The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 35 · Subpart 18
A deciding of this difference by the holy Scriptures.
Sect. 20 1 The Scripture draweth vsus out of this difficultie, Genesis 17.7. where God saith to Abraham, I will be thy God, and of thy seede after thee. Now children that died before circumcision cannot be excluded from Abrahams posteritie. Then God is also their God, and by consequence they are inheritors of eternall life. For God is not the God of the dead, but of the liuing. So saith Iesus Christ, Matth. 22.32. And Acts 2.39. Saint Peter saith to the Iewes that were conuerted to the faith of Christ, For the promise is made to you, and to your children. Where speaking of children in generall, he also comprehendeth as well those that are new borne, as those that had receiued Baptisme. Then if God (without exception) declareth himselfe to be the God of the children of the faithfull, and acknowledgeth them to be his, and if to them the promise and the couenant of God belongeth, is it not a rash iudgment, and an iniurious crueltie against the goodnesse of God, to condemne them to eternall damnation?
2 The Apostle Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 7.14. speaking of a man and a wife, whereof the one is an infidell, the other a Christian, and of children borne in that marriage, saith that their children are holy, Otherwise (saith he) your children were vncleane, but now they are holy. If children borne in marriage where but one of the parties is a Christian, are holy by the Apostles iudgement, what apparence is there for men to thinke that those children which are borne of two Christian parents are not holy? and that they should be excluded from the grace of God, vnderunder pretence that they died without Baptisme? Many of our aduersaries to saue their honesties, say that by the word holy is vnderstood children lawfully borne; and that by vncleane children, the Apostle vnderstandeth bastards and children vnlawfully begotten. Thus they play with the Scriptures, and contradict themselues. For the Church of Rome is of opinion with vsus, that Marriages betweene Pagans are lawfull,Dist. 26. Can. Vna tantum. Iohannes Baptista dum Herodem ab incestu prohiberet, dicens: Non licet tibi habere vxorē fratris tui: evidenter ostendit inter infideles coniugia esse. and their children legitimate. Saint Iohn Baptist said to Herod, That it was not lawfull for him to hauehave his brother Philips wife, Matth. 14.4. Then he esteemed that the marriage betweene Philip and Herodias his wife was indissoluble, and consequently lawfull. Ancient Christians acknowledged the Pagan Emperors children to be lawfull successors in the Empire, and obeyed them, which they had not bene bound to do, if they had esteemed Pagans marriages to be vnlawfull. Then if Pagans children are legitimate, and that the Apostle calleth all children legitimate (as our aduersaries say) the children of Turkes and Pagans are holy. But it is certaine, that the Apostles intent was not to shew vsus how children are holy in that sence, but to shew vsus by what meanes children are consecrated to God. The Scripture also neuer calleth a child holy because it is lawfully begotten, but it is an ordinary thing in the Scripture to call those persons and those things holy, which are consecrated to God, and dedicated to his seruice. So in the Law eueryevery first borne that opened the matrice was holy vntounto God. In the same sence the Temple, the vessels, the sacrifices, and the Sabboth day were holy to the Lord. So are children that are borne of Christian parents. And seeing that God acknowledgeth them to be holy, why should the Church of Rome esteeme them to be prophane, and excluded from the couenant of God? It is true that they are borne in originall sinne: but Saint Iohn saith, that the bloud of Christ clenseth vsus from all sinne: the vertue of which bloud and the efficacie of his death, is not tyed to the water in any such manner, as that when time and meanes faile & are wanting to be baptized, God therfore cannot cause his grace to be felt, and manifest his goodnesse towards the children of the faithfull, borne within the couenant of God.
Hereby M. Arnoux discourse is confuted, which saith, That children are called holy, because they are lawfully begotten, and issued from an holy marriage. We grant him that in that place the children are called holy, in the same sence that in the same place it is said, that the vnbeleeuing husband is sanctified by the woman. For the Apostle therby teacheth, that the faith and holines of one of the parties, sanctifieth the marriage betwixt the husband and the wife, in such manner that the children born in that mariage are cōsecrated to God.
3 Matthew 19.14, Iesus said, Suffer the little children to come vntounto me, and forbid them not, for to such belongeth the kingdome of heauen. Those children which were presented vntounto him had not as then bene baptized by him nor by his Apostles, and yet he declared that the kingdome of God belonged vntounto them. It is true that it appeareth not whether they were circumcised or no, but that is to little purpose, seeing that our aduersaries say, That circumcision doth not bring a man to the kingdome of heauen. Then baptisme was necessary for those children to enter into the kingdome of heauen, if we beleeue our aduersaries. Adde hereunto, that Iesus Christ saith not, that the kingdome of heauen belongeth to childrē that are circumcised, but simply to children. He considereth the Infancie, and not the Circumcision in them.
4 To this purpose those places of Scripture may be alledged, which say, That God neuer punisheth the innocent for the guiltie, and doth not punish the sonne for the fathers sin, if the sonne doth not participate in his fathers sinne. As Ezechiel 18.20. saith, The soule that sinneth, it shall die: The sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father, neither shall the father beare the iniquitie of the sonne. The Church of Rome sinneth against this rule, when they will hauehave a childe to be for euer excluded from the kingdome of heauen, because his father negligently delayed his baptisme. That is, to punish the innocent for the guiltie. The example of Adams sinne, which brought so many euils vponupon his posteritie, is not contrary to this rule; for Adam sinned not as a particular man, but as representing all mankind in the root. For hauing receiued certaine benefites for himselfe and for his posteritie, he lost them for himselfe and for his posteritie. Moreouer, that euill descended from Adam vponupon vsus by naturall propagation, which no way can be applied to the wilfull negligence of parents, in not baptizing their children.
5 If we desire to hauehave more pertinent examples, the holie Scripture furnisheth vsus sufficiently. EueryEvery man knowes that Circumcision was the same to the faithfull in the old Testament, that Baptisme at this day is vntounto vsus. And yet infinite numbers of people were saued vnderunder the old Testamēt without Circumcision, as all the faithful women, and those which truly repented among the Gentiles.
6 Circumcision was conferred vponupon the eight day after the childe was borne. In which time of eight dayes a great number of children died, which according to our Aduersaries doctrine must hauehave bene eternally damned. The goodnesse of God towards all men, specially towards his owne people, and those which feare him, bindeth vsus to beleeue, that if Circumcision had bene necessarie to saluation, God would hauehave commanded children to hauehave bene circumcised presently after they were borne. He would not hauehave excluded millions of soules (borne of faithfull parents, and of Abrahams posteritie, and to whom the blessing of God was promised,) from his grace, by the delay of eight dayes. For God taketh no pleasure in the destruction of his creatures, much lesse in losing children borne vnderunder his couenant. If the people of Israel had beleeued that which the Church of Rome beleeueth, they would hauehave desired Moses to hauehave had a shorter time limited vntounto them for circumcision. And there would hauehave bene great and extraordinarie lamentations made by the Iewes for those children that died before those eight dayes were expired. And it is manifest that the people of the Church of Rome do not beleeue that which they are taught, seeing that the mothers whose children die before they are baptized, are so easily and so soone comforted, and trouble their mindes no more with the eternall perdition of their children.
7 But specially the children of Israel that died in the Deserts, are a notable example herein: For those people omitted the vse of Circumcision for the space of forty years together, in which time there was aboue sixe hundred thousand men borne, and that died therein: which great multitude of soules are eternally lost, by the iudgement of the Romish Church. And yet those men were they for whom Manna rained downe from heauen, & whom God couered by day with a pillar of a cloud, and lighted by night with a pillar of fire: which offered sacrifices vntounto God, and whose sacrifices God did accept: whom without doubt Moses would neuer hauehave suffered to hauehave bene vncircumcised, if he had beleeued that without circumcision they could not hauehave bene saued.
8 But what is more contrary to God and to his word, then to make God subiect vntounto men, yea, and that he should be subiect to the will of his enemies, in such manner that he openeth and shutteth the entrie into Paradise at their pleasure? And yet that is the beleefe of the Church of Rome. For Pope Nicholas *De Consecratione. Dist. 4. Can. A quodam Iudaeo, nescitis vtrum Christiano an Pagano, multos in patria vestra baptizatos asseritis, & quid sit inde agendum consulitis, &c.the first defined, that Baptisme conferred by a Iew or a Pagan is good and auailable, so that the same Iew or Pagan did baptize in the name of the Trinitie, or onelyonly in the name of Iesus Christ. By this meanes, if either a Pagan or a Turke hath a Christiā child in his keeping, he can saue or lose the soule of that childe: and if he will baptize that child, it shall be saued; but if he will not, that child dying, is presently cast headlong into eternall darknesse. By this reason, the saluation of a Christian child dependeth vponupon the wil of a Turk or a Pagan, of whom it is to be beleeued, that he doth confer baptisme no otherwise then for a mockerie or in despite.
9 The like absurdities rise from the baptisme of Midwiues, who receiuing a child that dieth in the birth, must hauehave the saluation of the child in their powers. By this reckoning the Apostles with all their meanes, and with all their wisedome and doctrines neuer did more good to any man then such a Pagan or such a woman do vntounto a child, which without them had died without baptisme.
10 But is it not an easie matter for a Iew or a Turke hypocritically to cause himselfe to be baptized? Do we thinke or imagine that the same Iew or Turke shal be more acceptable vntounto God for prophaning the sacrament of his Couenant? and that dying thereupon, he goes strait into Paradise?