The Estate of Children of Church Members and their Right to Baptism, Treatise · Part 3 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V. SECT. I.
TErtullian lib. de baptiſmo cited alſo by Mr. Blackwood more amply, thus: for every perſons condition, diſpoſition, and age, the delay of baptiſme is more profitable, eſpecially about little ones: for what need is there (if there bee need as ſome copies have it, which Mr. B. leaveth out) that ſureties ſhould bee hazzarded, who by their mortalitie may faile of their promiſes, and bee deceived with the going forward of an evill towardlineſſe? but herein the treatiſe dealeth more plainly then Mr. B. who leaveth out that ſaying cited in Tertullian; Suffer little children to come to mee; upon which hee gloſſeth, as followeth in Mr. B. — Let them come when they are young, when able to bee inſtructed, let them become Chriſtians when they know Chriſt, &c. Ibid. for no leſſe cauſe are unmarried perſons to bee delayed in whom the tentation is prepared, &c. the Treatiſe urgeth this teſtimony to prove that de facto children before they were inſtructed were not baptized. Mr. B. ſeemes to urge that de jure they ought not: As for the firſt, it's rather a ſtrong proofe that Paedobaptiſme was in uſe in the Church; in Tertullians time: for ſuppoſing Tertullian againſt Paedobaptiſme, his teſtimony is the more valid, enemies will not flatter us; if they were not baptized, why doth hee mention their ſuſceptors or ſureties — which ran hazzards by being their ſuſceptors? Tertullian was not ſo ſottiſh to oppoſe an Imaginary abuſive practiſe; if no ſuch thing were in rerum natura in his time; why doth hee affright perſons from being ſuſceptors by the hazzards they runne in their childrens liableneſſe to death, and to diſtempers, and by the latter, their outbreakings into ſinne to deceive their ſuſceptors expectations, if no ſuch thing? it had been dangerous to ſtart ſuch a novelliſme: if never before practiſed. And indeed Origen contemporary with Tertullian (according to Oſi inder and Funccius account) hee ſaith in the place quoted in his 14th. Hom. on Luke that little ones were in his time baptized.
All the queſtion is then de Jure, how farre the teſtimony is valid to prove that Infants ſhould not bee baptized; ſome make account that Tertullian was not ſimply againſt baptiſme of Infants, ſcil. if of beleevers, but of baptizing Infidell Infants, then offered to baptiſme, as it might be ſuppoſed of unmarried perſons, if Infidels, to delay Baptiſme; others thinke hee intends to deny the abſolute neceſſitie of Baptiſme in caſe children are like to die, then to baptize them out of an opinion of ſuch neceſſitie of it, albeit afterwards that hazzard of mortalitie being over, they might bee baptized, and it's probable enough out of their doubling of the word neceſſe (ſi tamen neceſſe fit) &c. and truely if Tertullian was againſt it in his judgement, it was one of the dotages of his age, as was Montaniſme, denying ſecond marriages, witneſſe his booke de Monogamia: and hee forgot himſelfe if that was his intention, to deny childrens right to baptiſme; ſince that in his booke de anima cap. 21. ſpeaking before that every ſoule hath an evill ſpirit in it, he addeth, ſo that the nativitie of none almoſt is cleane (at leaſt if borne of Pagans) for here it is that the Apoſtle ſaith, that one borne of either ſex being ſanctified, hee is holy as well by the prerogative of the ſeed as by the diſcipline of inſtruction, but (ſaith hee) elſe they were borne uncleane: but now notwithſtanding hee would have it to bee underſtood that the children of the faithfull are devoted to holineſſe, and conſequently to ſalvation, that in reſpect of theſe pledges of hope, hee might patroniſe marriages which hee had judged to bee retained, otherwiſe (ſcil. if that had not been his meaning) hee would have mentioned that definition of the Lord: unleſſe any one bee borne againe of water and of the Spirit hee ſhall not enter into the kingdome of God, that is, ſhall not bee holy, and then addeth immediatly cap. 22. as his concluſion, ſo that every ſoule is ſo long reckoned to bee in Adam, till they be recounted to bee in Chriſt, and ſo long unclean untill recounted ſcil. in Chriſt. And in his booke againſt Marcion lib. 4. p. 92. but behold how God loveth little children (ſc. of the Church) in that he teacheth that thoſe which would bee for ever great, muſt bee ſuch as they are, and brings that as another argument of it: that God was ſo gratious to the Aegyptian Midwives for ſparing of the Jewes children, ſo that hee ſpeakes not this of all children but of thoſe of the Church, as alſo that which hee ſaith de anima, hee ſpeaketh it not of all ſorts, but of the children of the faithfull, as is evident. And hence I will make bold after Maſter Blackwoods example to make ſome obſervations. 1 That Tertullian accounted not all children alike in point of birth — cleanneſſe, but ſome cleane, others uncleane. 2 That hee accounted that holineſſe of children mentioned 1 Cor. 7. to bee no civill holineſſe of legitimacy, or creature holineſſe of holineſſe to uſe, but a holineſſe of a higher nature: ſuch as implyeth right, at leaſt externall, of entring in Gods kingdome: making this of being holy to be one with that, or to include it (ſcil. according to men) and to include as much as to bee accounted in Chriſt, cap. 22. the beginning. 3 That children, of beleevers come to bee holy in this ſenſe mentioned, not by inſtruction of diſcipline meerely of which they are capable when they come to yeers: but by being borne of either parents ſanctified or the faithfull, or perſons laying hold on Gods covenant, &c. (for hee maketh being borne of either parents ſanctified and children of the faithfull, &c. one) they are holy as well by prerogative of ſeed (ſaith hee of which they are partakers as ſoone as they are borne) as by inſtitution of diſcipline. 4 That he maketh this the force of the Apoſtles argument to perſwade to retaine marriages in queſtion in regard of ſuch pledges of hope, children thus holy ſpringing from married perſons whereof one at leaſt is a beleever, &c. 5 That therefore Zwinglius was not the firſt author as ſome ſay of that interpretation, that by the ſanctifying of either Sex by that other being faithfull, children come to bee holy with holineſſe of priviledge, hence that of being holy by prerogative of ſeed, ſcil. quat. covenant ſeed. And from the other place it appeares that Tertullian judged the children of the Jewes to bee not in a bare carnall covenant, or beloved with a meere common reſpect of God as others, but in the judgement of his charitie hee accounts them beloved, with a ſpeciall love of God: ſo as to become patternes to ſuch as are alwayes great in Gods favour as well as otherwiſe. Now how theſe things will ſtand with Tertullians denying them baptiſme, I leave to all judicious and ſober minds to determine: hee may forſake his owne principles in this as in other things, hee did; but if hee hold to the ſame hee muſt bee ours and not yours.
But let us ſuppoſe Tertullians judgement againſt paedobaptiſme: hee is not the firſt that gave erroneous counſell, and held erroneous tenents: though he bee the firſt that ever adviſed (ſo farre as I finde in authors) that infants baptiſme ſhould bee delayed, and his judgement may not carry it, but the grounds of his judgement if they are Scripture proofe; and firſt he acknowledgeth the argument, taken from Mat. 19. Suffer little children to come unto me, to enforce baptiſme of theſe there intended: albeit hee expounds that of their comming to Chriſt by baptiſme to bee underſtood of their comming, when they are growne up, when they know Chriſt, when they aske it, when they underſtand the right of Baptiſme, and can pray and faſt. But Mr. B. (which cleaveth to Tertullian) and others of his minde, denye it to bee any ground of baptizing any. 2 Hee counſelleth (as the treatiſe hath it) that unmarried folke ſhould have their baptiſme alſo deferred, whileſt they yet ſuffer tenttaions; the Treatiſe indeed ſaith, young unmarried virgins: but Tertullians word is, Innupti, unmarried perſons, of what age ſoever, now how doe Anabaptiſts like Tertullians counſell herein? Suppoſe a perſon never marry, what, muſt he never bee baptized as never yet ſuffering this tentation? or ſuppoſe young perſons of 20. or 30. yeares old, judged to be beleevers, but yet not married; they belong to Gods kingdom, but have not yet ſuffered ſuch tentation, muſt their baptiſme now be deferred upon this ground of Tertullian, becauſe not married, or not yet going through ſuch tentations? I trow not; then Tertullians counſell about delay of baptiſme is not good it ſeemeth.
3 Hee counſels delay of baptiſme of any to Eaſter and Pentecoſt (albeit therein hee ſpeaketh not ſo peremptorily as in the other) Was this good counſell to put baptiſme to ſuch ſet times of the yeare, when yet no time is ſet in the Scriptures, both John and Chriſts Diſciples, and the Apoſtles baptized at any time of the year. I ſuppoſe this counſell will not downe with them.
4 Hee counſels delay of Infants baptiſme (for it was but his counſell at the moſt as it was in the other) anſwering therein that argument, which even in his time was uſed for paedobaptiſme (not firſt by Zuinglius) ſcil. Suffer little Children to come unto mee, and forbid them not, &c. Yea (ſaith Tertullian) let them come indeed, but dum Adoleſcant, &c. when they are growne up, &c. hee yeeldeth it to bee a ground of their comming to Chriſt, and that by baptiſme as one way of their comming to him; but not of their comming ſo ſoone, but rather when they themſelves could aske it, &c. this is his gloſſe upon the place: but how abſurd is this gloſſe, as if Chriſts intent in rebuking the Diſciples for hindring thoſe babes from comming to him, were thus? Yee do very evill to hinder thoſe babes from comming now to me for my bleſſing (like them in like caſe) becauſe they (and others like them) ſhould rather come when they are more grown up, when they know mee, when they themſelves (and not as now their parents onelyonly) can aske and deſire it at my hands, &c. But why then are theſe Diſciples rebuked for ſeeking to put by their comming ſo young, and not themſelves deſiring to come? nay then verily the Diſciples rather were in the right, which would have had them ſtaid longer, and not Chriſt which urgeth it as an argument for comming at that time, and accordingly at that time fulfilleth the parents deſire in bleſſing of the babes: but none herein ſurely will owne Tertullian. Another teſtimony of Tertullians is urged to confirme the fifth Propoſition, ſcil. that de corona militis. When wee come together to the water, and a little before wee doe promiſe there in the hand of the Miniſter, that wee will renounce the Devill and his pompe, and bee ducked three times, and ſay no more thereto then what the Lord commands in the Goſpel; and as we goe out of the water, wherein wee are baptized, we eat milke and hony together, and refraine that whole weeke from waſhing and bathing. So far in the Treatiſe, but the Authors leave out what followeth, ibid. wee make oblations for the dead, for our birth-dayes yearely, and a little after, wee croſſe our ſelves at every ſtep, and in every place, ſitting downe, and riſing up, &c. All this proveth what the Adulti did, and what was required of them at their baptiſme, but this diſproveth not, but that infants baptiſme was in uſe, and that they did promiſe as much by others: for why elſe did Tertullian give his counſell (as is ſuppoſed) againſt the ſame? Yea, that (notwithſtanding Tertullians argument there) baptizing of infants without requiring from them perſonall confeſſion of faith, was a right uſe of the inſtitution. Yea I wonder the Treatiſe bringeth this Teſtimony to prove the right uſe of baptiſme according to Chriſt and his Apoſtles: what were thoſe oblations for the dead by the perſons baptized, and thoſe ſuperſtitious croſſings, forbearing of waſhings and ſpeech, eating milke and honey, &c. were theſe according to the inſtitution of Chriſt and example of the Apoſtles? Surely no.
SECT. II.
THe next teſtimony is taken from Counſells and Decretalls, either ex concilio Gerundenſi concerning the Catechumeni (or thoſe that are inſtructed in the faith (ſaith this Treatiſe) It's ordained that they ſhould all come at Eaſter and Pentecoſt. This is the proofe of the fourth Propoſition, that the children of the faithfull, &c. as if the Catechumens were onelyonly the children of the faithfull, when all adult Pagans were ſuch: and ſay that Adult children too of perſons joyned to the Church, but formerly Pagans were amongſt the Catechumens, yet not their babes, babes were baptized both before the ſuperſtitious [limiting] or order of limiting the time of baptiſme as wee proved, and whilſt it was in force too as wee proved out of Auſtin, Sermon foure in Octavo paſchae ad neophytos; yea the concilium Gerundenſe Can. 3. hath theſe words, de parvulis, &c. concerning little ones new borne, its ordained, that if they bee weake (as is uſuall) and that they deſire not to ſuck; that even the ſame day they are borne, they if they bee brought may be baptized; ſo that this is the old trick of concluding à dicto ſecundum quid ad ſimpliciter, neither is any other concluſion to bee made from the next proof ex concilio Laodicenſi, The Diſciples or Schollers in the faith, who are to bee baptized muſt before learne the faith, and then upon the Thurſday the laſt weeke in Lent muſt acknowledge the ſame before the Prieſt or Biſhop: which is repeated in confirmation of the fifth Propoſition, and the former anſwer is full to this objection, which was even now mentioned: ſo ex conſilio Martini, and Nicolai Popes (which is againe urged, Propoſition fifth) the Catechumeni muſt firſt learne the Creed, what is intended to adult Pagans by your counſell is prevented, to conclude againſt the children, babes and all, contrary to Martins intent who was Anno 646. long after the unqueſtionable uſe of Paedobaptiſme, and Nicolaus was after him. No more was intended by that quotation in the Decretalls ex Auguſtino ad Fortunatum, when a Catechumen is baptized he makes confeſſion, &c. as appeares by Auſtin in the places formerly quoted. Concilium Bracharenſe is quoted, but not which, firſt or ſecond, &c. nor what words; and ſo concilium Anterſe in like faſhion, but why are not the words mentioned, if for their purpoſes? but leſt ſuch blind whiſperers, and items beget ſuſpition, it's likely the authors if they ever ſaw the Canons intend it of that Canon Concilii Bracharenſis primi, that 20. dayes before baptiſme let the Catechumen all and ſeverall learne of the Prieſt, Credo in Deum, &c. to which the former anſwer ſufficeth. Trecius in his Decretalls urgeth as much, ex ſecundo Concilio Bracharenſi, yet the ſame councell alſo ratifieth Paedobaptiſm, ordering (Canone ſeptimo) that each Biſhop ſhould in all the Churches take care about the baptizing of Infants, brought to baptiſm, &c. The like anſwer ſufficeth to that quotation of the fourth Carthage councel in confirmation of the fifth Propoſition; thoſe that are to be baptized are to give in their names, & after long abſtinence from wine and fleſh, and frequent examinations, with laying on of hands, they are to be baptized. It is the 75th. Canon. Now that the Councell never intended, as if Infants baptiſme were not valid, and warrantable which could not bee thus examined, ſee the 48th. Canon of the third Carthage Councell (which according to Iſiodore in his ſumme of the Decretals, was the yeare before this) wherein the Councell doth ratifie, even the Baptiſme of children by Donatiſts (for ſo the Canon is expounded in Caranza his ſumme of the Decretals, and in Albignanus tertius his edition of the Decretalls) this ſinne being rather in the parents (not that they offered them to baptiſme, but) to offer them to be baptized by ſuch Heretiques, & the fifth Carthage councell (which according to Iſiodore, was two yeers after the 4th. councell; but according to Johannes Wolfius de rebus memorabilibus, centur. quarta, both the fourth and fifth Carthage councell was kept the ſame yeere, ſcil. Anno 399.) wherein there were 74. Biſhops (as in the other there were 97. Biſhops) Aurelius Biſhop of Carthage, being Preſident, in which councell Canon 6. they ratifie Paedobaptiſme (as this treatiſe alſo mentioneth Propoſition 7.) It's not then imaginable, that the councell that the other day (if our Authors gueſſe right) was againſt Paedobaptiſme, and yet preſently bee ſo quite altered, as to eſtabliſh it; yea but Mr. Blackwood, in his preface [to ſtorming the two Garriſons of Antichriſt,] would ſeeme to make an argument againſt paedobaptiſme, as then in uſe from the 14. Can. Concil. Nic. and Can. 4. and 6. Concil. Ancyran. in which Canons the Aſſemblies were divided into hearers, Catechumeni, and Offerers, or perſons in full communion, till cut off by death, on cenſure, yet hee cannot tell hee ſaith, whether this diviſion were in uſe before the firſt Nicene Counſell; probably its thought, ſince the Apoſtles time; ſo that to conclude that according to his expoſition of the Offerers, children being not of that ſort, nor of the Catechumeni, they muſt bee of the third ſort, of the profane rabble of hearers; this is farre fetched, and hee ſuſpecteth the foundation of it, ſcil. that diviſion, whether ſo ancient, as from the Apoſtles; ſo that hee can build nothing thereupon; nay by his leave, hee muſt thruſt out Infants, little children not capable of being called Auditors, in the Language of the ancient (which hee cannot bee ignorant, underſtand it of adult perſons) nor of being Catechumens, if not amongſt the third ſort of Offerers, where are they then? Surely, no part of the Congregation, when yet in Joel 2. Aſſemble the Congregation, gather ſuch as ſuck the breaſts, &c. children then are upon Scripture grounds, as well as common reaſon, parts of the Church Aſſemblies: nay hath not Mr. B. made a rod for his owne back, ſince the Aſſembly being divided onelyonly into thoſe three parts, and Scripture, and reaſon, making little ones part of the Aſſembly, and yet neither hearers, nor Catechumens (as reaſon will tell him) therefore they muſt needs bee of the third ſort, ſcil. Offerers in thoſe times, they were then in full communion, witneſſe Cyprian (as ſome urge it to enſeeble Cyprians teſtimony for Paedobaptiſme) and Cyprian was above 70. yeeres before the firſt Nicene councell: yea, children were Offerers too in reſpect of that which was offered at their baptiſme, witneſſe the Canon of the Elebertine councell, as the little ones of old were ſaid to bring an offering in their hand, when their parents onelyonly did it for them, Deut. 16. but Mr. Blackwood urgeth the ſeventh Canon of the Councell at Conſtantinople, declaring how they Catechiſe them they are to baptize; hee telleth us not what Councell it was, but ſaith it was in Theodoſius his time, ſo it might bee, and yet wee not know by what Character, which it was, divers of them being then called there, Wolfius puts Theodoſius at Anno 383. and Anno 382. the third Conſtantinople Councell Anno 383. the fourth Anno 402. the fifth the ſame yeere that the Milevitan councell was; and Anno 403. the 6, 7, 8. now the 6th. councell of Conſtantinople provideth that none ſhould have chriſme and baptiſme adminiſtred to them, unleſſe it bee ſuch as firmely hold forth the Lords Prayer, and the Creed, &c. excepting ſuch, who by reaſon of age cannot ſpeake, and provideth, Can. 7. that ſuch as bee witneſſes to Infants in Baptiſme ſhould bee ſound in the faith. Councells uſe not to bee croſſe to themſelves, in ſo little ſpace as to order contrary things, that onelyonly adult perſons ſhould bee baptized, and no Infants, as Mr. B. expounds them, and yet againe, not onelyonly adult, but Infants ſhall bee baptized, that is not ſquare dealings. And I wonder that Mr. B. foreſeeing the ratifying of the 46. Canon of that Laodicean Councell before mentioned by that at Trullo (which was the Emperours Palace, at Conſtantinople, where the Councell uſed to ſit) in Juſtinians time, Can. 78. a Councels that was for Paedobaptiſme expreſly, would enfeeble his argument from thence in that a Councell of ſuch Fathers judge that Canons eſtabliſhing both this and that, ſcil. catechiſing before baptiſme, and baptiſme before catechiſing, are not contraries, that hee which holdeth the one denyeth the other, but ſubordinate, which may both ſtand together, according as the perſons to bee baptized are either adult or Infants. This Mr. B. foreſeeing maketh him (its likely) frame ſuch a poore excuſe, as that its like, upon ſome abuſe or neglect it was reeſtabliſhed by that Councell of Trullo, but its like not, rather if it were any thing of the controverſie. Yea, but ſome object the Covenant of Theodor Balſamon, and Zonaras upon the ſixth Canon of that Grecian councell at Neoceſarea Anno. 315. concerning a woman with child, that ſhee ought to bee illuminated (or baptized) when ſhee deſireth it, becauſe in that matter (ſcil. of baptiſme) ſhee that brings forth hath nothing in common with the babe which is brought forth, which may bee ſhewed in confeſſion, that it is proprium uniuſcujuſque inſtitutum, ac propoſitum; which they are brought in as ſo expounding, or rather inferring thence, that an Infant might not bee baptized, becauſe it hath not power to chooſe the confeſſion of divine Baptiſme. Zonaras I have not, but I looked upon that Patriarch of Antioch, Theodor Balſamon, who hath theſe words in his Scholia upon that Canon. Some (in the councell) ſaid that women with child which came from the Infidels, to joyn with the Church ought not to bee baptized, but to ſtay till the babe they went with were brought forth, leſt that when ſhee were baptized, it might ſeeme that the child in her wombe was baptized with her, as being altogether united to her; whence it will come to paſſe, that after the babe is borne, either it may bee not left unenlightned (or unbaptized) or if it bee baptized, it may bee thought that it is rebaptized. This hee maketh the occaſion of the Law of that antient, not Latine, but Greeke councell; which was a good while before the firſt Nicene Councell. And it is very remarkable what was the occaſion, it was double, as is evident. 1. That they might avoyd the miſchiefe of leaving babes unbaptized. 2. That they might avoyd the other of rebaptizing; two grand hinges of Anabaptiſme: theſe were ſuch miſchiefes (as it ſeemes) in their eyes, that they would not have expreſſions, let fall by them, that might any way occaſion the ſame, ſo that both theſe in thoſe times were rather inter borrenda then recipienda. But let us heare what Balſamon addeth further there, ſpeaking of ſuch Infants, that they could not make promiſe, &c. for how it is with the babe in the wombe none can enquire, nor be ſuretie for them (ſaith he) but Infants (ſcil. that are borne) doe affirme by thoſe which are their ſuſceptors, and are accounted to bee actually enlightned (or baptized) with divine illuſtration, or divine baptiſme, they then accounted baptiſme of Infants no Antichriſtian baptiſme (as the Authors of this Treatiſe, and (as John Spilsbury, Mr. Blackwood, and Henry Denne doe) but divine Baptiſme, the Baptiſme of the Lord, wherefore I conclude that this teſtimony is groſly abuſed by Hugo Grotius.
SECT. III.
Rupertus Tritienſis.THe next Author quoted, is Rupertus Tritienſis l. 4. de divinis Officiis c. 18. both for the confirmation of the 4th. and 7th. propoſition, the ſame is urged by A. R. alſo to like purpoſe: but by this authors leave, that there bee no guile hid, I ſhall make bold to tranſcribe the very words of Rupertus Abbas Tritienſis, of which the Treatiſe mentioned ſome pieces, ſcil. It was the cuſtome of old in the holy Church, not to celebrate the Sacrament of regeneration at any other time (ſcil. then Eaſter and Pentecoſt, of which hee ſpake before) [unleſſe in thoſe, unto whom poſſibly danger might accrue by the comming of ſome infirmity or danger of death upon them] [this exception which is in his the very quaeſitum; the Treatiſe, and A. R. leave wholly out; how candidly they deale herein, let all judge.] All the off-ſpring of the Church (almoſt) which throughout the whole yeare, it could beget anew by the preaching of the word, the ſolemnitie of Eaſter approaching, gave in their names this day, and throughout the following dayes, unto the very ſolemnitie it ſelfe of Eaſter: each one hearing the rule of faith, whence alſo ſuch an one was called a Catechumen, [for a Catechumen faith Rupertus is by interpretation a hearer] both the ſuckling and the growne perſon: at length at the full time, after the full of the moone in the ſolemnitie at the holy Font, repeating the ſymboll with full beleefe: It (ſcil. the off-ſpring of the Church) did die, and riſe againe with Chriſt, but after Chriſtianitie increaſed, and that net of the Goſpell was filled with Fiſh, becauſe that it was dangerous to delay ſo great a multitude by reaſon of the caſualtie of death, which in a multitude of men is manifold; eſpecially in regard of a company of Infants of Chriſtian Parents, much encreaſing, whoſe tender life is very oft by a ſmall occaſion cut off; it ſeemed good to the holy Church: leave off baptiſme being granted every where, yea, offered, to prevent all dangers; and yet in a few to celebrate the ſolemnitie of baptiſme, with the reſurrection of the Lord, to which it is like, &c. by this that hath been ſaid, that which the Treatiſe, and A. R. intend to diſprove is rather confirmed, and the guilefull wreſting of the teſtimony diſcovered; for beſides what hath been before ſhewed, that Infants baptiſme was before this cuſtome of baptiſme at Eaſter and Penteceſt came up, and likewiſe whilſt it was held up, Infants being then, and there baptized, as well as at other times, as by Auſtins teſtimony, Serm. 4. ad Neoph. appeared, this teſtimony alſo tells us, 1 That baptiſme of all ſorts of perſons, in caſe of weakeneſſe and danger, at other times was in uſe of old. 2 That ſucklings as well as growne ones were accounted under the notion of the off-ſpring of the Church, begotten by the word, ſcil. in their parents, which being begotten thereby, in their right alſo their children were in churched with them. 3 Confeſſion of faith with full beleefe by others in ſtead of ſucklings, was counted as their confeſſion; the lactati, as well as the grandeſcentes are ſaid to make ſuch confeſſion of faith, which they could not doe, but by others. 4 That there were preſent at this ſolemnitie a multitude of Infants, as well as growne ones, which did Sacramentally die, and riſe with Chriſt of old. 5 That they baptized not of old all ſorts of children at ſuch times, but onelyonly the Infants of Chriſtians, and that upon the grounds of mortalitie and other weakeneſſe, and hazzard, was there made a change as well in reſpect of the growne part of the multitude, as the Infants onelyonly. 6 That the change that was made upon the grounds of mortalitie, and increaſe of the multitude, was not in reſpect of the ſubjects; that afterwards Infants ſhould bee baptized, whereas onelyonly growne ones before were baptized (for both ſorts were before and after that cuſtome came up, baptized as wee proved) but it was onelyonly in reſpect of the place where, and ſeaſon when, that whereas of old they uſed to come to ſome one great Citie, and that at theſe ſeaſons of yeare onelyonly; now paſſim every where, and at any other time they might bee baptized, onelyonly ſome few that were borne a little before theſe ſolemne times, (as Rupertus in his other bookes mentioneth) were reſerved to bee then baptized, to grace as it were the ſolemnitie. And this may fully anſwer that teſtimony which this Treatiſe Propoſition 7. and A. R. alſo urge out of Joannes Beemius de moribus Gentium ſpeaking to like purpoſe. So then Rupertus Tritienſis, and his companion are both as much abuſed herein, as other witneſſes produced, or rather traduced.
SECT. IIII.
Caſſander.THe next witneſſe is Caſſander a ſtout adverſary to them, yet fetched in by the Authors of this Treatiſe to prove the 4th. and 7th. Propoſition, Caſſander in l. de Infantium baptiſmo is ſaid to ſay: It is certaine, that ſome beleevers in times paſt have with holden baptiſme from their children, untill they were growne, and could underſtand, and remember the myſteries of their faith, yea, alſo counſelled not to adminiſter baptiſme, as by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen appeareth. And Propoſition 7. Caſſander in his booke de Infantium baptiſmo ſaith, that it came to bee uſed by the Fathers that lived 300. yeers after the Apoſtles, as much ſaith A. R. in his Childiſh baptiſme. But ſay Caſſander ſpoke as Propoſition 4. hee is ſaid to doe; yet that proveth not that children of the faithfull were commonly firſt inſtructed ere baptized, becauſe ſome beleevers deferred baptiſme, or Tertullian, and Gregory counſelled it, much leſſe that this was well done according to Chriſts mind, for wee have ſeene upon what unſound principles they did it: and as for the Councell of Tertullian and Gregory, it hath been before weighed of what force herein. As for the other ſpeech of Caſſander that Pedobaptiſme came in uſe by the Fathers 300. yeeres after the Apoſtles time, it maketh mee ſtand and wonder at the impudent forehead of errour, and yet I might wonder the leſſe ſince it's but juſt with God that they which hold lies ſhould alſo tell lies. I read Caſſander with as much heed as I could, to finde out whether there might bee any colour of ground of ſuch a ſpeech of him, but could not finde out any like it, unleſſe that which hee ſaith bee this way wreſted, ſcil. that the Apoſtles in the beginning by the command and charge of the Lord, ſet up their worke, and did every where conſtitute Churches, gathered of the Gentiles to the Communion of the Goſpel; growne ones which conſented to the Apoſtles doctrine after confeſſion of the faith, were without any diſtinction of times, or places knit unto the Church of Chriſt by the Sacrament of Baptiſme adminiſtred by the Diſciples of the Apoſtles. [But ſaith alſo in the next words] although even at that time it is to be beleeved that Infants alſo, and eſpecially ſickly ones, were offered to bee conſecrated by the baptiſme of Chriſt: but clearely to evince the falſehood of that ſpeech before cited to confirme Propoſition 7. the very title of this booke contradicteth the ſame. George Caſſander of Infants baptiſme. The teſtimonies of the Ancient Eccleſiaſticall writers, which flouriſhed within the 300. yeeres from the times of the Apoſtles, that is, from the departure of John the Apoſtles being more then the hundreth yeere from the birth of Chriſt. And according to this his worke that hee propoundeth, hee bringeth in very notable teſtimonies of the antients, both Latine and Greeke, that lived in that ſpace for the proofe of Paedobaptiſme, that any that had not ſ…ene authorities before might have been thence well furniſhed for this purpoſe, and after the teſtimonies produced Caſſander cloſeth thus. Theſe are the teſtimonies of ancient Fathers which wee ſuppoſe are ſufficient for the deciding of this controverſie of childrens baptiſme, which hath been raiſed up by certaine wretched perſons; for in as much as all theſe whoſe teſtimonies wee have produced in a continued ſeries from the Apoſtles, were Orthodox teachers, and guiders of Churches of Chriſt at ſeverall times and places, there is no queſtion, but that this Tenent being held forth by them all ſeverally, as with one mouth, it was the very doctrine of the whole Church which the Church had received from the Apoſtles, and tranſmitted the ſame to thoſe in after times, and upon the ſpeech of Auſtin, l. 4. contra Donat. c. 13, 14. addeth: To this Apoſtolicall doctrine of baptiſme of Infants, all the Apoſtolique Churches, planted by the Apoſtles throughout the whole world, they doe give teſtimony, &c. Who ſeeth not now the groſneſſe of this falſhood in fathering that upon Caſſander, the very contrary whereunto is his buſineſſe there to evince?
SECT. V.
Zwinglius.THe next teſtimony is of as grand an adverſarie to Anabaptiſme as any, and that is Zuinglius, who is quoted to confirme the 4th. and 6th. Propoſition, hee is ſaid to affirme that there is no plaine word in Scripture whereby childrens baptiſme is commanded: his meaning is no more then thus; that it is not in ſo many words ſaid, you ſhall baptize children, as, neither the firſt day of the weeke ſhall bee to you the Lords day, or Chriſtian Sabbath, &c. but the principall place, (and for the other two quotations, they are to no purpoſe) is that mentioned in his booke of Articles, Act. 18. whoſe words, becauſe the treatiſe is ſo often tripping, wee ſhall ſet downe verbatim, who there ſpeaking of Confirmation ſaith, although I am not ignorant (as it may bee gathered out of the Ancients) that of old time Infants were baptized (this is rendred otherwiſe in the Treatiſe) and yet not ſo common as now it is, but the children were alwayes inſtructed openly, and when their faith had made impreſſion upon their hearts, and they confeſſed with their mouthes, then they were admitted to baptiſme; this cuſtome of teaching I wiſh were uſed, and recalled now [namely that baptiſme being given to Infants, they may bee afterwards taught when they come to age as they are capable of inſtruction from the Word of God] this the Treatiſe leaveth out. Zwinglius his judgment was, that the maine in the childs right to baptiſme was the Parents Covenant eſtate, whence the child being federally holy, which elſe had been uncleane, had its maine title to baptiſme, ſo that in caſe both parents were viſibly Pagans, or Idolatrous, &c. they were not to bee baptized, when yet in his time many ſuch were baptized. And thus I take it is that which hee intendeth, that ſince in Ancient times, albeit ſometimes every little children of Infidels, (as may appeare) were baptized, yet not ſo commonly as now ſuch like children are baptized promiſcuouſly hand over head, (for which ſome as it appeares by Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. have pleaded, albeit hee counts it their errour, ibid.) and ſince in thoſe times Catechiſing (as it appeareth) of children was too little in uſe; Zwinglius maketh that uſe of the Catechiſing of children of old, both of perſons joyned to the Church (which were capable of inſtruction when firſt their parents joyned in Church eſtate) before their baptiſme, which was one ſort of children ſo catechiſed, and of the expoſititious children of Pagans alſo, thoſe children of their Pagan captive or ſlaves, which were another ſort of children catechized before baptiſme: Zwinglius wiſheth that albeit it were not in his time uſed, as neither before baptiſme to ſuch like children, ſo neither after the baptiſme, neither of ſuch children, nor of others of viſible beleevers, which ought in Infancy to bee baptized: yet now catechizing of children might bee in more uſe. Aſſuredly Zwinglius was ſtrong for this, that baptiſme of Infants was no practiſe taken up after the Apoſtles, but by the Apoſtles: no bare old cuſtome taken upon humane grounds: but his judgement was directly croſſe to the Propoſition, hee is brought as a witneſſe to, that Chriſt did not inſtitute Infants baptiſme, &c. witneſſe his many arguments from Scripture for it, and his judicious anſwers to the evaſions of the adverſaries, to that truth. And as much may bee ſaid of Oecolampadius his companion, who is cited to confirme the 6th. Propoſition; whereas in the firſt and ſecond booke of the Epiſtles of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius they give grounds from Scripture to the contrary. See l. 1. Epiſt. Zwingl. ad dilectos fratres. I will now tell you from what grounds of Scripture I judge Infants to bee baptized, &c. and l. 2. in his Epiſt. Bercktold and Francis, Preachers at Berne, hee ſaith peremptorily; contra Scripturas ergo feciſſent Apoſtoli ſi Infantibus negaviſſent baptiſmum, the Apoſtles therefore had done contrary to Scriptures, if they had denied baptiſme to Infants. See more of Oecolampadius his mind too herein in his Epiſt. to Zwinglius, and in that to the Preachers at Berne: here therefore are two more witneſſes abuſed in this Treatiſe.