Reply Against Gilbert Brown, Section 10
Maiſter Gilbert Browne.
Epiſt. 28. ad Hier.1. We ſay with Saint Auguſtine that the Sacrament of Baptiſme is ſo neceſſarie to infants, that they cannot come to heauen without the ſame, whilk is contrary to their negatiue faith, where they call it the Popes cruell iudgement againſt infants departing without the Sacrament. Firſt, I ſay, that Chriſt taught the ſame doctrine in theſe words, Except a man be borne again of water and of the Spirit, Ioh. 3.5he cānot enter in the kingdome of God. We ſay this is ſpoken properlie of the Sacrament of Baptiſme, becauſe there is no regeneration of water and the Spirite of God, but in Baptiſme. The ſame is the doctrine of the Apoſtles alſo. When they exſpected the patience of God (ſayes S. Peter) in the dayes of Noe when the Arke was building, 1, Pet, 3, 20, 21in the whilk, few that is eight ſoules, were ſaued by water, whereunto Baptiſme being of the like forme now ſaues you alſo. Galath. 3 27 Act. 22.17. Act. 2 38And Saint Paule ſayes. For as many of you as are baptized in Chriſt, hauehave put on Chriſt. And Ananias ſaide to Saint Paule And now what tarieſt thou, riſe vp and be baptized, and waſhe away thy ſins, inuocating his name. T…t. 3.5. Rom. 6 3 4, 1, Cor 6, 11 Mat, 16, 16And Saint Paule himſelf in another place, Chriſt hes ſaued vsus by the lawer of regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghoſt. I thinke there is no Chriſtian reader that ſees theſe places, but he muſt ſay that Baptiſme is moſt neceſſarie to infants, except he will beleue rather the expoſition of the Miniſters, nor of the word of God.
Maiſter Iohn Welſche his Reply.
Firſt, ye begin at the neceſsitie of the Sacrament of Baptiſme, whereof ye affirme that it is ſo neceſſarie, that infants cannot come to heauen without the ſame. As for Baptiſme we graunt that it is a moſt effectuall ſeale and pledge of our ingrafting in Chriſt Ieſus, and of the remiſsion of our ſinnes through his blood, & regeneratiō through his Spirit, ſo that either the neglect or the contempt of it, (becauſe it is the neglect and contempt of the couenaunt it ſelfe, and of Chriſt Ieſus the foundation of the couenant) is damnable. But that it is ſo abſolutelie neceſſarie to infants, that without it they cannot come to heauen: to wit, theſe whome he hes predeſtinate, it being neither neglected nor cōtemned, but death preuēting the receiuing of it: that we allutterly deny as impious, vngodlie, and cruell. For firſt I ſay there is none that is in the couenant of grace, & who hes God to be their god, and are holy, that can periſh. This you cannot deny. But the children of the faithfull who are of his ſecret election are ſik before they be baptiſed. And this I proue. The Lord promiſed to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy ſeede. Gen, 17, 17 Act, 2, 39. 2, Cor, 7, 14And this Peter alſo teſtifies, The promiſe (ſaieth he) is made to you & to your children. And the Apoſtle ſayes, that the children of the faithfull are holie: Therefore the children of the faithfull who are of Gods ſecret election, ſuppoſe they die without Baptiſme, doth not periſhe. Secondlie, if Baptiſme were abſolutelie neceſſarie to ſaluation, then the grace of God were bound to the Sacrament. This cannot be denied. But your Maiſter of ſentences ſayes, that the grace of God is not bound to the Sacraments, and it is impious ſo to thinke, that Gods free grace and ſaluation is bound to the inſtrument. Thirdlie, if Circumciſion was not abſolutely neceſſarie to ſaluation in the old Teſtament, then Baptiſme is not abſolute neceſſarie now, becauſe Circumciſion was as ſtraitly enioyned to them, as Baptiſme is enioyned to vsus, and Baptiſme is ſucceded in the roome of the ſame, but Circumciſion is not abſolute neceſſarie. For Lombardus is rebuked by the Doctors of Paris becauſe he ſo thought. And Dauid doubtes not to ſay of his childe who died the ſeuenth day, and ſo before he was circumciſed, I ſhall goe to him, &c. and ſo he pronounced that he was ſaued: and al the time that they were in the wilderneſſe, almoſt 40. yeares, Circumciſion was neglected, whilk plainlie ſhowes, that it was not ſo abſolute neceſſarie, that ſaluation could not be obtained without it. Therefore Baptiſme is not ſo abſolute neceſſarie to ſaluation, as ye ſuppoſe: for the grace of God is of no leſſe force in the new Teſtament, nor it was in the olde. Fourtlie, we read of ſundry that receiued the holy Ghoſt before they were baptized, & ſeing the holy Ghoſt where he is, regenerates to eternal life: Therefore life eternall is not bound abſolutelie to Baptiſme Fiftlie, what a croſſe and diſturbance is this, that your doctrine brings to the conſciences of all theſe parents, whoſe children hes bene preuented by death, before they could be offered to be baptized? if they beleeue your doctrine, how often will this come in their minde, that their children are damned. And ſeeing the infants themſelues are not in the cauſe that they are not baptized, but their death preuenting by Gods prouidence, or the Parents neglecting or contemning the ſame, or perſecution, or one impediment or other hindering, wherefore are ye ſo cruell to iudge them to bee damned for that, whereof themſelues are cauſleſſe? And laſt of all, if ye be acquainted in the hiſtories of the Kirk of God in the firſt age, ye will finde many that delayed to be baptized, vntill their latter age, whilk they would neuer hauehave done and they had thought it ſimpliciter neceſſarie to ſaluation as ye doe. And Ambroſius doubts not to ſay that Valentinian wanted not the grace of Baptiſme, ſuppoſe he wanted Baptiſme it ſelf: the whilk he would neuer hauehave ſaide, if he had thoght it abſolutely neceſſarie to ſaluation. And Bernard ſayes, I can not altogether deſpaire of the ſaluation of them who wants Baptiſme not through contempt, but onlie through impoſſibilitie to get it. And in that ſame place hee ſayes. So alſo if our Sauiour Chriſt for this cauſe. When he had ſaide, hee that beleeueth and is Baptiſed ſhall bee ſaued: did of purpoſe in repeating the ſentence, omit to ſay: Hee that is not Baptiſed, but he that beleeueth not ſhall bee damned, for hee ſaw that faith only might ſuffice to ſaluation, and without faith nothing can ſuffice. Iuſtly then might your Popes ſentence and your own be ſaid to be cruell, in our confeſsion. But how proue ye this doctrine of yours to be Chriſts? Ye cite the three chapters of Iohn where our Sauiour ſaies, Except a man be borne againe &c. vvhilk ſay ye is properly meaned of the ſacrament of baptiſme. VponUpon the whilk ye infer the neceſſitie of the ſame. Whereunto I anſwere that interpretation of yours is falſe: for our Sauiour ſpeakes not here of the ſacrament of Baptiſme: and that for theſe reaſons: firſte, our Sauiour ſpeaks here generally of al men, and not of infants only, and therefore he ſayes, Except a man be borne &c. ſpeaking to Nicodemus who was a man and not an infant, ſo that if your expoſition were true all men that died without baptiſme and not infants only, are excluded from heauen. But that is falſe: for firſt the good theef was not baptiſed with water, and yet our Sauiour ſaide to him, this might thou ſhalt be with me in paradiſe. And therefore our Sauiour ſpeakes not here of the ſacrament of baptiſme: for he ſpeakes of that new birth by water and the ſpirit without the whilk none can be ſaued: but this theefe and others were ſaued without the baptiſme of water: therefore he ſpeakes not here of it. Next our Sauiour in that place ſpeakes of that new birth by the ſpirit & water whilk is ſo abſolutely neceſſarie to the ſaluatiō of al men that it admits no exception. This cannot be denyed. But Bellarmine makes two exceptions againſt the abſolute neceſſitie of baptiſme: one of martyrdome, the other of true conuerſion and pennance, Lib, 1, de Baptiſ, cap. 6whereof (ſayes he) either of them ſupplies the want of baptiſme. Therfore our Sauiour ſpeakes not here of the ſacrament of baptiſme. Thirdly if we will beleeue Chriſt Ieſus expounding him-ſelfe, and Scripture expounding Scripture, I ſay, by water is not alwaies meaned the ſacrament of baptiſme: but the purifying grace of Chriſt whilk is called the water of life, ſo our Sauiour ſpeakes in the 4. chapter of Iohn verſe 11. & 7. chapter verſe 38, And in that ſame ſenſe water is here added to the ſpirit to expound the more ſenſibly the efficacie of the ſpirit in waſhing and clenſing vsus, as fire is added to the ſpirit in the 3. of Matthew. 11. verſ. He will baptize you with the ſpirit and with fire, whilk is not properly vnderſtoode of any naturall fire, but taken figuratiuely to expound more ſenſibly the force and eficacie of the ſpirit in burning vp our corruption.
Fourthlye, what an abſurd thing were this whilk ſhoulde follow if your expoſition were true, that for the want of the ſprinkling of a little water, the infants ſhould periſhe that are in the couenant, ſeing they were not the cauſe of the want of it. Further, I ſay, that ſuppoſe baptiſme were here meaned: yet there is no ſik neceſſitie as ye ſuppoſe, for if martyrdome and pennance may ſupply the want of this water (as Bellarmine confeſſes) how much more may the holye Ghoſt ſupply the want of the ſame in infants: and if anye thing may ſupply the want of it, then it is not ſo abſolutely neceſſary that al theſe infants are damned that wants it.
Ioh 22.6.532. Our Sauiour ſpeakes as generally and abſolutely, Vnleſſe you eate the fleſh of the ſonne of man and drink his blood, ye hauehave no life in you, whilk ye interprete of the other ſacrament, ſo that if your interpretation were true, the Euchariſt ſhuld be as abſolutely neceſſarie to the ſaluation of infants, as you ſay baptiſme is. But the firſt you wil not grant. Therefore the other muſt alſo be falſe. 3. If here ye would infer a neceſſitie of baptiſme, then I ſay at that ſame time it began to be neceſſarie: for he ſaies not, he that ſhal not be borne againe &c. But he that is not borne &c. Lib. de Baptiſme cap 5But Bellarmine ſaies it was not neceſſary while Chriſts death, yet not while the Pentecoſt fiftie dayes after his death, therefore it is not like that any neceſſitie of baptiſme is here vnderſtanded: for it had bene good reaſon that Chriſts baptiſme whilk was miniſtred while he liued in the fleſh ſhould hauehave bene as neceſſary as the Apoſtles baptiſme whilk was miniſtred afterward. But the firſt was not abſolutely neceſſarie, as Bellarmine teſtifies, therefore neither is the ſecond. And laſt of all, leaſt ye ſhould ſay all this is our expoſition, Se…. lib 4. diſtin. 4. cap. His autemthe Maiſter of the ſentences expounding this place, who ſuppoſe he be of this iudgement with you concerning infants departed, yet he ſaies that this place is to be vnderſtanded of them who might hauehave bene baptized, but contemned the ſame: therefore this place imputes no abſolute neceſſitie of it. As for the reſt of the places of Scripture whilk ye quote, they ſerue nothing to prooue ſik an abſolut neceſſitie of baptiſme, as ye ſuppoſe, but only ſets downe the effects of the ſame whilk are ſealed vp in the harts of the beleeuers by the holy Ghoſt, as the inwarde worker, and baptiſme as the outward inſtrument, a)1. Pet. 3.20.21. Tit. 3 5. Mar. 16 16as our ſaluation through the death of Chriſt, our b)Gal. 3.27vnion with Chriſt, and c)Rom 6 3.4with his death, & d)Act. 22.17. & 2.38 1, Cor. 6.11.remiſſion of ſins, regeneration, mortification of the olde man. And therefore circumciſion in whoſe roome baptiſme is ſucceeded it is e)Rom. 4called the ſeale of righteouſneſſe whilk is by faith. Take away therefore your expoſition from theſe places, and there will no ſik abſolute neceſſitie of baptiſme follow here as ye ſuppoſe. And therefore f)Lib. 1. de ſacr. Bapt. cap. 4Bellarmine the learnedſt of your writers, becauſe he knew that theſe places whilk ye quote here could not proue ſik an abſolute neceſſitie of baptiſme, nor hauehave no appearance to proue the ſame, doth not cite one of them for the proofe of the neceſſitie, except only the third of Iohn leauing all the reſt. And as for that of Auguſtine, we grant he was of that mind that baptiſme was neceſſarie to infants, but he was alſo of that iudgment that the Euchariſt was neceſſarie vntounto them, and yet your Romane Kirk, nor you neither, I hope, wil ſubſcriue to this error of his. Seeing therefore you diſſent from him in the neceſſitie of the one, and that vponupon good ground of the Scripture; why may not we alſo diſſent from him in the other hauing ſo many groundes and reaſons out of the word of God to the contrarie, as hes bene ſayd? And this for the firſt point. Now let the chriſtian reader iudge vponupon whoſe ſide the word of God is.