HOME | COURSES | CV | WRITINGS | BLOG | LINKS | CONTACT

The Epistle of Davenant
(Epistola Davenantii)
Bishop of Salisbury to Samuel Ward,
Master of Sydney Sussex College, Cambridge

translated by S. Joel Garver

Introduction: John Davenant was a prominent English Calvinistic divine who lived from 1572 to 1641. While he was still the Lady Margaret professor of divinity at Cambridge, James I called upon Davenant to serve as a member of the English delegation to the Synod of Dort, along with Bishop Carleton, Joseph Hall, and Samuel Ward. Davenant's role in the Synod is a matter of continuing scholarly discussion, but all are agreed that his moderate Calvinism and Puritanism, both biblically rooted and historically-informed, played an indispensible role in bringing unity and clarity to the proceedings of Dort.

Davenant later went on to become Bishop of Salisbury and during his tenure worked tirelessly, along with Ward, Hall, Thomas Morton, John Dury, and others, in an attempt to bring unity and accord amongst all the Reformed churches of Europe. In these efforts he had numerous correspondents and collaborators ranging from Pierre du Moulin among the French to Johann Heinrich Alsted among the Hungarians. If the Roman Church was going to be effectively challenged by the Protestant Reform, they thought, it would only be through a unified Protestantism that deliberately embraced the apostolic and catholic faith of the great Creeds, Councils, and early centuries of the Christian church.

This concern for Reformed and Protestant catholicity is evident in the following letter, written by Davenant to his friend and colleague Samuel Ward, Master of Sidney Sussex College at Cambridge. With regard to his baptismal theology, Davenant concurred with a range of other Calvinistic figures such as Ward himself, Richard Hooker, the Scots divine John Forbes, some writings of Beza, various French divines, and so on, in maintaining that baptism remits the guilt of original sin in all baptized infants, whether elect or non-elect. This position was held while nonetheless strongly maintaining Dort's doctrine of perseverance, since, for these figures, the soteric experiences of infants were not taken as univocal with those of adult converts.

The bulk of Davenant's extensive letter is taken up with two issues. In the first half of the letter, he discusses, against the backdrop of the Synod of Dort, precisely what is and what is not at stake in the controversy over the perseverance and apostasy of the saints. In the second half, his emphasis is upon providing a postive account of the effect of baptism for infants, focused upon the remission of the guilt of original sin as constituting infant baptismal regeneration, justification, sanctification, and adoption.

The date of the original Latin letter is unknown, though it likely dates from the late 1620s or early 1630s, though Ward's written correspondence with Bishop James Ussher indicates that the topic had been a matter of discussion between himself and Davenant already during the Synod of Dort in 1618-19. The letter was copied with permission by Thomas Bedford, one of Ward's students at Cambridge, and later published by Bedford in 1650 as a preface to his Vindiciae gratiae sacramentalis, a revised version of his thesis on sacramental theology completed under the direction of Ward. The letter never found its way into the published works of Davenant or Ward's papers, though it was reprinted again in 1654 in a book that included a response to Davenant's position made by Thomas Gataker.

The following translation remains fairly literal, which accounts for the sometimes stilted English, at least by contemporary standards. Footnotes provide both the sources of quotations as well as explanations of material that might otherwise seem obscure.

The Epistle of Davenant

Greetings in Christ.

You do not demand my promise (dear Ward), the discharging of which I had dropped, even though to demand it would be just, since leisure, which is rarely given, is now to be had as one might wish. You remember me often to have affirmed that the argument, sought from infants—by which Arminians, Papists, and some of our own try to prove the apostasy of the faithful or saints—is not merely weak, but utterly a matter of nonsensical dispute.1 We submit each of the following propositions so that, through the support provided by them, what we affirm will be made plain.

First Proposition: In the controversy regarding the perseverance and apostasy of the faithful or saints, the question concerns that faith or sanctifying grace, which cannot be received, exercised, retained, or cast away, but by the mediation of some act or operation of free will.

This much is clear since, in the third and fourth Articles, the Arminians together allege that faith, regeneration, or sanctification are effected in men in such a way and manner that they are able to be resisted.2 As a result it happens, consequently, in the fifth Article, that they attempt to show that, in the very same manner, the believing and the saints are to persevere by this—their own faith and righteousness—with the result that perseverance is always suspended upon this condition, "If only men are ready for the fight, that they do not fail themselves." Thus it is just as if they were to have said, "this perseverance or apostasy about which there is a dispute, is suspended from a good or evil use of free will, not only as far as the acquisition, but also with regard to the loss of faith and righteousness."

Bertius' tract concerning the perseverance and apostasy of the saints has shown clearly that this controversy pertains alone to those who, only if they make use of reason and free will, do receive, retain, and strive after faith, righteousness, holiness, or regenerating grace.3 In view of this, then, the axiom: "Faith and perseverance are not gifts of repentance by predestination, but conditions, ordered for moral men by God. This gift is neither at first to be received nor afterwards to be increased unless through the will. While the gift of the Spirit is given to the regenerate unto enlightenment, the regenerate are able to drive him away, both in principle and other ways."

Having begun this way, I infer that, in this question, it is only a question of whether there are those who temporaily adhere to Christ and for a time have lived righteously and holily, who by a voluntary act are able to abandon faith and righteousness. These do not apply to infants, therefore neither of these—perseverance nor apostasy—comes into the question [of baptized infants]: "It is a worthy precept," says Tertullian, "in every question, that the sense of the answer ought to pertain to purpose of the question."4

Second Proposition: In this controversy regarding the loss of faith or of inherent grace, either regenerating or sanctifying, it is supposed that they who are said to have lost faith or fallen from grace, have formerly received and had that grace, which they are presumed afterward to have cast away.

Nothing is plainer. For it is ridiculous to contend that this gift, which we deny is presented or to be obtained in baptism, is to be lost or cast off or in whatever manner snatched away. Besides, the Remonstrants indeed deny the infusion of the habits of faith or charity. Regarding which it is evident from some of their writings. Grevinckhoven:
By whom is it denied that the constancy of faith is to be acquired by the activity of the habit of faith? But I do deny the internal principle of faith required of us in the Gospel to be a habit divinely infused, so that the will is determined by the strength and efficacy of it; and I deny openly two matters: 1. that the act of faith is preceded by the habit; 2. That the infused habit naturally determines the will to the act.5
Corvin states, "That the act of faith is first effected in men through grace, acquired as a habit through constant acts we claim; that it is infused we deny."6 There is more of this opinion in his chapter 44. But all is most plain in Episcopius, "The effect or end of baptism is not a result of some coming together of grace, but only insofar as it is a sign of divine grace and our profession." And, from his 15th Disputation, "The habit of faith is not able to be infused, as the new scholasticism has indeed invented."7

We are not able to attribute the act of faith, of charity, or of righteousness to infants, nor, moreover, infused or inherent habits, as the Arminians likewise deny. By what excuse, then, are they able to abuse this argument from infants to demonstrate the loss of faith or righteousness, or defection and apostasy by those, who they themselves admit have not been infused in baptism? They do not demonstrate that, after baptism, anything that had been obtained is lost.

Third Proposition: Papists do not acknowledge it as a dogma of the faith that any habits of faith or charity are infused into infants in baptism, nor do they teach as a matter of faith that any infant is made righteous formally by the inherence of habitual righteousness and holiness.

Thus, as I shall show, it is likewise manifest that none of the papists are able to use the example of the baptized [that is, baptized infants] against us so as to conclude, indeed, that faith and regenerating grace, when once introduced into the heart of a man, may totally and finally afterwards vanish; this is because it is not a matter of faith that such grace is infused into infants. It is acknowledged by Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Gerson that, among certain of the ancient scholastics the opinion had not been received that maintained, "In baptism infused grace and infused virtues are given to infants."8 Among the moderns, Soto expressly says that this infusion of habits into infants was not recognized anciently and with certitude as part of the catholic faith.9 Estius frankly acknowledges it to be a problematic dispute among the scholastics concerning this infusion of inherent righteousness, the Master [of the Sentences] inclining towards the negative side.10

But it should not be disguised that some later papists assert this doctrine of the infusion of theological virtues into baptized infants with greater authority than was formerly usual—namely, the Council of Trent which simply settled upon a definition.11 But, with their kind indulgence, I would say that the Council of Trent was not able to succeed in making that a new dogma of the faith, which through the course of many centuries was never a matter of faith. I would add that the Council of Trent has not established it as so. For what is thus proffered, in favor of the infusion of the theological virtues and habitual righteousness, clearly refers to those who are justified by means of the use and action of their own will.

Where it [this is, Trent] is speaking, however, of baptism's general effect, both unto infants and adults, it teaches merely that such grace is given that releases the guilt of original sin and all that which is properly reckoned as sin. All the rest concerning the infusion of the habits of faith, love, and righeousness, not a word. It is not, therefore, something defined even among the papists themselves "whether the habits of faith or charity are infused into infants in baptism."12 What was, in fact, defined is that all baptized infants are, by such means, rendered acceptable and pleasing to God (concerning which, more soon). But it is still in doubt that this is accomplished through such infused habits or through any inherent quality in their souls created by God.

Fourth Proposition: Protestants do not grant that justifiying faith, or charity uniting one to God, or regenerating grace, which repairs all the faculties of the soul, are in the very moment of baptism infused into infants

This being posited, the loss of those gifts cannot be evidenced from the fact that some who were baptized in infancy, after arriving at adulthood, are condemned for their voluntary impenitence and unbelief. For no person is able to assert for certain that those were among the faithful, justified, or regenerate, as designated from the reception of habits or by the acts of these gifts being exercised.

But let us listen to our Reformed theologians. Calvin: "No more present effect is to be required in infant baptism, than to secure and sanction the covenant which the Lord has made with them."13 With respect to faith, however, or that renovation by the Spirit which consists in a new creation or the restoration of all faculties through giving of inherent righteousness or holiness, this, he says, afterwards is performed at whatever time God himself provides for. But if "any among elect infants (having received the sign of regeneration) depart the present life before they grow up, he renovates them by the virtue of his Spirit, incomprehensibly to us, obtained in a manner he alone can provide."14

I gather from Gerson that some of the ancient scholastics were of this opinion. For though they denied the infusion of habits into infants, they nevertheless conceded, "If the soul of a baptized infant is separated immediately after baptism, in the separation itself, God infuses faith and the other virtues into it."15 Beza, together with Calvin, stipulates, "The power of the Spirit, abolishing the old man, does not begin from the very moment of baptism, but from when faith begins."16 We suppose it to be absurd "to say, infants are renovated before the time they can know and, through faith, apprehend Christ."17 Bucer acknowledges, "Infants, in their own manner, in baptism become participants in divine goodness," but that they become participants in faith and love, he denies, although they may, by the Spirit of God, be marked unto salvation and are affected so much as is in accordance with their age and state.18 Peter Martyr affirms, "numerous may be discovered who have had the sacrament of baptism for a long time without fruit, and yet afterwards, being converted to God, have moved on into much more through it."19

Neither do I know any among our theologians who would assert that the regeneration, which consists in the creation of spiritual qualities (which we indicate by "sanctification," the "formal justification" of the papists), is produced in the moment of baptism itself. No indeed, they all refer this regeneration or spiritual birth to the time of adulthood, in which true and living faith is placed into the heart of the baptized through the "immortal seed" of the word and operation of the Spirit.20 Our Montagu copies over into his Appeal those words from the Belgic Confession, "We believe this true faith, produced in each of us...regenerates and makes us, as it were, new men, by stirring us up to live a new life."21 And from the French Confession, "We believe that we who by nature were servants of sin, through the interceding of this same faith, are regenerated unto new life."

Since, therefore, neither Arminians, nor Papists, nor Protestants acknowledge that infants, in undergoing baptism itself, are made participants in those habitual gifts or spiritual qualities, which are properly said to constitute a person righteous and inherently holy, no one can prove the loss of faith or righteousness or the apostasy of the saints by any argument to be demonstrated from the case of infants.

Let me add a little bit from the Fathers.

Fifth Proposition: The Fathers acknowledge that neither actual nor habitual faith nor charity is given to infants in baptism. And they teach that conversion or the creation of a new heart, which is properly to be called "regeneration," is not produced in them until they arrive at an age capable of reason.

Augustine: "Although an infant is not a believer by that faith which consists in the voluntary act of those who believe, they are nonetheless made 'believers' by the sacrament of that faith."22 "In baptized infants the sacrament of regeneration comes first, and if they retain Christian piety, then that conversion of their hearts also follows the mystery of which preceded in their body." And, "The sacrament of baptism is one thing, conversion of the heart another," and a bit further on interjects, "The one may exist without the other in an infant—if a man is voluntarily destitute of either it involves him in guilt."23 Thus Augustine teaches two things. First, that the sacrament of regeneration without conversion of heart may occur in infants who do not yet possess reason and free will. The other, that this lack of conversion of heart, or of change, or of regeneration, does not involve them in guilt, because it is not by will that they are wanting, but due to their age.

Further, Augustine says that "the regeneration of infants would seem to br comprised merely in full remission of original sin; the abolishing of the old Adam, however, and begetting into the image of the new, which requires new and spiritual qualities, is the progress and perfection of this incipient regeneration," and only those persons, who can make use of reason and free will, undergo it:
Children, who out of the remnants of the old nature of their parents are wholly of the old nature, being propogated in the sinful flesh, evade the condemnation which is owed to the old man by the sacrament of spiritual regeneration and renovation. This in fact we ought particularly to pay attention to and remember: that only a full and perfect remission of all sin takes place in baptism; the actual man does not immediately change in his own qualities, but spiritual first-fruits, in those who progress well, increase in newness day by day, bringing change in himself from what was carnally old, until he is totally renovated.24
From this it is established that the sacrament of regeneration conveys to infants the first-fruits or rudiments of future renovation, namely, full remission and loosing from the guilt of the old Adam; but it does not at the same moment convey to him the actual renewal of the new man unto the image of Christ, consisting in righteousness and holiness. And in Book 14 of De Trinitate, "Baptismal renovation is exhibited in a single moment." But in what sense? "The remission of all sins, of course." And a little later, by an elegant comparison, he likenes baptismal regeneration to pulling out a weapon thrust into the body, insofar as in it sin is plucked out, though somewhat gently; and regeneration, of which adults are afterwards capable, is like the cure of the wound itself, a gradual renovation unto the image of him who created them.25

Nazianzen observes this distinction: "Baptism is a seal for those beginning the course of life; to those of an adult age it is a grace, and the lifting up of a fallen image."26 Jerome is so far from aknowledging the infusion of virtues into infants in the moment of baptism, that he does not even concede it to happen as a rule ordinarily in adults: "If baptism were to make one just and full of all righteousness, then the Apostle would by no means refuse a neophyte; but baptism tears up the old sins, not bestows new virtues."27

What more? If infants were reborn and made righteous by the infusion of faith and graces, why should the Fathers, and particularly Augustine, everywhere have recourse to the faith of others?28 Justin Martyr says that, "Children obtain the blessings that come forth from baptism through the faith of those who offer them to be baptized."29 And Bernard: "It accords with the character and benignity of God, that he allows the faith of others to profit those who cannot on account of their age exercise any of their own."30 We therefore may assert with Cassander, "Regeneration in infants is to be considered far otherwise than in adults."31 Also with our own Whitaker, "The Fathers never even dreamed of the habitual faith of the papists, which they wish, in baptism, to be infused into infants ex opera operato."32 Hence, it should be clear to anyone that the reasoning is invalid that concludes, from the fact that many among baptized infants may perish in unbelief and impenitence, that, therefore, faith, charity, and the remaining spiritual qualities produced by the Spirit in the reborn are finally lost.


Up to this point we have chiefly put our work into showing what is not given to infants in baptism. Now, lest we appear to negate the efficacy of the sacred rite, I will attempt to explain what is given and effected in it. This being explained, we shall simultaneously demonstrate that nothing here can be made into proof regarding the perseverance of the saints or the loss of those theological virtues or spiritual gifts which are infused in those justified through faith and regenerated by the Spirit from incorruptible seed.

Here, however, I am compelled to premise that statement of Augustine: "What influence the sanctification of a sacrament might have, corporeally applied to a person, it is difficult to say."33 And if anyone is able to set this subject free from all difficulties, I would myself listen to it (as Whitaker had formerly said) most willingly. But, meanwhile, I must attempt something.


First proposition: All baptized infants are absolved from the guilt of original sin.

And so, this is the primary effect of it [that is, baptism], upon which depends, as is said, regeneration, justification, adoption, or acceptance into the kingdom of heaven.

Augustine says: "Anyone who has ever drawn near to Christ by baptism, neither sound faith nor sound doctrine shall ever reckon as excluded from the grace of remission of sins."34 The Council at Milevis: "Infants, for that reason, are baptized unto the remission of sins, so that in this regeneration, what has been passed on by generation may be cleansed."35 Neither is any discrimination admitted here between the elect and non-elect, as to their participation in this effect. Thus, this in the Synodical Epistles of the Exiles of Sardinia: "Esau, having received the sacrament, was free from the guilt of original sin."36 What likewse Prosper allows in his response to the Capitula of the Gauls.37 And the Council at Valence most firmly supports this definition.38

Both papists and our own theologians express support for this doctrine of the Fathers. Bonaventure: "Infants receive the rem sacramenti, which is the remission of original sin."39 Lombard: "All infants receive both the sacramentum and the rem when in baptism they are cleansed from original sin."40 The opinion of our own is likewise, as is clear from the 27th Article and the Administration of Baptism.41 Nor, also, do I see any cause why we should confine this effect only to the elect, which some have done (as Lombard testifies) and some also do now, from what I make out of their writings.42

The present perspective inspires scruples on this point, since some reckon it insufficiently consistent that, in any manner or time anyone should have an ordination unto eternal life, who is not predestined infallibly to attain it. But this is not of such great importance. For it is certain, the angels who fell and Adam in a state of innocence, have been considered, in a certain manner and by a certain rational sign, to be sufficiently ordained to eternal life, although they were not by that disposition or that sign infallibly predestined to obtain the same. A temporary ordination to eternal life among infants through the remission of original sin is, therefore, able to stand without the benefit of election which infallibly destines and leads to eternal life. We are able confidently to make out these things given that, from the other side, the elect themselves stand in a certain ordination to death with repsect to their present condition (as with Paul blaspheming and not yet knowing Christ; or David guilty of adultery and not yet repenting), while, in the meaintime, their election to eternal life and the blessedness of heaven stands firm.

Now let us illustrate the final clause of our proposition. It is said that the remission of sin (as to infants) is the primary effect of baptism and the remaining follow and, as it were, result from this. For instance:

1. When justification is said to be in baptism, it appears so from this remission of original sin. "Infants," Vasquez says, "receive baptism only in order that they may be set free from original sin, and from it to be justified."43 And Bonaventure notes, "Infants in baptism are justified from contracted guilt, not actual."44 The justification of infants, therefore, is nothing different from the expiation or remission of original sin, in that infants have not come into actual sin from which they are able to be justified. What certain papists uphold, however, that the justification of infants cannot stand without infused or inherent righteousness, this they are compelled to uphold since they maintain that the formal cause of justification is always something inherent in the justified, which makes him worthy of heaven or of eternal life. But we, who, in the controversy over the justification of adults, are averse to the papist error, ought not to approve it in the case of infants.45

2. Further, when infants are said to be regenerated in baptism, it also depends upon that remission of original sin, as it may hardly or not even at all be distinguished from it. "Renovation in baptism is the remission of all sins," Augustine says.46 "In infants regeneration consists only in the remission of guilt and acceptance to life eternal," affirms Cassander.47 The same is to be said about the translation of infants from the old Adam and their initiation and incorporation into the new, for this is also connected with the remission of original sin. Immediately, then also, when guilt is removed from the infant, which he contracted in the first Adam, he is to be reckoned ipso facto in the lineage or family of the second Adam. Whence Beza has rightly conjoined the two: "For infants," he says, "being baptized and dying before faith, baptism seals insertion into the covenant and remission of their sins."48 And Augustine observes that this translation into the family of Christ is always to be held together with the remission of original sin. "He is not to be held under the father's old debt," he says of baptized infants, "who has changed his heritage and his father."49

3. Moreover, that which is called the "sanctification" of baptized infants is, for the most part, constituted in this washing away of original sin. For, as their impurity, most great as it is, consists in the foulness of original sin, so also their purgation. And as they are said to be "polluted" as a habit while the guilt of this sin is not extinguished, so also when that guilt is expiated can they be justly called "sanctified." Nonetheless, I will by no means deny them to be holy and sanctified on other accounts: inasmuch as they are dedicated to the most holy Trinity, for to be dedicated to God is a mode of sanctification; as they are sprinkled with the most holy blood of Christ so that they might obtain the remission of intrinsic sin; as they have the Holy Spirit indwell them, although not through faith as adults, but in an arcane manner, unknown to us. Whence Augustine: "In baptized infants, though they do not now know it, the Holy Spirit dwells."50 A dwelling place where such a divine and holy guest makes his vistation must be sanctified just as far as its condition will bear. And, in fact, though they have not received infused faith, righteousness, or grace in either habit or act, they may justly be called holy and sanctified who have the Author of holiness working in them, in an ineffable way, whatsoever of that sort is required for them to be reputed saints. What this is, however, or how it may be explained, who understands it? I admit I do not understand.

4. And finally, adoption, or that acceptance into the kingdom of heaven, which is promiscuously granted to all baptized infants for the sake of their present condition, is founded upon this remission of original sin or at least is a consequence from it.51 For seeing that this adoption is nothing other than acceptance to eternal life, according to the present condition of the infant, the washing away of original sin, which removes the only obstacle by which infants are hindered from entrance into heaven, by the same work sets or constitutes them justified and fit to participate in this heavenly inheritance.

This was the point made by the Exiles of Sardinia in the Synodical Epistle: "In baptism the chain of original sin is loosened and the lost adoption of sons recovered."52 Furthermore, the common opinion of theologians is that baptism, by taking away the guilt of original sin, through the virtue of Christ's passion, removes the impediment which hindered infants from entering heaven and thus so makes them heirs of the kingdom. Hence Cajetan: "Baptism sufficiently opens a way into heaven for every baptized person, by taking away guilt and penalty, both personal and natural."53 And the Carthusian: "To open the way to the kingdom of heaven nothing else is necessary, than to take away the impediment which prohibited entrance to the kingdom of heaven to the whole of humanity on account of original sin." He then adds this: "This particularly happens, as much as it pertains to this or that hereby, because the virtue and merit of our Lord's passion is applied to them in baptism."54

And this is that adoption or acceptance into the kingdom of heaven, which we gladly acknowledge to be applied to all baptized infants. Since the greater part of these are snatched away from here before they are of the age to possess reason and free will, I intend to affirm with Bucer, "No other age of men has given so many citizens to heaven."55

To these points I now add further, which is proper to my present intention, that—as the justification, regeneration, adoption, or sanctification of which we have been speaking arises from the forgiveness of original sin, through the blood of Christ applied to infants in baptism; and as that remission of sin remains the same as in adulthood and cannot be lost, although it may not draw along after it those effects which (God so ordains) are limited to that age liable solely to original sin—who does not see that, from the example of infants, it is badly concluded that the justification or sanctification of adults, once secured, may be lost?

But, that this might be manifestly evident, I add some other propositions which may serve the interest of explaining the matter more fully.

Second Proposition: That the justification, regeneration, adoption, which we admit does belong to baptized infants, is not univocally the same with that justification, regeneration, and adoption, which we say is never lost with regard to the matter of the saints' perseverance.

1. The justification is not of the same reckoning; for the justification of infants does not require the hearing of the word, nor faith, nor any act in apprehending the cause of justification itself, nor any self-application of it; but is the mere act of God alone, apprehending infants and applying the cause of justification to them. Aquinas says rightly, "Children may be justified without moving their very own will, of which they have not the power to turn themselves to the cause of justification."56 The cause of justification, that is, the passion of Christ, is applied to them by the sacrament of Christ.

But all those who are in possession of reason and free will, are plainly otherwise justified, namely, by hearing the Gospel, believing it, and apprehending Christ, just as the Apostle says (Rom 3:25-26 and 5:1). Hence the scholastics considered the justification of children to God, after they arrive at the active use of reason, to require their conversion to God.57 We utterly deny that those who are justified in such a way through faith and have in this way obtained peace with God, can then lose that state of justification (though we admit they deserve to) so as to become an enemy or to fall into a state of damnation.

Since, therefore, the justification of an adult presupposes faith and since the justification of an infant is merely the infant's passive receiving into himself of the act of another, they cannot be of the same kind either in reality or to reason. Therefore, if they [who oppose the Reformed doctrine of perseverance] could prove (which they in no way can) that this justification of infants may be lost, which is only from the remission of original sin and of another reckoning from the justification of adults, still they would not in any way prevail, since they are not disputing concerning the same thing.

2. In the second place, neither is what is called the "regeneration" of infants of the same species with the new creation or spiritual rebirth of adults, which we maintain never to be totally abolished or lost after the virtue of the Spirit has once produced it in the regenerate heart. It is commonly said, "the same subject does not receive multiple accidents of the same species."58 But the Christian infant who is made regenerate in baptism, acquires another regeneration when, with an adult faith, he receives the Gospel. Therefore, as one twice regenerate, this baptismal regeneration is not the same as that of adults, of which James says, "Of his own will he gave birth to us by the word of truth, that we might be the first fruits of his creatures."59 And Peter, "You are born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible through the word of God, which lives and endures for ever."60 And Paul, "Put on the new man, which is created after God in righteousness and true holiness."61 This regeneration—which is designated by the name "new creature" and by which the image of holiness and righteous we had lost is restored and repaired, through the infusion of spiritual gifts in believers—this is what we consider in the question of the perseverance of the born again or saints.

Of the regeneration of infants, I would say the same as Augustine says about their faith, "Infants are not regenerated by that which consists in a new birth of the will, but by the sacrament of regeneration itself making them regenerate."62 By a useless attempt, therefore, do they oppose the perseverance of the saints in a state of regeneration once obtained, when they contend that the regeneration of infants in the sacrament (which is not of the same reckoning) is in fact lost by all those, who, when arrived at the age capable of reason, willingly perish in their unbelief and impenitency. For such persons do not perish because they lost the sacramental regeneration proper to regenerated infants, but because they never came to have that other regeneration from the seed of the word and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary for the effectual regeneration of adults.

3. In the last place, we must say the same of the state of adoption or acceptance into the sons of the kingdom, as we said of their justification and regeneration. Without doubt, that adoption which we concede to all baptized infants, is not univocal with that which we maintain in the question of the perseverance of the saints to be perpetual and not able to be lost. Those, therefore, are deceived by equivocal vocabulary or are attempting to deceive others, who, from that adoption of infants made in baptism, argue against that adoption of adults made by means of faith, of which John says, "To as many as received him, he gave the power to become sons of God; to as many as believed on his Name."63 The orthodox hold the opinion that this adoption perseveres and carries all them to heaven; and this is advances by the express testimony of the divine word, "If sons, then heirs."64 These are "those sons who abide in their Father's house for ever."65 Whatever lets there be the adoption of infants in baptism, unless it is proved they those adopted by faith in the Son of God can fall away and perish, not only is our opinion regarding the perseverance of the saints not in any way unsettled, but it does not even reach the matter.

In order for the matter to come clear, we pay attention to the fact that men are said to be the adopted children of God in many ways:

[a] Some are called sons as to the eternal, unchangeable, and secret intention of God to conduct them to an heavenly inheritance. Of this adoption the Apostle speaks, Eph 1:5: "He has predestined us to the adoption of sons." And John when he says Christ died "not only for the Jewish people, but that he might gather together the sons of God."66 Of this adoption Augustine is to be understood when he says, "The sons of God not yet born are predestined and are not able to perish."67 And if anyone were to maintain that any one among these adopted sons of God may become apostate and perish, he is not to be refuted by anyone, but to be mocked by everyone. For those, whom God has by his good gift has predestined to kingdom, shall without doubt reign with Christ. If "any of those should perish, then God would be defeated or deceived; neither of which is possible."68

[b] They are called "sons of God" or "born of God," whom upon believing in his own Son, God grants the actual perogatives of sons, that is, the Spirit of adoption, crying in their hearts, "Abba, Father," repairing and restoring them to the image of God, and at least "sealing them to the day of redemption."69 This adoption is (so to speak) the genuine offspring of that secret one, which now, risen to light by its effect in time, testifies to that eternal adoption. Of this Rada says truly, "Although God does not adopt by a new act, yet he does adopt by a new effect."70 This is that, which once it is obtained or received, we teach can never afterwards be abolished or abrogated. Ambrose teaches the same: "Is God the Father," he says, "able to rescind those very gifts he himself conferred and banish those he adopted from his fatherly, gracious affection?"71 So Augustine also taught, both when he denies that "any of those among the true sons of promise can perish," as well as when he teaches, "that those in the faith who draw back from their undertakings were not in the number of sons, even while they were in the faith of sons."72 It is taught among the scholastics, even Biel himself, when making a word concerning this adoption, "it is denied that any among those who afterwards perish were among the adopted sons of God," and this reason confirms his opinion, "because such were never, by the will of God, foreordained to a heavenly inheritance."73

Regarding this adoption, that no one who comes to it shall afterwards perish, Protestant teaching is unanimous. Bucer affirms that those who at any time should fall away from Christ "had never obtained the Spirit of sons."74 He also affirms that "no one believes, so as to become a son of God, except those whom God had chosen from the beginning for this." Calvin asserts, "The reprobate were never gifted with the Spirit of adoption."75 [Peter] Martyr is of the same opinion. "From election," he says, "all the reason for our adoption depends."76 Luther, of the adopted in general, pronounces, "that they are heirs of God, equal in dignity and honor to Paul and Peter, and to all the blessed; because faith, leads to adoption and heirship, as certainly as it does regeneration."77 Melanchthon admits of these sons, "that they are made so by election, not by nature, nor by their merits." A little later, "They only are sons of God who have been chosen by God."78 Chemnitz shows that this adoption is conjoined with the consequence of an infallible inheritance. He says:
The greatest dignity is one of preeminence, which Christ grants to believers in making us and in our being sons of God. Nor is this a title without reality; but if we are sons, we have therefore a propitious Father; we are then heirs of God, brothers of Christ, and participants in his own inheritance, which is not able to be taken or snatched away from us than it could be taken or snatched away from Christ our brother; and in that trust we cry, "Abba, Father."79
When our theologians uphold perseverance and the infallible consequence of salvation for those adopted, it is manifest that they understand it to be the adoption we have been describing.

[c] Men are called the "sons of God" by outward covenanting together with him or being gathered together among the visible people of God. In this sense all the tribes of Israel who entered into covenant with God, by means of the seal of circumcision, are called "sons of God" and "sons of the kingdom," even those who would be exiled from that kingdom and ejected into outer darkness.80 In this sense all Christians are covenanted together as sons of God, even if the greater part of them by their conversation were to prove themselves children of the devil. Both single persons and whole nations are able to be cut off from this outward adoption and slide into apostasy; as is evident from the example of those who have deserted the Christian faith for the perfidy of Islam. But this is not the adoption into the people God that we are considering when we dispute about the perseverance of the saints, the sons of God.

[d] And finally, whoever is sufficiently disposed for the heavenly inheritance with regard to his present state, he is called "an adopted son of God," even if he is not foreordained by God nor sealed by the Spirit of adoption unto future possession of it.81 Adam in the state of innocence was, in this sense, an adopted son of God because as such, according to his condition at that time, he was sufficiently fitted to the consequence of life eternal. The same can be said of the non-elect angels considered in the state in which they were created. And in this manner, nearly all baptized infants are accepted by God or adpoted, because "the divine willed has fallen upon them, that they should be blessed, if they remain in such a state and subsequent sins are not an impediment."82 But (as you see) this adoption is limited; it is not that absolute, eternal, and infallible one founded upon election, which Aquinas admits "never to be in vain."83 Nor is that a kind of image of this eternal adoption, which the Holy Spirit impresses upon and seals in the hearts of believers. Nothing, therefore, is delivered against our opinion concerning the perseverance of the saints or of the sons of God regenerated by faith (which respects only the first and second manner of adoption) by attacks based upon examples of those who are adopted in the third or fourth manner and yet desert God and the divine covenant and thus perish in eternity; for we never asserted the infallible salvation of those who are adopted in such a way.

Third Proposition: The justification and regeneration and adoption of baptized infants confers on them a state of salvation according to the condition of infants.

For the will of God, in remitting the guilt of original sin from them and embracing them with his favor, is sufficient for placing them in a state of salvation without any other present infusion of inherent grace. When Vasquez ingeniously acknowledges "although habits of this kind are infused into infants by virtue of baptism, yet undoubtedly they are not so infused into them in order that they be a necessary means of salvation."84 Malderus concedes to us, "the man without any inherent gift can be accepted by God, even unto life eternal."85 And hence the Fathers and our theologians, although they differ from the papists—in that they deny infants to be competent of that justification, regeneration, or that sanctification, which makes a new creature by an infused spiritual gift—yet, in this they all consent, that infants in their present condition are so justified, regenerated, and sanctified in baptism that, if they were to die in infant state, neither of their election nor salvation would there be any doubt.

Certainly Augustine everywhere teaches, "baptized infants, if they depart this life, without doubt do they pass into eternal life."86 And by this itself, in its rapidity, it is made manifest they were among the predestinate sons of God. Generally regarding all baptized infants, Fulgentius fixes this rule, "The sacrament of faith, which is holy baptism, so long as their age is not capable of reason, is sufficient for their salvation."87 The opinion of the ancients, however, is of note.

We accede to our own, who freely concede that a state of salvation is so transferred to infants in baptism, that as many as die in infancy obtain by it the benefit of salvation. Bucer says, "I do not doubt, that those who are removed in childhood, though the sacrifice of Christ, have the benefit of salvation."88 And a little later, "Those who, prior to adolescence, depart from here, since they are Christ's, will also be blessed in him." Our Church of England is of this view:
Lest any man should think that the delaying the time of Confirmation until they are grown up, would be an injury to children, let him be assured from the plain Word of God, that infants who die before Confirmation have everything necessary for their salvation and are undoubtedly saved.89
From all all this you are able to see plainly that infants, through baptism, are placed in a state of salvation, but with respect only to the age and condition infants. Thus, those who perish in adulthood without having implemented their baptismal vow, do not lose the state of salvation which they had with regard to the condition of infants, but they lose that infant state, which being changed, ceases to be sufficient for the salvation of the adult, which from the divine ordinance was sufficient for the salvation of the infant. It is plainly frivolous and inept, therefore, to prove, from those who perish in infancy, that there is a loss of faith, righteousness, and inherent sanctity or a willing apostasy of the saints; this we shall make more evident.

Fourth Proposition: Those who in baptism were truly justified, regenerated, and adopted suitable to their infant state, when they come to the use of reason, are not justified, regenerated, and adopted, suitable to the special state of adulthood, unless they are so by repentance, faith, and public profession, fulfilling their vow made in baptism.

For while both in infants as well as in adults, justification, regeneration, and adoption, betoken an act of God, yet these divine actions, as far as they respect infants, do not require in them another preceding action of free will; but in adults, out of divine ordination, it is a prerequisite. But those spiritual effects placed in infants, if they are not at all placed in adults, there can be nothing in which their justification, regeneration, and adoption may consist. But this was shown in our second proposition. Here, therefore, no more work is needed.

This only is to be driven home: those who argue that the faith, justification, and adoption of adults (as Paul customarily understands those) may at some point be lost, fabricate consequences of no merit and embrace manifest equivocation, because they assume that the justification and regeneration proper to infants, from the defined form of the covenant itself, still has saving force in covenant-breaking adults.

Given these propositions, which show that, from the case of infants, it is not possible to demontrate the loss of faith and righteousness, or justification, sanctification, and that adoption which follows from faith in Christ, I will add one other with which to oppose our adversaries' calumnies regarding irresistibility and Stoic fate, which they are in the habit of thrusting upon us.

Fifth Proposition: When we teach the perseverance of the saints in a state of justification once obtained, we do not deny the quality or act of a faithful or righteous man in the nature of the subject to be mutable or loseable; but we affirm that the special love of God does not permit that he, who by believing in Christ was justified and adopted to be a son of God, should cease, by losing faith and sanctification, to be a son of God and perish in eternity.

So, the gift of perseverance is given to those who truly believe, are adopted, and sealed with the Spirit of adoption, as those who from the mutability of their will are able to fall from salvation, yet, nevertheless, by an effectual divine operation do not, in fact, ever fall.

The reason is at hand: because effectual calling, from which justification, sanctification, and adoption are afterwards drawn, flows from predestination.90 And such is the admirable operation of God, in effecting the salvation of those predestined, so that he permits their will to operate in its own manner, that is, contingently; and yet he himself infallibly produced their salvation. Thus Aquinas, "The order of predestination is certain, and yet the will produces its own effect only contingently. A predestined person may perish, if his own power be considered; he cannot, if the order be considered, which he has from God's predestination."91 When, therefore, we set justification, sanctification, adoption, and glorification, as the fruit or effect of absolute predestination, and indeed permanent, we do not, nevertheless, establish that free will is compelled to believe, to have permanence in faith and obedience to God, but by God is both efficaciously and sweetly turned and moved to whatever act is connected with salvation from the ordinance of God--thus they unjustly thrust upon us the calumny of Stoic fate.

And in this sense, the Fathers, scholastics, and our own theologians, and even the sacred Scriptures themselves, hold it impossible that any of the elect sons of God, justified and adopted, should ever fall from salvation. Ghent has explained this matter very well, where he is inquires "Whether Paul might not have been killed before his conversion?"92 The sum of it is: "The effect of predestination may be impeded as to its effect, although not under the nature of it as predestined." Indeed, "on the part of God himself, it is immutable; on the part of the creature, it is contingent or mutable, although it never will be changed." So much for that. I note that our Montagu, although he imposed many offensive things upon those who, from divine necessity, hold to the absolute predestination to eternal life; yet apart from the passion of contention, he acknowledges, regarding the elect themselves, that it is impossibile they should perish, which we ourselves hold. In his Answer he distinctly says, "It was not possible for David to perish in his sin, on account of the gracious purpose of God to preserve him."93 And in his Appeal he acknowledges, "Peter could not finally fall."94 If then the impossibility of perishing is considered on the part of God, it does not imply any necessity, constraint, or fate, as to the salvation of the elect; neither does the impossibility of their apostasy imply any necessity or anything like it, as to their perseverance.

But it is not my present intention to thoroughly discuss this entire controversy concerning perseverance. It has been shown sufficiently that it is an invalid and, indeed, a childish argument, which would select from the case of infants who cannot use reason, anything to undermine our opinion.


But I take my hand from the tablet. There is no need for more, to yourself especially, to whom a word is enough. Farewell, most learned friend; and may you long adorn the Professor's chair, by standing in the profession of orthodox teaching.

Yours from the heart,

John Sarum.95



Notes

1. Davenant's entire letter is largely aimed against the argument designed to refute the perseverance of the saints from the evident fact that not all baptized infants grow up to be adult believers. Such an argument presupposes that all baptized infants receive "salvation" in some sense in baptism (consisting in the remission of the guilt of original sin), a presupposition with which Davenant would agree, along with Roman Catholics and the bulk of Protestants divines, not only among Lutherans and Anglicans, but also a significant number of Reformed.

If such infants, having received salvation, grow up to become unbelievers and are damned, then that would seem to support the contention that true apostasy actually occurs. Davenant's strategy is to argue that the question of perseverance and apostasy concerns only those who receive salvation through some kind of communication of inherent grace by which they come to actual faith. Since infants are not capable of actual faith, their experience of salvation cannot be taken as univocal with that of adult believers and thus cannot be used in an argument for the reality of apostasy of the saints.

2. The mentions of the "third and fourth Articles" here and, in the next sentence, a "fifth Article," are references to the five articles presented by the Arminian Remonstrants in 1610 under the leadership of Jacob Arminius' disciple Simon Episcopius and translated from the Dutch into Latin by Bertius (see next note). The third and fourth articles maintained that, while no fallen person could do any good, including believe the Gospel, apart from grace, nonetheless such grace is resistible and requires the cooperation of ths human will. The fifth article of the Arminians (which Davenant here quotes) raises doubts about the doctrine of perseverance. The Canons of Dort (1618-1619) provided a response from the standpoint of Calvinist orthodoxy.

One should probably note at this point that Davenant was a thoroughgoing, even if moderate, Calvinist. While he did stress the infinite intrinsic sufficiency of Christ's atoning death, the free offer of the Gospel, and the communication even to the non-elect of benefits short of salvation resulting from Christ's work, none of these aspects of his theology would necessarily make Davenant into an Amyraldian, a viewpoint named for Moises Amyraut (1596-1664) who taught at the French Reformed academy at Saumur and who was, like Davenant, a student John Cameron (c.1579–1623). Amyraldianism, after all, entails a belief in "hypothetical universalism," which suggests that the covenant of grace is made with each and every individual in the human race and that each and every individual is, through natural revelation, the recipient of an offer of sufficient grace for his salvation if only should he believe. Davenant would have rejected any such formulation.

If one would like to study Davenant's views on the matter of John Cameron's theology and the rising "Amyraldianism" of the 1630s, one could do no better than reading Davenant's own treatise on the topic entitled Sententia de Gallicana controversia, in which he expresses his disagreement with the opinions afoot in the Academy of Saumur.

3. Petrus Bertius (1565-1629) was a professor of logic at the University of Leiden, a champion of the Arminian cause, particularly against his Leiden colleague, Franciscus Gomarus. The tract in question, from which Davenant goes on to cite an axion, is Bertius' 1615 work, De Sanctorum perseverentia et apostasia (Of the Perseverance and Apostasy of the Saints), pages 1, 12.

4. Tertullian (c.160—225), Contra Marcion 4.38

5. Nicolaas Grevinckhoven (1570-1632), a deposed minister of the Reformed church of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, was among the Arminian Remonstrants. Davenant cites his Dissertatione de Electione, page 324.

6. Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus (1582-1650) was among the signers of the articles of the Remonstrants. The citation comes from his 1622 Contra Anatomes Arminianismi de Petrus Molinaeus (Against the "Anatomy of Arminianism" by Pierre du Moulin), chapter 33, page 562. As Davenant notes, see also, chapter 44, page 663 of the same work.

7. Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) was a student of Arminius and among the leaders and chief spokesmen of the Remonstrants, who likely penned the five articles of remonstrance. Davenant cites here from Episcopius' 29th Disputatio, "De Baptismo," as well as page 44 from his 15th Disputatio.

8. Bonaventure (1221-1274) was a learned Franciscan and a contemporary of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the great Dominican scholar, both of whom were the more important theologians of their era. Jean Gerson (1363-1429) was a conciliarist theologian and philosophical realist who opposed the rising nominalism of the late medieval schools. The works alluded to by Davenant are, presumably, Bonaventure, Commentary on the "Sentences", Book 4, distinction 4; Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Part III, Question 69, esp. Article 6; and (I believe) Gerson, Opera omnia, Part 2, page 149.

9. Dominic Soto (1494-1560) was a Dominican theologian of the Catholic Reformation who taught at Salamanca and served at the Council of Trent. Davenant cites his 1547 work, De Natura et Gratia, Book 2, chapter 10.

10. Gulielmus Estius (or "Willem Hessels van Est," 1542-1613) was a Dutch Roman Catholic theologian and biblical scholar. Davenant alludes to his Commentary on the "Sentences", Book 4, distinction 4. The "Master of the Sentences" is a reference to Peter Lombard (c.1105—c.1160) whose Sentences (Sententiarum Quatuor Libri) gathered together a catena of quotations from Scripture, the Fathers, and the earlier medievals on theological topics. Writing commentaries on the Sentences formed an integral part of the medieval theological training.

11. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) was a general council of the Roman Catholic church that implemented counter-reforms in response to the Protestant Reformation. While the decrees of the Council on original sin, justification, and the sacraments are all generally relevant to the points that Davenant makes here, when he speaks of the Council's teaching on "baptism's general effect," Davenant is alluding to the Fifth Session, "Decree on Original Sin," Section 5 and Sixth Session, "Decree on Justification," Chapter 7.

12. Among the Roman Catholic authors to whom Davenant makes reference here are Soto, Commentary on the "Sentences", Book 4, distinction 6, article 3, and the Spanish Jesuit, Gabriel Vasquez (1549/51-1604), Commentariorum, ac disputationum in tertiam partem Sancti Thomae (Commentary on the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas), Part I-II, 86, 2.

13. Davenant here cites the Institutes of the Christian Religion by the French Reformer, Jean Calvin (1509-1564), who, for most of his life, pastored and led the Reformed church of Geneva, Switzerland. The citation is from Institutes 4.16.21.

14. Calvin, Institutes, 4.16.21.

15. I'm not entirely sure which work of Gerson is referred to here by Davenant, though he provides "part 21, page 146" as marginal reference, perhaps referring again to his Opera omnia.

16. Theodore de Beza (1519-1605) was a French Reformed theologian who taught Greek at Lausanne and Geneva before succeeding Calvin as the chair of theology. The quotation is from the 1582 Genevan edition of his Theological Tracts (Tractationes theologicae), volume 3, Question 141, page 344.

17. Another reference to Beza, this time to his transcription of the 1586 Colloquy of Montbeliard (or Mümpelgart) with the Lutheran Jakob Andrea. At this Colloquy, under pressure from the Lutheran theologians, Beza conceded that it was probable that all baptized infants received remission of the guilt of original sin in baptism.

18. Martin Bucer (1491-1551) was a Dominican who, after hearing Luther, joined the Protestant cause and became the great Reformer in Strasbourg where he later befriended Calvin. It's not entirely clear which of his works Davenant is citing here, but it appears to be from Bucer's 1533 work, What Should Be Believed about the Baptism of Infants (Quid de Baptismate Infantium...).

19. Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562) was among an Italian Protestants who early on joined the Reform. Davenant quotes from his 1558 Latin commentary on Romans (In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos), chapter 3, page 175.

20. "Immortal seed" here is an allusion to the "imperishable seed" of 1 Peter 1:23; cf. 1 John 3:9 as well as the persevering seed in the parable of the sower and soils. These texts all found their way into the Canons issued by the Syond of Dort, which forms the background of Davenant's argument. 21. A prominent figure in the Church of England, who later became a bishop, Richard Montagu (1577-1641) is cited by Davenant as an Anglican example of Arminianism. The work cited is Montagu's 1625 appeal to Charles I, Appelo Caesarem (An Appeal to Caesar, page 186), calling upon the king's aid in response to Puritan attacks on his theological viewpoint. The Belgic Confession was written the Netherlands Reformed preacher Guido de Bräs in 1561, though was later revised by the Synod of Dort; the 1559 French Confession was prepared by Jean Calvin and adopted by the French Reformed Synod of La Rochelle in 1571.

22. Augustine (354-430), Epistola 23.

23. Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas (On Baptism, Against the Donatists) 4.24-25.

24. Augustine, De peccatorum meritis et remissione (On Merit and Remission) 2.27.

25. Augustine, De Trinitate (On the Trinity) Book 14, chapter 17.

26. Gregory Nazianzen (c.330-390), from his 381 Oration, "De Sancto Lavacro" 7.

27. Jerome (c.340-420), Adversus Pelagianos (Against the Pelagians) 1.8.

28. Davenant refers here to the role of sponsors and/or parents in presenting infants for baptism and who answer questions and confess the Creed on their behalf.

29. While Davenant attributes this quotation to Justin Martyr (c.100—c.165), it is drawn from the Quaestiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos (Questions and Responses to the Orthodox) 56, which has come down to us as a pseudonymous work, probably dating from the 4th century, perhaps from the hand of Diodorus of Tarsus (died c.391) or of Theodoret. Whatever it's precise provenance, the quotation does bear witness to the understanding of infant baptism in the early centuries of the church.

30. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) was a French medieval Cistercian abbot and theologian, highly regarded by the Protestant Reformers. The quotation is from his 77th Epistle.

31. George Cassander (1513-1566) was a Flemish theologian who, though a Roman Catholic, was sympathetic to the Protestant Reform and worked to bring peace between Catholics and Protestants. Davenant quotes his 1563 treatise against the Anabaptists, De Baptismo Infantium (Of the Baptism of Infants).

32. William Whitaker (1547-1595) was prominent among 16th century Calvinist Anglican divines and is probably best known for his Disputations on Holy Scripture against the Papists in which he defends the Protestant understanding of the Bible. Davenant cites Question 4, section 6 of his Praelectiones de sacramentis, from the section "De Baptismo."

33. Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas (On Baptism, Against the Donatists) 4.23.

34. Augustine, De peccatorum meritis et remissione (On Merit and Remission) 1.8.

35. The Council of Milevis was held in Numidia, north Africa in 416 and dealt with various issues, including Pelagianism and infant baptism, upholding Augustinianism. Davenant cites Canon 2 of that Council. From his frequent quotation of Augustine, this, and the following citations, it is clear that Davenant is purposely choosing to quote patristic sources that were frequently used by Calvinists in support of their predestinarian doctrines.

36. In the early 500s a number of orthodox bishops were exiled by the Arians to Sardinia from which they issued a Synodical Letter. Davenant is quoting from Response 1, Opinion 2.

37. Prosper of Aquitaine (c.390-455) promoted the theology of Augustine against the Pelagians. Davenant cites his Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum (Responses to the Chapters of the Gauls) 2.

38. Davenant refers here to the Canon 5 of the third Council of Valence that was held in 855, a council that reiterated Augustinian theology and condemned the De Praedestinatione of John Scotus Eriugena.

39. Bonaventure, Commentary on the "Sentences", Book 4, distinction 4.

40. Peter Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, Book 4, distinctionn 4.

41. Davenant refers here to the 39 Articles of the Church of England, the 27th of which states:
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned 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 Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The form for the administration of baptism in Davenant's day would have been contained in the 1559 Book of Common Prayer. It includes a prayer that begins:
Almighty and immortal God, the aid of all that need, the helper of all that fly to thee for succour, the life of them that believe, and the resurrection of the dead, we call upon thee for these infants, that they, coming to thy holy Baptism, may receive remission of their sinns by spiritual regeneration...
The beginning of the baptismal rite also reminds the congregation that the necessity of baptism for infants lies in the fact that "all men be conceived and born in sin."

42. With regard to Lombard, Davenant has in mind again, Book 4, distinction 4 of his Sententiarum Quatuor Libri. More widely, Davenant is referring to the writings of various theologians in the Reformed tradition who limited the effects of baptism, even among infants, only to the elect. While Davenant himself stood squarely within the Reformed theology with regard to election and predestination and, indeed, was in almost all respects a Puritan Calvinist, he nonetheless is taking up a minority opinion among Reformed divines with regard to the effects of baptism in infants.

43. Vasquez, Commentariorum, ac disputationum in tertiam partem Sancti Thomae, 154.1.

44. Bonaventure, Commentary on the "Sentences", Book 4, distinction 4.

45. By "we" here Davenant refers either to the viewpoint of Protestants in general with regard to justificaton or, more specifically, to his own 1631 work, A Treatise on Justification (Disputatio de Iustitia habituali et actuali).

46. Augustine, De Trinitate (On the Trinity), Book 14, chapter 17.

47. Cassander, De Baptismo Infantium (Of the Baptism of Infants).

48. Beza, Theological Tracts (Tractationes theologicae), volume 3, Question 148, page 346.

49. Augustine, Contra Iulianum (Against Julian).

50. Augustine, De Praedestinatione Sanctorum (On the Predestination of the Saints).

51. Davenant adds the marginal note here, "Vide Radam. Controvers., part 3, contr. 5, art. 2," though I'm not entirely sure what this refers to.

52. See Note 36, above.

53. Tommaso de Vio Cajetan (1469-1534) was a Dominican theologian and Roman Catholic cardinal who, in the early years of the Reformation, interacted with Luther, particular at the Diet of Augsburg. Davenant quotes Cajetan's well-known Commentary on Aquinas' Summa theologiciae, Part 3, Question 69, Article 7.

54. Davenant's mention here of "the Carthusian" is unclear and may refer to either Bruno (1030-1101), the founder of the Carthusian Order of monks or to Denis (or Dionysius) the Carthusian (1402-1471), a medieval Christian neo-Platonist and author of a number of theological treatises and commentaries. In either case, the precise source of the quotation is unknown to me.

55. Bucer, Ennarationum in Evangelica (Commentaries on the Gospels), on Matthew 19.

56. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part I-II, Question 113, Article 3.

57. In addition to the previous quotation from Aquinas, see also the Relectiones Theologicae, Lecture 13, of Francisco de Vitoria (1485-1546), the Dominican founder of the Salamanca school, and the 1610 work, De auxiliis divinae gratiae et humani arbitrii viribus et libertate, page 703, of Diego Alvarez (1550-1635) the Spanish Dominican thomist and bishop.

58. See, for instance, Thomas Aquinas, Sententia libri Metaphysicae, Book 5, Lecture 12, n. 23.

59. James 1:18.

60. 1 Peter 1:23.

61. Ephesians 4:24.

62. Augustine, Epistle 23.

63. John 1:12.

64. Romans 8:17.

65. John 8:35

66. See John 11:52.

67. Augustine, De Correptione et Gratia (On Rebuke and Grace), Chapter 9.

68. Augustine, De Correptione et Gratia (On Rebuke and Grace), Chapter 7. The quotation here and some that follow are not exact, however, suggesting perhaps that Davenant is quoting from memory.

69. See Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 4:30.

70. The Franciscan theologian Juan de Rada (1545-1608) is best known for his defense of John Duns Scotus against Aquinas, regarding their commentaries on Lombard's Sentences. Davenant cites his 1599 Controversiae theologicae inter S. Thomam et Scotum, Part 3, Contra 5, Article 2.

71. Ambrose (340-397), De Jacob et vita beata, Chapter 6.

72. Augustine, De Correptione et Gratia (On Rebuke and Grace), Chapter 9.

73. Gabriel Biel (c.1420-1495) was a late medieval, nominalist theologian, highly influential up through the time of the Reformation. Davenant quotes his Commentary on the "Sentences", Book 3, distinction 10.

74. Bucer, Ennarationum in Evangelica (Commentaries on the Gospels), on Matthew 7, with the following quotation from his comments on John 1:12.

75. Calvin, De Aeterna Dei Praedestinatione (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God), Section 4.

76. Davenant provides no reference for this quotation from Vermigli and I have not been able to identify its source.

77. From Martin Luther (1483-1546), the great German Reformer, Omnium operum, Volume 5, "Commentarius in 1 Peter."

78. Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560) was a friend and co-reformed with Luther in Germany. Davenant quotes from his Comentarii in Epistolam Pavli ad Romanos, on chapter 9.

79. Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) was a prominent second-generation Lutheran theologian who is likely best know for his comprehensive critique of the Council of Trent. Davenant cites his Harmoniae evangelicae on John 1.

80. Israel is designated by such terms in passages such as Exodus 4:23; Matthew 8:12; and so on. See also, Romans 9:4.

81. See again Rada, Controversiae theologicae inter S. Thomam et Scotum, Part 3, Contra 5, Article 2.

82. Here Davenant quotes Biel, Commentary on the "Sentences", Book 1, Distinction 17, Question 1.

83. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Question 23, Article 1.

84. Vasquez, Commentariorum, ac disputationum in tertiam partem Sancti Thomae, Part 3, Question 68, disputation 154.

85. Johannes Malderus (1563-1633) was the Catholic bishop of Antwerp after teaching theology at Louvain. Davenant quotes his 1620 work, Anti-synodica, directed against the Synod of Dort, page 574.

86. It is unclear precisely from where in Augustine's works Davenant is quoting, though it resembles a remark in De Correptione et Gratia (On Rebuke and Grace). See also William Whitaker, Defensio contra Confutationem Ioannis Duraei, Book 8, section 73.

87. Fulgentius (468-533) was a bishop and proponent of Augustine's theology, who suffered for his stance against the Arians. Davenant quotes his, De Fide ad Petrum Diaconum.

88. Bucer, Ennarationum in Evangelica (Commentaries on the Gospels), on Matthew 19.

89. From the Rubric at the end of the 1552 baptismal rite of the Book of Common Prayer.

90. See Romans 8:30.

91. Aquinas, Quaestiones disputatae de praedestinatione (Disputed Questions on Predestination), Article 3.

92. Davenant refers to Henry of Ghent (c.1217-1293), a contemporary of Aquinas and Bonaventure who taught at the University of Paris. The quotation is from his Quodlibeta Theologica 4, Question 18.

93. Montagu, An answer to a late abridger of controversies.

94. Montagu, Appelo Caesarem (An Appeal to Caesar).

95. Davenant signs his letter as "John Sarum," using his episcopal title as bishop of Salisbury (i.e., Sarum) where he served as bishop from 1621 until his death in 1641.