The Estate of Children of Church Members and their Right to Baptism, Treatise · Part 3 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. SECT. I.
HIs proofes out of Popiſh writers, as Eckius mentioned in proofe of that and of the 7th. Propoſition; Roſſenſis, Cocletus, Ennuſius and Staphylus to which ſome adde Bellarmine, I doe not much regard, becauſe they can play Legerdemaine, faſt and looſe with a trick that they have. If they diſpute againſt Calviniſts about the ſufficiency of Scripture, or validitie of humane traditions, then Paedobaptiſme is a tradition of the Church: If againſt Anabaptiſts, then Eckius in his Enchiridion here cited▪ hath his foure Scripture arguments to prove it to bee of Scripturall authoritie and foundation. For Bellarmine, hee hath in his book of Baptiſme cap. 8. 3 arguments from Scripture for it. And although, ſaith hee, wee doe not find it commanded expreſly that wee ſhould baptize Infants. Tamen id colligitur ſatis aperte ex ſcripturis ut ſupra oſtendimus — Yet it is to bee gathered plainly enough from Scriptures (ſaith Bellarmine) as wee have before ſhewed. Wherefore of ſuch if I may ſay as hee bluntly once ſpake to his companion: If they can with the ſame breath blow hot and cold, let them even eate porridge with the devill if they will, I like not their falſhood.
SECT. II.
OF Lutherans, Pomeranus is quoted whoſe booke of children unborne I cannot meet with, and ſo cannot trace my Authors here: And in ſuch a caſe as they ſay, Travailers and Souldiers may lie by authoritie when none can contradict them. But yet what ſayes Dr. Pomeranus? that for the ſpace of 1200. yeares men erred concerning children, the which wee cannot (yet willingly would) baptize; what his intent is by theſe words of his cannot well bee gathered. If hee intend it of all ſorts of children, that it is an errour to baptize all without regard to their parents, Church or covenant eſtate: yet was it an old errour: albeit not ſo old, ſo farre as I can finde. But if it ſhould bee taken in reference to children viſibly in the covenant, I wonder if hee ſhould ſpeake any ſuch thing in that ſenſe having ſo ſolemnely ſubſcribed to the contrary in that famous meeting at Wittenberg formerly mentioned.
SECT. III.
CAlvin that grand oppoſer and ſtigmatizer of Anabaptiſts is quoted to confirme Propoſition 6. and 8th. lib. 4. Inſtit. cap. 16. Hee confeſſeth that it is no where expreſly mentioned by the Evangeliſts, that any ones child was by the Apoſtles hands baptized. Now Calvin having ſaid Sect. 8. that there is none which ſeeth not that Paedobaptiſme is not of humane deviſing which is eſtabliſhed by ſuch Scripture approbation, brings it in by way of objection, that it will bee ſaid, it's no where expreſly mentioned where the Apoſtles baptized children, which giving albeit not granting hee ſaith, Bee it ſo, &c. yet becauſe neither were they excluded as oft as mention is made of baptized families, who unleſſe hee bee mad will thence reaſon that they were not baptized? they may as well reaſon on that ground that women were forbid to receive the Supper, when notwithſtanding in the Apoſtles time they were thereunto admitted. Yet our Authors are ſo madde to bring this very place to prove their 6th. Propoſit. that the Apoſtles never baptized any Infants. And upon Matthew, Calvin is ſaid to ſay, Chriſt hath no where commanded to baptize Infants. But on what place in Matthew, Calvin ſaith ſo is not ſaid; but this I can ſay that in the moſt likely places where that Argument of baptiſme is handled, Calvin no where ſpeaketh in theſe words here expreſſed as farre as I can finde.
Dathenus in his Colloquie is the next witneſſe, confeſſing; It's no where plainely in ſuch words written that Chriſtian children ſhall in the New Teſtament bee baptized — and yet wee have no expreſſe commandement of it, ſcil. as before in ſo many words; You ſhall baptize children: and that there is no evident — or expreſſe example (ſcil. in ſo many words recorded that the Apoſtles baptized (ſuch or ſuch) children) and what then? therefore Chriſt never inſtituted, the Apoſtles never practiſed Paedobaptiſm, according to the 6th. Propoſition? Non ſequitur. Here then are three more witneſſes abuſed.