Popery Anatomized, Section 6
SECTION VI. Concerning the neceſſity of Baptiſm to Infants.
Maſter Gilbert Brown.
ANd albeit here it were not neceſſary to me to prove any heads of our Religion by the Word of God, becauſe M. John hath promiſed to improve the ſame by the Word, which he is no ways able to perform: yet to ſatisfie the Chriſtian Reader, and that he may know that the Word of God is only on our ſide, and with us, ſo that their expoſition and notes be taken from the ſame. I will ſet down, God willing, ſome heads for examples cauſe, that that ſame doctrine which we teach and practiſe, is the ſame that our Savior and his Apoſtles preached before, and is written in the ſame that he calls the touchſtone.
Maſter John Welſch his Reply.
Howſoever ye ſay this, M. Gilbert, that that doctrine which ye teach and practiſe in your Church, is that ſame which our Savior and his Apoſtles teached before, and is written in the Scripture, yet in very truth there is nothing leſs in your conſcience. For if you and your Roman Church were ſo perſwaded, wherefore then ſhould ye have declined to have it tryed by the ſame? And wherefore have ſome of your own chief pillars and defenders of your Roman Religion who knows the certaintie of the ſame; wherefore, I ſay, would they have proclaimed it by writ unto the world, that the moſt part and the principal heads of their Religion, are unwritten traditions, which have neither their original, beginning, nor authoritie in the Scripture, nor cannot be defended by the ſame? And wherefore would your Roman Church have heapt up ſo many falſe accuſations and blaſphemies againſt the ſame? And wherefore, laſt of all, would ye have ſet up your Pope and his Biſhops to be ſupream and ſoveraign Judge over the ſame, as you do? But this you do, becauſe you know that if ye rejected the Scripture, as far in word as ye do in deed, the conſciences of the poor people would at the laſt withdraw themſelves from under your tyranny, and would go out of your fellowſhip for the ſafety of their ſouls: ſo under the cloke and pretence of the Scripture, ye keep them in your communion. And ſurelie, were not for this cauſe only, you would regard no more of the teſtimony of the Scripture, then of the teſtimony of the fables of Eſop. For, the chief authority, and all the ſurety and certainty of all Religion with you, as Bellarmin de ſacr. lib. 2. cap. 25. and Stapleton lib. 1. cont. Whitaker, cap. 10. confeſſes, is (not the teſtimony of the Scripture) but the authority of your own Church. So I aſſure thee, Reader, it is but for a ſhow that they bring forth the Scripture to prove the heads of their Religion. Let the matter therefore be tryed betwixt us, by theſe examples which ye ſet down here.
M. Gilbert Brown.
1. We ſay with Saint Auguſtin, Epiſt. 28. ad Hier. that the Sacrament of Baptiſm is ſo neceſſary to infants, that they cannot come to heaven without the ſame, which is contrary to their negative ſaith, where they call it the Popes cruel judgement againſt infants departing without the Sacrament. Firſt, I ſay, that Chriſt taught the ſame doctrine, in theſe words, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter in the Kingdom of God, John 3.5. We ſay this is ſpoken properly of the Sacrament of Baptiſm, becauſe there is no regeneration of water and the Spirit of God, but in Baptiſm. The ſame is the doctrine of the Apoſtles alſo, When they exſpected the patience of God, ſaith S. Peter, in the days of Noe when the Ark was building, in the which few, that is eight ſouls, were ſaved by water: whereunto Baptiſm being of the like form now ſaves you alſo, 1. Pet. 3.20.21. And S. Paul ſaith, For as many of you as are baptized in Chriſt, have put on Chriſt, Galat 3.27. And Ananias ſaid to S. Paul, And now what tarrieſt thou, riſe up and be baptized, and waſh away thy ſins, invocating his name, Acts 22.17. and 2.38. And S. Paul himſelf in another place, Chriſt hath ſaved us by the waſhing of regeneration and renovation of the holy Ghoſt, Tit. 3.5. Rom. 6.3.4. 1. Cor. 6.11. Mark 16.16. I think there is no Chriſtian reader that ſees theſe places, but he muſt ſay that Baptiſm is moſt neceſſary to infants, except he will believe rather the expoſition of the Miniſters, then the Word of God.
Maiſter John Welſch his Reply.
Firſt, ye begin at the neceſſity of the Sacrament of Baptiſm, whereof ye affirm that it is ſo neceſſary, that infants cannot come to heaven without the ſame. As for Baptiſm, we grant that it is a moſt effectual ſeal and pledge of our ingrafting in Chriſt Jeſus, and of the remiſſion of our ſins through his blood, and regeneration through his Spirit; ſo that either the neglect or the contempt of it (becauſe it is the neglect and contempt of the covenant it ſelf, and of Chriſt Jeſus the foundation of the covenant) is damnable. But that it is ſo abſolutly neceſſary to infants, that without it they cannot come to heaven; to wit, theſe whom he hath predeſtinat, it being neither neglected nor contemned, but death preventing the receiving of it: that we allutterly deny as impious, ungodly, and cruel.
For firſt, I ſay, there is none that is in the covenant of grace, and who hath God to be their God, and are holy, that can periſh. This you cannot deny. But the children of the faithful who are of his ſecret election, are ſuch before they be baptized. And this I prove, The Lord promiſed to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed, Gen. 17.17. And this Peter alſo teſtifies, The promiſe, ſaith he, is made to you and to your children, Acts 2.39. And the Apoſtle ſaith, That the children of the faithful are holy, 1. Cor. 7.14. Therefore the children of the faithful who are of Gods ſecret election, ſuppoſe they die without Baptiſm, do not periſh.
Secondlie, if Baptiſm were abſolutly neceſſary to ſalvation, then the grace of God were bound to the Sacrament. This cannot be denyed But your Maſter of Sentences ſaith, that the grace of God is not bound to the Sacraments; and it is impious ſo to think, that Gods free grace and ſalvation is bound to the inſtrument.
Thirdlie, if Circumciſion was not abſolutly neceſſary to ſalvation in the Old Teſtament, then Baptiſm is not abſolutly neceſſary now, becauſe Circumciſion was as ſtraitly enjoyned to them, as Baptiſm is enjoyned to us, and Baptiſm is ſuceeded in the room of the ſame, but Circumciſion is not abſolutly neceſſarie. For Lombardus is rebuked by the Doctors of Paris becauſe he ſo thought. And David doubts not to ſay of his child who died the ſeventh day, and ſo before he was circumciſed, I ſhal go to him, &c. and ſo he pronounced that he was ſaved: and all the time that they were in the wilderneſs, almoſt 40 years, Circumciſion was neglected; which plainly ſhows, that it was not ſo abſolutly neceſſary, that ſalvation could not be obtained without it. Therefore Baptiſm is not ſo abſolutly neceſſary to ſalvation, as ye ſuppoſe: for the grace of God is of no leſs force in the New Teſtament, then it was in the Old.
Fourthlie, we read of ſundry that received the holy Ghoſt before they were baptized, and ſeeing the holy Ghoſt where he is, regenerats to eternal life: Therefore life eternal is not bound abſolutly to Baptiſm
Fifthlie, what a croſs and diſturbance is this, that your doctrine brings to the conſciences of all theſe parents, whoſe children have been prevented by death, before they could be offered to be baptized? If they believe your doctrine, how often will this come in their mind, that their children are damned? And ſeeing the infants themſelves are not in the cauſe that they are not baptized, but their death preventing by Gods providence, or the Parents neglecting or contemning the ſame, or perſecution, or one impediment or other hindering, wherefore are ye ſo cruel to judge them to be damned for that, whereof themſelves are cauſeleſs?
And laſt of all, if ye be acquainted in the Hiſtories of the Church of God in the firſt age, ye will find many that delayed to be baptized, until their latter age; which they would never have done, if they had thought it ſimpliciter neceſſary to ſalvation, as ye do. And Ambroſius doubts not to ſay, That Valentinian wanted not the grace of Baptiſm, ſuppoſe he wanted Baptiſm it ſelf: the which he would never have ſaid, if he had thought it abſolutly neceſſary to ſalvation. And Bernard ſaith I cannot altogether deſpair of the ſalvation of them who wants Baptiſm, not through contempt, but only through impoſſibility to get it. And in that ſame place he ſaith; So alſo if our Savior Chriſt for this cauſe, when he had ſaid, he that believeth and is baptized, ſhal be ſaved: did of purpoſe in repeating the ſentence, omit to ſay: He that is not baptized, but he that believeth not, ſhal be damned; for he ſaw that faith only might ſuffiſe to ſalvation, and without faith nothing can ſuffiſe. Juſtly then might your Popes ſentence and your own be ſaid to be cruel, in our confeſſion. But how prove ye this doctrine of yours to be Chriſts? Ye cite John 3.2. where our Savior ſaith, Except a man be born again, &c. which, ſay ye, is properly meant of the Sacrament of Baptiſm. Upon the which ye infer the neceſſity of the ſame. Whereunto I anſwer, that interpretation of yours is falſe: for our Savior ſpeaks not here of the Sacrament of Baptiſm: and that for theſe reaſons.
Firſt, our Savior ſpeaks here generally of all men, and not of infants only, and therefore he ſaith, Except a man be born, &c. ſpeaking to Nicodemus who was a man and not an infant, ſo that if your expoſition were true, all men that died without baptiſm, and not infants only, are excluded from heaven. But that is falſe: for firſt the good thief was not baptized with water, and yet our Savior ſaid to him, This night thou ſhall be with me in paradiſe. And therefore our Savior ſpeaks not here of the Sacrament of Baptiſm: for he ſpeaks of that new birth by water and the ſpirit, without the which none can be ſaved: but this thief and others, were ſaved without the Baptiſm of water: therefore he ſpeaks not here of it.
Next, our Savior in that place ſpeaks of that new birth by the ſpirit and water, which is ſo abſolutly neceſſary to the ſalvation of all men, that it admits no exception. This cannot be denyed. But Bellarmin makes two exceptions againſt the abſolut neceſſity of Baptiſm: one of the martyrdom, the other of true converſion and pennance, whereof, ſaith he, either of them ſupplies the want of Baptiſm, lib. 1. de Baptiſ. cap. 6 Therefore our Savior ſpeaks not here of the Sacrament of Baptiſm.
Thirdly, if we will believe Chriſt Jeſus expounding himſelf, and Scripture expounding Scripture, I ſay, by water is not alwayes meant the Sacrament of Baptiſm; but the purifying grace of Chriſt, which is called the water of life; ſo our Savior ſpeaks in John 4.11. and 7.38. And in that ſame ſenſe water is here added to the ſpirit, to expound the more ſenſibly the efficacy of the Spirit in waſhing and cleanſing us, as fire is added to the Spirit in the third of Matthew, 11. verſe, He will baptize you with the Spirit and with fire; which is not properly underſtood of any natural fire, but taken figuratively to expound more ſenſibly the force and efficacy of the Spirit, in burning up our corruption.
Fourthly, what an abſurd thing were this which ſhould follow, if your expoſition were true, that for the want of the ſprinkling of a little water, the infants ſhould periſh that are in the covenant, ſeeing they were not the cauſe of the want of it.
Further, I ſay, that ſuppoſe Baptiſm were here meant, yet there is no ſuch neceſſitie, as ye ſuppoſe; for if martyrdom and pennance may ſupplie the want of this water (as Bellarmin confeſſeth) how much more may the holy Ghoſt ſupply the want of the ſame in infants: and if any thing may ſupply the want of it, then it is not ſo abſolutly neceſſary that all theſe infants are damned that wants it.
2. Our Savior ſpeaks as generallie and abſolutlie, Unleſs you eat the fleſh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, John 6.53. which ye interpret of the other Sacrament: ſo that if your interpretation were true, the Euchariſt ſhould be as abſolutly neceſſary to the ſalvation of infants, as you ſay Baptiſm is. But the firſt you will not grant. Therefore the other muſt alſo be falfe.
3. If here ye would infer a neceſſity of Baptiſm, then I ſay at that ſame time it began to be neceſſary: for he ſaith not, He that ſhal not be born again, &c. but he that is not born, &c. But Bellarmin ſaith. lib. de bapt. cap. 5. It was not neceſſary while Chriſts death, yet not while the Pentecoſt fifty days after his death; therefore it is not like that any neceſſity of Baptiſm is here underſtood: for it had been good reaſon that Chriſts Baptiſm which was miniſtred while he lived in the fleſh, ſhould have been as neceſſary as the Apoſtles Baptiſm which was miniſtred afterward But the firſt was not abſolutly neceſſary, as Bellarmin teſtifies, therefore neither is the ſecond.
And laſt of all, leſt ye ſhould ſay all this is our expoſition, the Master of the Sentences expounding this place, ſent. lib. 4. diſtinct 4. cap. His autem, who ſuppoſe he be of this judgement with you concerning infants departed, yet he ſaith that this place is to be underſtood of them who might have been baptized, but contemned the ſame: therefore this place imputes no abſolut neceſſity of it.
As for the reſt of the places of Scripture which ye quote, they ſerve nothing to prove ſuch an abſolut neceſſitie of Baptiſm, as ye ſuppoſe, but only ſets down the effects of the ſame which are ſealed up in the hearts of the believers by the holy Ghoſt, as the inward worker, and Baptiſm as the outward inſtrument, as our ſalvation through the death of Chriſt. 1. Pet. 3.20.21. Tit. 3.5. Mark 16.16. our union with Chriſt, Gal. 3.27. and with his death, Rom. 6 3.4. and remiſſion of ſins, regeneration, mortification of the old man, Acts 22.17. and 2.38. 1. Cor. 6.11. And therefore Circumciſion, in whoſe room Baptiſm is ſucceeded, it is called the ſeal of righteouſneſs which is by faith, Rom. 4. Take away therefore your expoſition from theſe places, and there will no ſuch abſolut neceſſitie of Baptiſm follow here, as ye ſuppoſe. And therefore Bellarmin the learnedſt of your writers, lib. 1. de ſacr. bapt. cap. 4. becauſe he knew that theſe places which ye quote here could not prove ſuch an abſolut neceſſitie of Baptiſm, nor have no appearance to prove the ſame, doth not cite one of them for the proof of the neceſſity, except only the third of John, leaving all the reſt. And as for that of Auguſtin, we grant he was of that mind, that Baptiſm was neceſſary to infants, but he was alſo of that judgement, that the Euchariſt was neceſſary unto them; and yet your Roman Church, nor you neither, I hope, will ſubſcribe to this error of his. Seeing therefore you diſſent from him in the neceſſity of the one, and that upon good ground of the Scripture; why may not we alſo diſſent from him in the other, having ſo many grounds and reaſons out of the Word of God to the contrary, as hath been ſaid? And this for the firſt point. Now let the Chriſtian Reader judge upon whoſe ſide the Word of God is.