Of Baptism, Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. In which the authority of the Fathers, and the practiſe of antiquity, touching the ſubject of Baptiſme, is conſidered.
THe authority of the Fathers, and the practiſe of ancient times, is to many a great argument for the Baptizing of infants; to me that looke upon ſuch argumentations, as not of the firſt magnitude, collaterall, and ſuch as may truely and as often be brought, for the patroniſing of errors as truth, they are of no great conſideration, yet to ſatisfy others more then my ſelf, there muſt be ſomething ſpoken to this head.
In which I ſhall conſider eſpecially theſe two things, firſt whether by the witneſſe of ſtory, Infant Baptiſme have injoyed a quiet and peaceable poſſeſſion in the church, from the Apoſtles times downeward, till of late it was interrupted by ſome few evill ſpirits in the times of Luther, as ſome men would give us to beleeve.
Secondly upon what grounds thoſe Fathers, which are alleadged for the chief patrons of Infants Baptiſme went; for if they have erred in the reaſon of the foundation, it will be eaſilyer beleeved, that they did alſo in the building.
We will conſider firſt of this latter.
I will give you their grounds, either as I have reade them my ſelf, or as I find them quoted by Bellarmine Tom. 3. lib. cap. 8. whoſe quotatiōs I ſhall take for truth, till I find the contrary, for here hee hath to doe with the Anabaptiſts, enemies in this point alike common to him, with moſt of thoſe that are tearmed Proteſtants.
Firſt hee quotes the teſtimony Dioniſij Areop. qui lib. Eccleſ. Hier. c. ult. part ult. ab Apoſtolis traditum affirmat, ut infantes baptizentur. Iuſti. five quicunque eſt auctor earum quaeſt. qu. 56. parvulos baptizatos ſalvari alios non item; That infants baptized are ſaved, others not.
Orig. lib. 5. in cap. 6. ad Rom. Eccleſia inquit ab Apoſtolis traditionem accepit, etiam parvulis dare Baptiſmum. The Church ſayes hee received a tradition from the Apoſtles, to give Baptiſme to infants. Cypr. lib. 3. Ep. 8. ad Fidum ſcribit, Non ſolum ſibi, ſed etiam integro conſilio viſum eſſe parvulos baptizaripoſſe: That it ſeemed good, not onelyonly to himſelf, but to a vvhole councell that infants might be baptized, even before the 8. day. In other places the ſame author affirmes, Baptiſme ſimply neceſſary to ſalvation, & that it vvaſhes avvay originall ſinne, ſo as it is never more to be imputed. page 470. a.
Hierom. lib. contr. Pelag. Infantes baptizari dicit, & tum ommpeccato carere: That infants are to be baptized, and then they are vvithout all ſinne.
Auſt. lib. 10. de Gen. cap. 23. Conſuetudo inquit matris Eccleſiae Baptizandis parvulis, nequaquam ſparnenda eſt, nec illo modo ſuperflua deputanda, nec omnino credenda, niſi Apoſtolica eſſet traditio. The cuſtome of our mother the church in Baptizing little children, is not to be deſpiſed, nor to be judged ſuperfluous, nor to be beleeved at all, unles it vvere an Apoſtolicall tradition.
The ſame Auſtin, As for the authority of infant Baptiſme, he flyes to tradition, ſo for the reaſon of it hee bottomes it upon this, that they neither have faith to ſave them, nor a Sacrament inſtead of faith vvithout Baptiſme, and therefore judges them to eternall death, unles they be taken out of the vvorld by martyrdome, as the learned Forbes hath obſerved in his 10. booke Inſtruct. Hiſtor. in Theol. cap. 5. lib. 7. onelyonly Auſtin ſayes, they ſhall be in damnatione omnium mitiſsima multum autem fallere & falli, qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros; They ſhall be in the eaſieſt damnation of all others, but hee much deceaves himſelf and others that teaches they ſhall not be condemned, lib. 1. de peccat. meritis & remiſsione cap. 16. & lib. 5. contra Iulian cap. 8. but as gentle or as eaſy as damnation is, it is ſuch as the vvrath of God remaines upon them, lib. 3. de peccatorum meritis & remiſsione cap. 20. They goe into the ſecond death, lib. de bono perſeverantiae cap. 12. And they are children of vvrath, lib. 6. contra Iulian cap. 3.
Bernard alſo was of this ſame minde Epiſt. 77. Sanè, inquit, omnes infantes qui hanc prohibente aetate non poſſunt habere fidem, hoc eſt, cordis ad Deum converſionem, conſequentè nec ſalutem, ſi abſque baptiſmis perceptione moriuntur. Certainly, ſaith hee, all infants, vvho their age hindring them, cannot have this faith, that is, the converſion of their hearts to God, neither conſequently can they have ſalvation, if they dye vvithout the partaking of Baptiſme.
More of this and of the ſame kind might be alleadged, but theſe ſhall ſuffice.
Before wee goe any farther, we muſt conſider here, what is meant by traditions, which in the former quotatiōs you heare ſo often mentioned.
The name of Tradition in it ſelf is generall, and ſignifies all doctrines, either written, or not written, as 2. Theſſ. 2.15. Hold the traditions vvhichwhich you have bene taught, vvhether by vvord, or our epiſtle.
But the name Tradition is accommodated by Divines, to ſignify onelyonly a doctrine not written, ſo Irenaeus is quoted lib. 3. cap. 2. Evenit, inquit, neque Scripturis, neque traditioni conſentire eos. They vvould neither conſent to Scripture, nor tradition.
So Tertull. lib. de corona militis, Si legem poſtules Scripturam nullam invenies, traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix: If you looke for a lavv, yee ſhall find no Scripture, but tradition is pretended, as that vvhichwhich authoriſeth.
Novv that is called a doctrine not vvritten (ſaith Bellarmine) not vvhichwhich is no vvhere vvritten, but vvhichwhich is not vvritten by the firſt author, and hee gives the inſtance of infant Baptiſme: It is called an Apoſtolicall tradition not vvritten, becauſe it is not found vvritten in any Apoſtolicall booke, although it be vvritten (as hee affirmes) in the bookes of allmoſt all the ancient Fathers. Tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 2. b.
And by the way, why Bellarmine could not find Baptiſme written in the Apoſtles writings, if there it were, as well as other men, I know not; for hee wants no accutenes in his ſight, but when he is corrupted by his ends, and it ſuites with his end abundantly to proove infant Baptiſme as ſtrongly as hee can, becauſe none judge it ſo neceſſary to the world as he, and thoſe of his religion doe.
You ſee therefore by traditions here, meant thinges not found written in the Scripture, yet for their antiquity ſuppoſed to be Apoſtolicall, which if they were allowed & received, what a miſerable confuſion ſhould wee be brought into in matters of religion, and how under the notion of ancient traditions ſhould we vvorſhip God in vayne, teaching for doctrines the commandements of men, Matt. 15.9. Matth. 16.6. Chriſt bids us take heed of the leaven of the Phariſes, which was their unwritten traditions, and vve are commanded to obey God not men, Acts 5.29. And if any man bring us any other doctrine, he is to be accurſed, Gal. 1.9. This hath bene the opinion of holy men in all ages. Luther on the firſt of the Galat. There ought no other doctrine to be delivered, or heard in the church, beſides the pure vvord of God, that is, the holy Scriptures; let other teachers and hearers vvith their doctrine be accurſed. So Calv. lib. 4. Inſt. cap. 8. ſ. 8. Let this be a firme axiom, nothing is to be accounted for the vvord of God, to vvhichwhich place ſhould be given in the church, but that vvhichwhich is firſt contained in the Lavv and the Prophets, and after in Apoſtolicall vvritings.
But becauſe we are in a way of quotatiō, it will not be amiſſe to give you the judgement of ſome more ancient concerning this matter; and wee will give them as they are given by Chemnit. in his exam. of the counſcell of Trent, and quoted alſo by Bellarmine in order to his confutation of them, I ſhall give but a few. One is of Origen in cap. 3. ad Rom. &c. Neceſſe nobis eſt, inquit, Scripturas ſanctas in teſtimonium vocare, ſenſus quippe noſtri & enarrationes, ſine his teſtibus non habent fidem. It is neceſſary for us to call the holy Scriptures to vvitnes, becauſe our ſenſes and narrations vvithout thoſe vvitneſſes, have no credit.
So Conſtantin the Emperour, who in the Counſcell of Nice, as Theodoret witneſſes lib. 1. cap. 17. ſaith thus, Euangelici & Apoſtolici libri & antiquorum Prophetarum oracula plane inſtruunt nos, quid de rebus divinis ſentiendum ſit; Proinde hoſtili poſita diſcordia in verbis divinitus inſpiratis ſumamus quaeſtionum explicationes. The Euangelicall and Apoſtolicall bookes, and the oracles of the ancient Prophets, playnely inſtruct us vvhat vvee ſhould thinke of divine thinges; Therefore all hoſtile diſcord layde aſide, let us take the explication of queſtions from vvords divinely inſpired.
Then Athanaſius lib. contragent. Sufficiunt divinae, & divinitùs inſpiratae Scripturae ad omnem inſtructionem veritatis; The holy & divinely inſpired Scriptures, ſuffice to all inſtructions of truth.
Then Baſil. in ſerm. de fidei confeſſ. Infidelitatis argumentum fuerit, & ſignum ſuperbiae certiſsimum, ſi quis eorum quae ſcripta ſunt, aliquid velit rejicere aut eorum quae non ſcripta introducere. It vvould be an argument of infidelity, and a moſt certain ſigne of pride, if any man ſhould reject things vvritten, or ſhould introduce things not vvritten.
Alſo Cyril. lib. de recta fide. Neceſſarium nobis eſt divinas ſequi literas, & in nullo ab eorum praeſcripto diſcedere. It is neceſſary for us to follovv the divine letters, and in nothing to depart from their preſcript.
So Theoph. lib. 2. Paſchali. Diabolici ſpiritus eſt, aliquid extra Scripturarum ſacrarum auctoritatem putare divinum. It is the part of a diabolicall ſpirit, to thinke any thing divine vvithout the authority of holy Scriptures.
So Tertull. lib. contra Hermogenum, Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem, ſcriptum eſſe doceat Hermogenis officina, ſi non ſcriptum eſt, timeat vae illud adjicientibus, vel detrahentibus deſtinatum. I adore the fullnes of the Scripture, let Hermogenes ſhevv that it is vvritten; if it be not vvritten, let him feare the vvo deſtin'd to thoſe vvhichwhich adde or detract.
The end of all that hath bene ſaid amounts to this, that thoſe Fathers, or Churches, that tooke up and practized Baptiſme as an Apoſtolicall traditiō, that is, a thing not written, nor found in the word, but for the antiquity ſake call'd Apoſtolicall (as thoſe forequoted did, and moſt will be found to have done, that being their beſt plea) are juſtly to be reputed ours, and of our ſide, for they judge it not from Scripture, and therefore are forced to fetch the riſe of it from tradition; which traditiō, becauſe it will not beare the weight of an inſtitution, as you have heard, therefore the whole building is to fall, which is falſely bottomed, and their authority upon that ground is nothing, ſaving that by flying for a bottome, and refuge to tradition, they doe with us affirme, that there is no better ground for infant Baptiſme then humane traditiō, which is indeed none at all. So as you find how all theſe teſtimonies & authorities, and many of the ſame kind become ours. And here by the way I am not ignorant, that ſome of ours, whofeele themſelves preſt by the Papiſts, as if they admitted of a tradition in this ordinance of Baptiſme, which they refuſe in others, and being loath to looſe the authority of the Fathers in this point, who put it upon tradition, as upon its proper baſis, would fayne wreſt their necke out of this nooſe, and therefore ſhew you alſo how the Fathers faſtned it upon ſome Scripture ground, ſo Chemnit. in his anſwer of Lindan. Exam. Concil. Tridentin. de Trad. p. 69. To which I anſwer according to truth, that the forequoted Fathers faſtned Baptiſme upon tradition, as upon its owne ground and baſis, being no more able then other men to find a word of inſtitution for that which had none, and for the credit of the tradition, calling that Apoſtolicall, which they found ancient, which as the ſame Chemnitius acknowledgeth was an ordinary practiſe in other things, but withall ſome of them give ſome ground of Scripture of their owne framing for the colour of ſuch a tradition; ſo Origen, Iraeneus, Cyprian and thoſe others, quoted by Chemnitius to this purpoſe, which reatch not to any word of inſtitution, but to the reaſon of it, as Origen ſayes, That the Apoſtles knevv that there vvere in all the ſtayne of ſinne, vvhichwhich ought to be vvaſht by vvater and by the ſpirit. So Cyprian, VVhen the Lord ſaith in the Goſpel, hee came not to deſtroy the ſoules of men, but to ſave, vvee alſo ſhould prevent as much as may be, that no ſoule be loſt. For God as he accepts not the perſon, ſo nor the age. I ſhall give you no more, this onelyonly for a taſt. Now thoſe I ſaid are no words of inſtitution, but ſome generall reaſon as they conceave, and doth not at all hinder, but that Apoſtolicall tradition, as they call it, beares the weight of the inſtitution; I deny not but that there hath bene ſuch a thing as the tradition of Chriſt, and Apoſtolicall tradition, which are of the higheſt and greateſt authority, but they were ſuch things as afterwards were committed to writing by the Euangeliſts and Apoſtles, as Chemnitius well obſerves p. 61. and other traditions of Chriſt & his Apoſtles, wee avow none, but eſteeme them all Apocryphal.
Againe for thoſe Fathers and ancient writers, together with the Papiſts & Lutherans, that judged Baptiſme ſimply neceſſary to ſalvation, and ſome of them condemning infants to eternall damnation without it, as Auſtin, Bernard &c. (unleſſe they were happily reſcued by martyrdome) you ſee what neceſſity lay upon them to deffend infant Baptiſme, but upon a moſt falſe ground, namely the neceſſity of it to ſalvation, which fayling as wee know it doth, wee may ſee both how they might be tempted & neceſſitated to ſuch an opinion, & what good reaſon there is, why their foundation and building ſhould fall together. And if any man ſhall here object as before in the caſe of traditions, that this peremptory neceſſity to ſalvatiō, was indeed a falſe hypotheſis, or ſuppoſition, not fit to beare the weight of infant Baptiſme; but that the Fathers alſo might poſſibly have other mediums, by which to proove this, as thoſe before inſtanc'd in. I anſwer, that the weakneſſe of thoſe mediums or any other I have mett withall in this particular, as alleadged by them, declare plainly that there was ſome other great thing, which inforced them to it, namely the neceſſity of it to ſalvation, as whē we ſee wiſe men contend earneſtly for that, for which they give no good viſible or apparent reaſon; it may well be conceived, that there is ſomething of intereſt, which ſupplies to them the want of reaſon, and this intereſt of the ſalvation of our children ſitts ſo neere us, as it may beare the weight of many reaſons, and cauſe us to admit concluſions, though of great moment and concernement upon very eaſy conſiderations. So as wee have fully examined this head, namely upon what grounds the Fathers, which are alledged for the chief patrons of infant baptiſme, went & have found that ſo many as build it upon tradition, as generally all doe, are of our ſide, for, avouching that, for their beſt authority they acknowledge there is no better, to wit, the Scripture; and ſo conclude with us, that Baptiſme of infants is not an inſtitution of God, which hath the Scripture for its foundation.
And thoſe which give it to infants, becauſe it is ſimply neceſſary to ſalvation, will be of no authority againſt us, nor of no credit to their cauſe, becauſe the building muſt be level'd according to the foundation, & that being falſe, they are neceſſitated to the miſtake of their building.
To conclude, if there were any force left in theſe authorities for infant Baptiſme, as I conceave there is not, why ſhould it not regulate our practife in the other Sacrament, to give that to infants, which was ancient, and of uſe in many churches, as well as the other, as it remaynes alſo in ſome to this day, and it is like would in more, had not Popiſh ſuperſtition given the ſupper the ſtart of Baptiſme, to ſuch a degree as to make it not ſo much the ſigne and repreſentation of Chriſt, as Chriſt himſelf, and the very Proteſtants themſelves, are ſo reſpective to this Sacrament of the Supper above the other, as to give it as a reaſon, vvhy it ſhould not be adminiſtred to infants, leaſt it ſhould fall in contempt. Hoſp. Hiſt. Sacram. p. 60.
Wee ſhall produce ſome teſtimonies that the Supper was adminiſtred to infants as well as Baptiſme, as neceſſary to ſalvation, & if antiquity be to be eſteemed a great argument for the adminiſtring of one Sacrament, why not of the other.
For this Hoſpinian in his ſecond booke Hiſto. Sacram. pa. 59. quotes Cyprian Se. 5. de lapſis, and affirmes alſo that Ierome, Auſt. and other Fathers witnes, that thoſe vvhichwhich vvere baptized not onelyonly of age, but alſo infants vvithout any delay received the holy myſteries under both ſignes.
So Ierome againſt the Luciferians, Non poteſt, inquit, Baptima tradere ſine Euchariſtia. Baptiſme muſt not be given vvithout the Euchariſt.
And Auſt. lib. de Dogm. Eccleſ. cap. 52. Siparvuli ſunt (ait) vel hebetes qui doctrinam non capiant, reſpondeant pro illis qui eos offerunt, juxta morem baptizandi, & ſic manus impoſitione at Chriſmate communiti, Euchariſtiae myſteriis admittantur. If they be little (ſayes he) or dull, vvhichwhich are not capable of doctrine, let thoſe anſvver for them, vvhichwhich offer them according to the cuſtome of baptizing, and ſo being fortified by Chriſme, and impoſition of hands, let them be admitted to the myſtery of the Euchariſte.
Alſo Epiſt. 107. hee ſpeakes thus, Infantes ſi in illa parva aetate moriuntur, utique ſecundum ea quae per corpus geſſerunt, id eſt, tempore quo in corpore fuerunt, quando per corda, & ora geſtantium crediderunt, vel non quando baptizati, vel non baptizati ſunt, quando carnem Chriſti manducaverunt, vel non manducaverunt, quandò & ſanguinem biberunt, vel non biberunt, ſecundum haec ergo quae per corpus geſſerunt, non ſecundum ea quae ſi diu hic viverent geſturi fuerant judicantur. Infants if they dye in that young age, are judged according to that vvhichwhich they have done by the body, that is, in the time in the vvhichwhich they vvere in the body, vvhen by the heartes and mouthes of thoſe that carried them, they beleeved or not beleeved, vvhen they vvere baptized, or not baptized, vvhen they did eat the fleſh of Chriſt, or not eat it, vvhen they drunke his blood, or not drunke it; according therefore to thoſe things vvhichwhich they did by the body, they are to be judged not according to thoſe, vvhichwhich if they had lived long, they vvould have done. So lib. 5. Hypognoſticôn cont. Pelag. Quomodo, inquit, vita regni caelorum parvulis promittitur, non renatis ex aqua & Spirituſancto, non cibatis carne, atque non potatis ſanguine Chriſti, qui in remiſsionem peccatorum fuſus eſt? Hovv (ſaith he) is the kingdome of heaven promiſed to children, not renevved by vvater and the holy Ghoſt, not fed vvith the fleſh, and made to drinke of the blood of Chriſt, vvhichwhich is ſhed for the remiſſion of ſinnes.
This cuſtome received of old, ſo farre prevayled afterwards, eſpecially in the time of Charles the Great, that not onelyonly the Euchariſt was communicated to infants, in the publike aſſembly of the church after Baptiſme, or at other times, when they were wont to come together for the Lords Supper, but alſo the bread of the Supper was kept to be communicated and given to ſick children, as well as to thoſe of yeares: for this Hoſpinnian quotes Canonem Carolinum lib. 1. de legib. Francorum in theſe words, Preſbyter Euchariſtiam ſemper habeat paratam, ut quando quis infirmatus fuerit, aut parvulus infirmus fuerit, ſtatim eum communicet, ne ſine communione moriatur: Let the Preſbyter have the Euchariſt ever ready, that vvhen any is vveake, or vvhen a little child ſhall be vveake or ſicke, hee may preſently communicate him, leaſt he ſhould dye vvithout communion.
Amongſt the Aethiopians as Oſorius witneſſeth in his 9. booke de geſtis Emmanuelis, Infants in the ſame day that they are initiated to holy thinges, take the Euchariſt in a bitt of bread: Hoſpinian alſo affirmes, that not many yeares agoe, there vvere reliques of this cuſtome in Lorrayne, and the places adjoyning; for vvhen an infant vvas to be baptized, the Prieſt, vvho baptized him, brought a little boxe in vvhichwhich vvas the Sacrament to the Alter, and ſhevved one Hoſt, as they call it, to the people; then he put it in the boxe againe, and reatches forth his tvvo fingers, vvith vvhichwhich hee had tucht it, to be vvaſht vvith vvine by the Clarke or Church-vvarden, and diſtills of that vvine into the mouth of the baptized Infant, ſaying, The blood of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt proffit thee unto eternall life.
Alſo at this day, as Brerewood in his learned inquiries, touching the diverſity of Religion, affirmes, The Supper is admniniſtred to Infants immediately after their Baptiſme in both kindes by the Iacobits, a people called by that name, vvhichwhich are in great numbers in Syria, Cyprus, Meſopotamia, Babylon and Paleſtine; for the Patriarch of Ieruſalem, who keepeth his reſidence ſtill in Ieruſalem, in which City there ſtill remaine ten or more churches of Chriſtians, is alſo a Iacobite. Alſo the Cophty (which are the Chriſtians in Aegypt, for it is a name of their nation, rather then of their religion) doe the ſame, namely give the Sacrament of the Euchariſt to infants preſently after Baptiſme.
The like doe the Chriſtians tearmed Habaſſines, which are the midland Aethiopians.
As alſo the Armenians, Chriſtians diſperſed for trade through the Turkiſh Empire, but inhabiting eſpecially Armenia the greater, and the leſſer, and Cylicia.
More might be quoted and are by Brerewood in thoſe his collections.
Now the reaſon why the Papiſts have quitted this practiſe (out of whoſe rubbiſh we drew our reformation, as being once involved in that lumpe & confuſion) ſeemes to me to appeare out of their Tridentine conſtitutions, Trid. Concil. ſec. 5. where it is affirmed; Parvulos uſu rationis carentes nulla obligari neceſsitate ad Sacramentalem Euchariſtiae communionem, ſi quidem per Baptiſmi lavacrum regenerati, & Chriſto incorporati, adeptam ſuam Filiorum Dei gratiam, in illa aetate amittere non poſſunt. That children, vvhichwhich vvant the uſe of reaſon, are by no neceſsity obliged to the Sacramentall communion of the Euchariſt; for as much as being regenerate by the laver of Baptiſme, and incorporated into Chriſt, in that age, they cannot looſe that ſtate of ſonneſhip already obtayned; ſo that grace being neceſſarily conferr'd to them, according to their opiniō by baptiſme, which they cannot looſe if they would in that age, they thinke they need not the other till they come to be capable of ſinning and falling away. Beſides the high & tranſcendent notion they have put upon the Lords Supper, by making it to be the very body and blood of Chriſt, may juſtly apologize for them that they make it not childrens play.
And even that differencing of thoſe two Sacraments by way of preferrence, ſtickes cloſe ſtill to our fingers, of which there are undoubted characters in the greateſt part of reformed Churches.
All this hath bene to ſhew, that if you will take primitive practiſe, and antiquity for your guide, that will lead you as well into the adminiſtring of the Supper to infants as Baptiſme, and if it fayle by your owne judgement in the one, you may very well ſuſpect it in the other; for my part, I ſee not why the Sacramēt of the Supper ſhould be of a greater myſtery then the other, or the ceremony more ſignificant, or that the duty of examining ſhould need more the uſe of reaſon, then beleeving, repenting and confeſſing our ſinnes. And ſince it is as naturall & proper to infancy to be nouriſht, as to be borne, I ſee not but why they ſhould be as capable of the ceremony of their nouriſhmēt, as of their birth, and ſo of one Sacrament as well as the other. You ſee how needfull it is to examine the reaſons, as well as the opinions of men, an immoderate veneration of antiquity hath well nigh undone the world, the Fathers with ſome farre fetcht Scripture alluſion or gloſſe, hath bene inabled to eſtabliſh ordinances of inſtitution, and inforce practiſe apparently very divers from reaſon, and Apoſtolicall preſident, and which ſince by conſequences have ſtuffed bookes with ſo many ridiculous diſputes in this point, as forſooth, whether the childe being wholly in the wombe, and no part appearing it may be baptized, or whether if any part appeare without, it may be baptized, eſpecially if it be the head, or the hand, or the foote, whether if it be borne with the after birth, or whether if it be a monſter, it may be baptized, with ſeverall of the like nature, which have miſerably tormented the Schoolemen, and are the births of ſuch a premiſſes, it being the nature of errour to be fertile, and if you graunt one fundamentall abſurdity, a thouſand will follow.
And ſo much for the firſt head I propounded in this argument of authority, namely upon what grounds the fathers that are alleaged, for the chief patrōs of infant Baptiſme, went.
The ſecond wherein I ſhall be breefe (for wee build not much upon this bottome) was, whether infant Baptiſme have enjoyed a quiet and peaceable poſſeſſion in the Church from the Apoſtles time downeward, till of late it was interrupted (as is affirmed) by certain unquiet ſpirits in the dayes of Luther.
Though no preſcription will lye good againſt God, yet I am of opinion, that if the poſſeſſion of infant Baptiſme hath bene very antient (which I doubt of) yet the injoyment hath not bene anciently ſo peaceable, as ſome would make us beleeve.
Let them who liſt or can confute Ludovicus Vives, who affirmes in cap. 27. lib. 1. de civitate Dei; Neminem olim conſueviſſe baptizari niſi adulta aetate, & qui per ſe peteret baptiſmum, & intelligeret quid ſit baptizari. None of old (by which it ſeemes hee meant very old) vvere vvont to be baptized but in a full or grovvne age, and vvho deſired Baptiſme for themſelves, and understood vvhat it vvas to be baptized. I find alſo Rupertus Tuitienſis in his 4. booke of divine offices cap. 14. quoted to have ſayd, In former times the cuſtome of the primitive Churches vvas, that they administred not the Sacrament of regeneration, but onelyonly at the feaſt of Eaſter & Pentecoſt, and all the children of the church, vvhichwhich throughout the vvhole yeare, through the vvord vvere mooved, vvhen Easter came gave up their names, and vvere the follovving dayes till Pentecost inſtructed in the rules of faith, rehearſed the ſame, and by their Baptiſme, and dying thus vvith Christ, roſe againe vvith him.
So the famous Eraſmus, as I find him quoted in his annotations upon the 5. of the Romanes, affirmes, that baptizing of children vvas not in uſe in Pauls time. And our Doctor Feild in his learned Treatiſe of the Church p. 729. affirmes, that many very anciently, vvho vvere borne of Christian parents, beſides thoſe vvho vvere converted from Paganiſme, put of their Baptiſme a long time, inſomuch as ſome vvere elected Biſhops, before they vvere baptized, as vve read (ſaith he) of Ambroſe; to proove which hee quotes Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 11. But to come more particularly to a few antient and authentique proofes, with which I ſhall content my ſelf.
Hee that ſhall read Iuſtin Martyr, who lived about Anno 150. and is beleeved to have bene converted to Chriſt within 30. yeares after the Apoſtle Iohn, when it is credible alſo very many were living, who had bene frequent auditors of the Apoſtles, hee, I ſay, who ſhould conſider in ſecunda pro Chriſtianis Apologia, the deſcription he makes of the manner of Chriſtian Baptiſme, would ſurely not pick out of it the Baptizing of Infants, as the moſt uſuall and ordinary practiſe of thoſe times; its worth the relating at large, being of ſo great Antiquity; I vvill novv tell you, ſayes he, hovv vve dedicate our ſelves to God, being renevved by Christ, least if vve ſhould have past by this, vve ſhould ſeeme to deale malignantly, and diſſemblingly in this diſcourſe; vvho ever have bene perſvvaded, & have beleeved that thoſe things are true, vvhichwhich are delivered and ſpoken by us, and have ingaged themſelves to live accordingly, they are taught to pray vvith fasting, and to beg of God the remiſsion of all their past ſinnes, vvee alſo praying and fasting vvith them, then they are brought to us, vvhere there is vvater, and in the ſame manner of regeneration, vvith vvhichwhich vvee are regenerated, they are regenerated; for in the name of our Lord God the parent of all things, and of our Saviour Ieſus Christ and of the holy Spirit, they are then vvaſht vvith vvater. Nor is it any prejudice to this teſtimony (by which as by way of Apologie, the regular and ordinary way of Baptiſme is declared) that I find him quoted by ſome as owning infants Baptiſme, for as much as they ſay in a treatiſe which goes under his name (which whether it be his or no is doubted by all men, and particularly by Bellarmine himſelf, who yet is willing enough to make uſe of it, and therefore not of that authority as the quotation I bring) hee gives a knite of infant Baptiſme by conſidering in a word or two the conditiō of thoſe children, who dye baptized, and of them who dye unbaptized, ſince it is not my part here to proove that infant Baptiſme, as well as many other unwarrantable practiſes, crept not in betimes, but to ſhew by ſtory, what was the moſt uſuall and authenticke practiſe of the adminiſtration of this ordinance, or what was the opinion and judgement of the moſt antient and learned men about it.
The next authority I ſhall bring is of Nazianzen, another Greeke Father, a man of great eſteeme & authority, he plainly councells, that Baptiſme ſhould be differred, Donec pueri de fide ſua aliquid poſsint reſpondere; till children ſhould be able to anſvver ſomething of their faith, and therefore councells to deferre Baptiſme at least till the third yeare of their age. Wherein although hee made haſt, not being altogether perhaps free from the ſuperſtition of the daunger of dying without Baptiſme, which crept in betimes, yet overcome by the truth and the reaſon of the ordinance, hee judged it fit to deferre it till ſuch time as they were capable of having & manifeſting actuall faith. This famous authority of a man ſo great and learned, Bellarmine anſwers onelyonly thus, That other Fathers vvere of another minde, and that the commodity is very little, but the daunger (to wit, according to his opinion of the neceſſity of Baptiſme to ſalvation) is very great.
The next and laſt authority I ſhall bring, ſhall be that of Tertulliā, who flouriſhed about 203. yeares after Chriſt, the moſt famous of the Latin Fathers, of him Hierom in an epiſtle of the Chriſtian writers, affirmes, that nothing vvas more learned, or acute, a man of that authority, with the famous and antient Cyprian, that hee called him his master, and as Hierome affirmes of him, hee never past a day vvithout the reading of Tertullian.
This Tertullian in a treatiſe that hee hath of Baptiſme towards the end, hath theſe expreſſions; firſt in the generall, Baptiſmum non temerè credendum eſſe, ſciant quorum officium est. That Baptiſme is not ſlightly or raſhly to be committed to any, let them knovv vvhoſe duty it concernes. To give to every one that aſketh belongs to almes; rather conſider this, Give not that vvhichwhich is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearles to ſvvyne. And lay hands ſuddainly on no man, least you partake of their ſinnes; then hee apologizeth why the Eunuch & Paul were ſo ſoone baptized, & then goes on; Itaque pro cujuſque perſonae conditione, ac diſpoſitione, etiam aetate cunctatio baptiſmi utilior est, praecipue tamen circaparvulos. Therefore in regard of the condition and diſpoſition of each perſon, the differring of Baptiſme is more proffitable, eſpecially for young children; for vvhat neceſsity is it, ſayth hee, for the vvitneſſes to expoſe themſelves to daunger, &c. It is true the Lord ſaith, do not forbid them to come to me, let them come therefore vvhen they grovvolder, vvhen they learne, vvhen they are taught vvhy they come; Fiant Christiani quum Chriſtum noſſe potuerint; Let them be made Christians vvhen they can knovv Chriſt. Then he tells them, They deale more vvarily in ſecular things, that divine thinges are given, vvhere they vvould not betruſt earthly. And laſtly concludes, that they vvho underſtand the vveight of Baptiſme, vvill rather feare the attaining then the differring of it: adding that, Fides integra ſecura est de ſalute; An intier faith is ſecure of ſalvation. Thus the excellent & antient Tertullian.
Nor can that ſtand to any purpoſe, which ſome (who are loath to have ſo great and antient an authority againſt them in the point of infāt Baptiſme) alleage, that parhaps Tertullian ſpeakes here of the Baptiſme onelyonly of thoſe infants, whoſe parents were unbeleevers, becauſe hee ſpeakes of the daunger of the witneſſes, or ſuerties, for where the parents are Chriſtians, there the witneſſes ſeeme not to be expoſed to that daunger? To which I anſwer, that the witneſſes were not freed from daūger, though the parents were Chriſtians, for though the parents may help with the witneſſes, to the education of the child, yet they cannot ſecure themſelves nor others, that they ſhall ſtand to that covenant which is made for them.
Beſides the reaſon of his aſſertiō againſt infant Baptiſme, runnes upon principles common to all infants, of what ever parents they be borne, for hee would have none come, till they be capable of learning, & being taught why they come; hee would have none declar'd Chriſtians by that ceremony, till they can know Chriſt, and concludes that hee would not have divine myſteries be truſted with infants, whom wee would judge it improper & uncomely to be truſt with earthly and ſecular affaires.
I ſhall content my ſelf with what hath bene ſaid already to this head, having neither the deſire, nor the commodity to make a large and generall ſearch; beſides that a few of the moſt authentique, & moſt antient writers after the Scriptures, ought to be of more authority then many hundreds (if there could ſo many be found) of latter times, it being my undertaking to proove that moſt antiently, beginning with Chriſt and the Apoſtles times the ſubjects of Baptiſme, were perſons profeſſing faith and repentance, not infants, and that the moſt authentique and primitive Fathers were of this minde and judgement.
We have done therefore with this head, wherein if the moſt authentique & antient authority be ours, and the reſt neceſſitated to their opiniōs by falſe premiſes and principles by no meanes to be received, or allowed, and which alſo as rationally produce other cōſequences, which in theſe times men are loath to admit of; no men I hope will blame us for our preſent beleefe, concerning the ſubject of Baptiſme, nor object hereafter as an argumēt againſt us, the authority of the fathers.