A26924:207
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated and argued by Richard Baxter ; who earnestly beseecheth rulers and clergy not to divide and destroy the land and cast their own souls on the dreadful guilt and punishment of national perjury ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1689
Chapter 9: Point VI. Of the Article of Baptized Infants Salvation.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
M. Not at all: If they were why did the New Convocation alter them? The old words plainly signify no more than this that Infants baptized have all ex parte ministri, and may be saved without Confirmation, Exorcism, Chrism, Spittle, Salt, Milk and Honey, and such other additions, supposing him ex parte sui under the promise of Salvation, that is, to be the seed of the Faithful: Though I verily believe that after the making of the Common-prayer Book, our Canon-Makers in Bancrofts days began to warp towards a worser sense. But our Defenders of the Liturgy expound it as I say; and ⟨p. 49⟩the tenor of the words may tell the Reader that they meant no more.
M. Not at all: If they were why did the New Convocation alter them? The old words plainly signifie no more than this that Infants baptized have all ex parte ministri, and may be saved without Confirmation, Exorcism, Chrysme, Spittle, Salt, Milk and Honey, and such other additions, supposing him ex parte sui under the promise of Salvation, that is, to be the seed of the Faithful: Though I verily believe that after the making of the Common-prayer Book, our Canon-Makers in Bancrofts dayes began to warp towards a worser sence. But our Defenders of the Liturgy expound it as I say; and ⟨p. 49⟩the tenor of the words may tell the Reader that they meant no more.
L. Tell me first where it is that your Controversy lieth?
L. Tell me first where it is that your Controversie lyeth?
M. I. Negatively, 1. It is not whether the Infant Seed of one believing Parent should be Baptized: This is agreed on. 2. It is not whether those may be dedicated to God as our Children and baptized, who are Adopted, or any way made our own Children, as Abraham's bought and born to him in his house as his propriety were. Though we cannot say we are certain of this, yet we will not contradict them that say they are. 3. It is not whether Hypocrites Children have not so far a right to Baptism Coram Ecclesia as that the Minister ought to baptize them if it be justly demanded. 4. It is not whether there be a certainty of the Salvation of all the baptized Infants of true faithful Christians, that die before actual sin: Though all good Christians are not certain of this: yet with the Synod of Dort we hold that Christians have no just cause to doubt of it. 5. It is not whether they may not be good men that think all baptized ones absolutely in a state of Salvation. None of these are the Controversy. II. But it is 1. Whether all Infants without exception that be baptized, are saved if they then die. 2. Whether this be certain by the Word of God. 3. Whether all that be not undoubtedly certain of it, should be no Ministers?