A just vindication of the covenant and church-estate of children of church-members as also of their right unto bastisme : wherein such things as have been brought by divers to the contrary, especially by Ioh. Spilsbury, A.R. Ch. Blackwood, and H. Den are revised and answered : hereunto is annexed a refutation of a certain pamphlet styled The plain and wel-grounded treatise touching baptism / by Thomas Cobbet.

CHAP. II. SECT. I.

WEe shall now trace these Authors in their quoted Au∣thorities.

Proposi. 1. Hierom upon Matth. 28. 19. is quoted Proposition 1. and 8.

The Lord, saith he, commanded his Apostles, that they should first instruct and teach all nations, and afterward should baptize those that were instructed in the mysteries of faith; for it cannot bee that the body should re∣ceive the Sacrament of baptisme, unlesse the soule have recei∣ved before the true faith.

This whole testimony is intended by the Author of growne ones, in what way adult Pagans are to bee baptized, and of their receiving of baptisme, so as to have the saving benefit of it. But to make it his mind to intend exclusion of Babes is to make him worke and practise things against the light of his owne judgement and conscience. The Author con∣fessing in the eight proposition, that his proofes are out of anci∣cient & later teachers, who have and do maintaine the use of bap∣tizing children, and Hierom is one hee quoteth. As for Hieroms judgement this way, see his first Tome, his 7th. Epistle, scil. ad Laetam, where having said before that the good and evill of little children is ascribed to the parents, hee addeth,

nisi forte existimes Christi∣anorum filios, &c. unlesse thou thinke that if the children of Chri∣stians receive not baptisme, the children onely are guilty of the sinne, and that the wickednesse is not also imputed to those that would not give the same to them; especially at that time when the children which were to receive baptisme, could not contradict the same; as on the other hand the salvation of the Infants is the Ancestors gaine.

Hee reckons that there is wick∣ednesse in it carelesly to neglect such an ordinance, that tendeth to their spirituall gaine in their childrens good thereby furthe∣red. Now if Hierom thought there were no Law for childrens bap∣tisme, why is there any transgression, yea so deepe charged upon the neglectors of it, that it is scelus in his account? So in his second Tom. 1. 3. Dialogorum adversus Pelagianos ad finem; hee proveth infants baptisme to bee for remission of sinnes, as well as for entrance into Gods kingdome; so that this Authors words are wrested against his owne intention.

Let us see whether the next be better dealt withall, scil. Athana∣sius in his third Sermon contra Arrianos:

Our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize, but first of all hee said, Teach, and then baptize, that true faith might come by teaching, and baptisme bee perfected by Faith.

If Athanasius had said thus in the Authors sense, yet the fallacy had still beene the same to conclude à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. But let us look upon that place and weigh the words of Athanasius, there speaking of the unprofitablenesse and vanitie of Baptisme by Arrians; hee proceedeth thus.

For (saith hee) the Arrians doe not give Baptisme in the Father and Sonne, but in the Creator and crea∣ture, in the maker and workmanship: As therefore a creature is a diverse thing from the Sonne, so is the Baptisme supposed to bee given by them diverse from true Baptisme. Albeit because they see the names of Father and Sonne in Scriptures, they doe faine to name them, for it is not hee that barely nameth the Lord which giveth lawfull Baptisme, but hee that expoundeth that name and holdeth the right faith. And therefore our Sa∣viour doth not command to baptize after any fashion

(the Au∣thors render the word quovis modo by slightly)

but first hee said Teach and then baptize (in the name of the Father, Sonne and Holy Ghost)

(this clause the treatise leaveth out) that by teaching a right faith might arise (the treatise saith true faith might come)

and with the faith of Baptisme the intire initiation might bee perfected;

by initiation hee meanes baptisme as the words before these shew. In these words.

The Arrians hazzard the losse of the integrity of that mystery. But I speake of Baptisme. For if perfect and full initiation bee given in the name of the Father and Sonne, and they hold not forth the true Father, &c. how should the Baptisme which they give bee true, &c.

So that that speech, with the faith of Baptisme the intire initiation might bee perfected, is that with the faith or doctrine of faith rightly held out, the Ordinance of Baptisme might bee perfect or valid, which hee calleth the right faith, as the words before mentioned shew: So that hee doth not here intend fidem quâ credit aliquis, sed fidem quam credit, hee meaneth it of the object, not the habit of faith; and of the qualifications of the persons baptizing, to make their act valid, not of the parties baptized. For none will say that an hypocrites Baptisme, because hee hath not true faith, is not true Baptisme: The essence of the Ordinance not depending

upon mans faith but Gods word. And that hee intends no other thing as it appeares by the premises, for if you take his next words following the same, it will bee evident. Truely, saith he, even other heresies, and those not a few, doe in seeming words pro∣nounce that rite of baptizing, but being not right in judgement, nor retaining the sound faith, they possesse and bestow an unpro∣fitable water, as destitute of the Deity of Religion, so that they which are sprinkled by them, are rather polluted through corrupt Religion, then redeemed. Here therefore is an ancient Authors words wrested to another sense then the scope of his discourse ten∣ded, and some words left out which served to declare his meaning, and other words so palpably mistranslated that the Reader is grossely abused thereby as well as the Author.

SECT. II.

THe next testimony is of Haimo upon this Text of Matthew.

In this place is set downe a rule how to baptize aright, scil. that teaching should goe before baptisme; for hee saith, Teach all nations, and then hee saith, and baptize them; for hee that is baptized must bee before instructed, that hee first learne to beleeve, that which in baptisme hee shall receive; for as faith without workes is dead, so workes when they are not of faith they are nothing worth.

This labours of the same fallacy as that of Jeroms testimony, à dicto secundum quid, ad simpliciter, * 1.1 what the Author spake in reference to Adulti, it's applied as his mind thereby to make baptisme of children besides or against rule; when yet the same Author upon the 14. of Romans, speaking about the case of their dipping of children, hee mentions Cyprian as practising dipping of children in baptisme but once:

but after (saith hee) hee being corrected of God, hee abounded in more sublime knowledge, dipping them thrice.

Hee looketh then at that way of baptizing Infants as a lesson which Cyprian learned of God. Hee then surely thought baptisme it selfe of Infants to bee taught of God, and no breach of a rule of God: Wee speake not this as allowing Haimo's judgment about Immersion, and much lesse that of trina Immersio, but to cleare the Author from that intention which the treatise would father upon him, or at least by producing the mans writings in one place, would make him against h•…•…s owne light to write things contradictory in

another: Thus is this Author and the Reader with him abu∣sed also.

SECT. III.

THe next Author cited in this Treatise is Erasmus, both upon Matth. 28. and Marke 16. to like purpose.

When you have taught them, if they beleeve, &c. and repent, &c. then let them be baptized, &c.

and Proposition 3.

those who in times past were to bee baptized were first of all instructed in the mysteries of the Christian faith, and were called Catachumeni, &c.

This later one would thinke might have expounded the former, that hee in∣tends it of adult Pagans, and not of others in Christian Chur∣ches, such as ours are whose foundations are already laid and established. And Proposition 6.

It's no where expressed in the Apostolicall writings that they baptized children.

Hee doth not say, it's not so much as probable nor is it to bee gathered by consequence that they did so: wherefore his testimony is no proofe that the Apostles never did baptize Infants, because it's ne∣ver mentioned expresly. It's never expresly said, that I remember, that the Apostles or Evangelists when they Baptized those in Acts 2. and 8. and 16. 18. that they called upon God for a bles∣sing upon the Ordinance, but will it follow that they did not sanctifie the Ordinance by Prayer? Proposition 7. hee is quoted as a proofe of that Proposition, Lib. 4. de ratione concion. saying

that they are not to bee condemned that doubt whether chil∣drens baptisme was ordained by the Apostles, and thinke that the same is to be received as the placita Scholasticorum Theologorum, which cannot bee proved by Scripture.

Here the Authors use their old art of substraction and addition. His words are thus.

It is probable that to baptize Infants was instituted by the Apostles, and yet they are not to bee condemned which doubt thereof; With the same moderation many tenents of Schoole Divines are to bee received, which cannot (evidently) be proved from the Scriptures.

The first speech of Erasmus is wholly left out, which is crosse both to that peremptory if not impudent con∣clusion expressed in the 6th. Proposition, and this set downe in the 7th. if even Erasmus his judgement bee adhered to, for if it bee probable that Paedobaptisme was of Apostolicall institution, then it is not so peremptorily and with such plerophory to bee asserted that it was never ordained of Christ, or practised by the Apostles,

but is an ordinance of man. And whereas it is rendred, and think that the same is to bee received inter placita Scholasticorum, &c. there is no such connexion or expression. But it is a distinct sentence. With the same moderation, &c. many Schoole tenents are to be re∣ceived, &c. scil. they are also not to bee condemned which doubt of some Schoole tenents which are not so expresse and cleare from Scripture. Hee doth not say that Baptisme of of Infants is to bee thought placitum Scholasticorum, but speakes of other instances of things probable. Nor doth hee speake of bare Schoole Notions which have no bottome at all in Scripture, and which cannot at all bee proved from the Scripture as the Treatise saith; which cannot bee proved, but which cannot evidenter probari per Scriptu∣ras. True it is, Henry Denne hee saith that Bellarmine taxeth Eras∣mus with that opinion of denying childrens Baptisme; but in Erasmus his preface to his Paraphrase on Matthew, hee rather con∣demneth the carelesnesse of Priests, in so much that many Chri∣stians are in respect of knowledge rather as Pagans; and at best are rather in titles, customes, and ceremonies Christians then indeed: And adviseth that children after they have been baptized, and come to riper yeeres, that they bee well instructed in what their sureties have promised for them, and called to account how they profit thereby, and whether they doe avouch and owne the promise made by their sureties, and if so, then at some time or other that they in the open Congregation expressing it, bee then with some solemnitie approved. And if they reject this motion, then to be debarred the Eucharist, untill they change their mind: So that hee seemeth not to disallow Paedobaptisme, but carelesnesse after∣wards. This I speake that none may bee rendred worse then they are, bee they Papists or others. Albeit I would not much weigh the expressions of Papists this way, to whom bare Church tradi∣tions are equivalent to Scripture commands, expresse or virtuall.

SECT. IIII.

THe next Author is Bullinger in his Decads expounding Matth. •…•… 28. Docete omnes Gentes, &c. make Disciples of all Nations, &c. What then doth Bullinger intend baptizing Infants as not here enjoyned? Nay in the place quoted in his Decades of Sermons, Tom. 5. Decad. 5. Serm. 8. hee brings this as an Argument for Pae∣dobaptisme, God hath commanded to baptize all Nations, and therefore Infants, for these are comprehended in the words all

Nations. Bullinger is againe cited as a Testimony for the proofe of the second Proposition in the same place speaking upon the words of Paul, 1 Cor. 1.

God hath not sent mee to baptize but to preach the Gospel. Hee is quoted to say. This must not so slightly be understood, as if hee were sent not to baptize at all, but that teaching should [goe before] baptisme.

For the Lord com∣manded his Apostles both to preach and to administer the Sacra∣ments. Bullingers words are,

Non quod negaret absolutè (which our present translators render; this must not so sleightly bee un∣derstood. Negaret is in their English not to bee understood, and absolutè is in their English, slightly. If they had transla∣ted it simply it would have hit it, but I thinke sleightly fits them indifferent well) se ad baptizandum non esse missum, sed quod doctri∣nam praeferret: utrumque enim, &c.

That clause is expounded, but that teaching should goe before baptisme, &c. Here I want my construing booke; but I will follow my translators; sed quod, but that, doctrina, teaching, praeferret should go before — Risum teneatis amici? But if the translators had learned common rules and read the place, they would have clearely discerned Bullingers meaning to bee farre wide from their purpose, scil. To prove rather the prioritie of the Gospel to baptisme in dignitie and excellency, then in order of dispensation. For besides that the common Gram∣mer construction of that passage, sed quod doctrinam praeferret, will beare no sense so well as that mentioned, * 1.2 his words immediatly preceding also cleare the same.

Evangelium majus est baptismo, the Gospel is more excellent then Baptisme, or greater then Bap∣tisme: For Paul said, the Lord sent mee not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, not that hee denied it absolutely, &c. Sed quod doctrinam praeferret.

And it is yet more strange that this which Bullinger brings as his third Argument to prove Paedobaptisme to bee of God, the Authors of this Pamphlet bring as a testimony to their purpose against Baptisme; for Bullinger subjoynes to the words before:

That children are received in the Gospel doctrin, — they are not refused of God, who therefore unlesse he were besides himselfe would exclude them from the lesse? In Sacra∣ments are considered the thing signified and the signe, the former is the more excellent. Infants are not excluded from that, (scil. the Gospel, the promise) who will deny then the signe? for truely the Sacraments of God are rather to bee esteemed by the word (scil. the promise) then by the signe.

As for Bullingers ex∣pressions

out of Austin, contra Iulianū quoted in the 7th. Proposition they prove that the Carthaginian councell did indeed ratifie Bap∣tisme, but not that it came in first by that councell. Nay the testimony cited of Austin against the Donatists, lib. 4. cap. 23, 24. useth that as an argument, that it was of Divine authoritie, because not instituted by any councells. And Origens testimony there cited, Proposi. 7. proveth it to be in his time, which was 200. yeeres before that Carthage councell, in the time of Innocent the first: Yea Origen proveth it to bee at least a Church custome long before from the time of the Apostles. Bullingers testimony in his Decads as pro∣ving the 7th. Proposition, scil. that Paedobaptisme is an humane ordinance (when in that very Sermon of his there quoted in this Treatise, hee by many arguments from Scripture proveth it to be of divine authority) is also abused, and shamefully misconstrued and perverted, as is evident. The next is Beza who is also quoted Proposition 7. in his annotations upon Matth. 28. 19.

Baptize them in the name of the Father, that is, in calling upon the name of the Father, or rather the name of the Father, &c. being called upon;

for they are Beza's words, Invocato nomine Patris, &c. And these Translators should have done well to have rendred the Latine properly. But all is in the meaning of the words. The authors of the Treatise urge it for a proofe of the persons bap∣zed calling actually upon the name of God, when they are bapti∣zed according to Christs institution, & bring Beza for their proofe. Quaeritur therefore whether ever Beza intended that in his words. Surely no, for it's known well that Beza stoutly maintaineth Paedo∣baptisme as an ordinance of Christ. Now Infants when they are baptized cannot actually call upon the name of God; therefore if Beza say the former, that the rule of Christ requireth it of all that are to be baptized according to his mind, that they should call upon God at the time of their Baptisme; he must affirme the later against his owne light and conscience; which to doe with so much deli∣beration as hee that writeth things upon studie must doe, were a crime of a very high nature, and God forbid any should charge so worthy a light in the Church with that.

SECT. V.

BEza is againe cited for confirmation of the third Proposition in his Annotations upon Matth. 3. 6.

John taught those that were to bee baptized▪ (this clause is not in my Beza upon

the place) and admitted none to Baptisme, but those that gave testimony that they beleeved the forgivenesse of their sinnes. In my Beza's Notes it's rather thus, that John admitted not others to his Baptisme, then those which seriously professed that they did imbrace the doctrine of free remission of sinnes;

which how different from that of these translators let others judge. It follow∣eth in the booke,

Such confession was also required of the Cate∣chumens in the primitive Church before Baptisme, for in that the Sacraments are seales, it is requisite that doctrine or instru∣ction should goe before the use of those things by which the do∣ctrine it selfe is to bee sealed.

Those words before Baptisme, and that reason annexed, for in that the Sacraments, &c. is not in my booke, scil. Beza's Annotationes majores in N. Test. Printed Anno. 1594. But to returne to the testimony, Beza intended that John baptized no other of that species of persons Adult, then such as made that confession — but not simply the Baptisme of any other persons of another sort, scil. babes; hee that is so carefull that any should take advantage to deny that children are not rightly bapti∣zed, because not dived wholly under water, that hee the rather (as hee saith upon Matth. 3. 11.) doth note such things about the par∣ticle [In] omitted Luke 3. 16. surely hee intended not, by affirming such things in reference to Johns hearers thereby to exclude chil∣drens Baptisme. Hence that added that such confession was requi∣red of the Catechumens in the ancient Church. Now then what manner of persons they were which hee affirmeth made such con∣fession of old, such like persons for age he here intendeth. And no more doth he intend exclusion of Infants from Baptisme, by affir∣ming the necessitie of confession in Johns hearers unto Baptisme, then by affirming that the same was required of those Catechumens mentioned. Let us then see Beza's mind further therein, which wee may readily doe in the third place of Beza quoted in this Trea∣tise Proposition 4. where Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. But now your children are holy, he is thus cited as saying:

Out of this contra∣dictors of the truth are revealed. As first, all those that make Baptisme to be the first entrance to salvation: and secondly, those that permit all children to bee baptized, which was unheard of in the primitive times, whereas [every one] ought to bee in∣struct••d in the faith before hee were admitted to baptisme.

And this testimony is brought to prove the Proposition that in the pri∣mitive Church the children both of the faithfull and else (scil. and

of Pagans or Jewes) were commonly first instructed, &c. and then baptized; so that Beza's mind in that clause, whereas every one ought to bee instructed, &c. is made, and every child whether of the faithfull or Infidell should bee first instructed before hee be bap∣tized, and in that sense, his second errour he blames of such which permit all children to bee baptized, is as much as if hee should in∣tend it as an errour to permit any children at all whether of faith∣full or infidell persons to bee baptized before instructed: So that Beza is by this made a direct Andipedobaptist, as they terme it now for modesty sake. But you shall not have Beza thus on your side before wee heare him in his owne words, who having before spoken touching the cause, why wee admit the Saints children to baptisme, scil. because they are comprehended in the Covenant, &c. he addeth,

Now from hence are confuted not onely Catabaptists which doe reject Infants from baptisme as uncleane, but those which make baptisme the first entrance to salvation, and so ex∣clude all from salvation which are unbaptized, and also those which admit all Infants whatsoever to baptisme,

(scil. whether of visible Saints or Infidels as appeares by what hee said before, and by what followeth, which thing (scil. such promiscuous baptizing of all sorts hand over head)

was not heard of in the ancient Church. As this at least doth declare, in that all adult Infidells were first to bee Catechumens before they were baptized.

Beza refuteth three things from that clause mentioned and explai∣ned — now your children are holy, and one of them is this fourth Proposition of the Authors, and yet by the Authors he is brought to refute onely two things. First, hee refuteth Catabaptists denying baptisme to beleevers children. Secondly, he from the same ground refuteth them which maintaine the baptisme of all children what∣soever, scil. that are not children of visible Saints, for if they bee such children hee counteth it rather an errour to deny their bap∣tisme. Againe in citing the last part of Beza's words, the Authors craftily make it as an opposite sentence to that before. Thus se∣condly, those that permit all children to bee baptized, &c. where∣as every one, &c. as if it were a contrary speech to the former, per∣mitting (all) children, &c. whereas none (at all) were to bee bap∣tized of old, but such as were Catechumens: when Beza maketh this later a reason of the former, as before wee shewed. Besides the Authors shamefully change and mutilate the last words: where∣as every one ought, &c. intending every particular person, Infant or

Aged, when Beza's words are expresly — in that all adult Infi∣dells ought first to bee Catachumens before they were to bee bapti∣zed. Now who is there which doth not even feele this palpable guile and falseshood in the setters forth of this Treatise in this particular? But not to forget what wee noted touching Beza's other testimony on Matth. 3. this place cleareth Beza's intent. There speaking of adult persons it may bee affirmed such must bee as the Catechumens of old in point of confession before baptisme, and yet the same Author never intend by that assertion to ex∣clude children of such as doe make such confession of faith and re∣pentance from baptisme. Beza which holdeth this forth here, yet here also refuteth that as errour in Catabaptists to deny Paedobap∣tisme: So that still here is the old fallacie, à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter dictum.

SECT. VI.

THe next Author quoted Proposition 1. scil. Strigelius upon Acts the 8th.

(as saying that to bee baptized in the name of Jesus is to bee baptized in acknowledging and confessing the name of Jesus)

I have not, and therefore cannot examine the same: Albeit this sano sensu hinders not us; in that when parents offer their children to baptisme, the name of the Lord Je∣sus is confessed and acknowledged.

The next testimony is of Luther, Proposition 1. whereupon Gen. 48. hee is said to affirme —

before wee receive the Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lords Supper, wee must have faith;

and in another place as quoting Heb. 2. 4. Rom. 1. 17. Heb. 10. 38. Mark 16. 28. Act. 8. 36. and Rom. 10. 10. to prove that

faith is required to baptisme, and that without faith the Sacra∣ments profit not, but hurt rather the receivers:

and Propositi∣on 3. hee is quoted againe in his book of the Civill Magistrates as speaking like words, and saying,

wherefore wee hold our selves to the words of Christ, He that beleeves and is baptized: So that before or else even then present when baptisme is admini∣stred, there must needs bee faith, or else there is contempt of the Divine majesty, who offers present grace, when as there's none receive it.

And Proposition 5. Luther upon giving and recei∣ving the Sacrament, Tom. 3. is said to write,

that in times past it was thus, that the Sacrament was administred to none, ex∣cept it were to those which acknowledged and confessed their

faith and knew how to receive the same, &c.

and Proposition 7. in his booke of Anabaptisme, hee is said to acknowledge, that

it cannot bee proved by Scripture that childrens baptisme was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles, for a 1000. yeares since it came to bee in use in the Church, and was established by Pope Innocentius.

This place also doth A. R. quote in his second part of childish baptisme, pag. 8. And Proposition 8. Luther is againe quoted as speaking thus in his Postils.

Young children heare not, nor understand the Word of God, out of which faith commeth, and therefore if so be that commandment of Christ bee followed, children ought not to bee baptized.

Now as for these testimonies of Luther, I not having nor being able to procure neare hand the sight of all his Tomes, I shall not bee so able to discover the leger∣demaine which I verily suspect in citing his testimonies as well as those of some others. Yet Luthers meaning in the words menti∣oned Proposition 1. may well bee expounded by that mentioned Proposition 3. and so according to his judgement rather establish∣ing Paedobaptisme then weakning it; for hee holdeth that God at present, when they are baptized, worketh faith in them, and therefore the rather such are to bee baptized. Luther in his 4th. Tome expounding that Hos. 12. 3.

Hee tooke his brother by the heele in the wombe — scil. by a secret instinct and moving of the Spirit, as John also by the same moved in the wombe upon Christs approach, of which hee giveth this reason, because God is not onely the God of growne ones, but even of such babes. And what wonder is it, saith hee, that the Spirit is effi∣cacious in Infants in a way we understand not, as having also flesh and bones in the wombe as wee have, but yet not nourished as wee are? And therefore that tenent of Anabaptists is impi∣ous and odious, who therefore deny baptisme to Infants be∣cause they want sense and understanding, nor doe they know what is done about them. To us they understand not, by us they are judged to want sense and understanding, but it's not so to God whose worke they are: for God as hee nourisheth them otherwise then hee doth us, so doth hee otherwise move their hearts, &c.

Another answer of his see in his second Tome, lib. de captiv. Babyl. title of baptisme. Hee saith (having spoken before of faith as requisite to the application of the promise)

opponetur for∣san iis, &c. It may bee to the things before spoken, the bap∣tisme

of Infants will bee opposed, which receive the promise and yet cannot have the faith of baptisme, and therefore either faith is not required, or Infants baptisme is null. Here (saith hee) I say that which all say, that Infants are helped by the faith of others, even of them which offer them. For as the Word of God is forcible whilst uttered to change the heart of a wicked man, which is not lesse deafe and uncapable then any little one; so by the Prayer of the Church offering and belee∣ving, even a little one having faith infused is changed, cleansed, and renewed by him to whom all things are possible.

For con∣formation whereof hee brings that example, Marke 2. 3, 4, 5. And in his 7th. Tome in his Homily of baptisme, hee reckons that

erroneous interpretation of Marke 16. 16. is the ground of that dispute against Paedobaptisme; because if baptized, say some, when an Infant and not beleeving, then not rightly baptized, and so that baptisme is nothing

— to which saith Luther —

this is nothing else then if it should bee said, if thou beleevest not when thou partakest of the Word or Sacrament it is nothing. And so they onely that truely beleeve are truely baptized, and others baptized which doe not beleeve, they are againe to bee baptized when they doe beleeve,

(scil. albeit growne ones, when baptized if then hypocrites.) As for Luthers other two speeches mentioned Proposition 7. and 8. I somewhat wonder if hee should utter them as here expressed, that in that booke stiled Lutheri Anti∣lutherana opera fratris Joan. Apobolymaei alias Findeling Minoritae, they are not mentioned; the scope of the booke being to gather up all Luthers (seeming) contradictions. And hee instanceth in the other de captiv. Babyl. before mentioned; it's strange that hee misseth those if thus written, since it's evident both by that expression in Luthers greater Catechisme, Tom. 3. when hee saith,

After the same manner doe wee when wee give baptisme to little ones. Wee bring the child to the Minister of the Church with this mind and hope that verily it may beleeve. But wee doe not bap∣tize it for those things, but rather because God hath command••d us so to doe.

So in that famous story of the concord betweene Luther and the Divines which followed him, and the Divines of upper Germany at a meeting at Wittinberg, Anno 1536. according to a certaine forme of Articles of agreement together with the expli∣cation thereof annexed by Martin Bucer, and after the agreement subscribed, about the presence of the body of Christ in the Lords

Supper: the next Article to bee so composed and explained to all their content was that about baptisme. The Article was this:

touching baptisme of Infants, all without any doubting agree, that it's necessary that Infants should bee baptized, for since the promise of salvation doth also belong to Infants, and it pertai∣neth not to those which are without the Church, it is therefore necessary that it should bee applied by the Ministery, and to conjoyne them to the members of the Church.

The explica∣tion of the Article annexed.

This is to bee understood of a ne∣cessitie in respect of Ministery and by command of God, and not of necessitie in respect of salvation, &c.

unto which as to the rest subscribed Martinus Lutherus, Doctor Witebergensis, Johannes Bugenhagius Pomeranus, Doctor Philippus Melancton, Justus Menius Isenacensis, &c. And on the other side M. Martinus Bucerus Mini∣ster Ecclesiae Argentinensis, Wolsangus Musculus ecclesiae Augustanae Mi∣nister in verbo, and divers others. I have set downe this story the fuller as it's mentioned amongst Bucers workes in that I shall have frequent occasion to referre to it.* 1.3

But to returne to Luther, hee is one that holdeth baptisme not simply necessary to salvation, as that without which one cannot bee saved, (as is further expressed in the explication of that Article) but as necessary unto Infants by vertue of divine precept. Surely if hee had no scruple in this point, as it's said all agreed herein without doubting, &c. he never imagined that which the Authors of this Treatise would make him to affirme, that baptisme of In∣fants came in foure or five hundred yeers after Christs time as an institution of Popes or councells.

I might have mentioned that passage of Luthers (to the former two testimonies touching faith required to baptisme) which hee hath in his Preface to his Commentary upon the Galatians.

Ana∣baptists (saith hee) teach that baptisme is nothing except the persons beleeve, out of which principle it will follow that all the workes of God are nothing, if the man bee nothing, for baptisme is the worke of God, &c.

But this is certaine that Lu∣ther taking the Doctrine of baptisme of Infants as unquestiona∣ble rather argueth thence to prove that Infants have faith (which was a tenet of his owne) then that faith is required in them to their baptisme. Thus Infants unlesse that they have faith it will bee said they are not to bee baptized, but all grant that Infants are to bee baptized, therefore Infants have faith.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Gerhardi loc. com. loc. de baptismo.
• * 1.2

  See Bullin∣gers Com∣mentary on 1 Cor. 17.
• * 1.3

  Bucers ope∣ra Anglica∣na.