our God shall call what is it of force only to men and women of yeares where 's the infants part where is his priviledge of federall holynesse as being borne of believing parents What must they be interessed onely when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty That is the act of understanding faith and repentance In those acts the persons and children of Turks and Jews have a right in the same promises you cannot exclude any person from baptism who believes in Christ repenteth and desireth baptism at your hands Thus you make the promise of God concerning the children of the faithfull of no effect by your tradition and vain opinion But to amend this you say Baptism is not the means of conveying the holy Ghost I suppose you mean the ordinary gifts and graces of the holy Ghost as faith love hope sanctity c. if not there may be a double fallacy in your assertion First in the term conveying and next in the term holy Ghost both which may be homonymically intended and then your discourse is meerly captions and â—o discover it is a sufficient answer and indeed by your following words God by that miracle did give testimony c. it seems you mean that baptism is not now the ordinary means of conveying the holy Ghost that is the gift of miracles unto the baptized if so here is both an homonymia and an ignoratio elenchi Your reason being reduced to a Syllogisme you might take these words the holy Ghost for the ordinary gifts and graces of God necessary to salvation in the one proposition and for the extraordinary in the other and so the question were mistaken which is not whether baptism be an ordinary means of conveying the extraordinary gifs of the holy Ghost into the baptized as speaking divers unstudied languages curing the sick raising the dead casting out devils c. which we affirm not but whether baptism as the word preached be not the external ordinary means by God appointed to seal us up to a lively hope in Christ to beget faith and to engage us to repentance and newness of life to which all that you here trifle concerning imposition of hands and insinuation of rite to confirmation is nothing to purpose neither is the case of Cornelius and Peters argument thereon any waies advantagious to you for you confess it a miracle and how then is it pertinent to our present question You say that God by that miracle did give testimony that the persons of the men were in great disposition to heaven and therefore were to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven I then demand if that argument be good Are not children of believing parents to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven seeing they are also in great disposition to heaven whom Christ blessed and proposed for paterns to all that shall enter therein But we answer 1. That the great disposition which you talk of was not so much the gift of miracles as the persons inward baptism by the spirit of regeneration and sanctification for the gift of miracles is not of it self any certain argument of salvation see Matth 7. 22 23. but this was a sufficient warrant to Peter to baptize them as being marked out thereby for the visible Church at least into which elect and reprobate may come 2. To the main we answer That as by delivering a key putting in possession of an house is not only signified but also livery and seisin the conveyance and chirogrophuâ—â— are passed confirmed and actually made sure So in baptism by water the washing which is wrought by the blood of Christ is not only figured but also at last fulfilled in the elect by Christ. 3. In a right use of the Sacraments the things therby signified are ever held out and convey'd together with the fignes which are neither fallacious empty nor void of a due effect or without the thing represented because they are of God who cannot deceive and is able to give the effect if the receiver do not ponere obicem therefore the Sacraments are rightly called the Channels or Conduits of grace that is the ordinary means to convey the graces of God into the receivers 4. God confirms his mercies to us by the Sacraments wherein the Minister by Gods own deputation beareth his person or place in the Church as well as in preaching the word so that what they doe who are his Ministers by his appointment he doth both in respect of the institution and effect So the Lord is said to have aâ—ointed Saul whereas Samuelâ—nointed â—nointed him so Jesus made and baptized more disciple then John whereas Jesus baptized noâ— but his disciples by his assignement Therefore although these signes neither convey grace nor confirm any thing to them for good who keep not the Covenant for God made no promise to them yet are they means to convey the graces of God to those that do To conclude we affirm not that baptism conveyeth Gods grace to all that are baptized but to the elect only as that whereof he hath made a peculiar promise to them and that so certain as are those things which God himself sealeth covenanteth for and testifieth in heaven and earth as 't is written There are threo that bear record in heaven the father the word and the holy Ghost and there are three that bear witness in earth the spirit and the water and the blood Now if we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater Under the mouth of two or three witnesses every word must be confirmed and taken for sure how much more when we have by Gods blessing the same witnesses of our faith who are also the promisers workers and sureties of our salvation But from thence you say to argue that wherever there is a capacity of receivinig the same grace there also the same signe is to be ministred and from thence to infer poede-baptism is an argument very fallacious c. Quis tulerit Gracchos your dispute is fallacious upon your grounds on which we go not and so all your impertinent superstruction here falleth together They that are capable of the same grace are not alwaies capable of the same signe for women under the law of Moses although they were capable of the righteousness of faith yet they were not capable of the signe of circumcision I would gladly be resolved quanta est illa propositio is your meaning Some of them that are capable of the same grace are not alwaies capable of the signe thereof If so alta pax esto We say so too for infants being capable of the same grace which is exhibited and received in the Lords supper are not alwaies that is while they are children capable of the same signe because they cannot examin themselves nor shew forth the Lords death and
we may not baptize them We answer 1 If you speak of Christs baptizing personally he baptized none Joh. 4. 2. but it followeth not that therefore none ought to be baptized 2 It cannot appear that Christ commanded not some of his Disciples to baptize those Infants neither that ever he commanded them not to baptize Infants 3 If it could appear that these Infants were not now baptized there might be some obstruction and let which we know not as possibly their parents were not yet baptized c. 4 These children were not brought to Christ that he should baptize them but that he should touch them and that he did for he layed his hands upon them and blessed them and his blessing them was as effectual to their salvation as if he had christned them for Christs grace dependeth not upon the vertue of the Sacrament but contrarily the vertue of the Sacrament upon his grace and blessing And that which Christ did to them is more then the ministrie of all the men in the world could or can do in baptizing or blessing them for Christs blessing maketh men truly and really blessed See what hath been said Reply num 14. sine Infants circumcised were inserted into the Covenant and Church priviledges by an express command but we have no such express command for baptizing Infants therefore we may not on that ground baptize them To that which hath been said we further add for answer because they were expresly commanded to put the seal of the same righteousness of faith on Infants therefore neither that faith nor the object thereof being changed in the change of the seal there needed not a particular or express command concerning the subject or persons to be sealed seeing the commission was so much enlarged as the whole World and the Nations thereof were greater then the land of Canaan and Abrahams carnal children therein planted Add hereto that which hath been noted those whom Christ sent to baptise were sealed in their infancie and daily used to Infant-sealing so that they needed no express command or other Information concerning Infants then that which they had sufficiently learned in Christs blessing Infants blessing and embracing them as it were with special affection to them and in that they could not be ignorant that baptism succeeded circumcision in all the substance thereof and that the same cause still remaineth for Infants reception of the seal to wit Baptism for the remission of sins Christ appointed the Sacraments for a remembrance of his death and blood-shedding for our redemption But Infants who have no acts of understanding cannot remember Therefore they ought not to be baptized We answer This Argument would conclude that Infants as such may not receive the Lords Supper because they cannot do it in remembrance of Christ nor shew his death thereby therefore we do not administer it unto them But Baptism is the Laver of Regeneration which they have present need of and whereof they are passively capable because their Parents are within the Covenant which is to them and their children and the Seal thereof is a part and condition of the same to their children as well as to themselves Neither was the Covenant on Abrahams part fulfilled any more then to halves before he had sealed his children and by proportion neither do we fulfil our Covenant with God in Baptism if we refuse to baptize our Infants who have as indefeasible a right to the same as we the same promise for the main being to us and our children Acts 2. 39. In the Old Testament it was not lawful to offer sheep or goats so soon as they were cast but at a certain age and maturity of their perfection This figured Infants not presently to be offered to God or Sealed We answer 1. By the same Argument if it were good neither ought the Jews to have circumcised their Infants on the eighth day 2. Allegorical Arguments when they are well applyed illustrate rather then prove And if you will plead thus tell us why every first-born of man or beast so soon as it came into the world that is every male was sacred to the Lord and the first-born of the unclean beast was to be redeemed or destroyed and why seek ye further omitting the type of Circumcision Christ saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be â— saved Mark 16. 16 without believing there is no salvation nor saving effect of Baptism But Infants cannot believe Therefore their Baptism is effectless and vain We answer 1. That wholly concerns those who are of years who when the Church was to be collected and setled were first and generally such persons as were first to be instructed in the faith of Christ and then to be baptized it concerned not Infants 2. That which immediately follows But he that believeth not shall be damned manifesteth that it concerned not Infants who though they cannot actually believe yet shall not all be damned though dying Infants 3. If those words were to be presidential to all Churches and times as a rule what persons we are to baptize and what not that is that we ought to baptize none but such and so qualified as are there described then it would follow that you must baptize none but those who appear to have a justifying faith for such there Christ speaks of and only such relating to their salvation And how few have this and how can you who baptize discern this Secondly They must be such as can cast out Devils speak unstudied Languages take up Serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them such as can cure the sick For Christ there thus marked out Believers of those times 4. He saith not He that believeth not shall not be baptized for that indeed might have concerned Infants Baptism But he saith He that believeth not shall be damned which cannot concern Infants except you will say they have faith and so you must grant them a capacity of Baptism or pretend that they all are damned who dye in Infancy which is a damnable fancy Lastly We must distinguish between an interest in and the effects of Baptism Many thousands born within the Covenant have therefore a just interest in the Covenant of Grace and the Seal thereof who neither believing nor obeying have no effects thereof nor grace of the Covenant So some put on Christ only sacramentally and others to sanctification and salvation also It is absurd and to no purpose to baptize any unto they know not what Such is Infants-Baptism Therefore they are absurdly and to no purpose baptized 1. We answer Circumcision was to Isaac and Evangelical Ordinance and Seal of Gods Covenant of the same Grace common to him and us yet that being administred to him at eight days old he knew not what he was circumcised to yet was it neither in vain nor absurdly administred to him 2. Some mysterious
and Gentiles The Lords Supper doth no less signifie the blood of Christ for our Salvation then doth the water of Baptism nor less represent his death then doth baptism in which we are implanted into the similitude of his death and resurrection But the Lords Supper is often to be administred and received and therefore so is Baptism We answer 1â— There is in Scripture express command for often administring and receiving of the Lords Supper I Cor. II. 24. This do in remembrance of me As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come shew us any one such warrant for rebaptizing and this controversie is at an end 2. The Lords Supper proposeth not any new Covenant with God but confirmeth that to us which he made with us in our baptism But baptism is the Initiatory Seal of our entring into Covenant with God as it was in circumcision which Covenant is but one 3. The vertue and efficacy of baptism in the elect extendeth it self to the whole life of the regenerate and is as it were a fountain of living waters perpetually running to cleanse away the pollutions of sin so that there need not new or more baptisms but a daily renewing of our repentance to which we were in our covenanting with God at first baptized As Ambrose saith after baptism there remaineth no remedy but true repentance Cyprian and the Councel of Carthage held that those who were baptized by hereticks upon their return to the Church ought to be rebaptized We answer 1. The question being proposed in the first Councel of Carthage Whether those who were once baptized might be rebaptized all the Bishops answered God forbid God forbid we resolve and determine that all re-baptizings are unlawful and far from sincâ—re faith and catholick discipline The business which troubled the Churches in Cyprians time was Whether baptism administred according to the lawful form of the Catholick Church that is with water in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost though by an Heretical Minister were invalid and therefore to be iterated Cyprian with other Eastern Bishops affirmed that there is but one Baptism which is not to be found out of the Catholick Church The other orthodox Bishops determined that baptism which an heretical Minister administred according to the form prescribed by Christ and practised by the Church was valid and not to be iterated So that indeed neither Cyprian nor the rest of that Councel did maintain rebaptizing but held that there could be no true or valid baptism out of the Catholick Church or that it was not baptism which Hereticks administred Against rebaptizing Cyprian speaks clearly L. I. Ep. 12. on that John 4. 14 applying it to baptism Which saith he is once received and not again iterated And in the Canons of the Apostles there is a severe caution against rebaptizing If any Bishop or Elder shall again baptize him who had truly received baptism let him be deposed 2. We must distinguish between Hereticks as hath been said whereof some are such as that though they err in some fundamental point or points yet they hold the true form of baptism Some so erre concerning the holy Trinity as that in such errour they cannot have with them the true form and essence of baptism Now there may be true baptism administred by the first sort and such as are baptized by them returning to the true Church must repent but not to be rebaptized But those who were pretended to be baptized by the second sort as Arians denying the Deity of Christ or those Pneumatomachi Eunomius and others blasphemous against the holy Ghost in case they came to the true Church they were to be baptized because there can be no true baptism where the essentials thereof are wanting as the element and the word constituting the Sacrament to wit In the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost Baptizing such as have not so been baptized is no rebaptizing seeing the first pretended was truly none Otherwise the ancient Church did not rebaptize a repenting Apostate though he had fallen into the errours of Arrians Eunomians or the like after that he had been baptized by the true Church and the reason thereof was that which Chemnitius well observed as on Gods part the Covenant which he made with the circumcised Israelites remained firm and ratified unto which after their falling into sin they returned by repentance so the Corinthians and Galathians having fallen were recalled by S. Paul and remitted to the promise and consolation of their baptism formerly received Therefore as Circumcision was not so ought not baptism to be iterated CHAP. VII Protestants arguments against the dangerous practice of Rebaptizing 1. BAptism is the Sacrament of Regeneration by our implantation into Christ. But we cannot be twice regenerate for regeneration presupposeth a precedent natural birth which can be but one nor can we be more often regenerate or born a new then born naturally therefore we ought not to be twice baptized The major is evident Tit. 3. 5. The minor is also evident in reason Add hereto that whereas we are by nature children of wrath Ephes. 2. 3. enemies to God Rom 5. 10. and so without a new birth aliens from the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. but being implanted into Christ by baptism we become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a new creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 6. 15. Now as one and the same creature can be but once created except that either the created essence of a man is destroyed by sin which the sin of the Devil cannot do or that a man may have pluralities of essences by several creations of one and the same person which no reason can suppose of neither can we have any more then one regeneration Therefore we ought to be but once baptized 2. Gods faithfulness in his Covenant sealed cannot become void by mans infidelity neither is his Covenant of peace momentany but perpetual which is sealed in baptism so that still we may return unto it by true repentance See Isa. 54. 10. and so they who sinned after baptism though notoriously and scandalouâ—â— were not rebaptized by the ancient Church but upon their repentance received again into holy communion and it is truly observed by some that baptism being once received confirmeth and assureth the penitent of their sins remission and that the efficacy and vertue thereof extendeth it self to all our life and therefore neither ought it to be iterated nor deferred unto the end of our lives as if it so only cleansed men from their sins upon condition that they never fall into any sin after their baptism received which cannot be in this frail state of flesh and blood subject to so many temptations and innate infirmities Therefore after the Apostle had shewed us how being implanted into the similitude of Christs death and resurrection we ought
infants have right to the holy CoÌ„munion as they have to strong meat but not a capacity as such or while they are infants and God hath in express terms restrained the Lords supper to those who can actually apprehend remember declare forth Christs death 1 Cor. 11 26. which because infants cannot do we give them not the Communion Secondly God hath denounced a grievous curse or punishment against any that shall presume without due examination of himself to eat of that bread drink of that cup but not so concerning Baptism it being the seal of our new-birth and reception into the visible Church and Covenant which hath no such condition annexed as may justly exclude Infants in respect of any present non-performance thereof But the Lords Supper is the Seal of our groâ—â—h in grace and spirituall strength instituted for the confirmation of our admittance into and our continuance in the Church of Christ whose death and passion for our redemption we thereby shew forth and commemorate for our spirituall perfection nourishment and strengthening in faith and other graces of his Spirit for our assurance that God having once received us into his favour will continue his mercy to us in Christ By these disparities the invalidity of the Pleaders Argument may appear And if it were true which he further saith that the wit of man is not able to shew a disparity in the sanction c. yet the wisdom of God is able and hath declared this difference in holy Scripture and the same can shew more then the wit of man can discern and hath shewed more then the learned Pleader doth or will understand who I conceive doth not yet know all that the wit of man or all the world can inform him of but is it not better even for those who have been in the Mount with God to cast the veil of modest humility over those excellencies which they have received and with which they shine to others admiration then to ostent them to the contempt of others The Apostle of Christ was rap't up into the third Heaven and yet professed we know in part and we prophesie in part 1 Cor. 13. 9. But you further say Since the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity give them the Communion c. That which you said a little before They are as honest and as reasonable that doe neither to wit baptize infants or give them the Comunion as those that understood the Obligation to be Parallel we may very well believe and wish that either of them may prove honest hereafter But to that which you say That the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity give them the Communion I answer 1. with Tertullian That is of the Lord and true which was first delivered but that is extraneous and false which is afterward received in And with Cyprian We ought not to heed what some before us have thought was to be done but what Christ did who was before all for we ought not to follow the custom of men but the truth of God 2 Your own rule must binde you though it cannot others who consent not thereto they who reject tradition when 't is against them must not pretend it at all for them pag. 237. Numb 25 3 It is considerable in that custome of the church as some other incoveniences which Augustine saith It is saith he one thing which we teach and another which we endure one thing which we are enjoyned to command and another thing which we are commanded to amend and untill we amend we are compelled to endure it And again who is eaten with the zeal of Gods house why he that endeavoureth and desireth to amend all that he sees amisse he resteth not if he cannot amend it he endureth it he sigh's the grain is not tossed out of the floor it endures the chaff that it may enter into the granary when the chaff is winnowed out 4 We adhere not so to tradition that we universally receive all that which was done or said of old things delivered by some but not generally received by the Church we esteem but superstructions of particular men or superseminations which possibly may spread farre as many pernicious opinions have done yet no sober man ever took them for Apostolicall or so much as Ecclesiasticall traditions we neither reject any tradition which appeareth to be Apostolicall if not peculiar to their times or suited peculiarly to certain times places or persons nor do we rashly receive any tradition for such except we are certain that the Scripture determineth nothing against it or where strong consequence from thence justifieth it 5 We conceive Augustines rule herein to be good In those things saith he concerning which divine Scripture determineth nothing certainly the custome of Gods people or institution of our ancestors are to be held for a law otherwise endlesse contention will arise also we must beware that the calm of charity be not clouded by the storm of contention 6 We will not rashly dissent from reverend antiquity wherein it dissenteth not from the truth we love peace with all who hold that in fundamentalls at least and therefore will follow Augustin's advice in that he piously saith concerning his reader where saith he he knows his errour let him return to me where mine let him recall me our rule being that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11 1. be yee followers of me even as I also am of Christ more no good man will require nor render lesse to Ancestors 7 Lastly we say that the Scripture which you cite Joh. 6. 53. except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you is not spoken concerning a Sacramentall but a spirituall feeding and although * some of the Jesuites and other Papists contend against us herein yet â—â— some of the most sober of them acknowledge that those words are not to be understood concerning eating or receiving the Lords super which ours generally maintain you might do your self right to joyn with us and not with the most eager Jesuites concerning the spirituall feeding of infants to eternall life by the merit of Christ applyed to them for their Union with him and salvation in and by him we willingly accord the manner of effecting by the secret power of the holy Ghost we enquire not after because it is not revealed but for the reasons alleaged we give them not the communion Next you say If Anabaptist shall be a name of disgrace why shall not some other name be invented for them that deny to communicate infants which shall be equally disgracefull c That would be a rare invention indeed but if to call Anabaptists Anabaptists be just why find you fault with it if evill or unjust why consult you how to imitate it by way of revenge is it not a shame to be such as we are or may well be ashamed to be
out to fill up the measure of impious calumny You say They invocate the holy Ghost in vain doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a stone or a tree 1. I wonder what they will be ashamed to say who blush not at such assertions 'T is true that the Apostle useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be illuminated for to be baptized as the Syriac Interpreter gives it Hebr. 4. 6. Hebr. 10. 32. and that the Greek Fathers so commonly used the word and it is no improbable conjecture that there was an allusion to the Hebrew manner of speaking who by one and the same word express illumination and a River or Source of water and by a Metaphor Illumination of the mind For they who are baptized by water and the spirit of Jesus are in Gods good time and the measure he knows fit illuminated and find not only a River of elementary water but of that water which floweth to eternal life whereof Christ spake John 7. that is the spirit of illumination and sanctification 2. I would desire you again consider is the case all one or alike when we pray that God would be pleased to illuminate sanctifie and save an elect infant for whom Christ shed his precious bloud for whose salvation he came from heaven became an infant and man of sorrows to the death whom he blessed of whom he said Of such is the kingdom of heaven and except ye become as one of these ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven Is I say the case all one when we pray according to Gods word and promise for these as if we should pray God to illuminate sanctifie and save a stone or a tree hath a stone or tree any habitual faith or reason or any capacity of the holy Ghost illumination or sanctification Do any creatures under the degrees of man bear the image of their Creator in immortality sanctity and light of understanding Would God you could be ashamed of blaspheming and laying such pernicious stumbling-blocks before the blind to make them fall Since you say there is no direct impiety in the opinion of Anabaptists nor any that is apparently consequent to it and they with so much probability do or may pretend to true perswasion they are with all means Christian fair and humane to be redargued or instructed I hoped that the Plea being ended the Pleader would have come to himself again but this and another strain promise no more but a lucid interval I answer As to your charitie towards the persons of the Anabaptists I also wish they may by all Christian fair and humane means be reproved convinced or instructed but that there is no direct impietie in their opinion nor any that is apparently consequent to it is apparently untrue for that which is displeasing to Christ is directly impious and such is with-holding Infants from him that which is uncharitable is direct impietie and such is that opinion which barreth Infants from the Seal of Gods Covenant with them and the Communion of Saints as also in that it damneth so great a part of the world presupposing that God had no Church in the world for so many hundred years as Infant-Baptism hath been the general inlet to the same except a little while in the schism of Pelagians and Donatists and again when the same Heresie revived in Germany in Charls 5. his reign and now again in these distracted and calamitous times much more hath been and might be said herein but I shall be so far from being their accuser that I heartily pray the Lord to open their eyes that they sleep not in death only I say to the Pleader who would so courteously vail others impietie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly you say that you think That there is much more truth then evidence on our side and therefore we may be confident as for our own particulars but not too forward peremptorily to prescribe to others much less to damn or to kill or to persecute them that only in this particular disagree That we may be confident of the truth on our side I assent likewise that none be too forward peremptorily to prescribe except where the Word of God and necessary consequence from thence prescribeth that none should persecute kill or much less for opimons less then blasphemous against God or destructive to Religion and salvation of souls saving to Supreme Authoritie their lawful right agenda est ut sit voluntas Longe diversa sunt carnificina pietas I also assent to but can by no mean◠be of your opinion that there is less evidence then truth or our side as any ways intimating a defect of evidence therefore I say 1. That evidence sensu forensi in common sense of controversies or matters of judicatuye importeth sufficient proof so we say that witnesses give in evidence that is not alwayes in terminis and express words as in actions of case is requirable nor as they say ore rotundo as to say Verres is a Thief c. but from considerable circumstances or necessarie consequences sufficient to evince and to inform to sentence This evidence on our side you will not denie in this case nor I suppose affirm that falshood hath more proof or evidence in Scripture then truth 2. Sometimes we speak of evidence in relation to the partie or parties to be informed in which not only his or their capacitie is considerable but also other circumstances as the Informers expression which possibly may be defective the Informeds attention for want whereof that may not appear which were otherwise sufficiently evident Again In case of Gods judgment over the disobedient given over to strong delusions that they should believ lyes and he damned who received not the love of the truth of it self evident enough ◠that they might be saved here of see Isa. 6. 9 10. Mat. 13. 13 14 15. To a blind man or one that winketh in the clearest most evident light no colours or proportions are evident because men if blind cannot if obstinate schismatical wil not see understand 3. There is a notius natura and a notius nobis if in the evidence you speak of you mean the first and that errour and falshood is more known in nature that is manifestly false for the truth is first and best known in nature If you mean the second that is that we less know the truth then the evidence what blame you in our cause or advantage your Clients If you say we see no evidence nor can the blind see the Sun what can you gain hereby it may be and certainly is that the Gospels light is hid to some the Apostle will tell you to whom and why 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. It is hid to them that are lost in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine