Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 37
XXXVII. That children may be ſaved by their Parents Faith, without the Sacrament of Baptiſm.
Anſwer.
NOW he falls again to his old trade of downright calumniating our Doctrine. For we teach, That there is no Salvation for Infants, in the ordinary way of the Church, without Baptiſm. Inſomuch, that by an expreſs Canon (LXIX.) every Miniſter is to be ſuſpended for three months, who ſuffers any Infant in his Pariſh to dye without Baptiſm, being informed of its weakneſs, and danger of death, and deſired to come and baptize the ſame: And is not to be reſtored, till he acknowledg his fault, and promiſe before his Ordinary, that he will not wittingly incur the like again. But we do not tye God to thoſe means, to the uſe of which he hath tyed us; and therefore do believe, that by his infinite Grace and Mercy, thoſe Infants may be ſaved, who, without their own fault, dye unbaptized. And this was the Faith of the Ancient Church, as appears from Socrates *L. V. Hiſt. c. 22., who ſays, In Theſſaly they baptized only at Eaſter, by which means many dyed unbaptized; and by a Decree of Pope Leo I. which ſhows it was an univerſal cuſtom in other places, to baptize only twice a year; which cuſtom, he ſaith, hath been changed, becauſe a great many departed without Baptiſm. But ſtill this is an evidence, they did not think it abſolutely neceſſary; nor do the greateſt Doctors of the Roman Church, ſuch as Gabriel Biel, Card. Cajetan, and many others I could name, condemn children to Hell, who dye unbaptized; but being the children of Faithful Parents, look upon them as within the Covenant of Grace, and capable of eternal life: For which they give theſe reaſons: Frſt, The infinite Mercy of God, who is not tied to the Sacraments which he hath ordained: And ſecondly, The like caſe under the Old Teſtament, when Circumciſion anſwered to our Baptiſm (as this man acknowledges) and the children dying unbaptized, were notwithſtanding ſaved by the ſole Faith of their Parents. So S. Bernard, Epiſt. 77. ad Hug. de S. Vict. and Cajetan in 3. part. Thom. Q. 68. From whence we may gather, That even this notion of childrens being ſaved by their parents Faith, without Baptiſm, is no more our opinion, than it is theirs. Some ſay ſo among us; and ſo do ſome among them.
Matters therefore being thus ſtated, all his Texts are already anſwered. We ſay the very ſame our Saviour doth, III. Joh. 5.III. Joh. 5. in the very entrance of our Office of Baptiſm. Where we make it as a reaſon why the Church ſhould pray, That God will grant to the child, that thing which by nature he cannot have, &c. But tho this be the ordinary way, we dare not ſay it is the only. God's Grace, many of themſelves acknowledge, ſupplies the want of Baptiſm, in extraordinary caſes. Thus even Lorinus a Jeſuit, in X. Act. 44. and he alledges St. Auſtin for it (who was very rigid in this point) that the inviſible Sanctification ſometimes is ſufficient, without the viſible Sacrament; when not by contempt of Religion, but by mere neceſſity, they are deprived of Baptiſm. And thus Peter Lombard *L. IV. Diſtin. 4. c. 2.underſtands this Text, it is to be underſtood of thoſe who can be baptized, and contemn it.
III. Tit. 5. proves no more, but that Baptiſm is the ordinary way, and ought not to be neglected, where it can be had.
From XVI. Mark 16. he concludes peremptorily, That children muſt be Baptized or not Saved,XVI. Mark 16. becauſe they cannot believe; which is to make Baptiſm more neceſſary than Belief: Whereas they cannot be baptized, but upon a ſuppoſition of belief, as his own Church acknowledges in the Council of Trent *Seſſ. VII. Can. 14.: Children wanting Faith in the firſt act, are baptized in the Faith of the Church. And therefore the true way of arguing from this place is, that as our Lord ſaith, He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved; ſo he would have ſaid (had he thought Baptiſm abſolutely neceſſary) he that believeth not, and is not baptized, ſhall be damned. But he only ſaith, He that believeth not, ſhall be damned; which makes Faith only, abſolutely neceſſary. And I ſhowed before, there are thoſe in his own Church, who think the Faith of the Parents ſufficient for this purpoſe.
And thus the moſt learned of the Fathers expound thoſe words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. VII. 14.1 Cor. VII. 14. particularly Theodoret: The unbelieving husband is ſanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband; that is, ſaith he, hath hope of Salvation; but if either he or ſhe continue in this diſeaſe, their ſeed ſhall partake of Salvation: Which is but reaſon; for if the unbelieving husband, ſuppoſe, ſhould not have ſuffered the child begotten of his believing wife to be baptized; who can think this child, ſo dying, periſhed?
His laſt Text, XVII. Gen. 14.XVII. Gen. 14. proves no more but the neceſſity of both Circumciſion and Baptiſm, where they could be had; as was ſhewn before. For it is evident the children of Iſrael were not circumciſed while they were in the Wilderneſs, V. Joſh. 5. But who will ſay, that all they who were born, and died within that time, which was forty years, went without remedy to Hell?
His Fathers, which he hath pickt up out of Bellarmine, are not worth examining; becauſe ſome of them ſpeak only againſt thoſe who deny Infants to be regenerate in Baptiſm, as St. Auſtin, Epiſt. 90. Others ſpeak of it in ſuch terms as are not eaſie to be underſtood; for let him inform us what Irenaeus means in the place he quotes, That our bodies have received unity by the waſhing of incorruption, and our ſouls by the ſpirit: And others ſpeak ſuch words of the neceſſity of Baptiſm, as the Papiſts themſelves will not abide by; but confeſs St. Auſtin was too hard in his opinion, which muſt admit of ſome exception: And his opinion is condemned by later Fathers, as they call them; particularly St. Bernard, who diſputes againſt it at large in the Epiſtle before-mentioned. As for St. Cyprian's Epiſtle to Fidus, it is wholly againſt the opinion which that Biſhop had received, That children of two or three days old were not to be baptized; but they were to ſtay till the eighth day, as in Circumciſion. But there is not a word of the abſolute neceſſity of Baptiſm; but that none ſhould be denied it, tho newly born; who the rather ſhould be received, becauſe, not their own ſins but anothers was there remitted to them.