought to be baptized. Secondly, if his purpose were not thence to infer that an infant not only may, but doth receive the spirit in baptism, it were no sufficient answer to their objection: for they might justly reply thus; if you intend only a possibility of regeneration of some, before baptism, and not of what is ordinarily conferred in baptism, then it cannot follow hence, that, because in some extraordinary cases some few may be sanctified before baptism, therefore it ought to be drawn into an ordinary practice that infants should be baptized because by your own confession, that sanctification which some infants partake of, is not by virtue of the efficacy of baptism, but by and from the special pleasure of God manifested upon some few, here & there without this ordinance Thirdly, I add that, Calvin doth certainly and expressly intend that the first principle of regeneration, to wit the spirit of Christ is ordinarily given in baptism: for in the 21 Section of the very same chapter he thus speaketh, Whom God vouchsafeth to elect, if after they have received the sign of regeneration, they die before they come to years, them he doth renew by the power of his spirit, by us incomprehensible, as it seemeth best unto himself. But if it so fall out that they live to years of discretion, whereby they may be instructed concerning the truth of their baptism, they are then thereby the more provoked to the study of newness of life, the pledge and badge whereof they then come to learn that they were endowed with from their very infancy, whereby they ought more seriously to meditate upon the same all the days of their life. And hither is to be referred that which Paul teacheth in those two distinct places touching our burial with Christ by Baptism, (Rom 6 4. Col. • .12.) For thereby the Apostle meant not to show that it is necessary for him that is to be baptized, to be thus buried with Christ, beforehand; but, what simply baptism doth effect in and upon them that are now baptized, that so no cracked brains should contend that this doth go before baptism. After the same manner Moses & the Prophets admonished the people what was the meaning of circumcision; with which notwithstanding their very infants were also signed. This is equivalent to that which also the Apostle writeth to the Galatians, that when they were baptized, they put on Christ. Why speaks he so? Namely, that they might now live unto Christ, which before that time, they had not done. And although in persons of ripe age the receiving of the sacrament ought to follow the understanding of the mystery; yet infants are to be accounted of another rank and number, as shall be presently declared, &c. By all this then it is manifest that Calvin's judgment was for the reception of the spirit in Baptism, in the ordinary course thereof, notwithstanding the instance he gives of the Baptist who received his first sanctification in his mothers womb. His meaning was not to show when an infant receives the spirit, as if he usually received it in the womb, or out of baptism; but only to prove a possibility that an infant may receive the spirit in baptism notwithstanding his infancy, because he may partake of it in the very womb.

Well; yet when you have all done, Calvin speaks this in some special cases only; as namely in the case of elect infants dying in infancy, as the place last cited may declare? Answer. It is very true that Calvin speaks not of all that are outwardly baptized; no more do I. I restrain it to the elect; and so doth he ; as is evident in the last passage, quoted out of him. But yet he is not so to be taken, as if he held that, only elect infants who die in infancy, do receive the spirit in baptism: but that all the elect, whether they live or die, do, ordinarily partake of the spirit in that ordinance. Touching elect children that die in infancy, I am of opinion that, by a secret and incomprehensible work of the spirit, they are actually regenerated so as to be made meet to enter into that Holy city into which no unclean thing shall ever enter; and this Calvin also professedly maintaineth . They therefore have a further work wrought in them, then, ordinarily others have: howbeit it was never the meaning of that judicious man to restrain all communication of the spirit to such as die in infancy, but only, to extend it to all the elect, and to the elect only. Why else should he say, that even. WEE are baptized unto mortification of our flesh, which mortification is begun in us from our very baptism, and WEE daily go forward in it, &c.? Why doth he else avouch that, Christ was sanctified from his first incarnation, that he might sanctify his elect of every age, without any difference. For as he took to him our flesh, in which he perfectly performed perfect & complete obedience for our sakes, and in our rooms, for the abolishing of the sin of disobedience committed by us in the flesh; so he was conceived of the holy Ghost, that being fully endowed with the spirit, upon the assumption of our flesh, he might transfuse the same holiness unto us? All which he speaks, not of such as die in infancy, but of such as live to ripe years also. And if he meant not to affirm this to be the ordinary course of divine dispensation, in the baptism of such as live to years, he could not possibly repel the argument of the Anabaptists who therefore disclaim the baptism of infants, because they receive no part of the inward grace signified by the outward sign. For if He should make such an imperfect answer as this; viz: that although elect infants who live to years are not then in any degree partakers of the inward grace, yet such as die in infancy, do partake thereof; and therefore, for their sakes atleast infants should be baptized, if, I say, he should thus answer, they would hiss at so poor a shift, and reply thus; if you would have all infants baptized, because some of them may die and in that regard may need baptism, for as much as they are to be regenerated in baptism, to make them fit for heaven: this is a beggarly kind of reasoning: for, by your own confession, elect infants, dying before baptism, cannot perish, so as there is no necessity for baptizing of all infants for the regenerating of a few thereby, that may happen to die in infancy; in as much as they would be sanctified, although they should never be baptized, and the rest, although baptized, would not by your own doctrine, be then sanctified at all. Thus have I largely declared the judgment of that judicious & justly honored Calvin, touching this point: and have been more tedious herein, then a judicious reader will (perhaps) bear with patience: but if any find fault, my apology is this; they who should have had more wit and honesty, have filled the heads of the multitude with this conceit, that, however I made a great flourish with the name of Calvin, for giving countenance to my opinion; yet the truth is, Calvin delivered no such thing; but is rather against me, then for me, as they are able to show, at pleasure, to any man that shall require it. Now to clear myself of this foul aspertion unjustly cast upon me, I held myself bound by a kind of necessity thus copiously to set down Calvin's opinion; and to meet with all objections that could possibly be put up against me, to weaken the several testimonies I take out of Calvin for my defense; to the intent that after all that can be said on both sides, the impartial reader, how meanly soever gifted, may be able to judge, whether Calvin speak with or against me.

What was the conceit of Chameir touching the judgment of all sound Divines, and particularly of Calvin, you have seen in part already. And because Chameir is of such eminent note in the Church, and so expressly delivereth the judgment of all Protestants; and therein, his own, concerning the efficacy of baptism upon elect infants, I will produce a place or two more out of him. He writing of this very point, and stating the controversy between the Papists and us therein, saith thus; The question between them and us is not. 1 Whether justification from all our sins be offered and conferred in baptism; for this, neither part denies: nor, 2 whether any sanctification at all be then conferred: for that, both allow: but the punctual difference is only concerning the quantity and measure of sanctification. The Papists contend that sanctification complete is then given; and this we deny, saying that it is only then begun, and is daily perfected by degrees. Here least any man should dream of an ambi • uity in his speeches, take notice that Chameir in that very chapter had before shown his meaning to be of that which is ordinarily communicated in the very instant of the administration of Baptism. For thus, He; The present difference between us and Papists touching the efficacy of baptism, may be reduced to two heads; the first touching the present effect of it; the other, touching that which is future. By the present effect, J mean, saith he, that which is assigned to be wrought in the very instant of the right administration of baptism: by the other, that which follows after the celebration ended. Then he goes on with his discourse that was but now propounded, to show that even in the moment of Baptism all Orthodox divines do allow of some present efficacy of baptism upon infants, unto sanctification, as more at large appears in the Author himself. Yea so resolute is he for the efficacy of baptism upon infants, that he fears not to affirm, that either thē or never it takes effect upon thē See his own words. So far is it frō us that we should teach that Baptism effecteth nothing upon infants until they come to age; that on the contrary, we know that the effect of Baptism, which is performed immediately by God himself, (sometimes) goes before the very celebration of baptism: therefore we say that, either then, there is some effect, in truth and indeed, when the Sacrament is administered; or else there will never follow after any at all, that is, then our sins are truly remitted, and our adoption made sure to us: but all this, morally, and not by virtue of any inherent force in the outward signs to convey those graces naturally to the receiver by virtue of the outward act performed in such manner as the virtue that is in a potion conveys it self necessarily to the expelling of corrupt humors out of that body into which it is received. This Physical efficacy, as they term it, is a thing which both he and all sound divines do professedly disclaim. To make an end with this Author, He allows an efficacy, we see, expounds himself to mean only a moral efficacy, & this moral efficacy he affirms to be found, not in all; yet in all the elect, as he also presently after declareth himself We rightly say, saith he, that the effects, of the sacraments are to be expected only from their institution; without which the external administration of the outward signs hath in it no force at all. But in this respect (viz. of the institution) the sacraments, of themselves, avail very much; that is, although no actual faith be present to the receiver; as for example, in infants, at least in those that are elect. Thus much of the judgment of Calvin and Chameir, the glory of France, and indeed of all Christendom. I will be very brief, in the rest.

Our next witness shall be that great and profund divine, whom Calvin stiles a most potent man in the Scriptures, Martin Bucer, who treating of the efficacy of baptism, plainly avoucheth that, Baptism saves none of years, but believers. Salvation indeed is offered in baptism unto all; but those of years receive it not, but by faith, and infants, by the secret operation of the holy Ghost, by which they are also sanctified unto external life. Then, for a Conclusion of all that he had said & collected from many scriptures cited to this purpose, he thus shuts up the whole matter. From all these places we now clearly perceive baptism to be commended unto us as an instrument of divine mercy, which God vouchsafeth merely for our sakes to use, whereby he might confer upon his elect, by the ministry of his servants, all these gifts, saving repentance, certain ablution and purgation of our souls, undoubted hope of the resurrection, incorporation unto Christ, putting on of Christ; that is the saving communion, regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Nor is this instrument of baptism less effectual unto all these uses in the elect, whom God hath resolved to regenerate, than is any remedy, how effectual soever, by a natural energy, to give health to a body that is most capable of such remedy, when it is applied thereunto. For on God's word the effect of each thing depends. Yea much more certainly do the elect of God partake of all the forementioned benefits by baptism, than human bodies do receive health by natural means applied. Thus we see Bucer to aver the efficacy of Baptism, not only to persons of years believing, but to infants also: and this, to be ordinarily in the baptism of the Elect, of all the eelct, and only of the elect.

Peter Martyr, writing of the very same subject, and endeavoring to make good the solid doctrine of the Church touching the baptizing of infants, affirms; that, they are not incapable of baptism for want of actual faith, because the spirit, in them supplies the room of faith; nor are they excluded from present efficacy of that ordinance, because that unto them, as well as to the rest of the faithful, the holy Ghost is promised, at that time. His own words are plain and full enough: therefore take the pains to read and mark them. Jn infants, saith he, who by reason of their tender years cannot believe the Holy Ghost supplies the room of faith. Also the effusion of the Holy Ghost is promised in baptism, as the Apostle expressly writes to Titus saying, who saved us by the laver of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed abroad on us abundantly. Afterwards, in the same chapter, he, taking occasion to debate what efficacy, in particular, infants are partakers of, in their baptism, modestly refuseth to determine it punctually: and thus waueth the point; I hold that it is sufficient that we acknowledge they shall be saved, for as much as they, by election and predestination, belong to God's peculiar flock, that they are endowed with the spirit, who is the root of faith, hope, love, and all other graces, which spirit afterwards doth manifest and declare himself in the sons of God, when they come to years.

Musculus of Baptism gives this description: We define baptism to be the sacrament of regeneration, purgation, initiation, sanctification, obsignation, and incorporation into Christ our Savior: For all these are effected in the elect and faithful by the spirit of Christ, of all which graces baptism is the sacrament; so as in it this may rightly be said to be done, because truly and spiritually it is effected by the spirit of Christ. If any think to object against me that Musculus speaks this of the faithful, and so, understands it not of infants? I answer out of Musculus himself; All infants belonging to Christ, borne of Christian parents, and being of the number of the faithful, are rightly said to be in the faith of Christ, to be faithful, and believers, although as yet, they be not endued with actual faith. Besides he that saith, Christians being elect are, by the Holy Ghost, engraffed into Christ, in baptism, must not exclude elect infants; for as much as none but infants are now usually baptized in the Church. Therefore he must be understood of what baptism doth ordinarily effect upon infants; or else his definition is very improper; yea, false, being applied to children, beside whom there are none (unless in some rare cases of proselytes) baptized in these latter times.

Francis Junius, in his Theses of Paedobapt. speaks as fully to this point, as any of the rest. If, saith he; all the elect are to be baptized into the body of Christ, if moreover all of them, as well infants as persons of years ought to put on Christ, then, to separate thē from the body of Christ, and not to engraffe them into Christ, were a most wicked thing. And again a little after, When infants (What infants he means, he had sufficiently expressed before: viz. elect infants) are baptized; God doth both offer, and confer all the good things of the Covenant, and engageth himself unto it. In another place, thus: Baptism is a sacred action of God washing those that be he his own, inwardly, with the washing of the spirit; outwardly with the washing of water. Mat 3. John. 1. and elsewhere. These two therefore, the water, and the spirit, the washing of water, and the washing of the spirit, are relatives, And the relation it self is that application or union of these one to another according to the nature of relatives, which constitutes the form of the sacrament. Wherefore as a man in human actions doth, with his soul and body produce both an inward and an outward action in one and the same operation, in which as the soul is said to be the form of the body, so is the inward action, after a sort; the formal; and the external, the material part of the action: even so after the same manner God, by his spirit and by water, doth perform both an internal and an external action, in one and the same operation; in which, the inward washing by the spirit is the formal part; and the external washing with water, is the material part of that his action; according to that of John the Baptist, I indeed baptize you with water, &c. but he that cometh after me shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, &c. This passage passing from that learned man in a scholastical confutation of a subtle adversary, is perhaps more abstruse then it can be fully understood of an ordinary reader; yet all that are judicious cannot see less in it than this: viz that in the judgment of Junius, that is not held for Baptism of the elect, wherein God doth not ordinarily accompany the outward administration of that sacrament with some inward work of the spirit inwardly washing the soul, as well as the water outwardly washeth the body, in the Lauer of Regeneration.

But what manner of work that is, which is ordinarily performed by the spirit, in the matter of Regeneration, the same Author also describeth in the place first cited, where he thus distinguisheth of regeneration, and then explains himself in what sense he affirmeth infants elect to be regenerated in baptism. Touching regeneration, it is one way to be considered in the foundation, that is to say, in Christ the habit thereof; and another way, in us, in the act thereof. The first regeneration (which may be termed a transplantation out of the old Adam into the new,) is as a cause; and the other followeth as an effect thereof. Of the former Christ speaketh in the 3 ^d of John. The Apostle joins both together in Rom. 6. With this (to wit the first) elect infants are regenerated when they are set into Christ, the obsignation whereof is made over unto them in the time wherein they are baptized. Thus we see the point receiving clear testimony from this witness also, as full as can be desired, if all the passages of the Author be laid together, and considered with impartial eyes.

In the next place let us inquire of Zanchius what he thinketh of this point. We are in part informed already what his judgment is: but this being the place which is proper for him to give up his verdict in, let us hear him more at large in his own words. He, in the Confession of his faith, thus speaks of baptism. Baptism is the first sacrament of the new covenant wherein all that either by repentance and profession of faith in Christ, and so, in God the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost, or by reason of their parents piety are believed to pertain to the covenant, 1. Cor. 7.4. but especially they that do truly belong to the Covenant, are sealed up for Christ, as being even then incorporated into him by the Holy Ghost: that they might no longer be their own, but his, through whom they are said to be received into the society of the covenant, and so into one body with him and with all the saints, and into the participation of all spiritual and celestial blessings. Act. 19.5. 1. Cor. 6.19 By this baptism, as by the Lauer of regeneration, they are cleansed from their sins by the virtue of Christ's blood, and are buried with Christ into death: that as he rose again from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life. Whence also it is called the sacrament of repentance for remission of sin, the sacrament of faith, the badge of the covenant, the Lauer of Regeneration, &c. Lo here an efficacy of baptism, and an efficacy unto regeneration, even in infants also belonging truly and indeed to the covenant of grace, as well as to persons of years attaining unto actual faith and repentance.

And least any man should stumble at the ambiguity of some words here used, we may find Zanchius expressing himself almost in the same terms which I used at the beginning of this treatise in the explicatiō of my distinction of initial, and actual regeneration; for which they who term me a Dreamer, must also take him; and the Fathers into the same number: for, thus He: Not unfitly do the Fathers teach, that effect of the holy Ghost moving upon the Waters, which Moses describeth in Gen. 1. to be a resemblance of that which the Holy Ghost performeth in the water of Baptism. For as there he rested upon those waters, that he might cherish and prepare them for the producing of living creatures, and for the generation of all things: so the Holy Ghost sits upon the waters of baptism, and sits as it were abroad upon them, and blesseth them, and thence doth cherish, regenerate and animate the elect, and makes them fruitful unto all good works. The Holy Ghost then, doth rest upon the waters (not in the shape of a dove as some absurdly picture him; but yet truly in a spiritual manner, as best becomes him) and doth communicate himself therewith unto elect infants, for producing of future actual newness of life, not presently, but in due time and order, in them. It were easy to add to this great cloud of witnesses, many more : but I must of necessity contract myself; I will therefore mention only two more of this sort; and then draw nearer home to our own Divines.

One of the two I mean to cite, is Lambertus Daneus, an Author of great learning and note in the Church, He, in his learned & fruitful commentary upon S ^t Augustine's Enchiridion, cap. 52. (Where that Father quoting that of the Apostle in Rom. 6. we are buried with him by baptism into death, and avouching that this belongs even to infants as well as to others;) allows that saying of Augustine, being restrained to the elect, and understood only of initial regeneration, as I had occasion to note before. His own words are these. Therefore little infants that are the elect of God, have faith and regeneration; although the works thereof do not yet appear to us: and those gifts they have, according to the condition of their age; that is to say, according to the capacity of the subject receiving the same.

The other is that famous Vossius now so much bought up of all learned men, He, in defense of the baptism of infants, after arguments to confirm the truth, adds answers to the principal objections of the Anabaptists pleading against it. And to that so often iterated cavil, that infants ought not to be baptized because they want faith, shapes this answer. Jt is of no validity which they urge, namely that unbelievers ought not to be baptized. For one may be said to be an unbeliever two ways. viz. negatively, so he that is indeed destitute of the habit of faith, yet is not polluted with the contrary habit of infidelity: or positively, as he that both wants the habit of faith and also labors under the contrary of unbelief. Infants are unbelievers only negatively; that is they have not yet the habit of faith, of which they are not for the present capable. Notwithstanding, they are capable of the spirit of faith, by which the soul receives a spiritual and supernatural being, and that is the principle or beginning of all spiritual operations, and is effectual in his due time, and remains in a man even when there is a cessation of the actions of it. If they were without this spirit, infants could not be united unto Christ, nor be made members of his mystical body, and so neither should they be partakers of the privileges of the Church which are contained in the Creed. Although therefore infants have not actual faith, yet this ought no more to keep them off from baptism, than meat ought to be denied them, because the Apostle saith; he that will not work let him not eat . Here we see an initial regeneration taken for granted, and so described, and so described also as there is no need of labor to draw it home to my present purpose: Thus have I made good what I undertook in producing the judgment of many foreign Divines of best note in the Church. If any complain of length and tediousness in citing so many, let them consider that they are not a few that bandy themselves against this truth, and stick not to give out in all places; that there is not one of all those Authors which I have alleged, but rather makes against me than for me: of which now let the equal and able reader judge.

CAP. 8. The judgment of some Divines of special note in our Owne Church.

WHat judicious Hooker, M ^r Thomas Rogers; D ^r Ames, M ^r Ainsworth, & the Author of the English commentary upon S ^t Paul's Epistle to Titus, have written touching this point, I have already shown in the third and fourth chapters of this Treatise: by which it is evident that I am not the first that have set abroach this doctrine in the Church of England, nor the first English man that hath published this point to the world; although it be my hard hap to be first challenged for it. I will not in this place repeat what hath been formerly produced out of any of these, nor yet stay you with a large view of all those that, upon further search, might be added unto these, to witness the same truth with them. It shall suffice that I allege only these 6. viz. Bishop Jewel, Doctor Whitaker, Doctor Francis White now Lord Bishop of Norwich, Doctor Davenant, now Lord Bishop of Salisbury, Doctor Fulk, and the learned Author of the second Parallells.

1 I begin with that rare and much honored and admired Jewel, the first champion of our English Church, since the last happy reformation, that, (both by public Apology for our refusing to communicate any longer with the present Romish synagogue, and also, by open challenge made to that side, for proving their principal tenets now in difference between us, to have been so much as known to the Ancient Fathers for the doctrine of truth, within the first six hundred years after Christ; ) entered the lists with that great Goliath, in the name of the Church of England, and came off so happily, that all that wish well to the truth, do, to this day, (and forever, shall) call him blessed. What testimony & approbatiō this worthy man's works frequently received from our late learned K. James, they, who last published B. Jewels Works, in their Epistle Dedicatory, to give public witness: viz. that they have long and frequently upon all occasions had a most singular testimony & approbation of his Majesty for the most rare and admirable works that have been written in this last age of the World. And what general acceptance they find in the whole Church of England, is evident by this, that every parish in England is enjoined to buy them, and to have them opē in the parish Churches, for all that desire instruction in the truth, to read and pervse. And lastly, what extraordinary approbation he received from the most judicious and eminent divines beyond the seas, their frequent epistles, and dedication of books unto him (of which we may read in the history of his life) do amply declare. Therefore I think that what I allege out of him, may justly be received (if not as the doctrine it self of the Church of England, yet) as that which no judicious son of this Church will refuse as dissonant from, much less repugnant to the public doctrine of our Church, but as most agreeable both unto it, and unto the truth of God maintained therein.

This Chariot of Israel and Father of our Church, in his Apology of the Church of England (which was first written in latin and translated almost into all languages, for the great esteem it received in all the Churches of God,) speaking of the sacraments, and denying transubstantiation in the Lord's supper, thus saith: And in speaking thus we mean not to abase the Lord's supper, or to teach, that it is but a cold ceremony only, & nothing to be wrought therein: (as many falsely slander us that we teach.) For we affirm that CHRIST DOTH TRULY AND PRESENTLY give himself in his Sacraments. In baptism that we may put him on: and in his supper that we may eat him by faith and spirit, and may have everlasting life by his Cross and blood. And we say not, this is done slightly or coldly, but effectually and truly. Now, in this passage this renowned Prelate makes no difference between the efficacy of the sacraments; he allows a presence of Christ in the one, as well as in the other: he professeth, that in Baptism Christ is as truly put on, as he is fed upon in the Supper: and when he saith that, in the Supper he is fed upon by faith and the spirit, saying no such thing of the necessity of faith for putting on of Christ in Baptism, when an infant is baptized: he plainly yieldeth that, in baptism of infants that truly and indeed belong to God, Christ is truly and indeed put on, although they be not endued with actual faith, which is required of persons grown to years of discretion. And when M. Harding quarrelled him for this, and charged him of error, in making the presence of Christ in baptism, like to his presence in the supper. He thus answers; Here is one error more then any of the learned Catholic Fathers ever noted. Saint Chrysostom saith; In the sacrament of Baptism we are made flesh of Christ's flesh, and bone of his bones. Saint Bernard. saith Lavemur in sanguine eius: Let us be washed in his blood. Leo saith: Christi sanguine rigaris quando in mortem ipsius baptizaris: Thou art washed in the blood of Christ, when thou art baptized into his death. By these few it may appear, that Christ is present at the sacrament of baptism, as he is present at the holy supper: unless ye will say, we may be made flesh of Christ's flesh, and be washed in his blood, and be partakers of him, and have him present without his presence. Therefore Chrysostom, when he had spoken vehemently of the sacrament of the supper, he concludeth thus; Sic & in baptismo, even so it is also in the sacrament of baptism. The body of Christ is likewise present in them both. And for that cause Beda saith (and he saith it out of Saint Augustine,) nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum, tunc vnumquem{que} fidelium Corporis sanguinis{que} Dominici participem fieri, quando in Baptismate membrum Christi efficitur. No man may doubt, but every faithful man is THEN made partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made the member of Christ. All this B. Jewel urgeth out of the Fathers, and by approving their doctrine, confoundeth his Adversary. If any question be made of the word faithful, I have sufficiently shown how that is to be taken. And if Saint Augustine be not mistaken, he tells us that even Infants were reckoned among the faithful; nor was there ever any question among the Fathers in any Age of the Church, but that elect infants did receive remission of sin, in baptism; and by consequent, regeneration, for as much as these two are inseparable. All this, that reverend Jewel, very well knew; yet is not afaid to subscribe to their doctrine. Yea, in the same Apology, he thus particularly delivereth his judgment concerning infants: We say that Baptism is a sacrament of there-mission of sins, and of that washing which we have in the blood of Christ: and that no person that will profess Christ's name, ought to be restrained or kept back there from: no not the very babes of Christians; for as much as they be borne in sin, and do pertain unto the people of God. I think his words are plain enough to prove that infants partake of remission of sin, in Baptsme: because, saith he, baptism is a sacrament of remission, and because infants are to be baptized upon this ground, viz: (not only because they are part of God's heritage; but) upon this ground, that they be borne in sin. Now, if they ought to be baptized unto remission of sin, because borne in sin, will any man, well in his wits, conclude other then thus; therefore they do partake of remission of sin in Baptism.

I do imagine some will be ready to pull me by the sleeve, and say; I pray, Sir, look again, B. Jewel, calls baptism the Sacrament of Remission, not remission it self: and this he may do, yet never hold remission of sins to be conferred in baptism of infants; but only that it is a seal of that grace hereafter to be conferred, when by faith they apply the same?

Indeed so M. Harding the Papist would needs understand him, charging him and the rest of the Protestants, with speaking too slenderly of baptism, in that they call it a sacrament of Remission; whereby (if ye will believe him,) they mean that it is only a sign or token, or at the best but a seal of our new birth; and not believing with the Catholic Church, accord • ng to the Scriptures, that in and by baptism sins be fully and truly remitted, and put away. All this M. Harding would father upon our Church, but pray mark the note that Jewel puts in the margent (pag: 217) over against that calumny of Harding viz. untruth. For we say not so.

And whereas M. Harding is pleased to go on in his railing vein, professing that the Church believes that remission of sins is given in baptism; and that, not through the faith only of the giver or receiver, or of any other, (though hereunto it be necessary in those that be come to age of discretion;) but through the power and virtue of the sacrament, and God's promise. B. Jewel, to that word faith, gives this note in the margent; This tale is needless, and out of season. As if he should say, in the baptism of infants, we require not faith, but rely only on God's promise. For so, more at large, in his answer to Harding, He explicates himself. First, he granteth it as a truth, that the sacrament dependeth, neither of the minister, nor of the receiver, nor of any other: for though they be all the children of sin, yet is baptism the sacrament of remission of sin. The place he alledgeth out of Saint Augustine, speaks his mind plainly, that, he depends upon Christ himself for the efficacy of baptism, and not upon the faith of the receiver, if he be an infant, of which only the question between Him and Harding was (by Harding himself) put up, who chargeth the Protestants with denying the present efficacy of baptism unto Remission of sins upon infants, for want of actual faith.

Notwithstanding, because the Adversary is so brag and confident that the Fathers stood not upon faith in the baptizing of infants, the Bishop is pleased a little to take down his pride, and to discover his ignorance in the Fathers, and shows out of S. Augustine and S. Jerome, that to the intent Baptism might be effectual unto infants, they thought it requisite that the faith of their parents should then be employed on their behalf, and be imputed to them. But yet for his own part he professeth his dissent from that opinion, although, it might be further backed out of Justin Martyr; S. Cyprian, and Saint Jerome. For thus they write, saith he: How truly, I will not say. But their words be plain. The Prophet Habbacuck saith, Iustus ex fide suâ vivet, the just man shall live (not by the faith of his parents but) by his own faith. Then he approveth a speech of Augustine more consonant to the truth, affirming that Infants have faith of their own, because they have baptism which is the sacrament of faith: for he saith; quemadmodum sacramentum corporis Christi, secundum quendam modum, corpus Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. As the sacrament of Christ's body (not verily and indeed, but) after a certain manner of speech, is Christ's body: so baptism is faith, because it is the sacrament of faith. Therefore saith Jewel Cardinal Caietane is worthily blamed by Catharinus, in that he saith, An infant for that he wanteth instruction in faith, therefore hath not perfect baptism. Out of all which I can pick no other English but this: There is no necessity that we should hold a necessity of faith in infants: yet, if they have any, it is but improperly so called, it is that, not which they brought with them to the sacrament; but that which they are reputed to receive in the sacrament it self. And this, in effect, is the very doctrine of Calvin, set forth at large in the former chapter: viz. that it is not requisite always that a Christian should bring grace unto baptism, to make him capable of the grace of baptism; but he must come to baptism that there he may receive it, if he be not of years; as he that is of years, receives a confirmation of that which was wrought in him before. And so much this same Bishop in his Reply to M. Hardings Answer. Art. 1. Div. 13. (of which place we shall perhaps have fitter occasion afterwards to speak) in effect declareth also.

For the present, you see, that what ever becomes of the faith of infants, he joins with Catharinus in condemning of Caietane denying infants to be perfectly baptized for want of instruction in faith. Then, he expresseth that, as the Antient Fathers did, so doth he hold baptism to be efficacious; yet not the outward element, but the spirit of Christ doth the deed when it is effected. In brief, he denies not the thing to be conferred even on infants, but only the manner which the Romanists contend for. They say that the blood and spirit of Christ is in the very outward clement, by the consecration of the Priest, as the virtue of healing is natural in a medicine, and that ex opere operato by virtue of the bare outward administration of that sacrament everyone partakes certainly and indeed of the inward grace. This, The founder Fathers disclaimed, as we have proved at large, & this B. Jewel makes good out of them, against his adversary, that the inward grace comes from God immediately, and not from the water, or outward act of the minister In sum, he thus shuts up the whole matter, As for that M. Harding here toucheth as an error defended by certain, I know not by whom, that haptisme giveth not full remission of sins, he may command it home again to Lovaine amongst his fellows, and join it with other of his and their vanities. For it is no part nor portion of our doctrine. We confess and have evermore taught that in the sacrament of Baptism, by the death and blood of Christ is given remission of all manner sins: and that not in half, or in part, or by way of imagination, or by fancy, but full, whole, & perfect of all together: so that now, as Saint Paul saith, there is no condemnation to them that be in Christ Jesus.

I hope no man duly considering the controversy between him and Harding, will have the face to say that the Bishop speaks not this of the present efficacy of baptism, but of that which at actual conversion is to be expected. For the thing whereof Harding complains is this that, we deny the present efficacy of baptism, and make it only a sign, or at best but a seal to confirm future grace, until we have attained actual faith. And the answer what it is, you now see: viz. that we allow and teach that in baptism is given full remission of all sins; which if the Bishop should not mean of the present effect of baptism, his adversary might justly complain for want of answer to his unjust complaint.

Thus much then we have gained out of this Judicious Father, that, at least, remission of sins is ordinarily communicated to infants, in their baptism, when it is administered. And, if remission of sins be then given, it must needs be yielded further, that he held that, the spirit of God is communicated, then also, unto infants, for the applying of that benefit unto them. Therefore in the very same place, he voucheth a passage of Cyprian to this purpose; Remissio peccatorum, &c. The remission of sins, whether it be given by baptism or by any other sacraments, is indeed of the Holy Ghost: and to the same Holy Ghost only the privilege of this work doth appertain. The solemnity of the words, and the invocation of God's holy name, and the outward signs appointed to the ministry of the Priests by the Apostolical institutions, work the visible outward sacrament, but touching the substance thereof (which is the remission of sins) it is the holy Ghost that worketh it. Likewise, saith Saint Jerome, Homo aquam tantum tribuit, The Minister being a man giveth only the water, but God giveth the Holy Ghost, whereby the sins be washed away.

If any passionate opposite should be so far transported, as to object; that all that have been hitherto spoken out of Bishop Jewel, tends only to prove that Remission of sin is given to infants in Baptism, which is another thing from the present point of Regeneration: therefore all this is as much as nothing to the purpose?

I answer, first, that this objection is so silly that it deserves no answer; for what Author ever taught plenary Remission of all sins to be given to him, that doth not in some measure partake of the spirit unto sanctification? was it ever known that these two were separated? Why then is it required that our author should in express terms affirm both; or else, be denied to allow of both, although he expressly avouch it of the one of them He had no occasion to speak directly touching Regeneration, nor could he well do it, without digression. For the Question between him and his Antagonist was only touching the present efficacy of Baptism unto Remission of sin: if therefore he should have fallen upon the other, he should idly have run out of his way, and fallen upon another controversy not so much as named by the Aduerse party.

Notwithstanding, that I may not leave the least shadow of an argument unanswered, secondly, I add that, the same author, in his Treatise of the sacrament, affirms the efficacy of baptism unto Regeneration also. For of Baptism in particular, he thus speaketh. Baptism is our regeneration or new birth, whereby we are borne anew in Christ, and are made the sons of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven, it is the sacrament of the remission of sins, and of that washing which we have in the blood of Christ. And a little after, among other places of holy scripture by him alleged, for proof hereof, he brings that of our Savior in John 3. Except a man be borne of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God; and then addeth; for this cause are infants baptized, because they are borne in sin, and cannot become spiritual, but by this new birth of the water and the spirit. They are the heirs of the promise; the covenant of God's favor is made unto them, &c.

It is very true that in the very next page, he speaks of the necessity of faith in some that are baptized: for thus he saith; It is the Covenant and promise, and mercy of God, which clotheth us with immortality; assureth our resurrection, by which we receive regeneration, forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. His word declareth his love towards us: and that word is sealed and made good by baptism. Our faith which are baptized, and our continuance in the profession which we have made, establisheth in us this grace which we receive, as it is said, Verus baptismus constat non tam, &c. True baptism standeth not so much in washing of the body, as in faith of the heart. As the doctrine of the Apostles hath taught us saying; by faith purifying their hearts. And in another place; baptism saveth us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the examining of a good conscience before God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore Jerome saith; they that receive not baptism with perfect faith, receive the water, but the Holy Ghost they receive not.

But this no way makes against our position touching the efficacy of baptism upon infants For mark, first, of whom he speaks those words; not universally of all that are baptized; but only, of persons of years. For having in page 265. shown the efficacy of baptism upon infants, at the foot of that page he makes a transition of his speech from infants, and comes on to declare the efficacy it hath upon others also. His words are these: And as the children of the faithful by right ought to be baptized: so such others also as were borne of unbelieving parents, and were aliens from the common wealth of Israel, and were strangers from the covenant of promise, and had no hope, if they acknowledge the error in which they lived, and seek the forgiveness of their former sins, may well receive this sacrament of their regeneration. So, when they which heard Peter, were pricked in their hearts, and said to Peter and the other Apostles: Men and brethren what shall we do, Peter said unto them. Amend your lives, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. They were buried with Christ by baptism into his death, & made partakers of his blood, and continued in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship. Then he goes on with his discourse of these, in the words before cited out of the 266 page. Now in all this there is not one word of infants, of whom he had spoken before; and so that passage cannot be taken as a deny all of the efficacy of Baptism in any without faith, save only in persons of years. And if this were not thus to be understood, he should directly contradict all that he had before spoken of the regeneration of infants, in whom there is no actual faith, by his own confession, in his defense against Harding, as I have shown before: And to make this yet more clear that, he did certainly believe that infants in baptism received some principle of regeneration, although not actual renovation of the whole man, see what he saith afterwards in the same Treatise of the sacraments, touching the state of infants baptized, and of the care of parents in their education. God saith, your children are my children. They are the sons of God. They are borne anew, and well shapen in beautiful proportion: make them not monsters. He is a monster whosoever knoweth not God. By you they are borne into the world, be careful also that by your means they may be begotten unto God, you are carfull to train them up in nature and comely behavior of the body, seek also to fashion their minds unto Godliness. You have brought them to the fountain of baptism to receive the mark of Christ: bring them up in knowledge, and watch over them that they be not lost. So shall they be confirmed and will keep the promise they have made, & will grow up unto perfect age in Christ. He saith, they are borne anew; and yet bids parents be careful that they may be begotten unto God: Therefore he well discerned the distinction of initial and actual regeneration. This is our first answer, and this is abundantly sufficient. Howbeit, secondly, I pray mark, in those words of his that are found in page 266: that even they that have faith, if they be such as were baptized in infancy, are not then said to receive the grace of baptism, when they have faith, as if that were the first time of their reception of grace: but only then they come to be assured and confirmed sensibly and evidently in that which before, in their baptism, they did receive, for so he speaketh in express terms, OUR FAITH which are baptized, and our continuance in the profession which we have made, ESTABLISHETH in us this grace which we RECEIVE. And so, in his Reply to Harding, Artic. 1. Divis. 13. pag. 27. to like effect he speaks of persons of years that their conjunction and incorporation into Christ is first begun and wrought by faith: and then, the same incorporation is assured unto them and increased in baptism. But yet well knowing that it is otherwise with us that were baptized in our infancy, he presently remembereth a place of Saint Augustine touching the baptism of infants, Ad hoc baptisma valet, &c. To this availeth baptism, that men being baptized, may be incorporated into Christ and made his members. Now this must needs be meant of such as are baptized in infancy, or else it were directly contrary to his own assertion immediately preceding, wherein he saith that, some are incorporated by faith, and that incorporation is assured them afterwards in baptism: and then produceth this of Austin, which affirms us by baptism, to be incorporated into Jesus Christ. Therefore he goes on to show of what use the other holy mysteries are unto us that were baptized in infancy, on this manner: And for that we are very imperfect of our selves, and therefore must daily proceed forward, that we may grow into a perfect man in Christ, therefore hath God appointed, that the same incorporation should be often renewed and confirmed in us by the uses of the holy mysteries (which c • nnot be meant of baptism, for that may not be repeated) Wherein must be considered, that the said holy mysteries do not begin, but rather continue and confirm this incorporation. All this which he speaks of the use of the holy mysteries, after incorporation) he speaks, not of baptism, as if either we were ordinarily, by means, first made members and then, baptized: or yet, were not members, although baptized, till by faith we actually apprehend Christ on our parts; (for then, woe to all infants that die in infancy) but he speaks directly of the Lord's supper, when he saith, those mysteries do not begin, but rather continue and confirm this incorporation. And this is clear by the very next clause following: First of all, we our selves must be the body of Christ, and afterwards we must receive the sacrament of Christ's body: as it is well noted by S ^t Augustine, Corpus Christi si vis intelligere, &c. If thou wilt understand the body of Christ, he are what S. Paul saith to the faithful: ye are the body and the members of Christ. Your mystery is set on the Lord's Table. see receive the mystery of the Lord. To conclude then, the sum of all is but thus much. It is not the bare receiving of the Lord's supper, as M. Harding dreamed, that makes us members of Christ: but all that partake of that ordinance, were first, made members of Christ, by faith, if they were such as were not baptized in their infancy, but converted first by the word from gentilisme, and then baptized; for unto such baptism also is a confirmation of their incorporation. But unto all others, baptism is the first ordinary means that initiateth us into Christ; and we, from that time, grow up unto more and more perfection in his body; then we partake of the mystery of the Lord's supper, wherein, and whereby we are yet further nourished and confirmed in the body of Christ: so as M. Harding shot beside the mark when he contendeth that the sacrament of the Lord's supper doth first, unite us unto Christ. And this is all that the Bishop aimed at in all these words.

In the next place, come we to D. Whitaker, whom none but a corrupt Barowist, or Tompsonian will refuse to honor among men of greatest parts and highest worth. He in that learned Treatise of the Sacraments; however he denieth all manner of efficacy to be in the sacraments ex opere operato, by virtue of the mere external administration of the sacrament: yet he everywhere disclaims, as an intolerable calumny, that which Bellarmine & the rest of that rout cease not to lay to our charge: viz. that we make the sacraments, and particularly Baptism, to be without all efficacy at the time of administration: or that we will have sin to be only pared, and not wholly taken away in baptism in respect of the guilt of it. For sin is not only shaven or clipt (as some young thing newly sprout up, which though it be cut, yet the root still stays behind and will presently spring up afresh again, may be said to be) as those absurd obiectors imagine us to hold: but we obtain a double benefit in baptism: the first is remission of sins; the second is regeneration. Remission of sins is perfect: regeneration, in respect of the remainders of sin, and of original sin, that for substance still abideth in us, is then only inchoate, or but in the beginning.

Nor doth he speak this only of persons of years, (that can have neither of these, without actual faith to apprehend them, as he proves strongly and at large, in the first part of that Tractate:) but he affirms it also of infants, that some of them, viz. the elect, are partakers of these graces in their baptism: as may be seen in sundry passages of his book collated; for mark, when Bellarmine objecteth that, some reap benefit by the sacraments without actual faith; and particularly, infants, in their baptism: it is Doctor Whitaker's constant answer, not simply to deny that proposition: but to deny it in two respects only: viz. 1 If the proposition be understood of all infants, because, all are not saved that be baptized. 2 If it be meant that they partake of these graces merely by virtue of the outward work done, or that the outward element should be thought to contain in it any efficacy to convey these graces unto any infant at all: then also he rejecteth it as false: but otherwise he admits it to be true. So doth he receive the counsel of Nice; so, the Mileuitane counsel which speaks expressly of infants thus: Little children who yet cannot commit any actual sins of their own, are therefore truly baptized for the remission of sins, that so that filth which they have contracted by generation, might be purged out by regeneration. True, saith he, we deny not Baptism to be the sacrament of regeneration even to infants: but not by virtue of the external work done. Yea, but (you will say) he denies this to be done in all infants? True; and so do I. But, of what sort are they that he admitteth to partake of the efficacy of Baptism? Surely none but the Elect. For, thus He: Jn baptism, as God doth signify the remission of sins and salvation, so indeed he works the same: and the truth of the things is i • ined together with the sign, in the ELECT. Again; Wherefore it is false that Bellarmine affirms that Infants with us are baptized, only that they might become members of the visible Church: for neither were the Infants of the Jews circumcised only for that reason; but that the sign of God's covenant might be stamped on them, which although it profit not such as are neither regenerated nor predestinated, notwithstanding it is available in the Elect, in such manner as is well known to God. For such Infants as being elected, do die in infancy, God reneweth by the power of his spirit: but if it happen that they live, they are thereby the more incited to the study of renovation, the badge whereof they then come to know that they received in Infancy. Therefore although they be baptized Infants, yet they will not always remain such; but at length, if they live, they will feel the force of that baptism, which in their infancy they did receive. And yet again, to that objection of Bellarmine that, Infants are saved without actual faith, by baptism alone; he answers by denying that, only Baptism saveth them; for, saith he, many Jnfants do perish that are baptized; and many are saved that were never baptized : and a little after, If that were true which Bellarmine affirmeth that Infants are saved only by baptism, then all that are baptized should be saved. But there is another cause also of the salvation of Jnfants: viz. God's goodness, grace, and Election. By all which it is evident that D ^r . Whitaker, ever restrained the efficacy of Baptism to the Elect only, and unto them he never denied it.

And that he meant some present work of the Spirit to be wrought upon elect Infants in the act of baptism, will appear farther by his approving of all that the ancient Fathers have spoken touching this point. Now, we know that they were all for a present efficacy of baptism even upon Infants as well as others, as before hath been declared. I will not repeat what I have there alleged; only I will add one place more out of S ^t Augustine. It is no fable that we say Remission of sins is given in the baptism even of Infants: nor is it said only to make a show, but it is verily done.

This is not disliked, but both this and all the speeches of the Fathers produced by Bellarmine, are approved by our Author, being rightly understood: viz not as if they held that the outward elements could convey this to every infant by virtue of the outward work done; but that the grace of Baptism cometh immediately from God, and is wrought by the spirit, as he declareth out of Basil. Yea he is not afraid to add; that, however Calvin & Luther were pleased to say that some things were spoken by the Fathers hyperbolically, and that sometimes we shall meet with advancings of the Sacraments beyond measure, in their writings, which no doubt they took liberty to do, merely to preserve them from contempt, and to prefer them before the Sacraments of the Jews: notwithstanding to say the truth, there is not one of all those places quoted by Bellarmine, but will admit of a good construction, without any hyperbole at all: Thus He. And if we observe how, everywhere, he expounds them, we shall find him thus to sense them: viz. that what they say must be taken not as intending to place any efficacy in the outward element; nor, that grace is given to any but to the Elect; & to them, not by virtue of the outward Baptism outwardly administered, but by the immediate operation of the Spirit in that Ordināce, as both the places already alleged, together with many moe, too long to recite in this place, do sufficiently prove.

Moreover, when he cometh professedly to treat of the efficacy of Baptism, and of the saith of infants, he first avoucheth that, many Protestant Divines, however they ascribe not actual faith to Infants, yet they affirm that certain good inclinations & new motions are wrought in them, when they are baptized. Which opinion he doth not, I confess, take into his protection; because he hath afterwards occasion given him to disclaim that imputation cast upon Protestants by Bellarmine; that they ascribe actual faith to Infants: (which, he acknowledgeth, to have once unadvisedly fallen from Luther; ) and to make it good that infants do not receive so much as the habit of that or any other particular grace, in baptism, as the Papists contend. Howbeit in that very passage he declares enough to clear me of novelty, for as much as many Divines have gone farther then I have done: for they that affirm that in baptism, there are some good inclinations and new motions, in Infants, must needs acknowledge the reception of the Spirit, by which those motions are infused: and so they affirm all that I do, and so much more. And thus that Mirrour of learning Phillip Melancthon, held, in his Common place of Baptism: as our Author also hath observed before me. And this those Divines use to term seminal or potential grace.

But what should I stand beating of many bushes? In the Chapter now last cited, D ^r Whitaker speaks plain enough: for having spoken somewhat of Calvin's opinion touching the work of grace in Infants, he proceeds to Peter Martyr, whose opinion he first briefly, yet fully, sets down; then, explaineth it and embraceth it as the truth. In substance thus he writes. Peter Martyr, a man of most profound judgment, saith, he dares not embrace their opinion, that ascribe faith to infants: not but that God can if he will, infuse faith into them, and enable them to reason before the ordinary time; & cause, that though they do neither understand, nor know the things which are to be believed, notwithstanding the spirit, in them, may apprehend and give consent to those things, for them; as the spirit is said to make intercession for us unto God, even when we know not what to pray for, as we ought; and then God, who knows the mind of the spirit, heareth the same: Howbeit seeing the. Scriptures do not say that infants do believe, nor doth this seem necessary to them unto salvation, he thinks it sufficient that we say that they who are saved, (for as much as they are part of God's peculiar by Predestination and election;) are endued with the Holy Ghost, who is the root of faith, hope, charity, and all other virtues which afterward he produceth and declareth in God's children, when they come to years. Thus far he voucheth the words of Peter Martyr: then he goes on in his own words thus to illustrate the same; They may therefore be called faithful, or believers, as they may be said to be reasonable creatures. For although infants cannot rationally discourse, yet they have a soul, whereby, when they come to some years, they may be able to discourse. So that, they are called reasonable creatures, not because they have present use of their reasonable faculty, but by reason of the principle of reason in them; to wit, the reasonable soul which is capable of all arts and sciences. Therefore (we say) express faith is required in all of years, but in infants, only faith begun or in his first principle or root, namely the HOLY GHOST with which they are endued, and from whom faith and other graces, in due time, do, flow or issue forth. For infants are purged by the spirit, seeing they are in the Church, and of the Church. Christ sanctified his Church, purging it in the Lauer of water through the word. If then they belong to the Church, they are adorned with the spirit. if they be received up into heaven, they are then purged by the spirit.

The former passage is abundantly sufficient both to prove that I have not abused Peter Martyr, and that D. Whitaker is fully of the same judgment with him. Yet let me have leave (since I promised much out of this Author) to allege a place or two more to the same purpose. In the next page following that we last cited, answering that of Bellarmine who objecteth that Christ is said to dwell in infants by faith, & therefore they must needs have the habit of faith? He answers thus. But this may as well be understood of actual faith (which Bellarmine denies to be in them) as of the habit (which the Jesuit saith they have) And what if we should say that Christ dwells in none, but such as actually believe? (he means, what would Bellarmine have to plead against it, seeing he maintains habitual fa • th:) But even infants have both the act and habit of faith in the seed thereof that is to say, in the Holy Ghost, as we before spake. Lastly the Jesuit saith, that Augustine teacheth that there is a secret grace infused into infants when they are baptized? I answer, so say we too: but Augustine saith not, the habit of faith is infused; but, grace: and Bellarmine knows not what to make of this grace, whether he should call it charity, joined with faith and hope, or any other quality with which all these graces are perpetually linked. But whoever heard of such a quality which is neither faith, hope, nor love, & yet hath all these conjoined with it? Grace may be infused without either the act or habit of any of these. S. Austustine seems to be of this opinion, that this grace is the Holy Ghost which indeed worketh faith, but not instantly, in infants.

I will not dissemble that, in the next chapter, D ^r Whitaker, taking upon him to lay open the Doctrine of the Fathers, touching the faith by which infants are partakers of the grace of Baptism, and are saved, if they die in infancy; is very loath to declare himself against that charitable conceit of Antiquity: viz. that for as much as infants having in them no sin, that is, every way their own, but original, which is done away in baptism, if any faith be farther required to bring them to heaven, in case they then depart this life, they may be saved by the faith of their parents. But this he doth, as admitting this rather then the other touching actual or habitual faith of their own, which, in the ordinary course, he thinks (as all other judicious Divines ever do, and ever did to be very incongruous and absurd, whether we consider the nature of grace, or the capacity of nature in an infant for reception of such grace. But, for a Conclusion (however he, following the judgment of many more in the ancient schools of the Papists themselves , will not hear of any infusion of so much as of the habit of faith, in infants;) he cometh back to his former position, wherein we saw his accord with Peter Martyr, and S. Augustine, and shuts up all, thus; But although infants have not habitual faith, yet we say that they are purged by the holy Ghost, and made new creatures, for as much as flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, and unless they be borne again of water and of the spirit, they cannot enter into the kingdom of God: therefore we conclude that the spirit of God worketh in them in such a manner as cannot by us be expressed. I willingly admit that this purging and renewing of infants, which he speaks of, is to be understood of the work of the Spirit in such as die in infancy, and are saved. Howbeit he yieldeth the spirit to be in all the rest also that belong to God's election, although the same effects be not produced till they co •• to age, as those two plain and pregnant p •• ces alleged but now our of his 5. Chapter concerning the efficacy of baptism, clearly and fully proclaim to all the world. And so I have done with him also.

Our next witness is that learned Doctor Francis White, now L. Bishop of Norwich, in his Answer to Fisher the Jesuit, whom though I have alleged before, and might therefore well be excused if I should pass him over here. Yet because some that are resolved never to assent to this truth, when they see or hear any testimony produced out of any good Author that is clearly for me, they use to shift it off, among those that either cannot, or will not, examine the Authors themselves, with this aspersion cast upon me; It is true, say they, that he makes a noise with quotations out of many Authors: but how? He catcheth up here and there a word, or a sentence that seemeth to make for his purpose, and useth them quite contrary to the Authors meanings, as would easily appear by examination of what goeth before and follows after, in those Authors. I am therefore constrained to be tedious, in many things, not only to others, but to myself also, in being more large then I intended at the first, merely to vindicate myself from that, which, I am afraid, they too well know that they unjustly lay to my charge, upon all occasions. And for this reason am I compelled to repeat what formerly I alleged out of this Author, and to add thereunto all that he hath spoken of the point; that it may be manifest that I have not wronged him, as some give out to their disciples.

The charge which Fisher cometh on withal, upon all Protestants at once, is this; Their errors against Baptism, the gate and entrance into Christian life, whereof they deny the virtue to sanctify men, and the necessity thereof for infants, to whom they grant salvation without Baptism. In which complaint the Jesuit would fain persuade, that Protestants deny both the efficacy, and the necessity of Baptism. Our Author answers him to both particulars We have here to deal only with the former, touching which the whole passage runs thus. viz.

Although some persons have been Christians before their Baptism, as S. Augustine saith of Cornclius. Even as in Abraham the justice of faith was precedent, and the seal of circumcision followed after: so likewise in Cornelius, spiritual sanctification, by the gift of the Holy Ghost, went before, and the Sacrament of Regeneration in the Laver of baptism succeeded; yet notwithstanding, the ordinary gate, and entrance into Christian life is baptism. S. Ambrose (sive Prosper) d. vocat. Gent. li. 1. ca. 5. The beginning of true life and righteousness, is laid in the Sacrament of regeneration, that look where man is new borne, there also the verity of virtues themselves may spring.

Neither do Protestants deny the virtue and efficacy of Baptism, to sanctify men; But according to the Holy scriptures, Ephes. 5.26. Tit. 3.5. Gal. 3.27. 1 Pet 3 21. Act. 22.16. Rom. 6.3. And the ancient church, they teach and maintain, that this sacrament is an instrument of sanctification, and remission of sins. The Liturgy of the Church of England, in the form of administration of Baptism, hath these words: Seeing now D.B. that these children be regenerate, &c. We yield thee hearty thanks most merciful father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy holy spirit, to receive him for thine own chi • d by adoption, &c. And master Hooker saith; Baptism is a Sacrament which God hath instituted, in his Church, to the end, that they which receive the same, might be incorporated into Christ, and so through his most precious merit, obtain as well that saving grace of imputation, which taketh away all former guiltiness, and also that infused divine virtue of the holy Ghost, which giveth to the powers of the soul their first disposition toward future newness of life. Zanchius hath these words, When the Minister baptizeth, I believe that Christ with his hand reached as it were from heaven be sprinkleth, the child baptized with water, with his blood, to remission of sins. And in another place, The Holy Ghost moveth upon the water of Baptism, and sanctifieth the same, making it to be a Lauer of Regeneration. Calvin saith, Per Baptismum Christus nos mortis suae participes fecit, vt in eam inseramur, By baptism Christ hath made us partakers of his death, that we may be engraffed into it. And in another place; If any demand, how can infants which want understanding be regenerate? I answer, Although we are not able to fathom or unfold the manner of this work of God, yet it followeth not from thence, that the same is not done.

And the same Author, with others of his part, maintain the former doctrine concerning the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism, and they differ only from Lutherans and Pontificians. First, in that they restrain the grace of Sanctification only to the elect. Secondly, in that they deny external baptism to be always effectual, at the very instant time when it is administered. Thus far our Author, word for word. I forbear to add his margent, because I am here to use his words, and not his Authors, from whom he had them. We see that, in the name of all sound Protestants, he professeth an efficacy of baptism even in infants elected; and this, he tells us, is the doctrine of our Church, of Antiquity both in respect of particular Fathers, and of whole Councils also; and this is the professed doctrine of Mr Hooker, Zanchius, Calvin, and of all others that are not Lutherans and Papists. So as now, our Author must by all men be confessed to be a Lutheran and a Papist, (from both which, in that whole work, he sufficiently cleareth himself) or else to be directly, fully, and every way of the same opinion with our Church in this point, touching the efficacy of Baptism in and upon the elect only.

Fourthly, I produce that learned & worthy successor of Bishop Jewel in Sarisbury, D. Davenant, now L. Bishop of Sarum, whose worth is so well known, that no man that knows a profound scholar and sound Divine, but will yield him to be of the highest form. He, in his excellent Commentary that he lately put forth in Latin, upon the epistle to the Collossians, saith thus, (upon those words of the Apostle Collos. 2.12 buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, &c.) Not only in the person of Christ, but also in our own selves our sins are said to be buried in baptism: because that mortification and burial of sin is performed not only sacramentally in the very moment of baptism; but also really, by the spirit of grace received IN BAPTISME throughout the whole life of a Christian. And a little after, when he speaks of mortification as a grace actually wrought, he saith that, it is rather a thing not yet begun, then in the actual work done, in our baptism. And afterwards, in exposition of that clause, in whom also ye are risen by the faith of the operation of God, he thus explicates the meaning thereof; The Apostle doth not in vain require faith, to the end we may obtain the benefit of a spiritual resurrection. For as in the baptism of those of years, precedent faith is required, according to that of our Savior Mar. 16.16. He that believeth, and is baptized shall be saved: so, of those that are baptized in infancy, future faith is required: which if they perform not, they retain only the external sanctification of baptism, not having the inward effects thereof. Again speaking of the faith of infants, he thus determines that doubt: It is sufficient that they have mortification & faith, not actually declaring it self by any act of theirs, but included in the habitual principle of grace. And that the spirit of Christ both can and ordinarily doth work this habitual principle of grace in them, no man well in his wits will deny. Now in these four passages who sees not these 6 things. 1 That infants do not only partake of an external washing, or obsignation, in baptism, but they then RECEIVE the Holy Ghost. 2 That though they then receive the Holy Ghost; yet he doth not presently regenerate actually: for then, the work is rather in fieri then in facto esse, as a thing not yet begun, rather then for the present, done. 3 That all that are outwardly baptized, if they live must attain actual faith, ere their baptism will appear effectual unto them. 4 That there are some who do partake only of the outward laver, without the inward effects: else, their faith would spring and show it self, when they come to years. 5 That it is ordinary with the Holy Ghost to work seminal grace in those infants that belong indeed unto God's election. 6 That they savor of cract brains that deny it. I am afraid the reader will be impatient to be stayed longer in a point so plain I will therefore add only one Testimony more out of D. Fulk; and another out of D. Featly, who, understanding from myself how I stated my Position, gave this answer; neminem habebis aduersarium: sure you will have no adversary.

Judicious and industruous D. Fulk, in his Answer to the Rhemists Annotations upon the New Test. saith thus, Neither is baptism an efficient cause of salvation unto infants, but a seal of God's spirit regenerating them to eternal life. Where he doth not more deny the overplus which Papists unjustly attribute to baptism, then he willingly acknowledgeth, what is due unto it: viz. that it is outwardly a seal of God's spirit, which spirit inwardly regenerateth unto eternal life. So then Doctor Fulk could also discern the spirit in the baptism of those ordained to life.

Lastly that Learned and nimble Author of the second Parallell, (who is thought to make against me, because in page 89 he saith, as I also ever said from the beginning: viz. that all that are regenerated sacramentally, are not necessarily and infallibly regenerated spiritually; ) is clear of this opinion, pag. 90. Although the inward grace ordinarily accompany the outward sign, and we ought to believe, by the judgment of charity, that all who are baptized are truly regenerate: yet indicio veritais as Junius; distinguisheth; that is; by the judgment of precise and infallible truth, all are not so, as the Fathers speak roundly & plainly. In which words we see, first a concession of that we contend for, viz, that the inward grace ordinarily, accompanieth the outward sign. Secondly, that yet this is not always; for it is not done at all, in the baptism of some. But who are those some? They that are not elected: for he denies it of all that fall away and perish, as the main substance and drift of that discourse declares. Thus you see that many English Divines of best note, speak clearly and fully to this point, as well as I that alone am singled out, and worried by passionate and heady men.

CAP. 9. 6 Objections against the main position answered.

I Have at length gotten through all those particulars propounded in the end of the Second chapter of this Treatise; and I hope, made it evident to Judicious and impartial readers, that, (in the judgment of our Church, according to the scriptures, as they have been understood by the Ancient Fathers, by the present Churches of Christ beyond the seas, and by particular Divines of chiefest note, both foreign and domestical;) All elect infants do ordinarily, receive from Christ, in Baptism, the spirit of regeneration, as the soul and first principle of spiritual life, for the first solemn initiation into Christ, and for their future actual renovation, in God's good time. I have also given answers to all such objections as might occasionally fall in against my a • guments brought for confirmation of the point. Now it remains that I add Answers to all such Objections as either have been made by others, or conceived by myself as likely to be urged by others, against the main assertion it self, which I have labored all this while to prove and make good by so many witnesses.

In the performance hereof, I shall endeavor to deal as clearly and plainly as possibly I can, although I thereby be constrained to use more words then may be needful (or perhaps grateful) to more acute capacities; that I may not be thought to darken my meaning on purpose in the fogs of needles terms of Art not generally understood, which might give ordinary Readers cause to complain of Obscurity or sophistry. And unto ordinary readers I must premise one advertisement which others need not: viz. That in this part they expect not further corroboration of the main conclusion; but only, a manifestation of the impertinency and weakness of their arguments that object against it. If I can, in that which remains, make it appear that, nothing of all that hath been, or can be said against my position, is able to overthrow it, but that it is possible for the point to stand whole and unbroken, notwithstanding all their battery; I have don enough how weak so ever mine own grounds on which I have hitherto built, may to those that proclaim me a dreamer and a broacher of a gross and pestilent error seem to be.

1 Objection. Christians are regenerated by [Object. 1] the word Jam. 1.18. 1 Pet. 1.23. therefore not by baptism, in their infancy.

Answ. [Answer.] The Antecedent Proposition is granted, being understood of actual regeneration of persons of years, as it importeth an actual and through change of the whole man, upon their effectual vocation, inwardly by the spirit, and outwardly by the Word, in ordinary course. And of this only, those places are to be expounded. For, the words are spoken only of the work of the word in & upon aged persons called either from Judaism, or Gentilism, by the preaching of the Gospel; who, as Lidia; (Act. 16.14) had their hearts opened by the spirit, to understand and receive the things, preached unto them, and so were begotten anew unto God: that is, made new men in Christ, to perform new obedience actually unto God, contrary to their former course in the state of corrupt nature.

In this actual conversion and renovation, the spirit is the efficient cause; and the word an instrument only, that he pleaseth to make use of; not, as if he could not dispatch this work without it: but this is that which he hath sanctified, and commanded us to attend upon, so soon as we are able, by accession of years, to understand the use of it, for conversion in the ordinary course thereof. Now mark the weakness and imperfection of this argument. S. James, and S. Peter do both of them affirm that, the persons to whom they wrote, being persons of years, were actually renewed by the Word, therefore, it is false that elect infants do receive the spirit in baptism for their initiation into Christ, and as the soul and principle of after actual renovation by the word? This is all the strength that this objection hath in it, when they have improved it to the utmost. And, how weak this strength is, who doth not see? It doth not reach home so much as to touch (much less to pierce) the point in question For, the Apostles speak of persons of years; we, of Infants: they of actual renovation; we of initial regeneration only: They of such as are able to make use of the word, we, of such as are not capable of any speech. Those places therefore do well prove that which I deny not; viz that actual regeneration in persons of years is usually wrought by the word; but they do not restrain regeneration either to persons of years only; or, to this means only; nor deny the spirit to be given to infants before they come to make use of the word, for their first engraffing into Christ, and as the first principle of the new Creature.

If any shall doubt whether I be right in expounding the places alleged: and suppose that, the words do not only affirm the Word to be the ordinary means of Regeneration, but the only means also of regenerating all that are regenerated, in any kind; or degree whatsoever; let them be pleased to consult M. Calvin, who interpret, S. Peter, (that saith the same with S. James, ) in the very same sense that I do, in his answer to the Anabaptists, who were the first Fathers of this objection, and of all that follow, against this point. Thus, He: Whereas they object, that the spirit of God in the Scriptures, doth acknowledge no regeneration at all, but that which is by the incorruptible seed of the Word: they do most absurdly interpret that place of Peter; wherein the Apostle only comprehends such as had been taught and instructed by the preaching of the Gospel. Unto such, we confess, the word of God is the seed, and the only seed of spiritual Regeneration: but we deny that from thence may be gathered, that God by his power cannot regenerate infants without it: which to him is as easy and ordinary; as it is to us incomprehensible and admirable. The like he saith, in the particular of faith, in the very next Section, as there more at large appears. Nor did this speech fall from him only once, or unadvisedly: but it was the constant Answer he ever gave to this objection; as himself professeth, in his Answer to Servetus disputing touching the same subject of the Baptism of Infants; as may be seen in the end of the same Chapter last cited. For, to Servetus objecting, that, Infants cannot be thought new men, because they be not regenerated by the Word; Calvin makes this answer: I have said often, and I now repeat it, that, the Word is the incorruptible seed of regeneration unto us; provided that we be capable of it: but where infancy makes incapable of instruction by that means, God doth retain his course of working some degrees of regeneration, without it. If it be replied; Calvin speaks what may be; and what, in some extraordinary cases, sometimes happens; but not what is usually done in the baptism of the Elect? I reioine, That, if Calvin meant only thus much, his Answer could not satisfy the Anabaptists, who therefore deny baptism to infants, because they are not then capable of regeneration and faith: and he on the contrary, saith they be capable of some regeneration, and therefore ought to be baptized. If he meant not baptismall regeneration, how can their possibility of regeneration be a warrant for baptism, seeing they have, or may have that, without baptism. Lastly, if it were not ordinary with God to regenerate elect infants in baptism, his answer would fall short too.

This, and much more might be unanswerable returned upon Calvin, by Servetus and his Clients; if they had understood him to deny Initiall Regeneration of elect infants, to be ordinarily communicated to them in Baptism. I conclude therefore, with judicious Calvin: However it be true, which the Scriptures speak of the actual regeneration of persons of years; that they are regenerated by the Word; yet Elect infants may be, and are, for ought appears in either of the places of scripture objected to the contrary, partakers of Initiall Regeneration, by the Spirit, in their Baptism: and so this Objection doth our Position no harm.

2 Objection. But there is no such thing as Initiall [Object. 2] Regeneration, distinct from Actual, as here is supposed. Where ever the spirit is infused to regenerate, he doth, in the first instant, actually regenerate: therefore there being, by your own confession (say they) no actual regeneration in any infant ordinarily, at his baptism; there is then no regeneration at all, this distinction of initial and actual regeneration being but a toy and a new device, without warrant from the Scripture?

Answ. If this Objection contain a truth without equivocation, I confess the Posi • ion to be a toy indeed. But there may lie some ambiguity in the terms of Initial, and Actual; which being cleared, the objection may perhaps appear as weak, as they declare themselves rash and uncharitable who took upon them to confute that distinctiō, which they never understood, nor would ever vouchsafe so much as to hear explicated by myself, either in public or private.

Touching the distinction of Initial and Actual Regeneration, I have sufficiently declared before, in my second Chapter, in what sense I use it. I will therefore forbear to repeat what there I have written. The Reader may view it at his pleasure. If any man demand express Scriptures for the very terms, he will soon declare of what Spirit he is. But if by sufficient consequence the distinction be not clearly deduced thence, he shall then have cause to complain. Let him view the foundation on which it is built, and afterwards tell me his mind, if he remain unsatisfied. In the mean time I shall only add thus much: that by Initial, and Actual Regeneration, I do not mean to insinuate two several kinds of spiritual life; for which, I acknowledge, there is no footing in Scripture: but I understand only two distinct considerations in respect of the degrees of spiritual life in the same subject, which the places of Scripture before alleged in Chapt. 2. do sufficiently warrant. For, by life, in Scripture, is sometimes meant the soul infused as the principle of life: sometimes, the very actual being and enliuening of the subject by that soul, making it actually to produce the actions of life. Hence I distinguish of life into Initiall, and Actual: Not as if the Spirit were not actually communicated, or did not actually work, or actually begin, from the very first instant, to dispose and prepare the soul to future actual newness of life, by infusing some potential and seminal grace; but my meaning is that, the Spirit doth not at that time, ordinarily, so plenarily change & renew the whole man, as to work in him either actual faith, hope, or love, &c: or so much as the habits of these or other particular graces, for the present as afterward he doth. Something the spirit doth, from his first entrance, toward actual regeneration, therefore we cal that first work, Initiall: thereby understanding the first disposition to, or degree of actual regeneration. But for as much as that first work doth not (for ought we know) extend to a present actual change of the whole man in the same manner and degree, that afterwards is wrought in him, at his effectual calling; therefore we call that latter work, Actual Regeneration.

This ought not to seem strange to any: for just so is it in the course of nature. So soon as the reasonable soul is infused, there is in some sense, (not every way, in respect of degrees) a rational life. But how? The soul is there, and in that soul are included all the principles of reason: but the soul doth not send forth those principles unto action (unless in some insensible manner by little and little preparing the infant unto human actions) till afterwards that the senses begin to act. Before that time, the reasonable life cannot wholly be denied to be in an infant, because the soul rational is actually in his body: yet forasmuch as the infant hath not at that time the actual use of reason, for this cause we call the further perfection of his natural principles by tract of time attained, when reason puts it self into act, actual rational life; and we term the same life, in respect of the first degree and principles thereof, which together with the reasonable soul, in the first infusion thereof, it received, Initiall life.

This is no more, in substance, then what we have learned from S. Augustine, Calvin, Peter Martyr, Junius, Daneus, D ^r Whitaker, Zanchius, and sundry others, whose judgments have been at large set down in this treatise in sundry places upon sundry occasions. And shall any man think it nothing in a magisteriall humor, to trāple so many worthies under his feet, at once, as if he were wiser than all others? if it be only the terms that displease him, because, perhaps, the same are not found in any of these Authors; he shall but show himself a caueller to quarrel them; unless he can show that the terms are used to signify that, which, in substance, these Authors do not allow and teach. Breefly then, this Objection is grounded upon a false information, and supposition: for it supposeth me to use the terms of Initiall and actual regeneration, as intending thereby to teach that there be two distinct species, or kinds of regeneration; whereas my meaning is only to speak of the same spiritual life, in two distinct considerations, in respect of degrees. And so the Objection fights with a shadow, and not with me.

But it will be replied that, in Regeneration there be no degrees: but that it is performed and dispatched at an instant, as natural generation is. It is true say they, that there be degrees in Renouation which noteth a growth in sanctification, in a man regenerated. But Regeneration is never taken for any other than for the first act of the spirit entering into a Christian, and begetting him a new man in Christ, in the very first moment of his entrance Therefore the distinction of actual and initial regeneration cannot be admitted in any sense?

I Answer, That those two words, Regeneration, and Renovation, may perhaps, by some, be used, the one, to signify the first infusion of grace making a man actually a new creature in all parts at once; and the other to note the continual growth of a Christian in grace infused; if men will before give notice of their meaning, and for the more clear expression of themselves, will say; when I speak of the first infusion of grace, I will use the word regeneration to express it by; and when I speak of continual growth from one degree unto another, I will ever call that, Renovation. Men may, if they please, make use of words, as they do of Counters in casting of accounts, wherein, of the same set, and value, some Counters are made to stand for pounds; some, for shillings; & some for pence. And yet, as those Counters which stand for pence, might as well have stood for pounds, as those that do stand for poūds, if it had pleased him that set them to have so disposed them: So men may put words of the same value and native signification, to signify diverse things, by a liberty justifiable enough in use of speech: & yet those words, may without wrong, be used by others to signify other things: always provided that when a man useth a word in a sense different either from the prime signification of it, or from the common acceptation of it, he give warning that, where ever he useth such a word, he would be understood in such or such a sense, and not according to the etimology of it, nor according to the common use of it. And thus I grant, that, if it please any Divine to say that, he will ever restrain Regeneration, to note the first infusion of grace, and by Renovation signify a daily increase of grace, in all his speeches or writings, for want of fitter terms to express himself in, he may do it.

But if any man shall say that,

I must crave leave to dissent from him, and to deny his assertion. For, neither is there any such difference in the proper signification of these words, but that they may both signify one and the same thing: Nor is the Scripture so nice as to observe such a difference between them, as the Obiectors would persuade us.

That in the proper signification, there is nothing either why regeneration should signify only the first infusion of grace; or rather this then the daily growth of it; nor, why Renouation should not signify the first beginnings of the new creature, as well as the growth of it, those that are skillful in the Tongues, will easily bare me witness; and I take them that make this nice distinction betweee these two words, to be better skilled then to say that these words in their proper signification, will justify this conceit. Therefore they must of necessity fly to the Scriptures, and prove that there, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , usually translated Regeneration, is ever so restrained as that it always signifies the first infusion of grace, and not that further work of the spirit which admitteth of degrees and is ever expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Renouation: or else their conceit will prove but a fancy too weak to ruin the distinction of Jnitiall and Actual regeneration.

But the Holy Ghost in the scriptures doth not observe this nicely of words: for sometimes we shall find regeneratiō, put for sanctification expressed by obedience unto Christ & his Gospel, or else for the beginning of glory, and not for the first infusion of grace only: So in Mat. 19.28. Our Savior thus gives answer to Peter demanding of him what they should have, who had forsaken all to follow him; verily I say unto you that ye which have followed me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the regeneration, when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, yea also shall sit upon twelve thrones, &c. where the word regeneration cannot be taken for the first infusion of grace only, because it notes such a thing as Christ's disciples did actually exercise and express in receiving of his Gospel, or else, as Beza rather thinketh, it signifies the very state of glory wherewith they shall be invested at the latter day; and the words ought to be read thus: ye that have followed me, (here making the comma) in the regeneration when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye shall sit, &c. that is, you that follow me now, shall hereafter, when the elect, being perfectly sanctified, begin their kingdom of glory, namely at the latter day, when I shall come again in glory, then shall ye sit upon twelve thrones. And so did Saint Augustine long before expound that text. Therefore the word is not restrained only to signify the first infusion of the spirit, & of grace by the spirit. Again, sometimes we shall find 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Regeneration and Renouation put one for another, the one to explicate the other: for so Zanchius saith expressly in his commentary upon Ephes. 5. And he saith the truth: for so the Apostle useth them, Tit. 3.5. according to his mercy he saved us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the laver of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. where the Apostle useth those two words of regeneration and renovation not to signify two things; but the latter declares the meaning of the former, as Beza well. Wherefore I conclude that, for as much as the holy scripture doth not restrain the word Regeneration, to the first infusion of the spirit, or of grace by the spirit, wherein there be no degrees, but extends it further, even to that further work of the spirit, wherein (as all grant) there be degrees; the distinction of Regeneration into initial and actual, still stands upright without battering by this second Objection, that will admit of no degrees in that, which the scripture everywhere calleth by the name of Regeneration.

[Object. 3] 3 Objection. The Apostle expressly ascribeth the conferring of the spirit, to the word of faith preached. Gal. 3.2. Therefore the spirit is not given in Baptism?

Answ. [Answer.] Consider the quality of the persons spoken of by the Apostle, and compare them with those of whom we speak in the present question, and then the Objection will fall to the ground of it self. If we should consider those Galatians only as persons of age & understanding, that would, in Calvin's judgment, so much alter the case, (if the same words should be used to deny the communication of the spirit unto infants in baptism) as would give just occasion to deny the consequent of that proposition. For so Calvin, to Seruetus objecting that, no man is made our brother but by the spirit of adoption which is cōferred only by the hearing of faith; gives this answer. He ever falls into the same sophism: because preposterously he draws that to infants which is spoken only of persons of years. Paul in that place teacheth that the hearing of faith is God's ordinary way of calling, whereby he brings on his elect unto faith, raising them up faithful teachers in whose ministry he reacheth out his hand unto them. Now, who shall dare to set such a law unto God, that he should not by some other secret way engraff infants into Christ.

But there is more in that case of the Galatians, and so in that of Cornelius his company, Act. 10.44. then this, that they were persons of years, when, in hearing the word preached, they received the Holy Ghost: for they were, till that time, no part of the visible Church and flock of Christ, but gentiles and mere aliens from him and all his ordinances till the Gospel was preached to them. And it is one thing to be a Gentile, without the Church, that hath nothing to do with Christ or his spirit, till he hears him published in the preaching of the Gospel, which is the first ordinance of Christ that he partakes of: (for first, Christ is preached unto him; then, believing, he is to be baptized) and it is another thing to be borne of parents that are visible members of a settled and stablished Church, so as the party so borne is to be held and reputed for one of the faithful even from the womb. It is no wonder if the former sort receive the spirit in the hearing of the word: for, how else should they come by it in the ordinary course of dispensation by means? But it cannot but be wondered at, that any should infer that, elect infants borne and baptized in the Church, should not, ordinarily, partake of the spirit, before they come to age sufficient to be capable of the word preached, upon this ground that, the Galatians and others mentioned in scripture, that were converted by the word, from Paganism, did not receive the spirit before they heard the Gospel preached. I shall not need to spend time and paper to prove that the Apostle speaks of the former sort only, & not of the latter. Therefore this Objection doth not at all touch the point in hand.

4 Objection. If the spirit be given in Baptism, [Object. 4] then Baptism can save without actual regeneration, which is confessed to be wrought by the Word. But Baptism, without actual Regeneration cannot save any, as appears by that in 1. Pet. 3.21. Therefore the spirit is not given in Baptism.

Answ. [Answer.] A feeble Argument. Nevertheless let us examine it. I answer therefore both to the Major, and to the Minor also.

1. To the Major, I answer by denying the sequel. For, in the case of infants dying in infancy, the spirit can, and (no doubt) doth actually regenerate them, without the word; how else should they enter into the kingdom of heaven? In what manner the spirit doth regenerate such, is to us unknown. Nor will I take upon me to determine that which the Scripture is silent in. They that deny all actual regeneration till the word come, without exception of such as dy in infancy, do conclude all infants dying before they be able to make use of the Word, to be damned. A damnable conclusion not to be endured in the tongue or pen of any sober Christian. Thus we see in few words that the Consequent of the Major, is an idle non sequitur; grounded on a false supposition. For, although we say that, actual Regeneration is not wrought but by the Word, yet we grant not this Vniuersally of all, but only of persons of years.

2 To the Minor I answer thus,

1 I deny that the Apostle, in that place, doth speak of Regeneration wrought by the Word: for he speaks not at all either of Regeneration strictly and formally so called; but only of an act which supposeth regeneration; nor, of that act, as wrought by the Word; but, of an act wrought, without declaring by what means it is wrought: so as, for ought appears in the Text to the contrary, it may be wrought in baptism, as well as by any other means. Therefore in this respect, the proposition is weak and lame: because I may as well draw it to my purpose, and say that, baptism hath such efficacy in it as to enable a Christian to make answer unto God, because the Apostle saith that Baptism (although not the outward washing yet the inward Grace) saveth: as others may urge it against me, by inferring thence that, Baptism cannot save without the Word. For, there is not, in that place, any mention, or so much as the least insinuation of the Word, but only of Baptism.

2 I add that Expositors agree not in the exposition of that Text; and yet notwithstanding their disagreement, there is nothing to be drawn either from the Exposition of any one of them, or from all of them together, that concludes anything against this Position. That Expositors agree not in the rendering of the Text, is evident by their different renderings of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (which in our last Translation, is rendered, the answer of a good conscience, &c. ) in which word lies all the difficulty of the whole passage.

1 Some would not have it translated, the answer of a good conscience; but, the request or confident demand made by a good conscience unto God. So, the old Translators; and so M. Cartwright also, in his answer to the Rhemists, upon Math. 3.11. but what the conscience makes request for, these Authors speak no syllable of And how a request made to God, should be the inward part of baptism here opposed to the outward washing which purgeth the filthiness of the flesh, is beyond my capacity to comprehend. But I let that pass wishing they had more clearly explained themselves.

2 Some take it for an allusion to the usual Jnterrogatories in baptism, and to the Stipulation made by the party baptized, to perform the conditions tendered unto him, and accepted by him, in his baptism; which stipulation he must answer and make good, ere he can expect that his baptism should save him. So Beza took it, saith D Fulk upon the place. Yea, and so, M ^r Cartwright also, when he comes to write upon that Text, & to vindicate it from Rhemish falsifications. But he addeth that, those Questions were made to persons of years, and unto such the Apostle writeth: & so, this, in his judgment, belongs not unto infants, nor is spoken touching the efficacy of Baptism upon infants. Howbeit he denieth not the spirit to be given to infants: for elsewhere, he saith thus; I will not deny but that children have the spirit of God, which worketh in them after a wonderful fashion But this, by the way. All that may by this exposition be concluded hence is this, That baptism saves none of years, no not as an instrument, till there be a faithful performance of the Covenant on their parts. But in the case of infants the matter is far otherwise, forasmuch as they cannot, ordinarily, actually believe or repent. So D ^r Fulk: Stipulation and solemn promises are necessary to be acknowledged, that baptism may be effectual to them that are of age.

3 Some, as Oecumenius, and others interpret the word somewhat otherwise. Oecumenius, who should best know the force of the Greek phrase, expounds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by three other words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : an earnest, a pledge, and a demonstration: using so many words not to signify divers things, but more fully to set forth the force of that one word, which he could not sufficiently express by one. But what he means by this earnest, pledge, and demonstration, he leaves to his Readers to divine. I think it can be understood of nothing else but the inward grace signified by the outward washing; to wit, the blood and spirit of Christ given to a Christian in his Baptism, as a seal and pledge and demonstrative evidence both of the remission of his sins by the blood of Christ, and also of Regeneration by the Spirit of Christ, whereby the conscience is purged from dead works, and sanctified that a man doth now answer and make good his promise and vow in Baptism, which now, not as a cause, but as a means instituted by Christ to seal unto him justification by the bl • od, and sanctification by the spirit of Christ, is said to save him. So Basil ; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If there be any grace (or virtue) in the water, it is not from the nature of the water, but from the presence of the spirit: for baptism is not the deposition of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience unto God. Upon which words of Basil, Chameir thus descanteth: You see that the power of purging the conscience, is denied to the water, and affirmed to be in the spirit there present, and this he proves by an argument drawn from the words of Peter. And in the same manner judicious Whitaker, understandeth & approveth that of Basil.

Bullinger is of the same judgment; for thus Marlorat allegeth him upon the place. Least any man should understand him to speak those words of the naked sign of baptism, he adds these; that baptism saves not, which purgeth the outward filth of the flesh; but by baptism J understand that efficacy of faith, the spirit and power of Christ (which, as Marlorat adds, is joined with the outward sign) whereby it comes to pass that the conscience being pacified, it may confidently appear and plead before the Lord. To the same purpose speaks the English note in our old Bibles, which understands hereby, Christ's inward virtue, which the outward baptism shadoweth. So that the purpose of the Apostle here is only to teach what it is in baptism that is so efficacious, as to save a man: namely, not the outward element, or washing with that element; but the inward grace thereby signified: which grace is here set forth by the effect of it in such as are of years, which is, the enabling of them with a good conscience to make good their vows, as also confidently to depend upon God through Christ for their salvation. Bucer is large in the explication of this Text; his conclusion is this; Baptism saves none of years but believers. Indeed salvation is offered in Baptism unto all but none of years receive it, but by faith. As for infants, they are saved by the secret operation of the spirit, which sanctifieth them unto eternal life.

Now, take the words which way soever any of these Worthies have expounded thē, what do they make, when they are cleared, so much as in show, against the present Position that Elect infants do ordinarily receive the spirit in baptism, as the first efficient principle of future actual regeneration? For, let any man frame an argument from this place (though he make the best improument that any exposition of it will yield) he cannot make • more forcible then this, viz.

Would not such a kind of arguing seem very ridiculous? It is just as if one should dispute against the slowing of the water at London Bridge, at any time save only about three of clock, in this wise. It is never high water at London Bridge about three of clock, but when the moon is either at the full, or the change: therefore there is not the least beginning of any new flood, ordinarily at all, till either it be about three of clo • k, or till the moon be at the full o • • h • ng • • o here persons of ripe age baptism doth not save, without faith, therefore, not infants: yea therefore, there can be no seed of grace, no spirit of grace communicated to infants, till they do come to years; as if there could be no beginning of a following of the water, till it be high tide. This and no other is the force of the Objection founded on this place; so as now I appeal to any ordinary capacity, whether our Positiō have any cause to fear the least shaking by it I have been larger in answer of this objection then the strength of it deserveth, because I was willing to clear the Text, which hath difficulty in it.

[Object. 5] 5 Objection. Wheresoever the spirit is, he worketh faith and regeneration; else it would follow that the spirit were idle, which were little less then blasphemy to affirm: But in elect infants, ordinarily, no such work appears, rather on the contrary, many of them show manifest opposition to all grace and goodness for many years together, notwithstanding their baptism. Therefore we must conclude that either they loose the spirit received in Baptism, so soon as they be able to commit actual sin; or else, that they do not ordinarily receive him in their Baptism.

Answ. [Answer.] This is the argument which of all others is thought to have in it greatest strength, and is supposed to be impregnable. Wherefore I must endeavor to give it a full and satisfactory answer, or else I shall loose all my labor in answering of all the rest. And here before I begin to answer to either Proposition, I must entreat the reader to take notice that, this argument would draw the matter unto an Impossibility that any such thing as the conferring of the spirit on infants in Baptism, should ordinarily be; because of the gross absurdities that thence do follow: viz that, then the spirit must either be confessed to be idle; which is no better then blasphemy to affirm; or else, that the spirit of sanctification and adoption may be wholly lost, so as a mā once truly regenerate, may totally loose all regeneration, & be in the same state in which he was before his baptism, which is flat Popery to maintain. • f therefore I can clear the point from both these absurdities which are thought to lay an impossibility upon it; and make it appear that, it is possible for the spirit to be in an elect infant from the time of his baptism unto his actual conversion many years after, although no manifest sign of grace, but rather the contrary do to us appear in him; I shall sufficiently quit myself of this objection. And this I will now assay, by answering distinctly to both propositions in order.

1 Then let us examine their Major proposition, which hath in it 2 parts, which we may call the Antecedent, and the Consequent. The antecedēt or the main body of the proposition is this, wheresoever the Spirit is, he worketh actual faith and regeneration, the consequent, this, or else the spirit is idle. To both these parts I answer thus.

1 I deny the former part, if it be taken universally. For it is not necessary that the spirit, from the very first time of his entrance, should work actual faith and regeneration (in the sense before expressed) in all in whom he may be said to be, as hath been sufficiently proved, in the case of infants, of whom only we treat. I have made it manifest by a comparison of the reasonable soul with the heavenly spirit, as many others have done before me.

The reasonable soul is infused so soon as the body of an infant is organized and made capable of such an inhabitant: yet it doth not presently act, or enable the infant to act rationally, so soon as it is infused. But it will be said, that so soon as the soul comes into the body, the body is quickened, and stirs even in the womb: true, but that motion is not rational, but only animal. Even after the infant is borne, it cannot move it self rationally, till the senses be first able to exercise themselves, and be actually conversant about and upon their proper objects, & present the same unto the understanding faculty by the Phantasy, and Common sense. So it is in the Spiritual being. Therefore it follows not that infants must be presently made believers & regenerate actually, so as to move spiritually, so soon as the spirit is given unto them.

This is the answer not only of Saint Augustine in his 57 Epist: ad Dandanum, as I have shown before in the 5 chapt. but also of Peter Martyr, D. Whitaker and others which I will not here repeat, having already set down their words at large. Thus also Daneus, not only upon Saint Augustine's Enchiridion, but also in his Treatise of the Sacraments, where he saith that, look what efficacy baptism hath in persons of years, the same it hath upon infants, although infants do not manifest the same, nor bring forth the fruits thereof, as those of years do, but yet afterwards they do it, when they come to age of discretion. M: Ainsworth, in his Censure of the dialogue of the Anabaptists, is copious in this very particular. See page 44. If (saith he) we cannot justly object against God's work in nature, but do believe that our infants are reasonable creatures, and are borne not brute beasts but men; though actually they can manifest no reason or understanding no more then beasts (yea a young lamb knoweth and discerneth his damme sooner, then an infant knoweth his mother) then neither can we justly object, against God's work in grace, but are to believe that our infants are sanctified Creatures, &c. And again page 45. answering that Cauill of theirs, that if infants have any grace, it would appear by the acts and exercise of it; he saith thus: They reason ignorantly and perversely not only against the light of God's word, but of nature. As if some brutish person should plead thus. A man is a living creature that hath a reasonable soul; and the proper affections of a man, as he is a man, are the faculty of understanding, of thinking, capableness of learning, of remembering, reasoning, judging, and discerning true and false, good and evil, &c. of willing, of nilling, of speaking, of numbering, &c. Now let them which affirm Jnfants are borne men, as Christ doth John: 16.21) prove that infants do understand, think, remember, judge, discern good & evil, approve, will, speak, &c. or else they say nothing. Were not such a disputer worthy to be laughed & hissed at, who requireth the actual use & manifestation of human affections & faculties in infants, which are in them but potentially and in the seed & beginning: & because they cannot declare these things by their works, therefore he denieth them to be of the generation of man kind, or borne men into the world, or that they have the faculties of men in them any manner of way? Even such is the argumentation of these erroneous spirits against the truth of religion. Thus far he.

By this little, so much is gotten that, if all the divines, who have professedly entered into the particular consideration of this point, be not out, and, if the Anabaptists be not in the right, there is a possibility for the spirit to be in an infant, and yet not presently manifest his presence by any work of grace actually, so as it may be seen and known either by the infant himself, or by the beholders.

2 Wherefore in the next place I say, that since the spirit may be in an infant, and yet not work actual faith and regeneration, therefore the consequent of this proposition that concludes the spirit to be idle if he work not such grace, must needs be false also. Must he needs be idle that doth not always let us see his work? Shall we conclude, he doth nothing, because he will not tell us what he doth? Hath he no work but one, in an infant? Do we know all the works of God? Or shall we deny all, that we know not? This is a bold speech to say, either the spirit must work this or that particular work in an infant, which he usually worketh in all persons of years where he pleaseth to dwell, or else he is idle. Was Great Basil a blasphemer when he affirmed, that, like as Art is in the Artificer, so is the spirit in him that hath received him; he is always present, but doth not always work. For Art is always in the Artificer potentially, but then is it said to be in him, actually, when he exerciseth it; so the spirit is always present to such as are worthy, but he works only as their benefit and necessity may require? To such therefore as are ready to say to me of the work of the spirit, as Thomas of Christ, except I see and feel, I will not believe: I can do no more then the Disciples did to Thomas; viz: let them alone, till the spirit himself do bid them feel and see, by persuading them to believe this truth. For however I cannot demonstrate in what manner the spirit initially worketh in an infant, the first principles of Regeneration, because the work is secret, and both the work & manner of working are hidden from us : yet I answer such as put me to it, as Calvin did the Anabaptists: There is a work of the spirit in them; although we cannot comprehend what it is, yet we must not therefore conclude that there is no work at all: and (as D ^r Whitaker determined the question of the work of grace in infants for a close of his disputation touching that subject) We say that the Holy Ghost works in them, in a manner to us inexplicable. Both Calvin, and Peter Martyr, and Doctor Whitaker, are all clear of opinion that there is some work of the spirit in an infant, and yet not any of them apart, nor all of them together, dare to determine what that work is. Calvin saith, it is certain there is some work: Peter Martyr saith, it is enough that we believe they have the spirit, the root and principle of future grace, and that if they die in infancy, they are saved D ^r Whitaker comes after, and saith the very same, illustrates his and Peter Martyrs opinion by the former comparison of the reasonable soul, commends Calvin for his modesty, and professeth that he would most willingly be his Scholar that could take off all difficulties from this point. It is therefore an unreasonable and captious demand of the Adversaries to this position, to require of me to show what the spirit doth in an infant, or else to confess that he is idle, or rather nor there at all. So much for answer to the Major, which would conclude from a false ground, and groundless position, that the spirit cannot be in infants, because where he is, he cannot be idle; and, he cannot but be idle, if he work not in them actual grace.

2 I come now to the Minor Proposition, which was this; But in elect infants, ordinarily, no such work doth appear; rather on the contrary, many of them show manifest opposition to all grace and goodness, for many years together, notwithstanding their baptism: and to this I give a threefold answer.

1 That although no such work doth appear in them, yet this proves not that no such work is begun secretly in the soul, as I have before shown, in answer to the former Proposition. Nor is it impossible that even actual grace should lie hidden, so as neither others, nor the party himself in whom that grace is, can discern the same at all times, as after shall be declared.

2 That I never affirmed any actual change of the soul, in the baptism of infants that afterwards live to years of discretion; no, nor so much as any particular habits of particular graces, answerable unto those that are usually wrought in others at the time of their actual Conversion. Yea so far have I been from affirming hereof, that I have always upon all occasions disclaimed it. But I only say that, the spirit is given to elect infants, in baptism, ordinarily, (pardon my so often repetition of the substance of the Position, which the Adversaries so often forget) to be the first principle of regeneration in them, and as the first seed, whereby the heart is seized upon for Christ, and the whole man taken up for his use, and made in a secret manner capable of a further work, in God's good time. This spirit is, unto such, in the room of grace, as Peter Martyr affirmeth, & the root also out of which all grace in due time, floweth, in all God's children, as the same Author (who is also seconded by D ^r Whitaker ) further speaketh; and as Calvin had done, before him. This Principle of Grace lies hid, as seed under ground; as wheat under chaff; as fire under the ashes; as the faculty of reason seems to lie asleep, till a child be grown up to some capacity; and as the spirit of God moved upon the waters before the several creatures were actually produced by the word of his power.

By this we may discern what answer to give to that Dilemma, urged by some to this effect: viz:

To this I say that the infant is alive and regenerate seminally, & initially, in respect of the root and principle of life, but not actually in respect of the particular habits actually wrought in him. An infant may be said to be alive so soon as he hath received a soul; yet he cannot be said to be alive actually in respect of a rational life till the soul be able to act in a rational manner. Of such an one we cannot say he is not alive, because he hath in him the reasonable soul the principle of life: nor yet can we say that he lives a rational life, till his reasonable soul do put it self forth to rational actions. Therefore, all men conclude such an infant to be alive potentially, and not actually, in respect of that rational life whereof we now speak. The same distinction will solue the present Argument: and so is it resolved by all that touch upon the point, as I have often shown. That which I have urged out of S ^t Augustine, Calvin, Peter Martyr, D. Whitaker, and Daneus, I will not rehearse in this place, which yet I might do, in so large a Treatise, for their sakes that cannot easily carry all with them. Only I will add one passage more of Daneus, not before mentioned: Infants by Baptism are engraffed into Christ, forasmuch as by nature they are aliens from God. And they are baptized, not that they should presently express the fruits of their regeneration in Christ, which might be conspicuous to us: but that in the mean season till they come to years being confirmed with the seal of the Covenant, & given unto God, they might be preserved and remain unto his use. For when the time shall be accomplished they will bring forth the same fruits that they do who are baptized in riper age. There is then in them a seed of grace however it do not presently spring up and bear fruit: and in respect of that seed we say they are not wholly without life and regeneration; as the smoking flax, so soon as it begins to smoke, is not wholly without fire in it, although as yet, it be not wholly kindled by that fire.

This is, I confess, a great secret, a deep mystery of His whose works are unsearchable, and his ways, past finding out. Howbeit, the incomprehensiblenesse of it, must not make us to deny it; unless we resolve to believe no more then we see, or can fathom with the short line of our weak reason, which were a sinful resolution that would breed many errors both in judgment and practice, of dangerous and desperate consequence. There are works as strange in nature, yet no man makes doubt of the truth of them, because he cannot come to see how they are done. Therefore we must take heed how we deny the spirit to be in infants to work in such a strange manner, forasmuch as the works of grace, are more strange & admirable then any work in nature. The wise King wisely gives a check to their curiosity that are too bold in prying into the secrets of God, and that by posing them in a point of Natural Philosophy: As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not works of God who maketh all. Eccles. 11.5.

3 I answer that however I will not affirm any actual grace to be, ordinarily, in infants; yet we may oft times see strange and admirable sparks of grace, and footsteps of the spirit, in diverse infants, long before they come to any ability of discourse: so as for ought we know, the elect might ordinarily attain to actual Regeneration much sooner then many of them do, if there were that care taken of them by parents, that ought to be, in catechizing and training them up in their infancy, in the way that they should walk: for so, would they not forget it when they be old, if Solomon mistook not. (And how could he mistake in that, which the spirit himself dictated unto him.) That part therefore of the objection which saith that, for many years they make opposition to all grace, &c. however it make a great noise, and seem to aggravate the matter much against this Position: yet hath it in it more sound, than weight For, the reason why so many stand out so long, is not always or ordinarily from the want of efficacy in their Baptism; but, from defect of education. Either they lived not under careful, faithful, religious parents that would have been diligent with all their might to teach them the fear of the Lord, by all ways and means of instruction and good example, to pray continually for them, to watch over them narrowly to keep them from evil company and evil practices; or else, they wanted a powerful Ministry; or both. And if they want either, the other, for the most part, does little good. Cast your eyes upon such as have not wanted for either of the former helps; and tell me how many you can find of those that ever come to good at all (in respect of the best good,) who do not, ordinarily, take in Religion and grace insensibly even from their tender youth: so as many of them cannot, with their best search, find out, directly, the time of their Conversion, although they cannot (when they be themselves, free from temptation) deny themselves to be converted. As for such as have enjoyed the former means, and yet fly out into debauched courses, they seldom or never return to God at all; and therefore no marvel if they stand out long, notwithstanding the helps afforded; for they, by this, declare themselves not to be of the number of God's elect; & so, not of those in whom baptism is so efficacious as here we affirm it to be. And as for such as stand out longest, & come in at last, you shall, ordinarily, observe them to be such as had ungodly, or careless parents; or, no sound and powerful Ministry; or, had the reins too soon let loose unto them; or were poisoned with bad examples of Parents, governors, or companions, or, were not instantly plucked out of some delightful sins, ere they were rooted in their wickedness, by long custom, &c. And then, what wonder if they live many years without apparent conversion and actual regeneration. Notwithstanding, if you ask some of these, after they be converted, whether in the time of their rebellion, they had not sometimes strong conflicts in themselves to break off their wickedness, and to come in; and whether they did not sometimes find inward risings of heart against their secret sins, even for the very filthiness of them, as well as for the danger; and they will, for the most part, answer, yea, if they had had the grace to accept and follow those good motions within them: but they found the contrary, that after such inward stirrings unto conversion, their lusts have presently raged and burst out more strongly, than at other times. This is the confession, in substance of diverse of them; which shows them not to be wholly destitute of the spirit, even when the flesh was most violent and insolent in them, before actual conversion. And this observation (seconded by others of far greater experience) is mentioned here merely to still their cry which tell us that,

Although he can work without means; yet that he might grace those of his own institution, he doth not, usually work without them, when he vouchsafeth them. And when he useth them he doth not always perform the work at the first, or second, or many assays of his Ministers; because he would have us to know upon whom, after Paul hath planted and Apolloes watered, the increase dependeth.

By all that have been spoken, we now see that it is not universally true; which the Major Proposition supposeth: viz. that the spirit must either work actual faith and regeneration, or else be confessed to be idle: and that it is of no validity which the Minor assumeth and affirmeth: viz, that in infants ordinarily no such work appeareth, but rather the contrary for many years after baptism: For, it is possible for the spirit to work, although he do not work actual grace: nor is it material, that such grace doth not appear because there is no necessity that any particular habit of grace should be at that time in them at all. And therefore I conclude that this Objection is of no strength, forasmuch as it concludes nothing against the point in Question, the premisses being thus examined and searched to the bottom.

6 Objection. The very seed of grace cannot [Object. 6] be in the same subject in whom there is reigning sin, as is plain by that of the Apostle, 1 John. 3.9. Whosoever is borne of God sinneth not: for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is borne of God. But in infants baptized, till they be actually regenerated, sin reigneth. Therefore the spirit is not given unto them as the seed of after grace?

Answer. [Answer.] 1 To the Major proposition I answer three ways.

1 There is an ambiguity in the word, seed. For, seed may be taken two ways, Actively, and Passively. 1 Actively for some actual efficient principle of grace going before both the acts and habits of particular graces: which, (as in the natural, so in the spiritual seed) we may term seed seeding: Even as those first plants or herbs, in the Creation, were termed herbs seeding seed. Gen. 1.29. 2 Passively, for that yield, or fruit which is produced by the active principle thereof, which may be called seed seeded. as in the former place of Gen. 1. may also be seen. Now, when, with other Divines, I say that, the spirit is given to elect infants as the seed of future actual grace, I speak not of seed passive, or produced; but of seed active or produceing a further seed in due time and season. But contrarily, the Apostle S. John speaks of seed in the other sense, which imports at least the particular habits of sanctifying & saving grace infused by this seeding seed whereof we treat. This is manifest in the words of the Text; Whosoever is borne of God, sinneth not: that is, whosoever is actually regenerated, doth not commit sin: as all expound the place: and the reason is given, because his seed abideth in him, which is no other then the habits of grace infused by the spirit, as all acknowledge. Therefore this proposition speaks not to the point, because it understands by seed, another thing from that we mean in our assertion. I speak not of seed in the ear, but of the first seed cast into the ground, that afterwards yields and brings forth the blade, the stalk, the ear, and all that grows upon it.

2 I answer that I cannot see what absurdity would follow by granting that initial regeneration may stand with actually reigning sin: because however a man hath by the first principle of Regeneration a possibility of making opposition against sin when that possibility comes into Act: yet he is not by that possibility alone enabled, for the present, actually to resist sin, (which resistance is a fruit of actual conversion) no more than a man is enabled actually to reason and discourse so soon as the reasonable soul is infused, before his senses do actually exercise themselves upon their proper objects, and thereby give occasion to the rational faculty to exercise it self. Therefore, as in an infant which may afterwards prove a very wise man, the principle of reason may and doth consist with actual folly, till that child have his senses excercised to discern between good and evil, so, in the same infant, the first principle of regeneration (which we term initial or potential Regeneration) may stand with such sins that in outward appearance (for ought any man can discern) are no other thē reigning sins, which a man gives himself up to the commission of, without reluctance or fear. The ground, we had but now. No man either doth or can make actual opposition against any sin, as sin, from any inward principle of grace, till he be actually a new creature, endowed with habitual and actual graces of the spirit: as appears by that very text now urged against me. For, who is he that gives not himself to sin, but he that is borne of God?

3 I add further, that if this objection were of force against infants, it would be much more such, against persons of years actually converted. For, it would prove that they have not the spirit constantly abiding in thē, because it doth not, in great falls evidently show it self at all: but sin seemeth to prevail so far, as that (for ought any lookers on, or themselves can judge) the flesh hath gotten full dominion over them. For, they often sin without any apparent reluctance at all. What appearance of the spirit in Peter when through the strength of fear, and weakness of faith, he not only denied his Master and Savior again and again, against his conscience; but (thinking thereby the better to save himself, took liberty to show himself in that exigent a man of another stamp and disposition, than Christ and his Disciples were of, and fell to raging, to swareing and cursing; when as no man, or thing (unless his own fear and cowardice) urged him to it? You will say, that was a sudden unexpected surprisal, and so could not be a premeditated sin; and, he was no sooner down, but he got up again. True: but this satisfieth not. For, in the carriage of that business, as short as that time was, what grace appeared? What degree of evil was wanting to make that, in all outward appearance, a Reigning sin? You will say (which indeed is the truth, if S. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Theophilact, (as Bellarmine himself shall witness, be not deceived) the spirit at that time suspended the act of grace, and lay as it were eclypsed in him, to make him (who before hand boasted so much of his valor,) the better to know himself. This I acknowledge to be true: but this will not serve their turns, who must ever see the fruits of the spirit, or deny him to be there.

If this of Peter, will not serve for instance sufficient to show that sin may (as far as men can judge by looking on) so far prevail, as that it may seem to the beholders, to reign in some that are (questionless) actually regenerated and renewed, because that was but a sudden assault, and lasted but for a small space: Then what say you to David? For, however his adultery grew from a sudden temptation occasionally objected, yet his sending for Uriah, the making of him drunk, the murthering of him in the battle, and the drawing of Joab into the conspiracy, were deep premeditated plots: and he wallowed in all this mire and blood (as most Divines think) for the space of almost a year before he recovered himself, and ere the spirit stirred in him, sensibly, to any purpose again. What show of the spirit here? What opposition? What was here wanting of reigning sin? You will say, there might be inward combats? I deny not what might be: but yet show me what appeared. If no work appeared in all that time, it is then possible that the spirit may lie hid, and that for a long time together, in some persons actually converted, and not be discerned. I know David had the spirit all that while, as appears by that prayer of his; take not thy holy spirit from me. Psal. 51.11. But I deny any sensible working of it that was able to difference David, by any outward carrage, in any man's apprehension (I except not his own) from a mere carnal man that ever made any formal show of religion, in the interim between his fall and recovery.

If any man reply; Jt is perhaps true that David lay in that miserable estate, for so long a time as you mention: but what is that to so many years as even the elect lie in sin, before their actual conversion? To this I must answer, 1 That if the spirit lie hid a year, a week, or but an hour, he may (possibly) lie hid twenty years. That which the objection drives at is, to prove that, such a thing is not possible to be done at all: for, that which is possible to be, for a short time, is not impossible, for a longer space. 2. It is more for the spirit to lie hid in a person actually converted, for the space of a year together, than for him to lie hid in any other, forty years: as it is more for a wise man to play the fool once; then for a child, or a fool, to do nothing else. 3. If you think the instance of David not to come home enough, then (for a close) take also that of Solomon, his son. He lay years enow, ere he repented. He fell from God to flat Idolatry, and that not on the sudden, but by slow degrees: when he was in it, he lay still for long continuance, in so much that some make a doubt whether ever he recovered. Yet those men that do oppose this position, will not, I think, deny Solomon to be regenerated by the spirit before that fall, or to have the spirit still abiding in him in all that time of his fall, to restore him again. Therefore it cannot reasonably be denied that, forasmuch as the spirit may and sometimes doth lie hid in persons actually regenerate, for a long time together not showing it self apparently in opposition against great and scandalous sins; it is not impossible for the spirit to be in an infant elected from the time of his Baptism until his actual conversion without any such manifest opposition against sin, as may give the person in whom he is, any ground to believe that the dominion of sin is taken away from out of his soul. So much, in answer to the Major.

2 To the Minor Proposition (that, in infants sin reigneth, till they be actually regenerated ) I answer that there is a Dominion in the full strength, and a Dominion that is in the wane, like that of a Prince who yet is possessed of his kingdom which daily waxeth (like the house of Saul) weaker and weaker. There is a Dominion which is more intense and in the highest degree: and there is a dominion which is more remiss, and improperly so called. This distinction hath footing in the scripture, which saith of some that sin shall not have dominion over them: and the reason is added, because they are under grace, Rom. 6.14. this is a Dominion in the highest degree. It saith unto others, let not sign reign in your mortal bodies, Rom. 6.12. This is a Dominion in a more remiss degree, as sin is taken for a masterly tyrant that hath, by want of vigilancy in a Christian, gotten the upper hand in some particular. Unto this they to whom he wrote were subject, if they looked not the better about them. For the Apostle himself, even after his actual regeneration, complains that sin was yet a Law in his members warring against the law of his mind, and bringing him into captivity to the law of sin. Rom. 7.23. Now, in that he calls the power of sin by the name of a Law, that did captivate him, he plainly intendeth to give us notice of some kind of sovereignty which sin, at sometimes, exercised over him, after his conversion. This will appear by comparing this phrase with the very same in ver. 1.2. The Law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth. For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth: but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband: that is, frō the power and sovereign authority, which in the family her husband did exercise over her. So that where there is a law in force, & exercising it self, there is a kind of dominion: for none can set up a law, and give such life unto it, but such as have sovereign authority And if it might be thus in Paul; then much more, in the Romans to whom he wrote Therefore he bids them to take heed and not to let it reign that they should obey it in the lusts thereof. And yet they were regenerated; for he saith, they were under grace (ver. 14.) and so under grace, that he assureth them, sin should not have dominion over them; as there he speaketh: that is, not an absolute & complete dominion, which cannot stand with saving grace; although they were in danger to be under some kind of Dominion of it, notwithstanding Grace. So then, there is an absolute dominion which cannot consist with saving grace: and there is an improper & more remiss dominion, which may be for a while, in the same subject, with saving grace. If any man ask me, what that absolute dominion is; in a word I conceive it be this; viz: Such a complete sovereignty over the whole man as makes him to be totus, totum, in toto peccato, whole, wholly, in the whole sin he gives himself up unto, wittingly, willingly, willfully; desiring he may ever live in that sin and enjoy his fill of it, that there were no law forbidding it, nor God to punish it; and, although there be both, yet he will follow it still, and cannot for his heart so much as get free of the love of it & desire after it, but will part with anything rather then with his sin. This, in scripture, is called, presumptuous sin. Psalm 19. But this no man can warrantably affirm to be in Elect persons after their baptism, even before their actual regeneration. And I think if I should deny the proposition, they that frame it had need to take day enough to prove it. For to tell me that, they commit many gross and scandalous sins; that, they be some of them (as Paul was) persecutors and blasphemers, doth not sufficiently prove that sin hath any absolute Dominion over them, ordinarily, although, in respect of their outward carriage, no man can discern their sins to be other then reigning sins: for so, you know, do many sins committed by such as are actually renewed. Therefore their outward carriage alone is not enough to warrant such a censure of them. That sin reigneth and domineereth as a tyrant over them, in a more remiss degree than he doth in reprobates, is too too evident by daily leading them into captivity to the law of sin. This is not denied But for any man to say that the elect, after their baptism till their actual conversion and regeneration, are under that absolute and complete dominion of sin, that the devils and reprobates are, is a thing which may be said, but will never be proved. For, suppose the spirit did not work any general dispositions and inclinations unto grace in infants (which yet the soundest divines affirm) yet it is something that there is that in them which will so far abate the edge of the malice of sin that they cannot sin that great sin against the Holy Ghost No elect person can (according to the principles which the adversaries to this point and I agree in,) sin that sin against the Holy Ghost; as the opposites will freely confess: for, if he could, how were it possible for him to be at all converted and saved? And if, notwithstanding his want of actual regeneration, he cannot sin against the Holy Ghost, I demand then, what is it that keeps him from that sin? Is it not the spirit that restrains and curbs the malice of his corruption against God and his grace? But you will say this restraint is common to reprobates as well as to the elect, for the most part; and therefore I may (say you) as well prove the spirit to be in the one, as in the other; if this be all the ground I have for it. To which I rejoin that there is a main difference between the elect and reprobate: viz. that the Elect not only doth not, but cannot commit that sin: for, the spirit keeps him that he may be a vessel of grace and honor: but the reprobates are restrained, not by the spirit of Christ; but rather by the powerful providence of God merely that they might not hurt the Elect, as otherways they would do. And yet notwithstanding that restraint, they are never converted nor saved; which shows that they never had the spirit of Christ. Nor is there in the elect so near approaches to that sin, as there is in reprobates. But of this I shall have some occasion to speak more afterwards; therefore I spare to add more thereof in this place; praying the reader to remember that, I have sundry other grounds beside this; so as, what ever becomes of this, the point it self cannot suffer by it, so long as the other stand vnbattered. And thus much of this sixth Objection.

CAP. 10. 6 Objections more against the main position, answered.

I Have in the former Chapter given answer to such objections as are thought to be of chiefest rank, and to make most strongly against the main tenent here discussed. In performance whereof, I have not (God is witness) strained my wits to set a show upon any one passage Which hath not substance in it; so far as I am able to judge between substance and shadows: but have dealt candidly and sincerely throughout, to the full satisfaction of mine own conscience, and I hope to the content of others also that are not studious of parts, but of the truth. I might therefore justly demand my quietus est, and crave a discharge here; because the main work is over, and those objections that follow after, are of less weight. But, because I am willing to give every man an answer to the least appearance of an Argument against this position, as well as to those of more strength and substance; I will in this chapter add answers to all the rest that ever I could yet see, or read, or hear of: so as no man shall have cause either to complain that I have slighted him by not giving answer to his objections; or to triumph over my silence, as if, in that, I did acknowledge his reasons to be unanswerable.

7 Octiection. What circumcision was to the [Object. 7] believing Jews, that baptism is now to elect Christians, forasmuch as Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision. But in Circumcision the spirit was not given ordinarily, to the elect themselves, as appears in the Apostle Saint Paul himself, who long after his circumcision thus complaineth; I am carnal, sold under sin. Rom. 7.14 I was a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious. 1 Tim 1.13. and in Tit. 3.3. he puts himself among the sort of unhallowed persons: for we our selves, saith he, were sometimes foolish, disobedient, serving diverse lusts and pleasures, living in malice, and envy, hateful, and hateing one another. Therefore, the spirit is not, ordinarily, given in baptism, no not to the elect?

I Answer. [Answer.] 1 To the Major: then, to the Minor Proposition in order, thus.

1 To the major; that it may be understood three ways, & it holds true but only in one of the three. For Circumcision may be said to be the same with baptism, either in respect of the substance which both do lead unto: viz Christ's blood and spirit, or in respect of the manner of representation; or lastly, in respect of the measure of grace conferred. The proposition holds true only in the first of these three. And even in that, it must be considered that, the Apostles calls Circumcision a seal of the righteousness which is by faith Rom: 4.11. that is, of that righteousness which the Gospel proclaimeth, and not of that which is expected by the law. Now, the seal of righteousness unto the elect, is not the outward ceremony alone, but the inward grace annexed thereunto, and exhibited & conferred therewith. And the seal wherewith they are sealed, is the earnest of the spirit in their hearts. 2 Cor. 1.22. If therefore the elect were sealed in Circumcision, it follows that they received the spirit. As for the manner of representing the inward grace of the sacrament, and for the measure of grace conferred in the sacrament, I doubt not to say with Judicious Calvin, (forasmuch as D. Whitaker hath so answered before me, and calls Calvin a most complete Divine, for so saying,) the sacraments of the Old Testament were called shadows, not because they did not at all represent Christ: but because they did it less clearly and significantly, than ours do; and because there is a more plentiful measure of grace of the spirit conferred in ours, then was in them. The Major proposition then comes short of what it should; because it ought to affirm that, there is no more efficacy in baptism, in respect of the measure of grace conferred, than was of old, in circumcision: which, both M ^r Calvin and D ^r Whitaker do deny. That proposition therefore, proves nothing worth.

2 I deny the Minor: viz: that, in circumcision the spirit was not ordinarily given to the Elect, notwithstanding the instance of blessed Paul, For,

1 It is no good arguing; Paul had not the spirit, in circumcision; therefore none of the Elect did ordinarily then receive it. They that deny our main position, will not deny that any at all do receive the spirit. The only thing they take offense at is, that I say, this is ordinary in the baptism of the elect. For; say they, some particular cases, do not prove an ordinary practice. Now then, I retort their own rule upon them. What if Paul had not the spirit? Doth this prove that none at all have him? He that saith, the spirit is ordinarily given, but not, always; may say true, notwithstanding one or two instances, wherein it falls out otherwise. If they like not that I should from the particular instance of John the Baptist, infer that, all are sanctified in the womb: what reason have they to conclude from one example, that the thing in not ordinarily done at all. viz: Paul had it not therefore, ordinarily, none have it. This is but trifling and unequal dealing,

2 I say, that I will not doubt to maintain that, Paul (who saith of himself that, God separated him from his mothers womb, Gal. 1.15.) did receive the spirit in circumcision, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any of those places alleged for confirmation of the Minor proposition. For, let us examine them, and we shall find that they fall short of proving that which they are produced for.

1 That place in Rom. 7. (I am carnal and sold under sin;) is confessed by all Orthodox Divines to be spoken in the person of a man actually regenerated; to show, what he is, in part, even after such his Regeneration, in respect of the flesh lusting against the spirit, and leading him ofttimes, into captivity to the Law of sin. And so this confirms what I formerly affirmed in answer to the sixth Objection, touching some kind of reigning sin that the regenerate are not wholly freeed from. For, in respect of the victory of sin over them, at sometimes, in some particulars, sin may be said to reign; because it hath so gotten the upper hand, that it leads them captive: yet it doth not absolutely reign, because they do not freely and wholly give themselves up unto it, without any desire to change Lord's. They are sold under sin, but yet they do not, as Ahab, sell thenselves to work wickedness. They are overcome; yet they obey not willingly, but only unwillingly suffer, in respect of the part regenerate. In the same sense also, the same Apostle calls them carnal. 1. Cor 3.3. whom but a little before ( ver: 1.) he had pronounced babes in Christ. This place therefore proves not Paul to be without the spirit, in his circumcision: no more then it proves him to be destitute thereof even after his actual Regeneration. Wherefore, now I turn this weapon back upon the Obiectors themselves, and urge it thus against them: If the spirit may be in such as are carnal and sold under sin, then he may be in elect infants, although carnal and sold under sin. For if he may be yet in part, carnal, whom no man will deny to have the spirit: the spirit may be in elect infants that are not, after Baptism, under an absolute dominion of sin, as hath been before proved. So far as there is any flesh not totally subdued, so far there is a want of the spirit even in a person regenerated: therefore so far as there is the least abatement of the absolute Dominion of sin, there is the spirit notwithstanding that the party be yet so far carnal, as that he is sold under sin, and led captive to the law of sin in the general course of his conversation, till actual regeneration be wrought within him.

2 That place in 1. Tim. 1.13. (where Paul saith, J was a blasphemer, a persecutor, & injurious, ) proves not Paul to be utterly void of the spirit, till his actual Regeneration: for if it doth, it must be, either because the facts were so heinous as cannot agree to a regenerate man; or, because he committed them with such a witting malice, as cannot subsist with the spirit of God, in the same subject.

1 For the quality of the facts; David, after his conversion, committed as great sins, for kind & heinousness, as e • er Paul did in his kind, before his conversion. What greater did Paul commit, then Adultery, Drunkenness, and murder committed by David? Now, if the spirit were in David notwithstanding so many crying sins at once (especially in a time of war, when, above all other times, he should have kept himself from every wicked thing, Deut. • 3.9.) why might he not be in Paul? If you say that, to kill a Christian as a Christian, that is, because he is a Christian, is a greater sin, then to commit any other murder. I answer that it is so indeed, if the Persecutor do willingly murder a Christian, knowing him to be such, and doing it out of malice to Christ and his religion. Otherwise, not. Let us therefore search a little further into the particular of Paul, and we shall find.

[ 2] That Paul did not commit those sins out of malice to Christ & goodness, nor so much as out of knowledge: but only out of ignorance that, the way which he blasphemed and persecuted, was the truth. He made conscience of the Law of God, so far forth as he knew it to be the Law, Phil. 3.6. and was zealous towards God, Act. 22.3. even before his conversion. It was a blind zeal of the Law that made him to persecute the Gospel which he understood not; and not any malice to God. So it follows in that very Text now urged against me: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly. Yea further he professeth that, he did no more then what he thought himself bound in conscience to do, merely in obedience unto God. For, saith he, J verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, Act. 26.9. And upon this ground, he did all those things, wherewith he so deeply chargeth himself: Now, if David that committed as great sins for kind, and greater, in regard of circumstances, (for he did it wittingly, willingly, with premeditation, knowing very well that he ought not to have done anything of that he did) shall be allowed to have the spirit, even at that very time; with what reason can we deny the spirit to S ^t Paul when he did those things, which in that text of 1. Tim. 1.13. he so much bewaileth and condemneth in himself; for as much as he protesteth that all this was but through ignorance of the truth, & blind zeal towards God and the truth, doing nothing wittingly either against God or his conscience, but only that which he erroneously supposed would be acceptable unto God. All this therefore, makes for me, and no way against me.

3 As for that place in Tit 3.3. which is thought to make strongest against me, it is as weak as those other two already examined. We were sometimes foolish, &c. saith the Apostle. When was that? After Circumcision, say some But how doth that appear? Those to whom he writes were never circumcised, for they were Gentiles. Nor is there one syllable of his own Circumcision, nor any circumstance of the Text that requires us so to understand it. But, he himself was circumcised? True: yet there is no mention in that place, that he was such after circumcision, as that he could not have the spirit at all in him. He only shows what he, & they, and all men are by nature, before their effectual calling, or rather before their first initiation into Christ.

It will be replied, that this place shows what he was even after Circumcision: for it contains a confession of sundry actual sins which must needs be committed after his circumcision, because he was circumcised the eight day after his birth, at which age he could not commit those actual sins? To this I answer that, he might be guilty of committing all those sins there reckoned up, and yet not wholly destitute of the spirit; as hath been proved before▪ If the spirit may be in such as are not actually converted, they may commit many gross sins, in their course of life. And in such he may be, notwithstanding the commission of such sins, since they may sometim • s commit as gross sins who are actually converted; as we saw but now in the instance of David and others. I never affirmed (as the Objection drawn from this Text would suppose) that the spirit is so given either in Circumcision, or in Baptism, as to keep the elect from actual sins; it is enough that the spirit takes off that extremity of malice which is to be found in the sins of such as are not elected.

But haply, there may be more pregnant evidence in the words following: viz: in ver. 4.5.6.7. I am content to join issue here also. The words are these. But after that the love and kindness of God our Savior toward man appeared; not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. By what? By the laver of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified freely by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. And what of all this? Doth any of this prove that Paul had not the spirit in his Circumcision? Yes, you will say, it doth. For Paul herein declares how, and when, he and the rest of whom he there speaks, were regenerated: viz: in their Baptism, of which they were partakers, not till they were of ripe age, so as by faith they apprehended the inward grace, and so came to be partakers of the spirit. But doth this place prove that Paul had not the spirit before his baptism? I trow not; for then who wrought in him that faith to apprehend the grace of his baptism? Rather therefore it proves the contrary, that he received it in his circumcision: for it is plain, he had it before. And if he had it before, why not in his Circumcision?

But to this I answer briefly that, this proves not that he had not the spirit, in any measure, before that time: for, it is not said, that God had sent Ananias unto him that he might receive the Holy Ghost; but that he might be filled with the Holy Ghost: and that not only unto sanctification but to the performance of an Apostolical function: for it is afterward added, that straight way he preached Christ in the Synagogue. ver. 20. Now although he received the spirit in his circumcision, yet he was not filled with the spirit, nor was he filled with the spirit in the first instant of his reception of it, at what time soever he first received it, for the spirit doth not work all his graces at once but by degrees. It may here be remembered what have been formerly spoken upon that place in Acts 2.38. Saint Peter bids those that were pricked at their hearts, to repent and be baptized; telling them that, so they should receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Now if they must repent; certainly they must have the Holy Ghost to enable them hereunto, else they could not repent. Therefore it must be confessed that their receiving of the spirit in baptism was no sufficient proof that they were not at all partakers of him before they were baptized. Before they received him; but more secretly, and sparingly: now, they received him again; but more solemnly, and plentifully. And thus we see that none of these places apart or together, no not when they be wyre drawn to the utmost, have in them any solid proof to make good the Minor proposition, that the spirit was not given in circumcision: and so we have overthrown this argument also; without the least prejudice to our position.

8. Objection. Those places of scripture that speak of baptism, [Object. 5] do usually speak of the spirit given before baptism; as that in Acts 10.44. the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word: and then afterward it followeth in verse. 47. Can any man forbid water, that th • se should not be baptized that have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? or else they speak of Faith or repentance going before baptism which is equivalent to the former speech: for it supposeth a reception of the spirit before baptism. Therefore, baptism was not intended for the conferring of the spirit; nor can the places of Scripture brought to prove it, be sufficient proof of it, but rather of the contrary.

Answer. [Answer.] 1 I confess it to be very true that some places speak of the giving of the spirit before baptism. Howbeit that place in the 10. of the Acts is improperly alleged for it; because it speaks of an extraordinary bestowing of the spirit upon such as Peter preached unto, in respect of the gift of tongues, as appears in verse. 45.46. where it is said that, they of the circumcision which believed, were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy ghost: for they heard them speak with tongues, and magnified God. Notwithstanding, I say, It is manifest that faith and repentance were to precede the baptism of such as were of years, at least the public and solemn profession of those graces was to be made by them, before they were baptized. Yet, as not only Saint Ambrose, and Saint Augustine, and after them Calvin well speaketh,) they received the spirit in Baptism more solemnly, which they had received more secretly before. They being of years, ought to express their faith; therefore there was a necessity of their receiving of the spirit before Baptism. But this concludes not that, therefore it must needs be so in infants also; forasmuch as in them actual faith is not required; nor yet that, therefore elect infants do not receive the spirit in baptism; because there is no need of faith to receive the spirit, but only need of the spirit to work faith in due time.

2 I say that however some places do suppose the spirit to be given before baptism, yet that proves not that therefore those places of scripture which I have alleged, do prove no such thing as I would infer thence; because I have not brought one of those places for a proof, which mention actual faith and repentance, forasmuch as they concern persons of years only. Now this objection would have the world believe that I have taken up some of those places, for my use, which speak clearly of faith and repentance going before baptism: which is not so. And so it doth cast an unjust aspertion upon me, and not give any blow to the point it self.

3 I never affirmed that infants do not at all receive the spirit before their baptism; but only that, Baptism is the first instrument or means applied for their first solemn receipt of the spirit, that may be taken notice of by us; as also for their first manifest initiation and engraffing into the body of Christ. Admit that they had the spirit before, yet it follows not that they receive him not also in baptism, in respect of confirmation thereof, if not in respect of a further degree and measure of his grace. The Holy Ghost descended upon Christ in his baptism: yet no man will say Christ had not the spirit before he was baptized. They in Acts 2. before mentioned were bid to repent before they were baptized, and no doubt they did so, which yet could not be without the spirit, as I have often said: And yet for all that, The Apostle assured them that in Baptism they should receive the Holy Ghost. What letteth then, why elect infants should not do so too? I conclude therefore that, in persons of years the spirit must go before, to qualify them with actual grace thereby to make them capable of the inward grace of baptism: and to elect infants also, the spirit may be given before baptism: but yet both unto the one and unto the other he is given again in baptism, in respect of the more solemn confirmation thereof unto them: so as those places of scripture that prove the spirit to be given before baptism, do not disprove him that saith, the spirit is given in baptism.

9 Objection. [Object. 9] If there be no difference between an heir and a servant, an elect child and one not elected, till they come to years, and be effectually called by the word, then the spirit is not given to elect infants, in their baptism. But the Antecedent is true; for Saint Paul saith it in express terms. Gal. 4.1. No • I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, d ffereth nothing from a seru • nt, though he be Lord of all; but is under Tutors and Governors until the time appointed of the Father. Therefore, the Consequent, that the spirit is not given to elect infants, in their baptism, is true also?

Answer. 1 I grant the Major, [Answer.] if it can be proved that there is no difference at all between one elected & a reprobate, either inwardly or outwardly. But there may be a difference inwardly by some se • ret work of the spirit, although no outward work appear; as hath been proved before.

2 I deny the Minor. for, between the elect and reprobate there may be an inward difference, notwithstanding the place brought to confirm it. For that text is so miserably drawn awry, that any one may discern it at the first casting of his eye upon that which followeth in the same place, so as I hold not this Argument, worthy of an Answer. The Apostle intends not there, to show the difference between the elect and reprobate, in their infancy; nor to declare that, then they differ when they come to age, by the actual conversion of the one, and the final impenitency of the other: but, as M ^r Perkins upon the place well saith; The Apostle useth a similitude borrowed from the Civil Law, and it may be framed thus. Heyres in their minority live in subjection to Tutors and Governors; but when they are of riper years, at the appointment of their parents, they are at liberty. Even so the people of God, before Christ, were in their infancy, under the law, as under a Tutor: but when the fullness of time was come, which God had appointed, they entered into the fruition of their liberty. Thus he. And he speaks truly and pertinently. For, let any man view the place well, and he shall find the Apostle to have no other purpose at all, then to prove Christian liberty from Mosaical ceremonies of the Law, by the coming of Christ in the flesh, who was the body and substance of all those shadows; and that until this time, even the true heirs by virtue of God's election, were as much bound to the observance of those legal rites; as any others whatsoever, but now were freed from them, in the fullness of time, by the coming of Christ. Here is not one syllable touching our present Argument. Therefore, for pities sake, I will lay aside this Objection, and go on to the next.

10 Objection. That Position that ties the spirit of God to means, can neither be safe nor true, for as much as God's spirit is not tied but bloweth where it listeth, John. 3. But such is this Therefore, it cannot be true?

Answer. If we distinguish of the Major, [Answer.] we shall find that, it doth our assertion no hurt; and, that we shall have cause to deny the Minor. That position which ties the spirit of God to means, where God hath not first tied and engaged himself, can neither be safe nor true. God is a free Agent, & cannot be tied by any creature; and so I admit of that place in John. 3. although, to speak properly and precisely, it is to be understood, rather of the freedom that God's spirit takes to work where, & in what persons he pleaseth; then, of the time when he worketh in those persons. For however this last, in some sense, be true too, yet it may well deserve to be questioned, whether it be the true meaning of that Text. But admit this also: yet I say, what formerly I have said in chap. 3. that there is no danger to say that God is tied, so far forth as he hath vouchsafed to promise to be present in his own Ordinance, ordinarily: nor is it untrue to say so, nor unwarrantable to expect it, yea and (in an humble manner) to require it of him. Whatsoever God hath promised, we may safely say, he is tied to perform: for he is tied by that which cannot but hold him: viz: his own Fidelity. Therefore the Psalmist challengeth God as engaged to him, Psal. 119.49. Remember the promise unto thy servant, wherein thou hast caused me to put my trust. And God bids his children do it; yea, to command him: Isaiah 45.11. Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel and his Maker; Ask of me things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands COMMAND ye me. That is, what ever I have promised, require it, spare not, so they do it in any humble manner. Now that Position which only affirms God to be present ordinarily, where he by virtue of his promise hath engaged himself to be, doth not lay any unwarrantable tie upon God, but rather gives him the honor of his fidelity, & puts comfort into his people, by giving them assurance of it.

Thus having distinguished of the Major and made it appear that there may be an affirmation safe and true, which saith, God is tied or engaged unto some things, so long as any promise going before can be found to engage him: I come now to deny the Minor, because how ever that Position which ties God where he hath not tied himself must needs be not only false, but full of presumption also; yet this position is no way guilty of any such thing. For God hath made a promise to show himself thus gracious in the ordinance of baptism, ordinarily, when it is administered to elect infants, as the learned Author of the Commentary upon the Epistle to Titus, expressly avoucheth, saying; here by virtue of his PROMISE we may expect it, here we may and ought send out the prayer of faith for it. If any man shall doubt hereof, and demand where any such promise is to be found; I would refer him to Zach. 13.1. to Math. 3 as also to the Institution of Baptism, wherein a promise is involued: to Tit. 3.5. wherein a promise is supposed; &, to sundry places moe. If the doubting party rest not satisfied with these, thē I refer him to the Author himself, who surely cā name some promise for it, else he would never have set down so much under his hand. He is still alive, and hath engaged himself both privately & publicly to make good anything written in that Commentary touching this point. Therefore I leave this work to him, & hasten to another objection, after I have added one short Advertisement to such as will not be satisfied either by me, or by him, or by any man else, with any reason. Some there are, who complain that, however many Scriptures have been alleged by me and others, to prove that the spirit is given in baptism: yet they cannot see any one place of Scripture that saith directly & in express terms, that, The spirit is given to elect infants, in Baptism. Shew them but that they say, and they have done. But if they be such as allow of the baptism of infants, let them satisfy me in another thing, and I will soon give content to them in their demand. Let them show me where the Scripture speaks, in express terms, of the Baptism of infants by name, and I will show them an express text for the communication of the spirit unto elect Jnfants by name, in their baptism. Here I know they will say that, it is not necessary to bring express words of Scripture that saith the same thing in so many syllables, but it is enough if it be concluded thence by sound consequence: and herein they say the truth. Now, if they require that, all Anabaptists should forever lay their hands upon their mouths (that have been opened so freely and erroneously to plead against the baptism of infants) because however the Scripture saith not, in so many words, let Infants be baptized; yet the thing is grounded on the Scriptures, and may by sound consequence be sufficiently proved thence: Let them forbear to press me, or any man else to produce an express Text that nameth elect Jnfants, so long as the thing is made good by undoubted and impregnable consequence from many Scriptures alleged for this purpose And if either I or the Author last above named, in this kind of proof have failed, let them show us our error, and they shall find us no Heretics.

11 Objection: That Position which offensively trencheth too near upon Popish error and a • surdity, ought not to be taught and published by faithful Ministers of the Gospel, although the point should not be altogether untrue. But so doth this, for it seems to ascribe too much to the outward work done, and is of near affinity with that absurd fancy of the Indelible Character which Papists talk so much of, and affirm to be imprinted in Baptism. Therefore, whether the point be true or false, it was ill done to publish it in such a manner.

Answ: [Answer.] This Objection comes double charged: for it falls not only upon the point it self, obliquely charging it with Popery; but upon me also, for publishing of that which, if it be not Popery, yet comes too near Popery, and so should have been buried in silence. I answer therefore.

1 To the Major, two ways. 1 by way of protestation. 2 By way of distinction. First, I protest (although I think I am so well known to all those that take offense at this particular; that I need not to make such a solemn protestation) that I do utterly from my heart abhor and renounce all points of Popery whatsoever, and that, as I have done, so I shall ever endeavor to confute them, by all the ways and means that possibly I can upon all occasions. Secondly I distinguish of the present Proposition, that: some things do, truly and indeed, trench too near upon Popish absurdity, and have such affinity with them, as that whosoever venteth them, shall give just occasion of suspicion that he hath a Pope in his belly, what ever he hath in his mouth, or pen. And these things, by whomsoever they are vented and published, do give just occasion of offense, and so do argue great indiscretion, if not a false heart to the truth, in him that publisheth them. Other things there are which do only seem to trench too near upon Popery, in the opinions of those that hear or read them, either because they do not, or cannot or will not understand the difference between those and Popish absurdities. And these, again, are either Positions, or Actions. As for Actions done, which Actions have in them no small appearance of evil, in that (in every man's judgment, that is a looker on) they symbolize with Popish superstition & and no course being taken to explain and declare, in what sense they are done, & how they differ from their practice who use the self same Actions in an unlawful manner, I ingenuously confess that it should be a fault in him that should so near trench upon Popery, as to use those actions in such a manner: because the Apostle gives charge abstain from all appearance of evil: 1 Thes. 5.22. And the same Apostle professeth in the particular of meats offered unto Idols, that he would eat no flesh while the world standeth, whereby he might make his brother to offend▪ 1 Cor. 8.13.

But as for Positions, wherein the truth is explained, and the contrary disclaimed, I must crave leave to be of another opinion. For I cannot be of their mind who hold that nothing must be delivered which may seem to some hearers or Readers to trench too near upon Popish absurdity, so long as it be not indeed a popish absurdity, but the truth; and that the difference between that truth, and the popish absurdity, to which it is supposed to lean, be so fully manifested and cleared, as all that are capable of truth and willing to receive the same, may discern it, if they please. I like not that vain conceit (which hath drawn after it many absurdities indeed; and those, of dangerous consequence) that we should, in all points, go as far from Papists and other Heretics, as possibly we can This is that which never did good; ever did, and will do hurt, when men will take that to be the truth only which standeth in most direct opposition to that which is known and confessed to be a gross error, for, as in some persons, it is only a degree of heat or cold over and above the just temper, that makes them of such a poisonous quality, so as if they be corrected by some other ingredient) they may not only prove safe, but very useful to the party to whom they are administered; so it is in many Propositions, which, as they are propounded, may contain some falsehood in them; yet may be so qualified and bounded as that a small addition, or subtraction might make them pass current, by drawing out all that venom of falsehood contained in them when they stand without those qualifications added to them.

If we go any one step, in any one point, from the grossest Heretics in the world further than mere necessity of truth compeleth, they will soon (and that justly) open their mouths against us, and complain that, we study, not so much to maintain the truth as to cross them; and, that it is enough for us to disclaim any truth, because they hold it. What can follow hence but extreme obstinacy in such as are out of the way, (and under obloquy for it) when they shall discern and be able to plead that, we do hold that, a direct opposition to them in all things, is the best and safest rule to walk by; whereas they, in the mean time, can make it appear that, however they may be wide in some degrees from the truth, yet not so many degrees as we would make the world believe: for, in such and such particulars they can prove it to all men capable of understanding, that they err not; and yet we will not consent unto them so far, as every ingenious man will confess them to have truth on their side? For my part, I will not give such an advantage unto any aduerversary, but rather hold myself bound to assent unto him, be he Papist, Familist, Turk, or Jew, in any truth whatsoever: so that I may have liberty to express myself clearly, how and to what end I hold that truth with him, and that I disclaim all such uses as he puts that truth abusively unto.

Nor do I take up this resolution without warrant, but have vnquarrellable president for it For mark. Saint Paul who professed that, in matter of practice, he would be careful not to offend a weak brother, even in those things which are not in themselves simply unlawful; yet he would not; for any man's sake, refuse to declare his judgment concerning the lawfulness of the things that cannot be simply and absolutely condemned, how much soever they have been, and perhaps still are unlawfully abused in their use. He gives instance in the matter of meats offered unto Idols, in that 1 Cor. 8. before mentioned. Some were of opinion that they might be lawfully eaten, being received with thanksgiving and prayer, and without reference to the Idol, or doubting about it. Others held the contrary, and were so stiff in their opinion that they not only refused to eat thereof themselves, but took great offense at others, that upon any reason whatsoever took more liberty therein, than they did. The Apostle comes in as an Vmpire between them. He concludeth that for matter of practice he would so far gratify the weak that he would forbear to eat of such meats: yet first protesting in that very place, that he could not suffer his judgment to be so far captivated: nor the truth to be so much wronged, as not to hold the thing lawful in it self. Therefore in point of judgment he concurred with those that held the truth, but in matter of practice he professeth his dissent from them because th • y abused their liberty to the offense of the weak, and so did swerve from the rule of Charity. By which we see that the abuse of any truth must not make any man unwilling to hold it even with those that do abuse it, so long as he abstain from the abuse whereof they are guilty. Therefore my discretion will not be much wounded by this objection; unless it can appear that this doth indeed, as well as in show, trench too near upon Popish absurdities, as the Minor affirmeth; which now I come unto.

2 To the Minor I answer, by denying it, and by making good my denial of it. 1. I deny that this assertion of Baptismal regeneration of elect infants, as it hath been before stated, & prosecuted, doth trench upon any Popish absurdity at all. 2 I make my denial good thus. If this assertion be any way guilty of what it is charged withal, it must be either because it ascribes such a Physical efficacy (as they term it) to the outward element of water, after consecration, that the very water should have force in it, ipso facto to confer the inward grace to every person baptized; at least, to the elect, so soon as they are sprinkled or washed with it in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost, by virtue of that external work done and performed outwardly by the Minister: or else because it iumps with, or at least draws too near to that other absurdity of theirs, touching the impression of an indelible character upon the soul of everyone that is outwardly baptized, whether he be elected, or not.

1 Of the former it cannot be guilty; because, (as in my preaching of the point, all that heard me with attention and understanding; so in my publishing of it thus to the world) all that will vouchsafe to pervse and consider the second chapter of this treatise, cannot but bear me witness, that I do not hold, nor ever did affirm, that all that partake of the outward baptism, be also partakers of the spirit, in it: nor, that the elect themselves do partake thereof by virtue of the outward work done; or that the water contains in it the spirit, or hath in it any physical effi • acy to convey the spirit, as if the water were as a channel or conduit pipe th • ough which the spirit passeth unto the souls of elect infants in that ordinance. But I say expressly that the spirit is given immediately by Christ himself at the same instant wherein the Minister performeth the outward act of baptism. Now the Popish tenent is directly contrary to all this, as they well know that understand what the Papists hold in this particular. And it were but an unthrifty wast of time & paper, to set down the same more at large.

2 It is no less free from the other absurdity of the Indeleble character. This may be sufficiently evident, by showing their doctrine herein, & comparing it with the point in hand. It is very true that the popish schoolmen speak much and often of this supposed character, which everyone that is baptized, according to their fancy, receiveth in baptism; and this Character, they say, can never be blotted out again, in any of those that have once received it. Howbeit, (as Soto, out of Scotus affirmeth and confesseth) this doctrine was never known to the Ancients, because neither Lombard nor Gratian, who took upon them to collect all that the Fathers had written touching baptism, do make any mention of it. Therefore it appears to be a new device of the latter schoolmen, hatched after Lombard was dead and rotten. But that Position which is here defended is of more antiquity in the Church of Christ, as appears by those testimonies of the Fathers before alleged, to which it were easy to add many more, if need required.

After that toy was set abroach in the schools, there quickly grew as many different Opinions about it, as there were Authors and abettors of it. This is manifest to all that are conversant in their writings, of which the learned Chameir among many others, have drawn a short survey. And as men differed about it when they were apart; so they were not able to compose the differences, when they met together in their Grand Council of Trent it self, where there was no small stir about it, as we are informed by the Author of the History of that Council.

In so much perplexed contrariety of Opinions they durst not conclude expressly, what that Jndeleble Character was. Yet in their seventh Session Can. 9. they boldly anathematized all, that, in Baptism, Confirmation, & Orders, shall say, no indelible Character is imprinted upon the soul. Nor have their greatest Champions, Vasquez, Suarez, Bellarmine, Valentian, and others, who have stood up in the defense of that Council, been able to bring the point to any head: no, nor yet his Holiness himself, with all his infallibleship, hath vouchsafed to explain his Council, or to help out his Vassalls in defining precisely what that thing is. Surely, here is need of implicit faith indeed, when even the very greatest and most admired Grandees of the Church, cannot yet tell what they hold and believe distinctly herein. It is not to be denied but that (with much labor) a man might find out those particulars wherein they do in some sort agree. But they agree rather in declaring negatively what it is not; then in concluding positively and affirmatively what the thing is. This I shall be able to make good out of the industrious collections of Chameir, wherein we shall find that the Papals do agree in these things (if we may take Bellarmine's words for it;) viz:

1 In determining what it is not: viz: that it is not any grace, but a thing distinct from it, which makes them disposed and capable to receive or administer things appertaining to Divine Worship. They will not have it to be faith, justification, regeneration, or the gift of the spirit himself. All these Bellarmine disclaims.

2 In determining to whom it is given: viz. to all that receive the Sacraments, whether worthily or unworthily: so as it is not anything peculiar to such as are saved, but common also to such as are damned, who do carry this indelible Character with them to Hell it self.

3 In determining in what Sacraments the Character is given: viz: not only in Baptism, but in Confirmation, and in Orders also; both of which they put into the number of their Sacraments; as they do also, Marriage, Penance, and Extreme Unction.

4 In determining in what manner it is conferred: viz, ex opere operato, merely by virtue of the external administration of those their Sacraments; so as (if the Papists say true) no man can miss of that supposed Character, so soon as he partakes of the outward part (I mean, the outward signs) of those Sacraments.

By all this it appeareth that there is a vast difference between that figment & Popish absurdity of the indelible Character, and this position which is here defended. For, 1. they are yet to seek touching the very substance of the thing; and however in the general they hold it to be a kind of quality, yet they will have it to be such as differs from all grace, and from the spirit of grace. But I affirm clearly and roundly that, it is the spirit of grace that is given in baptism, which they deny 2. They teach that their Character is given to all, without exception of any of the reprobates themselves. I affirm that the spirit is given only unto the Elect,; and, to them, ordinarily, not always, but that some may and do receive the spirit, before baptism; some, after it. 3. They teach that there is a Character given in Confirmation, & Orders, as well as in Baptism I speak only of what is given in Baptism. 4. They affirm their Character to be given by virtue of the outward work done: I say the spirit is given only by Christ himself immediately.

Wherefore I conclude that this position doth every way so far differ from that absurdity, that it hath no likeness in it thereunto, in any respect at all. I never taught other thing then that, the spirit is given ordinarily, to elect Infants, in their baptism, to be the first principle of future grace, and, in the mean time, to seal them up for Christ. If any please to call this an Indeleble Character, I would not be afraid to affirm that in Baptism there is such a thing ordinarily, given in Baptism to elect infants who are sealed by the holy spirit unto the day of Redemption; which spirit; is also an ointment that shall abide with them forever.

12 Objection. This position will, by some, be taken to be of this ill consequence in carnal Persons, (who naturally are over apt thereunto) that thereby occasion will be taken of too great a reliance upon, and vain opinion of that ordinance, with more neglect, or sleight and perfunctory use of the means of grace and salvation: whereas the doctrine of baptism otherwise delivered, would enforce the contrary care & diligence. Therefore, say some, it was very unadvisedly done, to publish such a doctrine unto the people?

Answ. Because it was a friend that made this Objection, and because by his friendly letter I have been made acquainted with moe objections against the point, then otherwise I should have come to the knowledge of, (for which I truly profess myself beholding to him) I will purposely forbear to aggravate such slips as are made in some passages of the Antecedent: viz: that, Baptism seems to be turned out of the society of the means of grace and salvation: and (which is insinuated further) that, for the ill consequences which, by accident, carnal persons may, haply, draw from it, I should rather have taught the contrary doctrine (as some others seem to do;) or else have held my tongue, what ever the truth be in this point, & how deeply soever I have been charged with Error, and Heresy, in which cases no good man ought to be so patient as not, in a fair manner, to clear himself, if he know himself to be innocent. Forbearing, I say, all such aggravations, I deny the Antecedent, and render a reason of my denial, as followeth. The bare and clear propounding of this truth gives no occasion at all of any such corrupt deductiōs. If any such abuses follow; Occasion, by accident, is taken up by them who are too apt, & do too usually attempt to abuse all other the ordinary means of salvation, to their own destruction, as well as this. This gives no more occasion of such ill consequences, then the doctrines of God's free and absolute Election of particular persons unto life and glory, and of the final perseverance of the Saints, do. For what ever ill collection may be drawn from this Position, may as well be drawn from either of those but now mentioned.

A carnal person, say you, when he hears it proved and so much inculcated that, the Elect do, ordinarily, receive the spirit and first principle of grace, in their Baptism, will be over apt to conclude thence, as followeth; Why then, there is no such need of so much preaching, hearing, praying, fasting, &c. For if I belong to God, J have the spirit in me already, how wicked soever J appear to others to be; and I have had the spirit, ever since I was baptized. And, if the spirit, I cannot miss of grace and salvation, though J never hear sermon nor pray, all the days of my life, but follow my lusts as freely as any man.

To this I say, that if a man will be so wicked, he may. But who is in fault but himself? May not he conclude as much from both the other? & is it not perpetually bawled by the Arminians: viz.

But if J be not elected, I shall be damned, let me do what I can to prevent it. Again, how is the comfortable Doctrine of final perseverance daily calumniated; as if it taught no less security and presumption, than the former.

It may not be dissembled that such wicked conclusions may be made from those heavenly Doctrines by hellish men. But yet we can find answers to all such objections, easily enough: and those, not shifts; but, sufficient abstertions of all such calumnies. We can tell such obiectors, that the Doctrines of Election and Perseverance do not, in themselves, lay any grounds for such devilish conclusions, (no more than good meat intends to yield matter of corrupt humors, in a bad stomach) but do sufficiently declare and teach the contrary, and all that are under the one, and partakers of the other, do take out the contrary lesson from them. We can tell thē that, they who are elected to the end, are elected to the means, & to a conscionable use of the means whereby the end may be attained. So also the doctrine of perseverance teacheth that, though perseverance be certain yet it is also of the nature of that grace in which men persevere, to make and keep them diligent in the use of all good means whereby they may, and do persevere, and work out their salvation with fear and trembling: according to that of Saint Peter 2 Epist 1.8.) If these things be in you and abound, they make you that ye shall never be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. Therefore, we usually add, that, if any shall or do make any other uses of these sweet and divine Truths, thereby to continue in sin, this is not to be imputed to the Doctrines themselves, but to their wicked heads & hearts that dare thus damnably to draw them awry. The Gospel which is the wisdom of God, and the power of God unto salvation to all that are saved, is yet held for no better than foolishness to the rest of the foolish and unbelieving world. So the law which was ordained for the means of life, worketh death in all that abuse it. But neither the law nor Gospel are in fault of this; nor must therefore be concealed & not taught & inculcated, because wicked men do daily wrest them to their own damnation.

And will not the same answer be good enough to uphold the point in hand against the same objection? And, if it will: why should it be held a greater indiscretion to publish this doctrine so daily useful, and so fully comfortable to all the Elect, both parents and children: than to publish those other points before touched, as deeply charged with the same ill consequences, as this is? When I say, that, Jn the baptism of Elect infants, Christ doth, ordinarily, bestow his spirit; I add withal, that, this is not sufficient for the salvation of such as live to years of discretion, but actual conversion and renovation is to be expected and labored for, in due and conscionable attendance upon the use of all those further helps and means which God hath sanctified to that purpose. For so God vouchsafeth to grace all his ordinances, that he will not have any of them despised nor neglected, by leaving either of them unuseful, through such an efficacy of any one that have gone before, as might leave nothing to be done by those that follow after. As he puts his spirit in the hearts of the elect, in their baptism; so he afterwards puts power into his word effectually to call them home unto himself: & then the same spirit works mightily by that word, and infuseth the habits of faith and all sanctifying graces that do accompany salvation. The word therefore, and the rest of God's ordinances must be carefully humbly and constantly attended upon, by all that expect any actual and sensible assurance, & comfortable feeling of the spirit bestowed on them in their baptism. As for such as rely upon baptism, alone, making no conscience of the word, and other means of grace ordained of Christ, but live securely in their sins; they thereby give just cause of suspicion that they never received the spirit, in their baptism, nor were in the number of God's elect whose names are written in the book of life. If they will needs take offense at this doctrine, they take what was never given. The Godly Will employ it better: and, for their sakes, it ought to be not only sometimes taught, but often pressed to the uttermost; unless we should suppress every good & necessary truth whereof wicked men will make an evil use.