Common Places, Letters · Letter 32
To Robert Cooch a letter yet extant of his owne hand. 34.
YOu will maruell and that not a little (deare friende in the Lorde) that I hauehave differred ſo long to write againe vntounto you. You muſt knowe, that that came to paſſe not through any contempt of you, but for that being diſtracted continually with great buſineſſe, I am not able to performe all things at all times as I would and as I ought. Wherefore it ſhalbe your part not to impute this delay to negligence, but rather to aſcribe it to thoſe vrgent cares wherewith I am ouerpreſſed. And againe, not to diſſemble with you: this did ſomwhat hinder my deſire to anſwere, that in the queſtion which you mooue, I perceiue you ſticke to thoſe arguments wherewithall by ſpeech you delt with me. Whereupon inſomuch as you finde not your ſelfe ſatiſfied with that that then I anſwered, nor my ſelfe coulde finde better reaſons to perſwade mine opinion: I thought mine aunſwere woulde be of ſmall importance. I anſwere therefore rather, leaſt I ſhoulde ſéeme to want curteſie than that I thinke you can be remooued from that conceit wherein ſo ſtifly you hauehave ſetled your minde. Howbeit to your obiections I will aunſwere in ſuch order as they are propounded of you. You ſay that Higinus the biſhop of Rome did firſt inſtitute the baptiſme of children: which how ſtronglie it may bee prooued I cannot finde. Indéede I read that he ordained certaine things concerning the godfathers of them that were baptiſed: but that the baptiſme of children was an inuention of his, I neuer founde. And if you know any other decrée of his hereof, I pray you vouchſafe to ſhewe it me. The teſtimonie which you adde of Tertullian is not of ſo great moment, that it ſhoulde much mooue vsus. For as you know, he fell to Montaniſme, and as he condemned ſecond marriages and addicted himſelfe to that damnable kinde of propheſie, ſo refuſed he the ſoundneſſe of doctrine in this point of baptiſme, when hee teacheth that children muſt be kept away from the ſacrament. And if a man doe diligentlie weigh his words, ſcant any age ſhall be fit for baptiſme. For that he thinketh it to be denied to young mē alſo & to them that be vnmaried, as perſons ſubiect as yet to temtation and faults, as if albeit old men be leſſe with luſt inflamed, yet they be not vexed with gréeuous kinds of temptations. Neither was Tertullian ſo néere of one time to Higinus as you ſuppoſe. For Higinus was biſhop in the yeare of our Lorde 140. but Turtullian floriſhed vnderunder Eleutherius in the yeare 210. Nowe whereas Higinus doth onelyonly decrée of the Godfathers to infants, it appeareth they were woont to be baptiſed before that. For he that ordaineth the manner of a thing doth ſurely deale in a matter that was extant before. I denie not, that in the primitiue times, baptiſme was ſometimes differred: for all were not baptiſed in their infancie. Yet none of right beliefe denied baptiſme to infants, if they were offered to receiue the ſame. Which if you thinke not ſo to be, it were conuenient you ſhould ſhew ſome one who withhelde children from the ſacrament of regeneration. There was indéede one among them who gaue aduiſe that baptiſme ſhould be differred till thrée yeares end if it might be in reſpect of the childrens ſtrength, which happily he ſuppoſed, becauſe children of thrée yeares old begin then to remēber ſomwhat. But he in any wiſe denied not, that they ſhould be baptiſed before thrée yeares, if they were in daunger of life: or if it ſéemed good otherwiſe to their parents. In ſum, ye time of baptiſme, at ye beginning was not preciſelie ſet, yet was it neuer denied to children yt were offered. Concerning Origen it is certaine, he ſaith, that ye baptiſme of children is a tradition of the Apoſtles: And this reaſon he alledgeth, becauſe euen they alſo hauehave their corruption to be waſhed away: and your allegations are found in his commentarie vpō the Epiſtle to ye Romanes, and are to be vnderſtoode of them that be of riper yeares. For in thoſe dayes many of elder yeares were conuerted vntounto Chriſt, and many that were borne of Chriſtians differred their baptiſme for certaine yeares, when (as we hauehave alreadie ſaide) no time was preſcribed. Of ſuch then doeth Origen complaine, that in that age the ſacrament of baptiſme was not ſo plainly and cléerelie declared, as in the Apoſtles times: and that the Apoſtles began baptiſme at them that were of riper yeares, there is no queſtion: But that they did not baptiſe children withal, by what ſcriptures will it be prooued? To Ludouicus Viues vponupon the 26. Chapter of the firſt booke De ciuitate Dei what elſe ſhould I anſwere, but that he is deceiued, when he ſaieth that none but of ripe yeares were baptiſed of old? For Cyprian (who was after Tertullian about 40. yeares) reſiſted them in the Councell, who thought that the eight day was to be tarried for in baptiſing of children: whereby nowe you ſée, that euen then children were baptiſed, and that the queſtion of the time onelyonly was diſputed of. Wherefore both Viues and Eraſmus might in this matter hauehave ſpoken more warily. But where you ſéeme to denie baptiſme to infants, for my part I doe contrariwiſe by al meanes affirme and beléeue the ſame, as a thing which out of the ſcriptures is cléere ynough vntounto me. Now if you admit Originall ſinne to be in children, and yet will not permit them to be baptiſed, you are not of Origens iudgement whom I cited before vponupon the Epiſtle to the Romans. But that Ruffinus rather than Origen ſhould be authour of thoſe thinges that there bee read, howe ſhall we knowe? So the ſame might be ſaide of his Commentaries vppon Geneſis, Exodus and other bookes. Truely I am faine to reade Origen as he is tranſlated, ſith the Gréeke coppies are not commonly extant. And as you alledge for your opinion Origens teſtimonies, both out of theſe Commentaries vponupon the Epiſtle to the Romans and out of his Homilies vponupon Leuiticus: ſo ſhoulde you likewiſe admit thoſe thinges, that we take from thence. Which neuertheleſſe, whether you hauehave gathered them out of his Commē taries or out of his Homilies vponupon Leuiticus or vponupon the Numbers, they make but to this, that verie manie at thoſe dayes of ripe yeares were admitted to the Sacrament of Baptiſme. And the like woulde at this day come to paſſe, if God would graunt that the Turkes ſhoulde receiue Chriſt. This (déere friend in Chriſt) is that which now I would ſhortlie runne ouer. Which I pray God you may at the length acknowledge with me to be true. Certaine it is, that Paul had no power but to edification. Nor doe I (who do eaſilie acknowledge the meaneneſſe of my giftes) thinke my ſelfe to hauehave receiued any thing of ye Lord which is not due to the edification of the Church of Chriſt. The cauſe of religion I am for my part readie to further in all things which I ſhall iudge agréeable to holie writ. But if you be not yet of the ſame mind that I am, God may bring to paſſe, that one day you will thinke as I doe. The queſtion of childrens baptiſme hath béene once or twiſe diſputed of héere for ſcholaſticall exerciſe ſake, not that (God bée thanked) I hauehave founde anie héere who déeme otherwiſe thereof than the Church at this day beléeueth. To write vntounto you what foundations in the ſcripture our faith of childrens baptiſme dependeth vppon, I hauehave thought ſuperfluous: partlie for that I diſcourſed them vntounto you at large when you talked with me, partlie for that you may reade them in bookes publiſhed by men moſt notable aſwell for their learning as for their Godly iudgement. I wiſh you in the Lorde well to fare. From Oxforde the firſt of December, 1550. For Martin Borhaus his ſalutations I thanke both him and you.
Of your ſaluation in Chriſt moſt deſirous Peter Martyr.