The Estate of Children of Church Members and their Right to Baptism, Treatise · Part 3 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. SECT. I.
BEda is the next Author cited Propoſition 2. upon Acts 19. as ſpeaking thus: As thoſe that came to the Apoſtles to bee baptized were inſtructed and taught of them, and when they were inſtructed and taught concerning the Sacrament of baptiſme, then they received the holy adminiſtration thereof. I looked on the place, and there is no ſuch thing there, and ſuppoſing it might bee miſquoted, I looked him upon the 9. 16. 18. yea 2. and 8th. (as well as my time would permit) and I could find no ſuch teſtimony of Beda's, ſo that this is a forged teſtimony. And as for Beda's judgement in the caſe; in this ſecond Tome lib. 4. fol. 50. expounding the place, Marke 16. qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur — What, ſaith Beda, ſhall wee ſay of little ones which by reaſon of age are not able to beleeve? (for of growne ones there is no queſtion.) In the Church therefore little ones doe beleeve by others: even as from others they have derived the ſinnes which are remitted to them in baptiſme.
SECT. II.
AƲguſtinus is the next quoted Author, and firſt Auſtin ad Salcotinanum is cited Propoſition 2. as ſpeaking that a man muſt repent before baptiſme, &c. As Peter ſaith to the Jewes Acts 2. &c. but as for the name of the Booke or Epiſt. I find not. The Authors or Printers I ſuppoſe miſtake the name; I finde reference made in the Decretalls ſet forth by Petrus Albignanus Trecius (for as for thoſe ſet forth by Gratian, I neither have them nor can meete with them) unto Auſtin ad Salectinanum, as uſing theſe expreſſions, Omnis qui jam ſuae voluntatis, &c. Every one that is at his owne free diſpoſe when hee commeth unto the Sacrament of the faithfull, unleſſe it repent him of his old life hee may not begin the new: from this penitence onelyonly little ones when they are to bee baptized, they are freed, for they cannot yet make uſe of a free choyſe of their owne, &c. If there bee any other paſſage of that nature as is mentioned in this booke of Auſtins, yet by this his intention therein is cleared. Among Auſtins Epiſtles I cannot light of any ſuch under that name mentioned there in his 108. Epiſt. Seleucianae, but that rather doth ſtrengthen then weaken the Ordinance of Paedobaptiſme.
Auſtine is cited againe in confirmation of the 4th. Propoſition in his Sermon ad Neophytos, that is, ſay theſe Authors Juniores or young men, but they miſunderſtand the word. It is neither of the ſingle words foreign or foreign, but its compounded of foreign & foreign, and as for one whom they call foreign, that is according to Suidas foreign, that is, one that is newly comming from Gentiliſme (or Judaiſme, ſaith Cornelius à Lapide) and having embraced the Chriſtian Religion is by baptiſme planted into the Church of God, albeit neither yet ſufficiently eſtabliſhed in the doctrine of the faith, nor ſo fully approved in life. The like deſcription others give of ſuch in reference to 1 Tim. 3. 6. but to come to the matter of the teſtimony which is as followeth [before wee ducked or dipped their body in the ſacred water, we asked, Beleev'ſt thou in God the Father Almighty? and they anſwered, I beleeve, &c. and we asked them, Beleeve yee in the holy Ghoſt? unto which every one of them anſwered, I beleeve: and thus have wee done according to the command of our Lord, Matth. 28. 19.] and what of all this? becauſe perſons which were converted from Paganiſme, or Judaiſme, were asked ſuch queſtions, therefore none other were baptized but ſuch, and in ſuch a way; non ſequitur: or becauſe this was commanded by Chriſt, therefore this was all hee commanded in Marke 28. 19. it followeth not. Auſtin who was of another mind never imagined ſuch a concluſion would ever bee drawne from his words. The author not naming the Sermon nor the ſeaſon when preached, I will make bold to helpe out therein, that ſuch Sermons uſed to bee preached at Eaſter, one of the ſolemne times then ſet for baptizing of perſons; but that it may appeare that onelyonly ſuch were not then in the aſſembly, albeit the growne perſons were thoſe to whom eſpecially ſuch ſpeeches were directed; compare this with that of Auſtin in his 4. Serm. in octav. Paſchae adneophytos, where hee ſaith, To day are celebrated the octaves of Infants, their heads are uncovered in token of libertie, &c. Thoſe children, Infants, little ones, ſucklings, hanging on their mothers breaſts, and ignorant of what grace is beſtowed, as you may perceive, becauſe they are called Infants, even they alſo alſo have their octaves to day. And theſe old men, young men, ſtriplings, all are alſo Infants. By this teſtimony we may perceive a larger interpretation of the word Neophytos, ſcil. any one newly planted into the Church, whether Infant, youth or other, any one who was as new borne Sacramentally in baptiſme of what age ſoever. And that at the ſolemnitie of Eaſter *Infants & ſucklings were baptized as well as elder ones even before that change of the limitatiō of Baptiſm to Eaſter, and —and Pentecoſt: Of which Rupertus and Boemius ſpeake, baptiſme of Infants was not brought in for mortalities ſake upon the change of the old uſe of baptiſme at Eaſter, and Pentecoſt, but was in uſe while yet thoſe limited times ſtood, and long before, this corrupt uſe of limiting the time of baptiſme was in force, of which more anon. Yet alſo this I deny not but that corrupt addition to Paedobaptiſme being in uſe in thoſe times of asking queſtions to the child by the ſureties, &c. this anſwer might ſuffice that even Infants too were in that number of young plants mentioned, which did anſwer as is there ſaid by their ſureties.
Auſtin is againe quoted for proofe of the 7th. Propoſition, de baptiſmo contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23. & de Geneſi ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. now then let us examine what Auſtine ſaith there, and how pertinent a proofe it is of the propoſition, hee calleth it there, ſaith the Treatiſe, a Church cuſtome — and thence concludes by the witneſſe that Paededobaptiſme is an ordinance of man brought into the Church by Teachers ſince the Apoſtles time, and inſtituted by councells, &c. but let us heare Auſtin ſpeake for himſelfe at the firſt hand, and not take a report of his words at ſecond hand, leſt it prove a ſlander: thus he ſpeaketh in the former place, the which the whole Church holdeth as delivered to it, that even little Infants are baptized, which truely yet cannot beleeve with the heart unto righteouſneſſe, nor confeſſe with the mouth unto ſalvation as the Thiefe (he meanes the converted Thiefe) &c. and yet no Chriſtian hath affirmed that they are baptized in vaine: and immediatly (Chap. 24.) addeth — And if any ſeeke divine authoritie in this matter (ſcil. of Infants baptiſme) although that which the whole Church holdeth, neither was inſtituted by councells, but alwayes retained, wee aſſuredly beleeve that it was not delivered but by Apoſtolicall authoritie, yet wee may truely conjecture (oppoſing this to all falſe and uncertaine conjectures) of what authoritie or force the Sacrament of Infants baptiſme is from circumciſion, &c. where firſt in the very place quoted hee ſaith not, that it was a tradition of the Church onelyonly, or from the Church, but was delivered to the Church: and leaſt any ſhould imagine that this was delivered to the Church by any corrupt teachers ſince the Apoſtles times, Auſtin in the next Chapter within five or ſix lines of that in the 23. Chapter mentioned, giveth his arguments to prove that it could not bee delivered to the Church, but by Apoſtolicall authoritie; firſt, in that it was never inſtituted by any councells; ſecondly, becauſe it was ever held by the Churches, ſcil. ſince there was any Church planted by the Apoſtles: and I thinke his arguments are weightie, other things which were of ſuch note (as this of Paedobaptiſme was if innovations) either they may bee proved that they came in by ſuch or ſuch councells or authors, or it may be proved, that there was never any ſuch thing in uſe before ſuch or ſuch a time, which in this caſe will be hard for any to undertake to make the ſame good by convincing teſtimonies or arguments.
But to returne to our Authors, they bring in this teſtimony to prove that baptiſme of Infants was inſtituted by councells, *The firſt witneſſe ſaith flatly it was not inſtituted by Councells.what forgery is this? they make him their witneſſe to prove it to bee an ordinance of man, the witneſſe proveth that it's of divine authoritie: What notable jugling is this? Will they never leave this trade? Let us examine the other place where Auſtin ſaith that it is a Church cuſtome, if our Authors ſpeake truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of the place quoted, the words there are as followeth, the cuſtome of our mother the Church in baptizing Infants is not to bee deſpiſed, nor by any meanes is the ſame to be thought ſuperfluous. Yery good then will they ſay, this place is full for us. Nay ſtay Sirs, be not too haſty to interrupt the witneſſe, whilſt hee is ſpeaking; let him ſpeake all hee hath here to ſay, ſcil. nor were it at all to bee beleeved, unleſſe it were an Apoſtolicall tradition, &c. So you heare Sirs, hee tells you; it's ſuch a Church cuſtome, as withall, it is an Apoſtolicall tradition; and that in the other place quoted, is of Divine authority hee makes account, which is delivered to the Church by the Apoſtles. As indeed it is, unleſſe that any thinke that the Apoſtles in their Apoſtolicall miniſtry erred, and delivered that to the Church, as the mind, meaning and intent of Chriſt, which hee never meant. And Auſtin hath the very ſame words, as here in his third Epiſtle ad Yoluſiam: Nay leſt there ſhould bee any ſtick in the words, traditum ab Apoſtolis, and Apoſtolicall tradition, hee peremptorily affirmeth, (ſpeaking of the Churches authority in this caſe of Paedobaptiſme) lib. 1. de peccat. merit. & remiſſ. cap. 16 — proculdubio per Dominum & Apoſtolos traditum, that without all queſtion it was delivered by the Lord and his Apoſtles.
But our Authors here will not leave Auſtin thus, but they will make him ſpeake for them ere they have done, therefore hee is quoted againe in the 28th. Epiſtle to Jerom, to confirme their 7th. Propoſition; Content, wee will heare any thing hee can ſay. What ſaith Auſtin there? Nay pag. 32. our Authors are ſilent, and onelyonly quote the place, not the words, and leave us to finde the ſenſe out, as Nebuchanezzar did his dreame and them to interpret it. But let mee aſſure them Auſtin doth rather confirme the contrary, in that Epiſtle, then otherwiſe; clearing both the ſpirituall ends of Chriſtian parents, in haſtning with their children to Baptiſme: and ratifying Cyprians judgement touching the caſe of Paedobaptiſme, that hee therein did not frame ſome new decree, but held the moſt firme beleefe of the Church that way. And poſſibly the Authors by adding this teſtimony of Auſtin to that of Cyprians Epiſtle, and on this ſay, that Cyprian ordeined children ſhould bee baptized, they bring this to confirme it, which doth indeed confirme it, that Cyprian held this, and ratified this — but not as the firſt Author of it, (which perhaps the Treatiſe would make the world beleeve) but rather as that which the Chriſtian Church had ever firmely beleeved. According as Auſtin in his 10th. Sermon of the words of the Apoſtle ſpeaking of Paedobaptiſme, ſaith, this the Church (meaning the Chriſtian Church) hath alwayes had, alwayes held, this it hath received from the faith (or doctrine) of the ancients, this doth it keepe moſt conſtantly unto the end. Yea but pag. 33. our authors ci…e ſome words of his in his 28th. Epiſtle to Jerom, therefore doe men haſten ſo with their children to baptiſme, becauſe they beleeve they cannot otherwiſe be made alive in Chriſt, and to the like purpoſe in his Enchiridion, from the young to the old none are to bee denyed baptiſm, for ſalvation is not promiſed to the children but through baptiſme, &c. and to the ſame purpoſe Auſtin and the Biſhops of the Milevitan councell, wrote, as condemning ſuch as thinke Infants can bee ſaved, without Baptiſme. All this if they intend it, of the neceſſitie of Baptiſme in reſpect of Gods precept, in oppoſition to contempt and neglect: and of ſalvation promiſed in ſuch ſort, as with reference to this, as one ordinary helpe and ſeale thereof, leaving extraordinary wayes and ſecrets to the Lord; Charitie would thinke favourably of their words, eſpecially ſince as much in effect is in this ſenſe held forth, Epheſ. 5. 25, 26, 27. But bee it that Auſtin ſuperadded his owne Stubble and Straw, yet that hinders not, but the bottome and foundation of that Ordinance was good and ſure; you will not ſay becauſe Papiſts hold baptiſme to bee of neceſſitie to ſalvation, that therefore baptiſme of growne perſons is no Ordinance. That other ſpeech of Auſtins — that as thoſe were circumciſed which were borne of circumciſed parents, even ſo ſhould they bee baptized which are borne of parents that are baptized, is ſound and good, and no proofe of that 7th. Propoſition, that Paedobaptiſme is an humane Ordinance. Thus wee ſee Auſtin hath ſped no better then his neighbours.
SECT. III.
MElancton is the next witneſſe, who is called in to give evidence to confirme the 2d. 6th. and 7th. Propoſition. I am ſorry that theſe bookes cited are not at hand, ſo that I cannot ſo well diſcover the ill dealing, which I ſuſpect; upon the 1 Cor. 11. 15. hee is ſaid to affirme; In time paſt thoſe in the Church which had repented them were baptized, and it was in ſtead of an abſolution: wherefore repentance muſt not bee ſeparated from baptiſme. For baptiſme is a Sacramentall ſigne of repentance. It's evident that Melancton here ſpeakes of the baptiſme of growne ones; thoſe in the Church which had repented were baptized — and ſo in like caſe of baptizing adult perſons, repentance ſhould not bee ſeparated from baptiſme. But to Melancton himſelfe, it is a non ſequitur, that therefore Infants ought not to bee baptized, becauſe they cannot repent; witneſſe the anſwer he maketh in his Common places unto that objection againſt Paedobaptiſme. Loco de Baptiſmo Infantum. It is moſt true ſaith hee, that in all adult perſons (Baptiſme) faith and repentance are required, but in the caſe of Infants this ſufficeth, that the holy Spirit is given them by baptiſme, &c. As for that definition of Baptiſme, that it is a Sacramentall ſigne of repentance it is imperfect, nor yet will it follow thence, that none elſe ſhould bee baptized, but ſuch as actually repent; no more then in that circumciſion was a ſigne of Heart circumciſion, and therefore of repentance, Deut. 10. 16. Jer. 4. 4. Deut. 30. 6. that none but adult perſons were fit to bee circumciſed.
Melancton is againe quoted Propoſition 6. for ſaying there is no plaine commandment in Scripture that children ſhould bee baptized. And if hee did ſay thus, doth this prove, that there is no command at all, becauſe not plaine or expreſſe, ſcil. in ſo many words: you ſhall baptize children? there is a command to bee deduced from Scripture, by neceſſary conſequence, in Melanctons judgement; witneſſe the foure arguments which hee drawes from neceſſary conſequence of Scripture to prove it, Loco de Baptiſmo Infantum: and witneſſe his hand ſubſcribed at Wittenberg, amongſt others, to that Article with its explication touching Paedobaptiſme, as neceſſary in reſpect of divine command, as before wee mentioned, Propoſition 7. Melancton in his anſwer to the Anabaptiſts Articles is quoted, but no words mentioned, that hee ſhould ſpeake, unleſſe the Authors cite him for mentioning the ſtory of Cyprian and the other Biſhops determinations about Paedobaptiſme, which were impertinent, in as much as Origen is here quoted for ſaying, that Paedobaptiſme was a tradition of the Church. Now Origen was before Cyprian, and the Church whoſe tradition it's ſuppoſed Origen ſaith it was, was long before Origen, ſo that Cyprian did not firſt ordaine Infants Baptiſme, the Authors themſelves being Judges. I have not that booke of Melanctons, and I cannot divine what his words were, unleſſe they were mentioned. And I wonder if they were for their purpoſe, they ſet them not downe. I conclude then of Melanctons teſtimonies, as of the reſt, that they are wreſted.