followeth, that precisely and absolutely we ought not to say the other. Which precise and absolute terms are needless in this case. We speak of infants as the rule of piety alloweth both to speak and think. They that can take to themselves, in ordinary talk, a charitable kind of liberty to name men of their own sort God's dear children, (notwithstanding the large reign of hypocrisy,) should not methinks be so strict and rigorous against the Church for presuming as it doth of a Christian innocent. For when we know how Christ in general hath said that 'of such is the kingdom of Heaven,' which kingdom is the inheritance of God's elect; and do withal behold, how His Providence hath called them unto the first beginnings of eternal life, and presented them at the well-spring of new-birth, wherein original sin is purged, besides which sin, there is no hindrance of their salvation known to us, as themselves will grant; hard it were, that having so many fair inducements whereupon to ground, we should not be thought to utter, at the least a truth as probable and allowable in terming any such particular infant an elect babe, as in presuming the like of others whose safety nevertheless we are not absolutely able to warrant."
This objection to Baptismal regeneration is remarkably illustrated by the theory of a class of Divines[1], who conceived that there were two different kinds of regeneration, justification, adoption, one of which was imparted to all by Baptism, the other to those only who were finally saved. For the indefectibility of grace being thus secured, they had then no difficulty in admitting "that to all infants duly baptised the blood of Christ was applied to the remission of original sin, whence they were not only in a manner adopted and justified, but regenerated also and sanctified. Thus then they were put into a state of salvation, according to the measure of children; so that such as died, before the use of reason, were by that their justification, regeneration, and sanctification, indeed eternally saved. But what
- ↑ The following account of the theory is taken from Witsius, l.c. § 9. sqq. who also mentions other modifications of it, and criticizes it. It was originally proposed by Bishop Davenant, in a letter to Dr. S. Ward, Divinity Professor at Cambridge.
