The Estate of Children of Church Members and their Right to Baptism, Treatise · Part 3 · Chapter 2

The Estate of Children of Church Members and their Right to Baptism · Treatise · Part 3 · Chapter 2

p. 218CHAP. II. SECT. I.

WEe ſhall now trace theſe Authors in their quoted Authorities.

Propoſi. 1. Hierom upon Matth. 28. 19. is quoted Propoſition 1. and 8. The Lord, ſaith he, commanded his Apoſtles, that they ſhould firſt inſtruct and teach all nations, and afterward ſhould baptize thoſe that were inſtructed in the myſteries of faith; for it cannot bee that the body ſhould receive the Sacrament of baptiſme, unleſſe the ſoule have received before the true faith. This whole teſtimony is intended by the Author of growne ones, in what way adult Pagans are to bee baptized, and of their receiving of baptiſme, ſo as to have the ſaving benefit of it. But to make it his mind to intend excluſion of Babes is to make him worke and practiſe things againſt the light of his owne judgement and conſcience. The Author confeſſing in the eight propoſition, that his proofes are out of ancicient & later teachers, who have and do maintaine the uſe of baptizing children, and Hierom is one hee quoteth. As for Hieroms judgement this way, ſee his firſt Tome, his 7th. Epiſtle, ſcil. ad Laetam, where having ſaid before that the good and evill of little children is aſcribed to the parents, hee addeth, niſi forte exiſtimes Chriſtianorum filios, &c. unleſſe thou thinke that if the children of Chriſtians receive not baptiſme, the children onelyonly are guilty of the ſinne, and that the wickedneſſe is not alſo imputed to thoſe that would not give the ſame to them; eſpecially at that time when the children which were to receive baptiſme, could not contradict the ſame; as on the other hand the ſalvation of the Infants is the Anceſtors gaine. Hee reckons that there is wickedneſſe in it careleſly to neglect ſuch an ordinance, that tendeth to their ſpirituall gaine in their childrens good thereby furthered. Now if Hierom thought there were no Law for childrens baptiſme, why is there any tranſgreſſion, yea ſo deepe charged upon the neglectors of it, that it is ſcelus in his account? So in his ſecond Tom. 1. 3. Dialogorum adverſus Pelagianos ad finem; hee proveth infants baptiſme to bee for remiſſion of ſinnes, as well as for entrance into Gods kingdome; ſo that this Authors words are wreſted againſt his owne intention.

p. 219Let us ſee whether the next be better dealt withall, ſcil. Athanaſius in his third Sermon contra Arrianos: Our Saviour did not ſlightly command to baptize, but firſt of all hee ſaid, Teach, and then baptize, that true faith might come by teaching, and baptiſme bee perfected by Faith. If Athanaſius had ſaid thus in the Authors ſenſe, yet the fallacy had ſtill beene the ſame to conclude à dicto ſecundum quid ad dictum ſimpliciter. But let us look upon that place and weigh the words of Athanaſius, there ſpeaking of the unprofitableneſſe and vanitie of Baptiſme by Arrians; hee proceedeth thus. For (ſaith hee) the Arrians doe not give Baptiſme in the Father and Sonne, but in the Creator and creature, in the maker and workmanſhip: As therefore a creature is a diverſe thing from the Sonne, ſo is the Baptiſme ſuppoſed to bee given by them diverſe from true Baptiſme. Albeit becauſe they ſee the names of Father and Sonne in Scriptures, they doe faine to name them, for it is not hee that barely nameth the Lord which giveth lawfull Baptiſme, but hee that expoundeth that name and holdeth the right faith. And therefore our Saviour doth not command to baptize after any faſhion (the Authors render the word quovis modo by ſlightly) but firſt hee ſaid Teach and then baptize (in the name of the Father, Sonne and Holy Ghoſt) (this clauſe the treatiſe leaveth out) that by teaching a right faith might ariſe (the treatiſe ſaith true faith might come) and with the faith of Baptiſme the intire initiation might bee perfected; by initiation hee meanes baptiſme as the words before theſe ſhew. In theſe words. The Arrians hazzard the loſſe of the integrity of that myſtery. But I ſpeake of Baptiſme. For if perfect and full initiation bee given in the name of the Father and Sonne, and they hold not forth the true Father, &c. how ſhould the Baptiſme which they give bee true, &c. So that that ſpeech, with the faith of Baptiſme the intire initiation might bee perfected, is that with the faith or doctrine of faith rightly held out, the Ordinance of Baptiſme might bee perfect or valid, which hee calleth the right faith, as the words before mentioned ſhew: So that hee doth not here intend fidem quâ credit aliquis, ſed fidem quam credit, hee meaneth it of the object, not the habit of faith; and of the qualifications of the perſons baptizing, to make their act valid, not of the parties baptized. For none will ſay that an hypocrites Baptiſme, becauſe hee hath not true faith, is not true Baptiſme: The eſſence of the Ordinance not depending p. 220upon mans faith but Gods word. And that hee intends no other thing as it appeares by the premiſes, for if you take his next words following the ſame, it will bee evident. Truely, ſaith he, even other hereſies, and thoſe not a few, doe in ſeeming words pronounce that rite of baptizing, but being not right in judgement, nor retaining the ſound faith, they poſſeſſe and beſtow an unprofitable water, as deſtitute of the Deity of Religion, ſo that they which are ſprinkled by them, are rather polluted through corrupt Religion, then redeemed. Here therefore is an ancient Authors words wreſted to another ſenſe then the ſcope of his diſcourſe tended, and ſome words left out which ſerved to declare his meaning, and other words ſo palpably miſtranſlated that the Reader is groſſely abuſed thereby as well as the Author.

SECT. II.

THe next teſtimony is of Haimo upon this Text of Matthew. In this place is ſet downe a rule how to baptize aright, ſcil. that teaching ſhould goe before baptiſme; for hee ſaith, Teach all nations, and then hee ſaith, and baptize them; for hee that is baptized muſt bee before inſtructed, that hee firſt learne to beleeve, that which in baptiſme hee ſhall receive; for as faith without workes is dead, ſo workes when they are not of faith they are nothing worth. This labours of the ſame fallacy as that of Jeroms teſtimony, à dicto ſecundum quid, ad ſimpliciter, Gerhardi loc. com. loc. de baptiſmo.what the Author ſpake in reference to Adulti, it's applied as his mind thereby to make baptiſme of children beſides or againſt rule; when yet the ſame Author upon the 14. of Romans, ſpeaking about the caſe of their dipping of children, hee mentions Cyprian as practiſing dipping of children in baptiſme but once: but after (ſaith hee) hee being corrected of God, hee abounded in more ſublime knowledge, dipping them thrice. Hee looketh then at that way of baptizing Infants as a leſſon which Cyprian learned of God. Hee then ſurely thought baptiſme it ſelfe of Infants to bee taught of God, and no breach of a rule of God: Wee ſpeake not this as allowing Haimo's judgment about Immerſion, and much leſſe that of trina Immerſio, but to cleare the Author from that intention which the treatiſe would father upon him, or at leaſt by producing the mans writings in one place, would make him againſt h…s owne light to write things contradictory in p. 221another: Thus is this Author and the Reader with him abuſed alſo.

SECT. III.

THe next Author cited in this Treatiſe is Eraſmus, both upon Matth. 28. and Marke 16. to like purpoſe. When you have taught them, if they beleeve, &c. and repent, &c. then let them be baptized, &c. and Propoſition 3. thoſe who in times paſt were to bee baptized were firſt of all inſtructed in the myſteries of the Chriſtian faith, and were called Catachumeni, &c. This later one would thinke might have expounded the former, that hee intends it of adult Pagans, and not of others in Chriſtian Churches, ſuch as ours are whoſe foundations are already laid and eſtabliſhed. And Propoſition 6. It's no where expreſſed in the Apoſtolicall writings that they baptized children. Hee doth not ſay, it's not ſo much as probable nor is it to bee gathered by conſequence that they did ſo: wherefore his teſtimony is no proofe that the Apoſtles never did baptize Infants, becauſe it's never mentioned expreſly. It's never expreſly ſaid, that I remember, that the Apoſtles or Evangeliſts when they Baptized thoſe in Acts 2. and 8. and 16. 18. that they called upon God for a bleſſing upon the Ordinance, but will it follow that they did not ſanctifie the Ordinance by Prayer? Propoſition 7. hee is quoted as a proofe of that Propoſition, Lib. 4. de ratione concion. ſaying that they are not to bee condemned that doubt whether childrens baptiſme was ordained by the Apoſtles, and thinke that the ſame is to be received as the placita Scholaſticorum Theologorum, which cannot bee proved by Scripture. Here the Authors uſe their old art of ſubſtraction and addition. His words are thus. It is probable that to baptize Infants was inſtituted by the Apoſtles, and yet they are not to bee condemned which doubt thereof; With the ſame moderation many tenents of Schoole Divines are to bee received, which cannot (evidently) be proved from the Scriptures. The firſt ſpeech of Eraſmus is wholly left out, which is croſſe both to that peremptory if not impudent concluſion expreſſed in the 6th. Propoſition, and this ſet downe in the 7th. if even Eraſmus his judgement bee adhered to, for if it bee probable that Paedobaptiſme was of Apoſtolicall inſtitution, then it is not ſo peremptorily and with ſuch plerophory to bee aſſerted that it was never ordained of Chriſt, or practiſed by the Apoſtles, p. 222but is an ordinance of man. And whereas it is rendred, and think that the ſame is to bee received inter placita Scholaſticorum, &c. there is no ſuch connexion or expreſſion. But it is a diſtinct ſentence. With the ſame moderation, &c. many Schoole tenents are to be received, &c. ſcil. they are alſo not to bee condemned which doubt of ſome Schoole tenents which are not ſo expreſſe and cleare from Scripture. Hee doth not ſay that Baptiſme of of Infants is to bee thought placitum Scholaſticorum, but ſpeakes of other inſtances of things probable. Nor doth hee ſpeake of bare Schoole Notions which have no bottome at all in Scripture, and which cannot at all bee proved from the Scripture as the Treatiſe ſaith; which cannot bee proved, but which cannot evidenter probari per Scripturas. True it is, Henry Denne hee ſaith that Bellarmine taxeth Eraſmus with that opinion of denying childrens Baptiſme; but in Eraſmus his preface to his Paraphraſe on Matthew, hee rather condemneth the careleſneſſe of Prieſts, in ſo much that many Chriſtians are in reſpect of knowledge rather as Pagans; and at beſt are rather in titles, cuſtomes, and ceremonies Chriſtians then indeed: And adviſeth that children after they have been baptized, and come to riper yeeres, that they bee well inſtructed in what their ſureties have promiſed for them, and called to account how they profit thereby, and whether they doe avouch and owne the promiſe made by their ſureties, and if ſo, then at ſome time or other that they in the open Congregation expreſſing it, bee then with ſome ſolemnitie approved. And if they reject this motion, then to be debarred the Euchariſt, untill they change their mind: So that hee ſeemeth not to diſallow Paedobaptiſme, but careleſneſſe afterwards. This I ſpeake that none may bee rendred worſe then they are, bee they Papiſts or others. Albeit I would not much weigh the expreſſions of Papiſts this way, to whom bare Church traditions are equivalent to Scripture commands, expreſſe or virtuall.

SECT. IIII.

THe next Author is Bullinger in his Decads expounding Matth. … 28. Docete omnes Gentes, &c. make Diſciples of all Nations, &c. What then doth Bullinger intend baptizing Infants as not here enjoyned? Nay in the place quoted in his Decades of Sermons, Tom. 5. Decad. 5. Serm. 8. hee brings this as an Argument for Paedobaptiſme, God hath commanded to baptize all Nations, and therefore Infants, for theſe are comprehended in the words all p. 223Nations. Bullinger is againe cited as a Teſtimony for the proofe of the ſecond Propoſition in the ſame place ſpeaking upon the words of Paul, 1 Cor. 1. God hath not ſent mee to baptize but to preach the Goſpel. Hee is quoted to ſay. This muſt not ſo ſlightly be underſtood, as if hee were ſent not to baptize at all, but that teaching ſhould [goe before] baptiſme. For the Lord commanded his Apoſtles both to preach and to adminiſter the Sacraments. Bullingers words are, Non quod negaret abſolutè (which our preſent tranſlators render; this muſt not ſo ſleightly bee underſtood. Negaret is in their Engliſh not to bee underſtood, and abſolutè is in their Engliſh, ſlightly. If they had tranſlated it ſimply it would have hit it, but I thinke ſleightly fits them indifferent well) ſe ad baptizandum non eſſe miſſum, ſed quod doctrinam praeferret: utrumque enim, &c. That clauſe is expounded, but that teaching ſhould goe before baptiſme, &c. Here I want my conſtruing booke; but I will follow my tranſlators; ſed quod, but that, doctrina, teaching, praeferret ſhould go before — Riſum teneatis amici? But if the tranſlators had learned common rules and read the place, they would have clearely diſcerned Bullingers meaning to bee farre wide from their purpoſe, ſcil. To prove rather the prioritie of the Goſpel to baptiſme in dignitie and excellency, then in order of diſpenſation. For beſides that the common Grammer conſtruction of that paſſage, ſed quod doctrinam praeferret, will beare no ſenſe ſo well as that mentioned, See Bullingers Commentary on 1 Cor. 17.his words immediatly preceding alſo cleare the ſame. Evangelium majus eſt baptiſmo, the Goſpel is more excellent then Baptiſme, or greater then Baptiſme: For Paul ſaid, the Lord ſent mee not to baptize, but to preach the Goſpel, not that hee denied it abſolutely, &c. Sed quod doctrinam praeferret. And it is yet more ſtrange that this which Bullinger brings as his third Argument to prove Paedobaptiſme to bee of God, the Authors of this Pamphlet bring as a teſtimony to their purpoſe againſt Baptiſme; for Bullinger ſubjoynes to the words before: That children are received in the Goſpel doctrin, — they are not refuſed of God, who therefore unleſſe he were beſides himſelfe would exclude them from the leſſe? In Sacraments are conſidered the thing ſignified and the ſigne, the former is the more excellent. Infants are not excluded from that, (ſcil. the Goſpel, the promiſe) who will deny then the ſigne? for truely the Sacraments of God are rather to bee eſteemed by the word (ſcil. the promiſe) then by the ſigne. As for Bullingers expreſſions p. 224out of Auſtin, contra Iulianū quoted in the 7th. Propoſition they prove that the Carthaginian councell did indeed ratifie Baptiſme, but not that it came in firſt by that councell. Nay the teſtimony cited of Auſtin againſt the Donatiſts, lib. 4. cap. 23, 24. uſeth that as an argument, that it was of Divine authoritie, becauſe not inſtituted by any councells. And Origens teſtimony there cited, Propoſi. 7. proveth it to be in his time, which was 200. yeeres before that Carthage councell, in the time of Innocent the firſt: Yea Origen proveth it to bee at leaſt a Church cuſtome long before from the time of the Apoſtles. Bullingers teſtimony in his Decads as proving the 7th. Propoſition, ſcil. that Paedobaptiſme is an humane ordinance (when in that very Sermon of his there quoted in this Treatiſe, hee by many arguments from Scripture proveth it to be of divine authority) is alſo abuſed, and ſhamefully miſconſtrued and perverted, as is evident. The next is Beza who is alſo quoted Propoſition 7. in his annotations upon Matth. 28. 19. Baptize them in the name of the Father, that is, in calling upon the name of the Father, or rather the name of the Father, &c. being called upon; for they are Beza's words, Invocato nomine Patris, &c. And theſe Tranſlators ſhould have done well to have rendred the Latine properly. But all is in the meaning of the words. The authors of the Treatiſe urge it for a proofe of the perſons bapzed calling actually upon the name of God, when they are baptized according to Chriſts inſtitution, & bring Beza for their proofe. Quaeritur therefore whether ever Beza intended that in his words. Surely no, for it's known well that Beza ſtoutly maintaineth Paedobaptiſme as an ordinance of Chriſt. Now Infants when they are baptized cannot actually call upon the name of God; therefore if Beza ſay the former, that the rule of Chriſt requireth it of all that are to be baptized according to his mind, that they ſhould call upon God at the time of their Baptiſme; he muſt affirme the later againſt his owne light and conſcience; which to doe with ſo much deliberation as hee that writeth things upon ſtudie muſt doe, were a crime of a very high nature, and God forbid any ſhould charge ſo worthy a light in the Church with that.

SECT. V.

BEza is againe cited for confirmation of the third Propoſition in his Annotations upon Matth. 3. 6. John taught thoſe that were to bee baptized▪ (this clauſe is not in my Beza upon p. 225the place) and admitted none to Baptiſme, but thoſe that gave teſtimony that they beleeved the forgiveneſſe of their ſinnes. In my Beza's Notes it's rather thus, that John admitted not others to his Baptiſme, then thoſe which ſeriouſly profeſſed that they did imbrace the doctrine of free remiſſion of ſinnes; which how different from that of theſe tranſlators let others judge. It followeth in the booke, Such confeſſion was alſo required of the Catechumens in the primitive Church before Baptiſme, for in that the Sacraments are ſeales, it is requiſite that doctrine or inſtruction ſhould goe before the uſe of thoſe things by which the doctrine it ſelfe is to bee ſealed. Thoſe words before Baptiſme, and that reaſon annexed, for in that the Sacraments, &c. is not in my booke, ſcil. Beza's Annotationes majores in N. Teſt. Printed Anno. 1594. But to returne to the teſtimony, Beza intended that John baptized no other of that ſpecies of perſons Adult, then ſuch as made that confeſſion — but not ſimply the Baptiſme of any other perſons of another ſort, ſcil. babes; hee that is ſo carefull that any ſhould take advantage to deny that children are not rightly baptized, becauſe not dived wholly under water, that hee the rather (as hee ſaith upon Matth. 3. 11.) doth note ſuch things about the particle [In] omitted Luke 3. 16. ſurely hee intended not, by affirming ſuch things in reference to Johns hearers thereby to exclude childrens Baptiſme. Hence that added that ſuch confeſſion was required of the Catechumens in the ancient Church. Now then what manner of perſons they were which hee affirmeth made ſuch confeſſion of old, ſuch like perſons for age he here intendeth. And no more doth he intend excluſion of Infants from Baptiſme, by affirming the neceſſitie of confeſſion in Johns hearers unto Baptiſme, then by affirming that the ſame was required of thoſe Catechumens mentioned. Let us then ſee Beza's mind further therein, which wee may readily doe in the third place of Beza quoted in this Treatiſe Propoſition 4. where Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. But now your children are holy, he is thus cited as ſaying: Out of this contradictors of the truth are revealed. As firſt, all thoſe that make Baptiſme to be the firſt entrance to ſalvation: and ſecondly, thoſe that permit all children to bee baptized, which was unheard of in the primitive times, whereas [every one] ought to bee inſtruct…d in the faith before hee were admitted to baptiſme. And this teſtimony is brought to prove the Propoſition that in the primitive Church the children both of the faithfull and elſe (ſcil. and p. 226of Pagans or Jewes) were commonly firſt inſtructed, &c. and then baptized; ſo that Beza's mind in that clauſe, whereas every one ought to bee inſtructed, &c. is made, and every child whether of the faithfull or Infidell ſhould bee firſt inſtructed before hee be baptized, and in that ſenſe, his ſecond errour he blames of ſuch which permit all children to bee baptized, is as much as if hee ſhould intend it as an errour to permit any children at all whether of faithfull or infidell perſons to bee baptized before inſtructed: So that Beza is by this made a direct Andipedobaptiſt, as they terme it now for modeſty ſake. But you ſhall not have Beza thus on your ſide before wee heare him in his owne words, who having before ſpoken touching the cauſe, why wee admit the Saints children to baptiſme, ſcil. becauſe they are comprehended in the Covenant, &c. he addeth, Now from hence are confuted not onelyonly Catabaptiſts which doe reject Infants from baptiſme as uncleane, but thoſe which make baptiſme the firſt entrance to ſalvation, and ſo exclude all from ſalvation which are unbaptized, and alſo thoſe which admit all Infants whatſoever to baptiſme, (ſcil. whether of viſible Saints or Infidels as appeares by what hee ſaid before, and by what followeth, which thing (ſcil. ſuch promiſcuous baptizing of all ſorts hand over head) was not heard of in the ancient Church. As this at leaſt doth declare, in that all adult Infidells were firſt to bee Catechumens before they were baptized. Beza refuteth three things from that clauſe mentioned and explained — now your children are holy, and one of them is this fourth Propoſition of the Authors, and yet by the Authors he is brought to refute onelyonly two things. Firſt, hee refuteth Catabaptiſts denying baptiſme to beleevers children. Secondly, he from the ſame ground refuteth them which maintaine the baptiſme of all children whatſoever, ſcil. that are not children of viſible Saints, for if they bee ſuch children hee counteth it rather an errour to deny their baptiſme. Againe in citing the laſt part of Beza's words, the Authors craftily make it as an oppoſite ſentence to that before. Thus ſecondly, thoſe that permit all children to bee baptized, &c. whereas every one, &c. as if it were a contrary ſpeech to the former, permitting (all) children, &c. whereas none (at all) were to bee baptized of old, but ſuch as were Catechumens: when Beza maketh this later a reaſon of the former, as before wee ſhewed. Beſides the Authors ſhamefully change and mutilate the laſt words: whereas every one ought, &c. intending every particular perſon, Infant or p. 227Aged, when Beza's words are expreſly — in that all adult Infidells ought firſt to bee Catachumens before they were to bee baptized. Now who is there which doth not even feele this palpable guile and falſeſhood in the ſetters forth of this Treatiſe in this particular? But not to forget what wee noted touching Beza's other teſtimony on Matth. 3. this place cleareth Beza's intent. There ſpeaking of adult perſons it may bee affirmed ſuch muſt bee as the Catechumens of old in point of confeſſion before baptiſme, and yet the ſame Author never intend by that aſſertion to exclude children of ſuch as doe make ſuch confeſſion of faith and repentance from baptiſme. Beza which holdeth this forth here, yet here alſo refuteth that as errour in Catabaptiſts to deny Paedobaptiſme: So that ſtill here is the old fallacie, à dicto ſecundum quid ad ſimpliciter dictum.

SECT. VI.

THe next Author quoted Propoſition 1. ſcil. Strigelius upon Acts the 8th. (as ſaying that to bee baptized in the name of Jeſus is to bee baptized in acknowledging and confeſſing the name of Jeſus) I have not, and therefore cannot examine the ſame: Albeit this ſano ſenſu hinders not us; in that when parents offer their children to baptiſme, the name of the Lord Jeſus is confeſſed and acknowledged.

The next teſtimony is of Luther, Propoſition 1. whereupon Gen. 48. hee is ſaid to affirme — before wee receive the Sacrament of Baptiſme and the Lords Supper, wee muſt have faith; and in another place as quoting Heb. 2. 4. Rom. 1. 17. Heb. 10. 38. Mark 16. 28. Act. 8. 36. and Rom. 10. 10. to prove that faith is required to baptiſme, and that without faith the Sacraments profit not, but hurt rather the receivers: and Propoſition 3. hee is quoted againe in his book of the Civill Magiſtrates as ſpeaking like words, and ſaying, wherefore wee hold our ſelves to the words of Chriſt, He that beleeves and is baptized: So that before or elſe even then preſent when baptiſme is adminiſtred, there muſt needs bee faith, or elſe there is contempt of the Divine majeſty, who offers preſent grace, when as there's none receive it. And Propoſition 5. Luther upon giving and receiving the Sacrament, Tom. 3. is ſaid to write, that in times paſt it was thus, that the Sacrament was adminiſtred to none, except it were to thoſe which acknowledged and confeſſed their p. 228faith and knew how to receive the ſame, &c. and Propoſition 7. in his booke of Anabaptiſme, hee is ſaid to acknowledge, that it cannot bee proved by Scripture that childrens baptiſme was inſtituted by Chriſt, or begun by the firſt Chriſtians after the Apoſtles, for a 1000. yeares ſince it came to bee in uſe in the Church, and was eſtabliſhed by Pope Innocentius. This place alſo doth A. R. quote in his ſecond part of childiſh baptiſme, pag. 8. And Propoſition 8. Luther is againe quoted as ſpeaking thus in his Poſtils. Young children heare not, nor underſtand the Word of God, out of which faith commeth, and therefore if ſo be that commandment of Chriſt bee followed, children ought not to bee baptized. Now as for theſe teſtimonies of Luther, I not having nor being able to procure neare hand the ſight of all his Tomes, I ſhall not bee ſo able to diſcover the legerdemaine which I verily ſuſpect in citing his teſtimonies as well as thoſe of ſome others. Yet Luthers meaning in the words mentioned Propoſition 1. may well bee expounded by that mentioned Propoſition 3. and ſo according to his judgement rather eſtabliſhing Paedobaptiſme then weakning it; for hee holdeth that God at preſent, when they are baptized, worketh faith in them, and therefore the rather ſuch are to bee baptized. Luther in his 4th. Tome expounding that Hoſ. 12. 3. Hee tooke his brother by the heele in the wombe — ſcil. by a ſecret inſtinct and moving of the Spirit, as John alſo by the ſame moved in the wombe upon Chriſts approach, of which hee giveth this reaſon, becauſe God is not onelyonly the God of growne ones, but even of ſuch babes. And what wonder is it, ſaith hee, that the Spirit is efficacious in Infants in a way we underſtand not, as having alſo fleſh and bones in the wombe as wee have, but yet not nouriſhed as wee are? And therefore that tenent of Anabaptiſts is impious and odious, who therefore deny baptiſme to Infants becauſe they want ſenſe and underſtanding, nor doe they know what is done about them. To us they underſtand not, by us they are judged to want ſenſe and underſtanding, but it's not ſo to God whoſe worke they are: for God as hee nouriſheth them otherwiſe then hee doth us, ſo doth hee otherwiſe move their hearts, &c. Another anſwer of his ſee in his ſecond Tome, lib. de captiv. Babyl. title of baptiſme. Hee ſaith (having ſpoken before of faith as requiſite to the application of the promiſe) opponetur forſan iis, &c. It may bee to the things before ſpoken, the baptiſme p. 229of Infants will bee oppoſed, which receive the promiſe and yet cannot have the faith of baptiſme, and therefore either faith is not required, or Infants baptiſme is null. Here (ſaith hee) I ſay that which all ſay, that Infants are helped by the faith of others, even of them which offer them. For as the Word of God is forcible whilſt uttered to change the heart of a wicked man, which is not leſſe deafe and uncapable then any little one; ſo by the Prayer of the Church offering and beleeving, even a little one having faith infuſed is changed, cleanſed, and renewed by him to whom all things are poſſible. For conformation whereof hee brings that example, Marke 2. 3, 4, 5. And in his 7th. Tome in his Homily of baptiſme, hee reckons that erroneous interpretation of Marke 16. 16. is the ground of that diſpute againſt Paedobaptiſme; becauſe if baptized, ſay ſome, when an Infant and not beleeving, then not rightly baptized, and ſo that baptiſme is nothing — to which ſaith Luther — this is nothing elſe then if it ſhould bee ſaid, if thou beleeveſt not when thou partakeſt of the Word or Sacrament it is nothing. And ſo they onelyonly that truely beleeve are truely baptized, and others baptized which doe not beleeve, they are againe to bee baptized when they doe beleeve, (ſcil. albeit growne ones, when baptized if then hypocrites.) As for Luthers other two ſpeeches mentioned Propoſition 7. and 8. I ſomewhat wonder if hee ſhould utter them as here expreſſed, that in that booke ſtiled Lutheri Antilutherana opera fratris Joan. Apobolymaei alias Findeling Minoritae, they are not mentioned; the ſcope of the booke being to gather up all Luthers (ſeeming) contradictions. And hee inſtanceth in the other de captiv. Babyl. before mentioned; it's ſtrange that hee miſſeth thoſe if thus written, ſince it's evident both by that expreſſion in Luthers greater Catechiſme, Tom. 3. when hee ſaith, After the ſame manner doe wee when wee give baptiſme to little ones. Wee bring the child to the Miniſter of the Church with this mind and hope that verily it may beleeve. But wee doe not baptize it for thoſe things, but rather becauſe God hath command…d us ſo to doe. So in that famous ſtory of the concord betweene Luther and the Divines which followed him, and the Divines of upper Germany at a meeting at Wittinberg, Anno 1536. according to a certaine forme of Articles of agreement together with the explication thereof annexed by Martin Bucer, and after the agreement ſubſcribed, about the preſence of the body of Chriſt in the Lords p. 230Supper: the next Article to bee ſo compoſed and explained to all their content was that about baptiſme. The Article was this: touching baptiſme of Infants, all without any doubting agree, that it's neceſſary that Infants ſhould bee baptized, for ſince the promiſe of ſalvation doth alſo belong to Infants, and it pertaineth not to thoſe which are without the Church, it is therefore neceſſary that it ſhould bee applied by the Miniſtery, and to conjoyne them to the members of the Church. The explication of the Article annexed. This is to bee underſtood of a neceſſitie in reſpect of Miniſtery and by command of God, and not of neceſſitie in reſpect of ſalvation, &c. unto which as to the reſt ſubſcribed Martinus Lutherus, Doctor Witebergenſis, Johannes Bugenhagius Pomeranus, Doctor Philippus Melancton, Juſtus Menius Iſenacenſis, &c. And on the other ſide M. Martinus Bucerus Miniſter Eccleſiae Argentinenſis, Wolſangus Muſculus eccleſiae Auguſtanae Miniſter in verbo, and divers others. I have ſet downe this ſtory the fuller as it's mentioned amongſt Bucers workes in that I ſhall have frequent occaſion to referre to it.Bucers opera Anglicana.

But to returne to Luther, hee is one that holdeth baptiſme not ſimply neceſſary to ſalvation, as that without which one cannot bee ſaved, (as is further expreſſed in the explication of that Article) but as neceſſary unto Infants by vertue of divine precept. Surely if hee had no ſcruple in this point, as it's ſaid all agreed herein without doubting, &c. he never imagined that which the Authors of this Treatiſe would make him to affirme, that baptiſme of Infants came in foure or five hundred yeers after Chriſts time as an inſtitution of Popes or councells.

I might have mentioned that paſſage of Luthers (to the former two teſtimonies touching faith required to baptiſme) which hee hath in his Preface to his Commentary upon the Galatians. Anabaptiſts (ſaith hee) teach that baptiſme is nothing except the perſons beleeve, out of which principle it will follow that all the workes of God are nothing, if the man bee nothing, for baptiſme is the worke of God, &c. But this is certaine that Luther taking the Doctrine of baptiſme of Infants as unqueſtionable rather argueth thence to prove that Infants have faith (which was a tenet of his owne) then that faith is required in them to their baptiſme. Thus Infants unleſſe that they have faith it will bee ſaid they are not to bee baptized, but all grant that Infants are to bee baptized, therefore Infants have faith.