Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants Professed by the Church of England, Treatise · Chapter 10

Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants Professed by the Church of England · Treatise · Chapter 10

p. 296CAP. 10. 6 Obiections more against the maine poſition, anſwered.

I HaueHave in the former Chapter giuen anſwere to ſuch obiections as are thought to be of cheefeſt ranke, and to make moſt ſtrongly againſt the maine tenent here diſcuſſed. In performance wherof, I hauehave not (God is witneſſe) ſtrained my witts to ſet a ſhew vponupon any one paſſage Which hath not ſubſtance in it; ſo farre as I am able to iudge betweene ſubſtance and ſhaddowes: but hauehave dealt candidly and ſyncerely throughout, to the full ſatisfaction of mine owne conſcience, and I hope to the content of others alſo that are not ſtudious of parts, but of the truth. I might therefore iuſtly demand my quietus eſt, and craue p. 297a diſcharge here; becauſe the maine worke is ouer, and thoſe obiections that follow after, are of leſſe weight. But, becauſe I am willing to giuegive eueryevery man an anſwere 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 adde anſwers to all the reſt that ever I could yet ſee, or read, or heare of: ſo as no man ſhall hauehave cauſe either to complaine that I hauehave ſleighted him by not giuing anſwere to his obiections; or to triumph ouer my ſilence, as if, in that, I did acknowledge his reaſons to be vnanſwerable.

7 Octiection. What circumciſion was to the Obiect. 7 beleeuing Iewes, that baptiſme is now to elect Chriſtians, foraſmuch as Baptiſme ſucceeds in the roome of Circumciſion. But in Circumciſion the spirit was not giuen ordinarily, to the elect themſelues, as appeares in the Apostle Saint Paul himſelfe, who long after his circumciſion thus complaineth; I am carnall, ſold vnderunder ſinne. Rom. 7.14 I was a blaſphemer, a perſecutor, and iniurious. 1 Tim 1.13. and in Tit. 3.3. he puts himſelfe p. 298among the ſort of vnhallowed perſons: for wee our ſelues, ſaith he, were ſometimes fooliſh, diſobedient, ſeruing diuers luſts and pleaſures, liuing in malice, and envy, hatefull, and hateing one another. Therefore, the spirit is not, ordinarily, giuen in baptiſme, no not to the elect?

I Anſwere. Anſwere. 1 To the Maior: then, to the Minor Propoſition in order, thus.

1 To the maior; that it may be vnderſtood three waies, & it holds true but only in one of the three. For Circumciſion may be ſaid to be the ſame with baptiſme, either in reſpect of the ſubstance which both doe lead vntounto: viz Christs 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 euen in that, it muſt be conſidered that, the Apoſtles calls Circumciſion a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe which is by faith Rom: 4.11. that is, of that righteouſneſſe which the Goſpell proclaimeth, and not of that which is expected by the law. Now, the ſeale of righteouſneſſe vntounto the elect, is not the outward ceremony alone, but the inward p. 299grace annexed therevnto, and exhibited & conferred therewith. And the ſeale 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 followes that they receiued 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 IudiciousaaLib. 4. Inſtit. cap. 14. ſect. 22. nec non in Antidoto. Caluin, (foraſmuch asbbCum Calvino integerrimo Theolog. respondeo: vetera ſacramenta vmbras dici, non quod non omnino, Chriſtum repreſentarent, ſed quod minus clare & ſignificanter id facerent, quam noſtra, & quod in noſtris vberior ſpiritus gratia ſe proſerat quam in illis Whitak. de ſacram. in genequeſt. 5. cap. 2. D. Whitaker hath ſo anſwered before me, and calls Calvin a moſt compleat Diuine, for ſo ſaying,) the ſacraments of the old Teſtament were called ſhaddowes, not becauſe they did not at all repreſent Chriſt: but becauſe they did it leſſe clearly and ſignificantly, than ours doe; and becauſe there is a more plentifull meaſure of grace of the spirit conferred in ours, then was in them. The Maior propoſition then comes ſhort of what it ſhould; becauſe it ought to affirme that, there is no more efficacy in baptiſme, 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, proues nothing worth.

p. 3002 I deny the Minor: viz: that, in circumciſion the ſpirit was not ordinarily giuen 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 receiue it. They that deny our maine poſition, will not deny that any at all doe receiue the ſpirit. The only thing they take offence at is, that I ſay, this is ordinary in the baptiſme of the elect. For; ſay they, ſome particular caſes, doe not proue an ordinary practiſe. Now then, I retort their owne rule vponupon them. What if Paul had not the ſpirit? Doth this proue that none at all hauehave him? He that ſaith, the ſpirit is ordinarily giuen, but not, alwaies; 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 Iohn Baptiſt, inferre that, all are ſanctified in the womb: what reaſon hauehave they to conclude from one example, that the thing in not ordinarily done at all. viz: Paul had it not therfore, ordinarily, none hauehave it. This is but trifling and vnequall dealing,

p. 3012 I ſay, that I will not doubt to maintaine that, Paul (who ſaith of himſelfe that, God ſeperated him from his mothers womb, Gal. 1.15.) did receaue the ſpirit in circumciſion, notwithſtanding any thing to the contrary in any of thoſe places alleaged for confirmation of the Minor propoſition. For, let vsus examine them, and we ſhall finde that they fall ſhort of prouing that which they are produced for.

1 That place in Rom. 7. (I am carnall and ſold vnderunder ſinne;) is confeſſed by all Orthodox Divines to bee ſpoken in the perſon of a man actually regenerated; to ſhew, what he is, in part, even after ſuch his Regeneration, in reſpect of the fleſh luſting againſt the ſpirit, and leading him oft-times, into captiuity to the Law of ſinne. And ſo this confirmes what I formerly affirmed in anſwere to the ſixth Objection, touching ſome kinde of reigning ſinne that the regenerate are not wholy freeed from.The dominiō of ſinne in the regenerate (which is but improperly called a Dominion) may be diſtinguiſhed from the proper dominion of ſinne in reprobates, by the inſtāce in two men ſwimming in a ſtrong tide one ſwimming againſt the tide the other with it. They are both carried downe the ſtreame by the ſtrength of the water, but one ſtriues againſt it even when hee is moſt violently carried away with it, the other is carried away and neuer ſtriues but puts out all his ſtrength to ſwimme along with the tide willingly and wilfully, with delight and deſperate reſolution. For, in reſpect of the victory of ſin p. 302ouer them, at ſome times, in ſom particulars, ſinne may be ſaid to reigne; becauſe it hath ſo gotten the vpper hand, that it leads them captiue: yet it doth not abſolutely reigne, becauſe they doe not freely and wholy giuegive themſelues vp vntounto it, without any deſire to change Lords. They are ſold vnderunder ſinne, but yet they doe not, as Ahab, ſell thēſelues to work wickedneſſe. They are ouercome; yet they obey not willingly, but only vnwillingly ſuffer, in reſpect of the part regenerate. In the ſame ſenſe alſo, the ſame Apoſtle calls them carnall. 1. Cor 3.3. whom but a little before (ver: 1.) hee had pronounced babes in Chriſt. This place therefore proues not Paul to bee without the ſpirit, in his circumciſion: no more then it proues him to bee deſtitute thereof euen after his actuall Regeneration. Wherefore, now I turne this weapon backe vponupon the Obiectors themſelues, and vrge it thus againſt them: If the ſpirit may be in ſuch as are carnall and ſold vnderunder ſinne, then hee may be in elect infants, although carnall and ſold vnderunder ſinne. For if he may be yet in part, carnall, whom no man will deny to hauehave the p. 303ſpirit: the ſpirit may bee in elect infants that are not, after Baptiſme, vnderunder an abſolute dominion of ſinne, as hath beene before proved. So farre as there is any fleſh not totally ſubdued, ſo farre there is a want of the ſpirit even in a perſon regenerated: therefore ſo farre as there is the leaſt abatement of the abſolute Dominion of ſinne, there is the ſpirit notwithſtanding that the party be yet ſo far carnall, as that he is ſold vnderunder ſinne, and led captiue to the law of ſinne in the generall courſe of his converſation, till actuall regeneration be wrought within him.

2 That place in 1. Tim. 1.13. (where Paul ſaith, J was a blaſphemer, a perſecutor, & iniurious,) proues not Paul to be vtterly void of the ſpirit, till his actuall Regeneration: for if it doth, it muſt bee, either becauſe the facts were ſo haynous 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 ſubiect.

1 For the quality of the facts; David, after his conuerſion, committed as great ſinnes, for kinde & haynouſneſſe, as e…er p. 304Paul did in his kinde, before his converſion. What greater did Paul commit, then Adultery, Drunkenneſſe, and murther committed by Dauid? Now, if the ſpirit were in Dauid notwithſtanding ſo many crying ſinnes at once (eſpecially in a time of warre, when, aboue all other times, he ſhould hauehave kept himſelfe from eueryevery wicked thing, Deut. …3.9.) why might hee not bee in Paul? If you ſay that, to kill a Chriſtian as a Chriſtian, that is, becauſe hee is a Chriſtian, is a greater ſinne, then to commit any other murther. I anſwere that it is ſo indeed, if the Perſecutor doe willingly murther a Chriſtian, knowing him to be ſuch, and doing it out of malice to Chriſt and his religion. Otherwiſe, not. Let vsus therefore ſearch a little further into the particular of Paul, and wee ſhall finde.

2That Paul did not commit thoſe ſinnes out of malice to Chriſt & goodneſſe, nor ſo much as out of knowledge: but onelyonly out of ignorance that, the way which hee blaſphemed and perſecuted, was the truth. p. 305He made conſcience of the Law of God, ſo farre forth as hee knewe it to bee the Law, Phil. 3.6. and was zealous towards God, Act. 22.3. even before his conuerſion. It was a blind zeale of the Law that made him to perſecute the Goſpell which he vnderſtood not; and not any malice to God. So it followes in that very Text now vrged againſt me: but I obtained mercy, becauſe I did it ignorantly. Yea further he profeſſeth that, he did no more then what he thought himſelfe bound in conſcience to doe, meerly in obedience vntounto God. For, ſaith he, J verily thought with my ſelfe that I ought to doe many things contrary to the name of Ieſus of Nazareth, Act. 26.9. And vponupon this ground, he did all thoſe things, wherewith hee ſo deeply chargeth himſelfe: Now, if Dauid that committed as great ſinnes for kinde, and greater, in regard of circumſtances, (for hee did it wittingly, willingly, with premeditation, knowing very well that hee ought not to hauehave done any thing of that he did) ſhall be allowed to hauehave the ſpirit, euen at that p. 306very time; with what reaſon can wee 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 himſelfe; for as much as hee proteſteth that all this was but through ignorance of the truth, & blind zeale towards God and the truth, doing nothing wittingly either againſt God or his conſcience, but only that which he erroniouſly ſuppoſed would be acceptable vntounto God. All this therefore, makes for mee, 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 weake as thoſe other two already examined. Wee were ſometimes fooliſh, &c. ſaith the Apoſtle. When was that? After Circumciſion, ſay ſome But how doth that appeare? Thoſe to whom hee writes were neuer circumciſed, for they were Gentiles. Nor is there one ſyllable of his own Circumciſion, nor any circumſtance of the Text that requires vsus ſo to vnderſtand it. But, he himſelf was circumciſed? True: yet there is no mention p. 307in that place, that he was ſuch after circumciſion, as that he could not hauehave the ſpirit at all in him. He only ſhewes what he, & they, and all men are by nature, before their effectuall calling, or rather before their firſt initiation into Chriſt.

It will bee replied, that this place ſhewes what he was euen after Circumciſion: for it containes a confeſſion of ſundry actual ſinnes which muſt needs bee committed after his circumciſion, becauſe hee was circumciſed the eight day after his birth, at which age he could not commit thoſe actuall ſinnes? To this I anſwere that, hee might be guilty of committing all thoſe ſinnes there reckoned vp, and yet not wholy deſtitute of the ſpirit; as hath beene proued before▪ If the ſpirit may bee in ſuch as are not actually conuerted, they may commit many groſſe ſinnes, in their courſe of life. And in ſuch hee may be, notwithſtanding the commiſſion of ſuch ſinnes, ſince they may ſometim…s commit as groſſe ſinnes who are actually conuerted; as we ſaw but now in the inſtance of David and others. I neuer affirmed (as the Obiection p. 308drawne from this Text would ſuppoſe) that the ſpirit is ſo giuen either in Circumciſion, or in Baptiſme, as to keepe the elect from actuall ſinnes; it is enough that the ſpirit takes off that extremity of malice which is to be found in the ſinnes of ſuch as are not elected.

But haply, there may bee more pregnant evidence in the words following: viz: in ver. 4.5.6.7. I am content to ioine iſſue here alſo. The words are theſe. But after that the louelove and kindneſſe of God our Saviour toward man appeared; not by workes of righteouſneſſe which we hauehave done, but according to his mercy he ſaued vsus. By what? By the lauer of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghoſt, which he ſhed on vsus abundantly through Ieſus Chriſt our Saviour, that being justified freely by his grace, wee ſhould bee made heyres according to the hope of eternall life. And what of all this? Doth any of this proue that Paul had not the ſpirit in his Circumciſion? Yes, you will ſay, it doth. For Paul herein declares how, and when, hee and the reſt of whom he there ſpeakes, were regenerated: viz: in their Baptiſme, of which p. 309they 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 proue that Paul had not the ſpirit before his baptiſme? I trow not; for then who wrought in him that faith to apprehēd the grace of his baptiſme? Rather therfore it proues the contrary, that he receiued it in his circumciſion: for it is plaine, he had it before. And if he had it before, why not in his Circumciſion? No, may ſome man ſay; not ſo for in Acts 9.17. Ananias deales with him as with a meere carnall man wholy deſtitute of grace, and tells him that God had ſent him to him that, he might be filled with the holy Ghoſt: and, it followes in the next place, that, he was baptized, which ſhewes that hee had not the Holy Ghoſt before that time. But to this I anſwere breefly that, this proues not that he had not the ſpirit, in any meaſure, before that time: for, it is not ſaid, that God had ſent Ananias vntounto him that he might receiue the Holy Ghoſt; but that he might bee filled with the Holy Ghoſt: and that not only p. 310vntounto ſanctification but to the performance of an Apoſtolicall function: for it is afterward added, that straight way he preached Chriſt in the Synagogue. ver. 20. Now although he receiued 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 ſoeuer hee firſt receiued it, for the ſpirit doth not worke all his graces at once but by degrees. It may here bee remembred what hauehave beene formerly ſpoken vponupon 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 receiue the gift of the Holy Ghoſt. Now if they muſt repent; certainly they muſt hauehave the Holy Ghoſt to enable them herevnto, elſe they could not repent. Therefore it muſt be confeſſed that their receiuing of the ſpirit in baptiſme was no ſufficient proofe that they were not at all partakers of him before they were baptized. Before they receiued him; but more ſecretly, and ſparingly: now, they receiued him againe; but more ſolemnely, and plentifully. p. 311And thus wee ſee that none of theſe places apart or together, no not when they be wyre drawne to the vtmoſt, hauehave in them any ſolid proofe to make good the Minor propoſition, that the spirit was not giuen in circumciſion: and ſo wee hauehave ouerthrowne this argument alſo; without the leaſt preiudice to our poſition.

8. Obiection. Thoſe places of ſcripture that ſpeake of baptiſme, Obiect. 5 doe vſually ſpeake of the ſpirit giuen before baptiſme; as that in Acts 10.44. the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word: and then afterward it followeth in verſ. 47. Can any man forbid water, that th…ſe ſhould not be baptized that hauehave receiued the Holy Ghost as well as we? or elſe they ſpeake of Faith or repentance going before baptiſme which is equivalent to the former ſpeech: for it ſuppoſeth a reception of the ſpirit before baptiſme. Therefore, baptiſme was not intended for the conferring of the ſpirit; nor can the places of Scripture brought to proue it, be ſufficient proofe of it, but rather of the contrary.

Anſwere. Anſwere. 1 I confeſſe it to be very true that ſome places ſpeake of the giuing of the p. 312ſpirit before baptiſme. Howbeit that place in the 10. of the Acts is improperly alleaged for it; becauſe it ſpeakes of an extraordinary beſtowing of the ſpirit vponupon ſuch as Peter preached vntounto, in reſpect of the gift of tongues, as appeares in verſ. 45.46. where it is ſaid that, they of the circumciſion which beleeued, were aſtoniſhed, as many as came with Peter, becauſe that on the gentiles alſo was powred out the gift of the Holy ghoſt: for they heard them ſpeake with tongues, and magnified God. Notwithſtanding, I ſay, It is manifeſt that faith and repentance were to precede the baptiſme of ſuch as were of yeares, at leaſt the publique and ſolemne profeſſion of thoſe graces was to be made by them, before they were baptized. Yet, as not only SaintccVide ſupra in cap. 7. Ambroſe, and SaintddQuaeſt: 84. ſuper Levit. & quaeſt. 33. in Num. Auguſtine, and after themeeInstit▪ lib. 4. cap. 16. Calvin well ſpeaketh,) they receiued the ſpirit in Baptiſme more ſolemnly, which they had receiued more ſecretly before. They being of yeares, ought to expreſſe their faith; therefore there was a neceſſity of their receiuing of the ſpirit before Baptiſme. But this concludes not that, therefore it must needs be ſo in p. 313infants alſo; foraſmuch as in them actuall faith is not required; nor yet that, therfore elect infants doe not receiue the ſpirit in baptiſme; becauſe there is no neede of faith to receiue the ſpirit, but only need of the ſpirit to work faith in due time.

2 I ſay that howeuer ſome places doe ſuppoſe the ſpirit to be giuen before baptiſme, yet that proues not that therefore thoſe places of ſcripture which I hauehave alleadged, doe proue no ſuch thing as I would inferre thence; becauſe I hauehave not brought one of thoſe places for a proofe, which mention actuall faith and repentance, foraſmuch as they concerne perſons of yeares only. Now this obiection would hauehave the world beleeue that I hauehave taken vp ſome of thoſe places, for my vſe, which ſpeake clearly of faith and repentance going before baptiſme: which is not ſo. And ſo it doth caſt an vniuſt aſpertion vponupon me, and not giuegive any blow to the point it ſelfe.

3 I neuer affirmed that infants doe not at all receiue the ſpirit before their baptiſme; but only that, Baptiſme is the firſt inſtrument or meanes applied for their firſt ſolemne p. 314receit of the ſpirit, that may be taken notice of by vsus; as alſo for their firſt manifeſt initiation and engraffing into the body of Chriſt. Admit that they had the ſpirit before, yet it followes not that they receiue him not alſo in baptiſme, in reſpect of confirmation therof, if not in reſpect of a further degree and meaſure of his grace. The Holy Ghoſt deſcended vponupon Chriſt in his baptiſme: 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 hauehave often ſaid: And yet for all that, The Apoſtle aſſured them that in Baptiſme they ſhould receiue the Holy Ghoſt. What letteth then, why elect infants ſhould not doe ſo too? I conclude therefore that, in perſons of yeares the ſpirit muſt goe before, to qualify them with actuall grace thereby to make them capable of the inward grace of baptiſme: and to elect infants alſo, the ſpirit may be giuen before baptiſme: but yet both vntounto the one and vntounto the other he is giuen againe p. 315in baptiſme, in reſpect of the more ſolemne confirmation thereof vntounto them: ſo as thoſe places of ſcripture that proue the ſpirit to be giuen before baptiſme, doe not diſproue him that ſaith, the ſpirit is giuen in baptiſme.

9 Obiection. Obiect. 9 Jf there be no difference between an heyre and a ſeruant, an elect child and one not elected, till they come to yeares, and be effectually called by the word, then the ſpirit is not giuen to elect infants, in their baptiſme. But the Antecedent is true; for Saint Paul ſaith it in expreſſe termes. Gal. 4.1. No… I ſay, that the heyre, as long as hee is a child, d ffereth nothing from a ſeru…nt, though he be Lord of all; but is vnderunder Tutors and Governors vntill the time appointed of the Father. Therfore, the Conſequent, that the spirit is not giuen to elect infants, in their baptiſme, is true alſo?

Anſwere. 1 I grant the Maior, Anſwere. if it can be proued that there is no difference at all betweene one elected & a reprobate, either inwardly or outwardly. But there may be a difference inwardly by ſome ſe…ret worke of the ſpirit, although no outward worke appeare; as hath beene proued before.

p. 3162 I deny the Minor. for, betweene the elect and reprobate there may be an inward difference, notwithſtanding the place brought to confirme it. For that text is ſo miſerably drawne awry, that any one may diſcerne it at the firſt caſting of his eye vponupon that which followeth in the ſame place, ſo as I hold not this Argument, worthy of an Anſwere. The Apoſtle intends not there, to ſhew the difference betweene the elect and reprobate, in their infancy; nor to declare that, then they differ when they come to age, by the actuall converſion of the one, and the finall impenitency of the other: but, as M^r Perkins vponupon the place well ſaith; The Apoſtle vſeth a ſimilitude borrowed from the Ciuill Law, and it may be framed thus. Heyres in their minority liue in ſubiection to Tutors and Gouernors; but when they are of riper yeares, at the appointment of their parents, they are at liberty. Euen ſo the people of God, before Chriſt, were in their infancy, vnderunder the law, as vnderunder a Tutor: but when the fulneſſe of time was come, which God had appointed, they entred into the fruition of their liberty. Thus hee. And he ſpeakes truly and pertinently. p. 317For, let any man view the place well, and he ſhall finde the Apoſtle to hauehave no other purpoſe at all, then to proue Chriſtian liberty from Moſaicall ceremonies of the Law, by the comming of Chriſt in the fleſh, who was the body and ſubſtance of all thoſe ſhaddowes; and that vntill this time, even the true heires by virtue of Gods election, were as much bound to the obſervance of thoſe legall rites; as any others whatſoeuer, but now were freed from them, in the fulneſſe of time, by the cōming of Chriſt. Here is not one ſillable touching our preſent Argument. Therefore, for pitties ſake, I will lay aſide this Obiection, and goe on to the next.

10 Obiection. 10 Obiect.That Poſition that ties the spirit of God to meanes, can neither bee ſafe nor true, for as much as Gods ſpirit is not tied but bloweth where it liſteth, Ioh. 3. But ſuch is this Therefore, it cannot be true?

Anſwere. If wee diſtinguiſh of the Major, Anſwere. we ſhall finde that, it doth our aſſertion no hurt; and, that wee ſhall hauehave cauſe to deny the Minor. That poſition which ties the ſpirit p. 318of God to meanes, where God hath not firſt tyed and engaged himſelfe, 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 Ioh. 3. although, to ſpeak properly and preciſely, it is to bee vnderſtood, rather of the freedome that Gods ſpirit takes to worke where, & in what perſons he pleaſeth; then, of the time when hee worketh in thoſe perſons. For howeuer this laſt, in ſome ſenſe, be true too, yet it may well deſerue to be queſtioned, whether it bee the true meaning of that Text. But admit this alſo: yet I ſay, what formerly I hauehave ſaid in chap. 3. that there is no danger to ſay that God is tied, ſo farre forth as he hath vouchſafed to promiſe to be preſent in his owne Ordinance, ordinarily: nor is it vntrue to ſay ſo, nor vnwarrantable to expect it, yea and (in an humble manner) to require it of him. Whatſoeuer God hath promiſed, we may ſafely ſay, hee is tied to performe: for he is tied by that which cannot but hold him: viz: his owne Fidelity. Therefore the Pſalmiſt challengeth God as engaged to him, Pſal. 119.49. Remember p. 319the promiſe vntounto thy ſeruant, wherein thou haſt cauſed me to put my truſt. And God bids his children doe it; yea, to command him: Iſay 45.11. Thus ſaith the Lord, the Holy One of Jſrael and his Maker; Aske of me things to come concerning my ſonnes, and concerning the worke of my hands COMMAND yee me. That is, what euer I hauehave promiſed, require it, ſpare not, ſo they doe it in any humble manner. Now that Poſition which only affirmes God to be preſent ordinarily, where hee by virtue of his promiſe hath engaged himſelfe to bee, doth not lay any vnwarrantable tye vponupon God, but rather giues him the honour of his fidelity, & puts comfort into his people, by giving them aſſurance of it.

Thus hauing diſtinguiſhed of the Major and made it appeare that there may bee an affirmation ſafe and true, which ſaith, God is tyed or engaged vntounto ſome things, ſo long as any promiſe going before can bee found to engage him: I come now to deny the Minor, becauſe how euer that Poſition which ties God where he hath not tied himſelfe muſt needs be not only falſe, but full of preſumption p. 320alſo; yet this poſition is no way guilty of any ſuch thing. For God hath made a promiſe to ſhew himſelfe thus gratious in the ordinance of baptiſme, ordinarily, when it is adminiſtred to elect infants, as the learned Author of the Commentary vponupon the Epiſtle to Titus, expreſly 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 bee found; I would referre him to Zach. 13.1. to Math. 3 as alſo to the Inſtitution of Baptiſme, 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 referre him to the Author himſelf, who ſurely cā name ſome promiſe for it, elſe he would neuer hauehave ſet down ſo much vnderunder his hand. Hee is ſtill aliue, and hath engaged himſelfe both privatly & publiquely to make good any thing written in that Commentary touching this point. Therefore I leaue this worke to him, & haſten to another obiection, after I hauehave added p. 321one 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 complaine that, howeuer many Scriptures hauehave beene alleaged by mee and others, to proue that the ſpirit is giuen in baptiſme: yet they cannot ſee any one place of Scripture that ſaith directly & in expreſſe termes, that, The spirit is giuen to elect infants, in Baptiſme. Shew them but that they ſay, and they hauehave done. But if they bee ſuch as allow of the baptiſme of infants, let them ſatisfie me in another thing, and I will ſoone giuegive content to them in their demand. Let them ſhew me where the Scripture ſpeaks, in expreſſe termes, of the Baptiſme of infants by name, and I will ſhew them an expreſſe text for the communication of the ſpirit vntounto elect Jnfants by name, in their baptiſme. Here I knowe they will ſay that, it is not neceſſary to bring expreſſe words of Scripture that ſaith the ſame thing in ſo many ſyllables, but it is enough if it bee concluded thence by ſound conſequence: and herein they ſay the truth. Now, if they require that, all Anabaptiſts p. 322ſhould for euer lay their hands vponupon their mouthes (that hauehave beene opened ſo freely and erroniouſly to plead againſt the baptiſme of infants) becauſe however the Scripture ſaith not, in ſo many words, let Infants be baptiſed; yet the thing is grounded on the Scriptures, and may by ſound conſequence be ſufficiently proued thence: Let them forbeare to preſſe me, or any man elſe to produce an expreſſe Text that nameth elect Jnfants, ſo long as the thing is made good by vndoubted and impregnable conſequence from many Scriptures alleaged for this purpoſe And if either I or the Author laſt aboue named, in this kind of proof hauehave failed, let them ſhew vsus our error, and they ſhall finde vsus no Hereticks.

11 Obiect.11 Obiection: That Poſition which offenſiuely trencheth too neere vponupon Popiſh error and a…ſurdity, ought not to bee taught and publiſhed by faithfull Miniſters of the Goſpell, although the point ſhould not bee altogether vntrue. But ſo doth this, for it ſeemes to aſcribe too much to the outward worke done, and is of neere affinity with that abſurd p. 323fancy of the Indelible Character which Papists talke ſo much of, and affirme to bee imprinted in Baptiſme. Therefore, whether the point be true or falſe, it was ill done to publiſh it in ſuch a manner.

Anſw: Anſwere. This Obiection comes double charged: for it falls not only vponupon the point it ſelfe, obliquely charging it with Popery; but vponupon mee alſo, for publiſhing of that which, if it be not Popery, yet comes too neere Popery, and ſo ſhould hauehave beene buried in ſilence. I anſwere therefore.

1 To the Major, two waies. 1 by way of proteſtation. 2 By way of diſtinction. Firſt, I protest (although I thinke I am ſo well knowne to all thoſe that take offence at this particular; that I need not to make ſuch a ſolemne proteſtation) that I doe vtterly from my heart abhorre and renounce all points of Popery whatſoeuer, and that, as I hauehave done, ſo I ſhall euer endeauour to confute them, by all the waies and meanes that poſſibly I can vponupon all occaſions. Secondly I diſtinguiſh of the preſent Propoſition, that: ſome things doe, truely and indeed, trench p. 324too neere vponupon Popiſh abſurdity, and hauehave ſuch affinity with them, as that whoſoeuer venteth them, ſhall giuegive iuſt occaſion of ſuſpition that he hath a Pope in his belly, what euer he hath in his mouth, or pen. And theſe things, by whomſoeuer they are vented and publiſhed, doe giuegive iuſt occaſion of offence, and ſo doe argue great indiſcretion, if not a falſe heart to the truth, in him that publiſheth them. Other things there are which doe only ſeeme to trench too neere vponupon Popery, in the opinions of thoſe that heare or read them, either becauſe they doe not, or cannot or will not vnderſtand the difference betweene thoſe and Popiſh abſurdities. And theſe, againe, are either Poſitions, or Actions. As for Actions done, which Actions hauehave in them no ſmall appearance of euill, in that (in eueryevery mans iudgment, that is a looker on) they ſymbolize with Popiſh ſuperſtition & and no courſe being taken to explaine and declare, in what ſenſe they are done, & how they differ from their practiſe who vſe the ſelfe ſame Actions in an vnlawfull manner, I ingenuouſly confeſſe that it ſhould bee a p. 325fault in him that ſhould ſo neere trench vponupon Popery, as to vſe thoſe actions in ſuch a manner: becauſe the Apoſtle giues charge abſtaine from all appearance of euill: 1 Theſ. 5.22. And the ſame Apoſtle profeſſeth in the particular of meats offered vntounto Idols, that he would eate no fleſh while the world ſtandeth, wherby 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 craue leaue to be of another opinion. For I cannot be of their minde who hold that nothing muſt be deliuered which may ſeeme to ſome hearers or Readers to trench too neere vponupon Popiſh abſurdity, ſo long as it be not indeed a popiſh abſurdity, but the truth; and that the difference betweene that truth, and the popiſh abſurdity, to which it is ſuppoſed to leane, be ſo fully manifeſted and cleared, as all that are capable of truth and willing to receiue the ſame, may diſcerne it, if they pleaſe. I like not that vaine conceit (which hath drawne after it many abſurdities indeed; and thoſe, of dangerous conſequence) that wee ſhould, in all points, p. 326goe as farre from Papiſts and other Hereticks, as poſſibly wee can This is that which neuer did good; ever did, and will doe hurt, when men will take that to be the truth only which ſtandeth in moſt direct oppoſition to that which is knowne and confeſſed to be a groſſe error, for, as in ſome perſons, it is only a degree of heat or cold ouer and aboue the iuſt temper, that makes them of ſuch a poiſonous quality, ſo as if they be corrected by ſome other ingredient) they may not only proue ſafe, but very vſefull to the party to whom they are adminiſtred; ſo it is in many Propoſitions, which, as they are propounded, may containe ſome falſhood in them; yet may be ſo qualified and bounded as that a ſmall addition, or ſubſtraction might make them paſſe current, by drawing out all that venome of falſhood contained in them when they ſtand without thoſe qualifications added to them.

If wee goe any one ſtep, in any one point, from the groſſeſt Hereticks in the world further than meere neceſſity of truth compeleth, they will ſoone (and that iuſtly) open p. 327their mouthes againſt vsus, and complaine that, wee ſtudy, not ſo much to maintaine the truth as to croſſe them; and, that it is enough for vsus to diſclaime any truth, becauſe they hold it. What can follow hence but extreme obſtinacy in ſuch as are out of the way, (and vnderunder obloquy for it) when they ſhall diſcerne and be able to plead that, wee doe hold that, a direct oppoſition to them in all things, is the beſt and ſafeſt rule to walk by; whereas they, in the meane time, can make it appeare that, howeuer they may be wide in ſome degrees from the truth, yet not ſo many degrees as we would make the world beleeue: for, in ſuch and ſuch particulars they can proue it to all men capable of vnderſtanding, that they erre not; and yet we will not conſent vntounto them ſo farre, as eueryevery ingenious man will confeſſe them to hauehave truth on their ſide? For my part, I will not giuegive ſuch an advantage vntounto any aduerverſary, but rather hold my ſelfe bound to aſſent vntounto him, be he Papiſt, Familiſt, Turk, or Iew, in any truth whatſoeuer: ſo that I may hauehave liberty to expreſſe my ſelfe clearly, p. 328how and to what end I hold that truth with him, and that I diſclaime all ſuch vſes as he puts that truth abuſiuely vntounto.

Nor doe I take vp this reſolution without warrant, but hauehave vnquarrellable preſident for it For marke. Saint Paul who profeſſed that, in matter of practiſe, hee would be carefull not to offend a weake brother, euen in thoſe things which are not in themſelues ſimply vnlawfull; yet hee would not; for any mans ſake, refuſe to declare his iudgment concerning the lawfulneſſe of the things that cannot be ſimply and abſolutly condemned, how much ſoeuer they hauehave beene, and perhaps ſtill are vnlawfully abuſed in their vſe. Hee giues inſtance in the matter of meats offered vntounto Idols, in that 1 Cor. 8. before mentioned. Some were of opinion that they might be lawfully eaten, being receiued with thankſgiuing and prayer, and without reference to the Idoll, or doubting about it. Others held the contrary, and were ſo ſtiffe in their opinion that they not only refuſed to eat thereof themſelues, but tooke great offence at others, that vponupon p. 313any reaſon whatſoeuer tooke more liberty therein, than they did. The Apoſtle comes in as an Vmpire betweene them. He concludeth that for matter of practiſe he would ſo farre gratify the weake that he would forbeare to eate of ſuch meats: yet firſt proteſting in that very place, that he could not ſuffer his iudgment to be ſo farre captivated: nor the truth to be ſo much wronged, as not to hold the thing lawfull in it ſelfe. Therfore in point of iudgment he concurred with thoſe that held the truth, but in matter of practiſe he profeſſeth his diſſent from them becauſe th…y abuſed their liberty to the offence of the weake, and ſo did ſwarue from the rule of Charity. By which wee ſee that the abuſe of any truth muſt not make any man vnwilling to hold it euen with thoſe that doe abuſe it, ſo long as he abſtaine from the abuſe wherof they are guilty. Therefore my diſcretion will not be much wounded by this obiection; vnleſſe it can appeare that this doth indeed, as well as in ſhew, trench too neere vponupon Popiſh abſurdities, as the Minor affirmeth; which now I come vntounto.

p. 3302 To the Minor I anſwere, by denying it, and by making good my deniall of it. 1. I deny that this aſſertion of Baptiſmall regeneration of elect infants, as it hath beene before ſtated, & proſecuted, doth trench vponupon any Popiſh abſurdity at all. 2 I make my deniall good thus. If this aſſertion be any way guilty of what it is charged withall, it muſt be either becauſe it aſcribes ſuch a Phyſicall efficacy (as they terme it) to the outward element of water, after conſecration, that the very water ſhould hauehave force in it, ipſo facto to conferre the inward grace to eueryevery perſon baptized; at leaſt, to the elect, ſo ſoone as they are ſprinkled or waſhed with it in the name of the Father, and of the ſonne, and of the Holy Ghoſt, by vertue of that externall worke done and performed outwardly by the Miniſter: or elſe becauſe it iumps with, or at leaſt drawes too neere to that other abſurdity of theirs, touching the impreſſion of an indelible character vponupon the ſoule of eueryevery one that is outwardly baptized, whether he be elected, or not.

1 Of the former it cannot be guilty; becauſe, p. 331(as in my preaching of the point, all that heard me with attention and vnderſtanding; 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 beare me witneſſe, that I doe not hold, nor euer did affirme, that all that partake of the outward baptiſme, bee alſo partakers of the ſpirit, in it: nor, that the elect themſelues doe partake thereof by vertue of the outward worke done; or that the water containes in it the ſpirit, or hath in it any phyſicall effi…acy to convey the ſpirit, as if the water were as a channel or conduit pipe th…ough which the ſpirit paſſeth vntounto the ſoules of elect infants in that ordinance. But I ſay expreſly that the ſpirit is giuen immediatly by Chriſt himſelfe at the ſame inſtant wherein the Miniſter performeth the outward act of baptiſme. Now the Popiſh tenent is directly contrary to all this, as they well know that vnderſtand what the Papiſts hold in this particular. And it were but an vnthrifty waſt of time & paper, to ſet downe the ſame more at large.

2 It is no leſſe free from the other abſurdity p. 332of the Indeleble character. This may bee ſufficiently euident, by ſhewing their doctrine herein, & cōparing it with the point in hand. It is very true that the popiſh ſchoolemen ſpeake much and often of this ſuppoſed character, which eueryevery one that is baptized, according to their fancy, receiueth in baptiſme; and this Character, they ſay, can neuer be blotted out againe, in any of thoſe that hauehave once receiued it. Howbeit, (as Soto, out of Scotus affirmeth and confeſſeth) this doctrine was neuer knowne to the Ancients, becauſe neither Lombard nor Gratian, who tooke vponupon them to collect all that the Fathers had written touching baptiſme, doe make any mention of it. Therefore it appeares to be a new device of the latter ſchoolemen, hatched after Lombard was dead and rotten. But that Poſition which is here defended is of more antiquity in the Church of Chriſt, as appeares by thoſe teſtimonies of the Fathers before alleadged, to which it were eaſy to adde many more, if neede required.

After that toy was ſet abroach in the p. 333ſchooles, there quickly grew as many different Opinions about it, as there were Authors and abettors of it. This is manifeſt to all that are conuerſant in their writings, of which the learnedffDe Sacram. l. 2. cap. 12. &c. Chameir among many others, hauehave drawne 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 Councell of Trent it ſelfe, where there was no ſmall ſtirre about it, as we are informed by the Author of theggPag. 239. History of that Councell. It was worth the knowing, ſaith he, what thing they meant by it, & where ſituated, in ſuch multiplicity of Schoole opinions. Some made it a quality: and among thoſe were fowre opinions, according to the fowre kinds of qualities: ſome, a ſpirituall power: ſome, an habit or diſpoſition: others, a ſpirituall figure: and the opinion that it was a ſenſible metaphorical quality, wanted not abettors. Some would hauehave it a reall relation: ſome, a fabricke of the minde, who had ſomewhat to doe to declare how farre it differed from nothing.

p. 334The ſame variety of opinions concerning the ſubiect, was troubleſome. Some placed it in the eſſence of the ſoule: ſome, in the vnderſtanding: ſome, in the Will. And there wanted not, who gaue it place in the hands and tongue. Hierome of Portugall, a Dominican Frier, thought that the Sacrament did imprint a ſpirituall quality before the comming of grace; & that it was of two ſorts▪ One, which can neuer be aboliſhed; the other, which may bee loſt, and regained. The former was called a Character; the latter, a certaine ornament. The Sacraments which giuegive the firſt, cannot be reiterated, becauſe their effect euer remaineth: the other, may, when their effect is loſt. This carried a faire ſhew, but was not approued of by many, becauſe there was no other Author of that ornament, but their S. Thomas of Aquine; who alſo, though he begat it, yet did not thinke it worthy of education.

In ſo much perplexed contrariety of Opinions they durſt not conclude expreſly, what that Jndeleble Character was. Yet in p. 335their ſeauenth Seſſion Can. 9. they boldly anathematized all, that, in Baptiſme, Confirmation, & Orders, ſhall ſay, no indeleble Character is imprinted vponupon the ſoule. Nor hauehave their greateſt Champions, Vaſquez, Suarez, Bellarmine, Valentian, and others, who hauehave ſtood vp in the defence of that Councell, beene able to bring the point to any head: no, nor yet his Holineſſe himſelfe, with all his infallibleſhip, hath vouchſafed to explaine his Councell, or to helpe out his Vaſſalls in defining preciſely what that thing is. Surely, here is need of implicit faith indeed, when euen the very greateſt and moſt admired Grandees of the Church, cannot yet tel what they hold and beleeue diſtinctly herein. It is not to be denied but that (with much labour) a man might find out thoſe particulars wherein they doe in ſome ſort agree. But they agree rather in declaring negatiuely what it is not; then in concluding poſitiuely and affirmatiuely what the thing is. This I ſhal be able to make good out of the induſtrious collections ofggIbid. Chameir, wherein wee ſhall find that the Papals doe agree in theſe things p. 336(if wee may take Bellarmines 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 receiue or adminiſter things appertaining to Divine Worſhip. They will not hauehave it to be faith, iuſtification, regeneration, or the gift of the ſpirit himſelfe. All theſe Bellarmine diſclaimes.

2 In determining to whom it is giuen: viz. to all that receiue the Sacraments, whether worthily or vnworthily: ſo as it is not any thing peculiar to ſuch as are ſaued, but common alſo to ſuch as are damned, who doe carry this indeleble Character with them to Hell it ſelfe.

3 In determining in what Sacraments the Character is giuen: viz: not only in Baptiſme, but in Confirmation, and in Orders alſo; both of which they put into the number of their Sacraments; as they doe alſo, Marriage, Pennance, and Extreme Vnction.

4 In determining in what manner it is conferred: viz, ex opere operato, meerely by virtue p. 337of the externall adminiſtration of thoſe their Sacraments; ſo as (if the Papiſts ſay true) no man can miſſe of that ſuppoſed Character, ſo ſoone as he partakes of the outward part (I meane, the outward ſignes) of thoſe**Although I vſe their manner of ſpeech, in calling Cō firmation and Orders, by the name of Sacraments, as they doe: yet I diſclaime the error which allowes of any Sacramēts of the New Teſt. properly ſo called, but only Baptiſme, and the Lords Supper. I vſe their termes, becauſe I am ſpeaking of their Tenets. Sacraments.

By all this it appeareth that there is a vaſt difference betweene that figment & Popiſh abſurdity of the indeleble Character, and this poſition which is here defended. For, 1. they are yet to ſeeke touching the very ſubſtance of the thing; and howeuer in the generall they hold it to be a kinde of quality, yet they will hauehave it to bee ſuch as differs from all grace, and from the ſpirit of grace. But I affirme clearely and roundly that, it is the spirit of grace that is giuen in baptiſme, which they deny 2. They teach that their Character is giuen to all, without exception of any of the reprobates themſelues. I affirme that the ſpirit is giuen only vntounto the Elect,; and, to them, ordinarily, not alwaies, but that ſome may and doe receiue the ſpirit, before baptiſme; ſome, after it. 3. They teach that there is a Character giuen in Confirmation, & p. 338Orders, as well as in Baptiſme I ſpeake only of what is giuen in Baptiſme. 4. They affirme their Character to be giuen by virtue of the outward worke done: I ſay the ſpirit is given only by Chriſt himſelfe immediatly.

Wherefore I conclude that this poſition doth every way ſo far differ from that abſurdity, that it hath no likeneſſe in it therevnto, in any reſpect at all. I neuer taught other thing then that, the ſpirit is giuen ordinarily, to elect Infants, in their baptiſme, to be the firſt principle of future grace, and, in the meane time, to ſeale them vp for Chriſt. If any pleaſe to call this an Indeleble Character, So Scharp. Curſu Theol. de Bapt. Danaeus de Sacram. lib. 5. cap. 28. Etſi enim in Baptiſmo, Regio & divino charactere, vt ita loquar, ſignatiſumus, &c.I would not bee afraid to affirme that in Baptiſme there is ſuch a thing ordinarily, giuen in Baptiſme to elect infants who are ſealed by the holy ſpirit vntounto the day of Redemption; which ſpirit; is alſo an oyntment that ſhall abide with them foreuer.

12 Obiect.12 Obiection. This poſition will, by ſome, bee taken to be of this ill conſequence in carnall Perſons, (who naturally are ouer apt therevnto) that thereby occaſion will bee taken of too great a reliance vponupon, and vaine opinion of that ordinance, with more neglect, or p. 339ſleight and perfunctory vſe of the meanes of grace and ſaluation: whereas the doctrine of baptiſme otherwiſe deliuered, would enforce the contrary care & diligence. Therefore, ſay ſome, it was very vnadviſedly done, to publiſh ſuch a doctrine vntounto the people?

Anſw. Anſw ….Becauſe it was a friend that made this Obiection, and becauſe by his friendly letter I hauehave beene made acquainted with moe obiections againſt the point, then otherwiſe I ſhould hauehave come to the knowledge of, (for which I truly profeſſe my ſelfe beholding to him) I will purpoſely forbeare to aggrauate ſuch ſlips as are made in ſome paſſages of the Antecedent: viz: that, Baptiſme ſeemes to be turned out of the ſociety of the meanes of grace and ſaluation: and (which is inſinuated further) that, for the ill conſequences which, by accident, carnall perſons may, haply, drawe from it, I ſhould rather hauehave taught the contrary doctrine (as ſome others ſeeme to doe;) or elſe hauehave held my tongue, what euer the truth be in this point, & how deeply ſoeuer I hauehave beene charged with p. 340Error, and Hereſie, in which caſes no good man ought to be ſo patient as not, in a faire manner, to cleare himſelfe, if he know himſelfe to be innocent. Forbearing, I ſay, all ſuch aggravations, I deny the Antecedent, and render a reaſon of my deniall, as followeth. The bare and cleare propounding of this truth giues no occaſion at all of any ſuch corrupt deductiōs. If any ſuch abuſes follow; Occaſion, by accident, is taken vp by them who are too apt, & doe too vſually attempt to abuſe all other the ordinary meanes of ſaluation, to their owne deſtruction, as well as this. This giues no more occaſion of ſuch ill conſequences, then the doctrines of Gods free and abſolute Election of particular perſons vntounto life and glory, and of the finall perſeuerance of the Saints, doe. For what ever ill collection may be drawne from this Poſition, may as well be drawne from either of thoſe but now mentioned.

A carnall perſon, ſay you, when he heares it proued and ſo much inculcated that, the Elect doe, ordinarily, receiue the ſpirit and firſt principle of grace, in their Baptiſme, will be ouer p. 342apt 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 hauehave the spirit in me already, how wicked ſoeuer J appeare to others to be; and I hauehave had the ſpirit, euer ſince I was baptized. And, if the ſpirit, I cannot miſſe of grace and ſaluation, though J neuer heare ſermon nor pray, all the daies 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 himſelfe? May not he conclude as much from both the other? & is it not perpetually bawled by the Arminians: viz. that the doctrine of Gods abſolute election taught by the Calviniſts (as they pleaſe to nickname all maintainers therof) doth make many men exceedingly preſumptuous and ſecure; it occaſioneth in them ſuch deſperate concluſions as theſe, If I bee elected I ſhall certainly be ſaued, let me liue as J list, and doe what I will; what need I care for prayer, ſermons, holineſſe of life, &c. If I ſhall be ſaued; I ſhall bee ſaued, let mee doe what I will to hinder it. But if J be not elected, I ſhall be damned, p. 342let me doe what I can to preuent it. Againe, how is the comfortable Doctrine of finall perſeuerance daily calumniated; as if it taught no leſſe ſecurity and preſumption, than the former. will not this, ſaith the Arminian, make men careleſſe and impenitent, when they ſhall be told that, let them doe what they will, they cannot either finally or totally looſe all grace, if euer they had any at all? Will not ſuch perſons cōclude againſt any man that ſhall exhort them, vponupon any falls into ſome groſſe ſinnes, to ſpeedy and ſerious repentance; that, hee is much mistaken in them: they are ſure that they had grace once, and they are taught by ſuch and ſuch Divines, that they can neuer looſe all grace againe, by any ſinnes never ſo groſſe and ſcandalous: therfore, no neceſſity of any ſuch haſt vntounto repentance, as he pretendeth. Their ſtate is good and ſure enough. They hauehave that in them which cannot be loſt: and that being not lost, they cannot miſcarry.

It may not be diſſembled that ſuch wicked concluſions may be made from thoſe heauenly Doctrines by helliſh men. But yet p. 343we can finde anſwers to all ſuch obiections, eaſily enough: and thoſe, not ſhifts; but, ſufficient abſtertions of all ſuch calumnies. We can tell ſuch obiectors, that the Doctrines of Election and Perſeuerance doe not, in themſelues, lay any grounds for ſuch diveliſh concluſions, (no more than good meat intends to yeeld matter of corrupt humors, in a bad ſtomack) but doe ſufficiently declare and teach the contrary, and all that are vnderunder the one, and partakers of the other, doe take out the contrary leſſon from them. Wee can tell thē that, they who are elected to the end, are elected to the meanes, & to a conſcionable vſe of the means wherby the end may be attained. So alſo the doctrine of perſeuerance teacheth that, though perſeuerance be certaine yet it is alſo of the nature of that grace in which men perſeuere, to make and keepe them diligent in the vſe of all good means wherby they may, and doe perſeuere, and worke out their ſaluation with feare 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 neuer be barren nor vnfruitfull p. 344in the knowledge of our Lord and ſauiour Ieſus Chriſt. Therfore, we vſually adde, that, if any ſhall or doe make any other vſes of theſe ſweet and divine Truths, therby to continue in ſinne, this is not to be imputed to the Doctrines themſelues, but to their wicked heads & hearts that dare thus damnably to draw them awry. The Goſpell which is the wiſdome of God, and the power of God vntounto ſalvation to all that are ſaued, is yet held for no better than fooliſhneſſe to the reſt of the fooliſh and vnbeleeuing world. So the law which was ordained for the means of life, worketh death in all that abuſe it. But neither the law nor Goſpell are in fault of this; nor muſt therfore be concealed & not taught & inculcated, becauſe wicked men doe daily wreſt them to their owne damnation.

And will not the ſame anſwere be good enough to vphold the point in hand againſt the ſame obiection? And, if it will: why ſhould it be held a greater indiſcretion to publiſh this doctrine ſo daily vſefull, and ſo fully comfortable to all the Elect, both parents p. 345and children: than to publiſh thoſe other points before touched, as deepely charged with the ſame ill conſequences, as this is? When I ſay, that, Jn the baptiſme of Elect infants, Chriſt doth, ordinarily, beſtow his ſpirit; I adde withall, that, this is not ſufficient for the ſaluation of ſuch as liue to yeares of diſcretion, but actuall converſion and renouation is to be expected and laboured for, in due and conſcionable attendance vponupon the vſe of all thoſe further helps and means which God hath ſanctified to that purpoſe. For ſo God vouchſafeth to grace all his ordinances, that hee will not hauehave any of them deſpiſed nor neglected, by leauing either of them vnvſefull, through ſuch an efficacy of any one that hauehave gone before, as might leaue nothing to be done by thoſe that follow after. As he puts his ſpirit in the hearts of the elect, in their baptiſme; ſo he afterwards puts power into his word effectually to call them home vntounto himſelfe: & then the ſame ſpirit workes mightily by that word, and infuſeth the habits of faith and all ſanctifying graces that doe accompany ſalvation. The word therfore, and the reſt of p. 346Gods ordinances muſt be carefully humbly and conſtantly attended vponupon, by all that expect any actuall and ſenſible aſſurance, & comfortable feeling of the ſpirit beſtowed on them in their baptiſme. As for ſuch as rely vponupon baptiſme, alone, making no conſcience of the word, and other means of grace ordained of Chriſt, but liue ſecurely in their ſinnes; they therby giuegive iuſt cauſe of ſuſpition that they neuer receiued the ſpirit, in their baptiſme, nor were in the number of Gods elect whoſe names are written in the booke of life. If they will needs take offence at this doctrine, they take what was neuer giuen. The Godly Will imploy it better: and, for their ſakes, it ought to be not only ſomtimes taught, but often preſſed to the vttermoſt; vnleſſe wee ſhould ſuppreſſe eueryevery good & neceſſary truth wherof wicked men will make an evill vſe.

Muſculus on Math: 19.14.

Ratio humana non ſuſtinet agnoſcere gatiam Dei in hacre, ſed putat vbique opus eſſe vſu rationis & ſcientiae, alioqui nihil commercij poſſe homini p. 347infanti eſſe cum Deo. Videmus autem hic potiores eſſe in regno Dei infantes, tam abeſt vt non ſint illius participes.

Humane Reaſon cannot endure to acknowledg the grace of God in this particular, but thinkes that (without all difference) there is need of the vſe of reaſon and knowledge, or elſe that a man whiles hee is an infant can hauehave no commerce with God. But by this Text wee ſee that infants rather than others hauehave interest in the kingdome of God; ſo farre are they from not being at all partakers of it.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

PAge. 5. line 14. read ſee. p. 8. l. 15. r. of battaile. p. 12. l. 20. r ſaui ur p. 20. l. 19. r. Ordinary. p 37. l. 3. r. race. p. 45. l 11. dele the firſt when p. 41. l. 1 r profeſſe. p. 52. in marg. l. penult. r. de Sacram. l. 5: p: 58. in mar. r. D. George p 69. l. 12. 1: Art. p: 77 l. 10. r: vntounto p. 83. in marg. l. 9. r. foreign. ibid. l. 12. r: foreign p. 106. in marg. l. vlt r. 16 cap. p. 117 l: 17. r: in the Churches. p. 151 l. 11 r: …dhere p. 154, in marg. r. Dan. Chameir. tom. 4 l b. 2. De ſacram … ip. 2. par. 8. p. 157. in marg. l antepenult: r. Migrabimus p. 174. l. 10. in mar. r. perfundi. p. 176 mar. l. 14. dele vt foreign & r. verò p. 181. l. the laſt. r. abrood. p. 187 l 5 r: doe giuegive. ſomtimes in the top of the leafe, viz▪ p 231. pag 240. odiections is put for obiections. p. 248 l. 5. r. nicity, p. 262. l 6. r. ſlowing p. 266. l. 9. r. Dardanum p. 297. l. 15. r. obiection. p. 300. l. 22. r. is.

There are alſo ſome errors in the pointing, which hauehave happened by the Authors abſence from the preſſe: and thoſe the Charitable reader is requeſted to correct or pardon, as he paſſeth by them.

End of the text · Cornelius Burges, Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants Professed by the Church of England (1629)