great relief and comfort to them when they shall see great multitudes farre more vnfortunate and in more miserable case then themselues Because they shall see others for their owne proper action grieuously tormented by the torment of hell fire and with all the know themselues freed from it because they neuer had anie proper vse of action in themselues wherby actuallie they could offend Wherfore we maie conclud their griefe and sorrow to be but remisse and small although they are depriued of the sight of God and wante of some kind of beatitude and blessednes because they had but an vnperfect knowledge therof and no meanes to obtaine it S. Thomas his opinion is Tho. de malo q. 5. a. 3. although Children vnbaptized be in hell and suffer Poenam damni punishment of damnation Yet for all that they shall take no serrow nor grief at all neither externall nor internall because saieth he they haue no perfect knowledg that they are frustrate of their beatitude and vnderstand full well that they neuer had anie naturall meanes to obtaine it For what man but a foole would grieue and sorrow that he were not a king or Angell when he knoweth there is no means for him to become a King or Angell And S. Bonauenture sayeth Bon. 2. Sent. dist 33. That so it cometh to passe that the consideration of the lose of the kingdome of heauen is in such manner tempered with the escape of the paines of sense and the euasion of the torments of hell that all grief and sorrowe is auoyded So that we may conclud that children although damned in hell yet they haue no excessiue griefe in respect of their depriuation of the fruition or sight of almigtie God Obiect You may obiect that it is a common Maxime and saying amongst Diuines that Dolor amissa beatitudinis grauissimus est The griefe of the losse of beatitude and the blessed vision of God is the greatest and most grieuous torment that is in hell But children haue lost beaâ—itude and the blessed visioÌ„ of God therfore their grief must be great I answere Sol. that the Proposition and saying of the Diuines is most true that the losse of beatitude and the blessed sight of God is the greatest grief and torment that can be But this Proposition must be vnderstood as proper onlie to the elder sort of men and women who are damned by their owne fact and not as appertaining to Infants who haue no fact of their owne but are punished for an others In verie deed it can not but be an excessiue griefe in the elder sort of the damned because t they lost heauen and blessednes by their owne proper actuall offence and sinne And therfore haue with all conioyned to their damnation the perpetuall torments of hell without intermission and their grief the greater by reason they had by faith a confident hoppe to haue obtained that which they haue lost Wherfore we conclud that Infants and children damned may haue some small grief but no excessiue sorrow for their losse of beatitude and depriuation of the sight of almightie God CAP. 10. VVhether the Infant in the mothers wombe may be Baptized SAint Augustine solueth this question and sayeth Aug. ep 57. ad Dard. that the Infant in the mothers wombe can not be Baptized and yeeldeth the reason Quia nemo renascitur nisi primò nascatur No man is said to be borne againe vnlesse he be â—â—rst borne carnallie Also to the same effect speaâ—eth Isidorus Isidor li. 10. sent de summo bono c. 24. Tho. 3. p. q. 68. art 11. Qui adhuc natus non est secundum Adam non potest per Christum renasci He that 〈◊〉 yet is not borne according to Adam can not be borne againe by Christ And S. Thomas proueth it by an other reason It is of necessitie and the essence of Baptisme that the bodie of the Infant be dipped in water or haue some water layed vpon it But the bodie of the Infant can not haâ—e wather in the wombe of the mother before it be Borne Therfore it cannot be Baptized before it be borne CAP. 11. VVhether if some parte of the Child appeare although the whole bodie be not borne it may be Baptized THe difficultie of this question ariseth because the child may be sayed to be borne totallie whollie and perfectlie also to be borne in parte that is when the hand foote or head appeareth out of the wombe of the mother as happened to Thamar when she brought forth Phares and Zaram GeÌ„ 38. for Zarams hand first appeared The question is when it so happeneth that parte of the child appeare out of the wombe of the mother that then according to that parte the child may be Baptized The opinion of some learned Casuists is That it were conuenient and good to expect the whole and perfect birth of the child But if it be imminent danger of death and the principall parte appeare as the head and no hope of totall birth for the hand and foote there is more difficultie then the child may and ought to be baptized If thou desire to be better informed concerning this case read Siluester a learned Casuist In Summa verbo Baptismus § 4. nu 2. And S. Thomas 3. p. q. 88. ar 11. ad 4. CAP. 12. VVhether if the mother being greate with child being Baptized the child also in her wombe bâ— also Baptized THe case is if a Iewish or Turkish woman being conuerted to Christianitie and being great with child desire to be Baptized whether the Infant in her wombe at the same tyme and by the same action be also Baptized For if one parte of the bodie be Baptized all the members of the same bodie be also Baptized But the Infant in the mothers wombe is a member of her bodie Therfore it is also Baptized with the Baptisme of the mother Tho. 3. p. q. 68. ar 11. S. Thomas resolueth this doubt and sayeth That the Infant is not Baptized by the Baptisme of the mother because properlie the child is not a member of the bodie of the mother but hath a distinct bodie and soule from hers onlie vntill it be borne it is knitte and tyed to the bodie of the mother but this doth not make it a member of her bodie There was one Iulianus an Heretike who liued in S. Augustines tyme and he was of opinion that the Infant was parte of the mother and therfore Baptized in the mothers wombe by the mothers Baptisme Against whom S. Augustine wrote manie books Habetur dâ— CoÌ„sec dist 4. C. si ad matris Read him in his sixth booke and fifth Chapter against Iulian the Heretike CAP. 13. VVhether if the mother should be martired the Infant in her wombe were also a martyr I Thinke in this case the Infant should be Baptized in his owne bloud and so consequentlie a martyr with his mother The Infants who dyed for Christ after his birth the Church
not necessarie to Rebaptise them againe or else they must needs confesse that they had the Sacrament sufficiētlie and auaylable being administred by Lay-men although there were mortall sinne committed in the administration because some essentiall parte was nor performed And thus they cast them selues into manie incumbrances and inconueniēces which might be auoyded by admitting priuate Baptisme by a Lay-man in case of necessitie conforme to the Traditions of the Apostles the practise of the Church and consent of Fathers CAP. 6. VVhethe the midwife or any other woman may in case of necessitie Baptize CAluin detesteth the midwife Caluin Cont. VVest pa. 157. 128. and contendeth that it were better that the Infant should die without Baptisme then to giue power or allow a woman to Baptize let the necessitie be neuer so great And our Puritans at home following M. Caluin are verie peeuish froward and obstinate in this poynt For they will by no meanes grant that the midwife or any other woman may lawfullie in case of necessitie what soeuer Baptize This hath bene a great Controuersie betweene the Puritans and the Protestants but the Protestants haue in some sorte yeelded for they haue reformed their Communion-booke Booke of Com. Pray Baptis and that libertie which was before for midwifes is blotted out taken away And by the way we may note that the Puritans in this poynt disagree and depart from their first Euangelist martin Luther and the Protestants in thus yeelding from them selues Also the Puritan partie in their letters to their friends at Oxford write that King Iames the first day of their Conference In the end of the booke of Cōfer was so earnest against Priuat Baptisme of women that he should say That he had as liefe liked as well that an Ape as a woman should Baptize But of my Conscience I thinke they misreport his maiestie Let vs but consider that the principall Agent in Baptisme is Christ and that he onlie as the principall cause doeth worke the effect therof and that man is but the Instrumentall cause and minister onlie of Christs If then in the absence of the Priest who was by Christ appoynted as the ordinarie minister of this Sacrament the Lay man in case of necessitie may lawfullie supplie his roome and Baptize as I haue proued before why may not also in the like case of necessitie the woman supplie the place of the man in his absence Cap. 3. The difference of the sexe in this case of necessitie whether it be male or female is nothing But because the man is the head of the woman 1. Cor. 11. and Christ the head of the man the woman ought not to Baptize in the presence of the man nor the Lay-man in presence of the Priest Christs minister And for that it is not conuenient nor decent that men should be present at the birth of Children the Church hath commaunded that the midwife vpon payne of sinne learne distinctlie the forme of Baptisme because she hath speciall licence and commission in danger of death to minister this Sacrament It is true that the fourth councell of Carthage doth forbid women to Baptize that is Concil Carth. cā 99. 200. publikelie or with solemnitie or in the presence of men or not in case of necessitie and so all Canonists vnderstand Also it is thus at this day obserued commaunded and onlie permitted that women priuatlie in case of necessitie and when it is not fitte men to be present to Baptize For Confirmation that women may Baptize we haue an example in Scripture of Sephora Moyses wife Exo. 4. she circumcised her sonne in case of necessitie and although Moyses was present yet he was sore sicke vexed with an angell threatned death that he could not performe it himself For no doubt although he had delayed it at that tyme if he could he would haue donne it himself and therfore signified to his wife that she should doe it which when it was done Moyses was deliuered from that sicknesse or vexation of the angell But Circumcisiō was a figure of Baptisme Therfore as in circumcision so also in Baptisme in case of necessitie as Sephora did the one why may not the midwife doe the other It is a world and wonder to consider that these kind of men can approue and allow a woman to be head of the Church and not permitte in case of necessitie a woman to Baptize Wheras otherwayes for want of this Sacrament the Infant were in danger to perish eternallie as hath bene proued Obiect But against this fact of women Baptizers they alleadge these places of S. Paule That women should hold their peace in the Church 1. Cor. 14. 1. Tim. cap. 12. And that he would not permitte them to teach but be Silent Therfore say they they ought not to Baptize nor to minister anie Sacrament True it is in deed and they may wnderstand if they will Sol. that S. Paule doth forbidd women publiklie to preach or teach in Churches or publike assemblies for that it is the proper function office committed by Christ onlie to Bishops and Priests yet I thinke they will not denie nor no man can mislike but women may lawfullie admonish instructe and teach priuatlie both women and men and children and olso deliuer their mind concerning matters of fayth doctrine good life and pietie And this is confirmed when Priscilla and Aquila tooke priuatlie Apollo the eloquent Iewe Act. 18. who preached and taught Iesus but not sufficientlie grounded and they women instructed him expounded vnto him diligentlie the way of our Lord. Wherfore we doubt not but that a woman may lawfullie in extreamitie in danger of eternall saluation of the poore Infant priuatlie Breden li. 1. c. 51. Coll. sacra Baptize and minister this Sacrament And for farther confirmation hereof you may read a miracle related by Bredenbacius In the yeare of our Lorde 1579. it happened in Amsterdame that a Catholike woman being married vnto a Caluinist and deliuered of a child she caused the Infant priuatlie to be Baptized by a Catholike woman of her own profession in Religion because she would be sure her child should be trulie Baptized So it fell out that the husband being hotte and earnest on the contrarie caused the child to be brought to a publike preachind where after the sermon the minister being readie in the assemblie of people to Baptize the Infant sodenly he became dumbe not able to speake one word Wherat the Father being astonished tooke his child in his armes came home to his wife charged her to tell him the truth whether she had not caused the child before to be Baptized Catholiklie according to her professiō She cōfessing the truth sayed that it was soe Whervpō he with the rest of his familie seing the worke of God were conuerted frō their heresie became Catholikes were reconciled vnto the Church so liued died This question was moued
Heretikes obseruing the forme of the Church be auaylable also that their ought not to be Rebaptization Yet notwithstanding this can not be no warrant for Catholikes or Schismatikes to sent their children to be Baptized of Heretikes or to communicat with them in this Sacrament or to permit them to be by them Baptized For no penall statute or Commaundement to the contrarie can free them from the Censure of Communicating with Heretikes in Sacraments and Diuine thinges Besides no man knoweth how farre he may endanger the soule of the Infant therby considering that some of them maintayne this dangerous opinion That baptisme is not necessarie to Saluation And so growe carelesse whether they Baptize or not Now concerning the Pagan and Iewe who neuer were themselues Baptized whether they could giue an other that they neuer had themselues Nichol. de cons dist 4. can a quodā Iudaeo It was decreed by Pope Nicholas at the consultation and petition of the Bulgars what was to be done with those who were Baptized by Pagan or Iewe his resolution was that if they were Baptized in the name of the Holie Trinitie whether by Iewe or Pagan they were not to be Rebaptized againe Wherfore I will put the case If two Iewes or Pagans were togeather where no Christians were being in danger of death and both desirous of Baptisme Concil Floren. can de ministris Baptismi◠if in that case the one should Baptize the other no doubt they both should be saued and their Baptisme auaylable Wherfore I conclude with the Councell of Florence Minister huius Sacramenti c. That the Minister of this Sacrament is the Priest to whom by office and function it appertaineth to Baptize but in case of necessitie not only the Priest or Deacon but also the Lay-man and woman yea also the Iewe Pagan and Heretike may Baptise so that they obserue the forme of the Church and intend to doe that the Church doth CAP. 8. VVhether Catholike Parents or others may send or permitte their Children to he Baptized of Hereticall or Schismaticall Ministers without grieuous mortall sinne ALthough the Baptisme of Heretikes as I haue proued in the precedent Chapter be auailable and that those children who are Baptised by them are not to be Rebaptized againe yet you must vnderstand this not be lawfull but in case of necessitie Now the question is whether it be a grieuous mortall sinne for Parents to send their children to be Baptized of Hereticall or Schismaticall ministers I thinke no man can iustlie make any doubt therof My reasons are First if it be a grieuous mortall sinne for any man to participate or communicate In Diuinis In Diuine seruice or Sacramēts with Heretikes or Schismatikes as generallie all agree it is but they who send their children to be Baptized of or by Schismatikes doe communicate in Sacraments with them Ergo it is a grieuous mortall sinne to send their Children to be Baptized of such kind of persons The Parent can not excuse himself saying that he doth not communicate but the child for the Infant is capable of no such action more then is imposed or layed vpon him Therfore the acte of communicating is the Parents and not the Childs And if it be a heauier offence to God to communicate in Sacraments then to be present at their seruice then I may lawfully conclude that they haue more to answere for before God in sending their Children to Church to be Baptized then in being there present them selues The second reason may be for that they expose their child to greate danger of Irregularitie if he be a boy For if he were Baptized at home either by the midwife or otherwayes be rebaptized againe he is irregular that is not capable of Holy Orders De Cōse dist 4. Can. qui bis Sciēter The Constitutions and Canons of the Church are that Rebaptizans Rebaptizatus The Rebaptizer and the Rebaptized are both Irregular But the Canonists doe interpret the lawe if they doe it willinglie and witinglie But you will say some of the ministerie if they be told the Child is Baptized will not absolutlie Rebaptize but Conditionallie If thou be not Baptized I Baptise thee And so they auoyd Irregularitie in them selues and the Child Yet they can not be excused from sinne in this their doing because they ought not to doubt of the Baptisme and thervpon take occasion to Rebaptize againe but vpon probable cause which in this case is not The third reason Siluester a learned Casuist affirmeth Siluest verbo Baptis cap. 3. num 7. That it is a mortall sinne for any man to require Baptisme at the hands of him whom he knoweth probablie to be either an Heretike Schismatike Excommunicate or suspended person vnlesse it be in extreame necessitie For in such a case as hath bene sayed I may require it at the hands of an Heretike Iewe or Pagan But you will say The lawe vrgeth and compelleth vpon forfeiture of an hundred pounds I answere Iniqua iniusta est lex Wicked and vniust is that Lawe that vrgeth and compelleth a man against his Conscience to committe a mortall sinne and consequentlie no lawe Therefore not to be obeyed Read the Constitutions of Pope Felix the Third in his first Epistle and second Chapter Felix de Cōse dist 4. can Eos quos And the Glosse hath Magis mors est eligenda quà m consentire rebaptizari That one ought rather to suffer death then to consent to Rebaptization For a Caueat to Catholike Parents for sending their Children to Church to be Baptized of Protestant or Puritan I haue thougt good to relate what happened here in England in the Countie of Glocester about the yeare of our Lord 1583. as was reported vnto me by an ancient graue man worthie of credite who came immediatlie after the fact was done So it was that a Catholike gentlewoman being brought to bed of a Sonne a Protestant Ladie their neighbour Cas cas being verie desirous to be Gossippe to the Child the parents refusing to haue it Catholiklie christned at home for satisfiyng the Ladies request were content it should be carried to the Church to be Baptized of a Protestant Minister But what happened Presentlie as the Minister layed water vpon the Child it fell a crying vehementlie and could in no case be stilled but continued crying all that day and night following euen so long as it had strength and was able to crie and so dyed A worthie punishment no doubt for the parents fault Also I haue read of a child in Flanders who being brought by the Father vnto a preaching Minister to be Baptized the Infant suddenlie appeared as dead but being returned backe vnto the mother being a Catholike the child miraculouslie reuiued againe Bredē li. 7. coll Sacra ca. 50. Bredenbachius relateth the historie from D. Walter Canon at Antwerpe as an eye-witnesse A Catholike woman being married vnto a Caluinist brought forth a child whom
the Father secretlie his wife being a sleepe tooke away and brought him vnto a preaching minister to be Baptized who being readie to Baptise in the presence of the assemblie perceyued the child to be dead Whervpō presentlie he did expostulate and reason with the Father what he meant to delude and mocke him and to bring a dead child to be Baptized The father being stroken in a maze with this vnlooked for mischance returned home and layd againe the dead Infant by the mothers side And so secreetlie departing from the chamber a litle after returning called vpon his wife and asked how she and the Infant did She being ignorant what was done answered all was well and turning her self with pleasing countenance offered the child aliue and in good liking to the Father He being astonished with this miracle reiected his Caluinian errours and heresies embraced the Catholike faith became one of his wifes profession and caused the Infant to be Baptised Catholiquelie And for the Minister that he be not too hastie to Rebaptize the Child alreadie Baptized by a Catholike midwife let him read what happened at Amsterdame in the yeare of our Lord 1579. as testifieth Bredenbacius Bredē li. 7. coll Sacra c. 51. So it was a Catholike woman being married vnto a Caluinist and deliuered of a Child she caused the Infant priuatly to be Baptized by a Lay Catholike woman because she would be sure of Baptisme The Father tooke the Child according to Caluins rule brought it to the preaching to be Baptized by the Minister So it fell out that the minister being readie to baptise in the assemblie of all the people suddenlie he became dumbe not able to speake one word Wherat the Father being astonished tooke his child in his armes and came home vnto his wife charging her to tell him the truth whether the Infant had not bene Baptized before according to the Catholike order Which shee confessed to be true Wherupon he with the rest of his familie were cōuerted reconciled to the Church and became Catholikes CAP. 9. VVhether one may Baptise many at one tyme. I Say one may vnder this forme saying Ego Baptizo vos I Baptize yee which is as much to say I Baptize thee and thee determining euerie person But you must vnderstand that this must be onlie in case of necessitie as in danger of death or some extraordinarie cause otherwayes it is not to be done For this Sacrament bing of such necessitie that without it no saluation it must and ought carefullie and respectiuelie to be ministred Therfore it is more secure and better that it be seuerallie done and acted that the water and the word may goe togeater and the intention of the Baptizer may particulerly be applied to euerie partie who is to be Baptized Act. 2. There were three thousand Baptized vpon one day by the Apostles but the Scriptures doe not expresse in what manner they were Baptized It may be they had helpe of others of the Disciples but verie probable they Baptized many at once Wherfore I may conclude that in case of necessitie or vppon some extraordinarie cause one may Baptize many at once otherwise it must and ought to be done seuerally and distinctlie that is one by one CAP. 10. VVhether many at one tyme may togeather Baptize one Child Tho. 3. p. q. 67. art 6. SAint Thomas is of opinion that manie can not well concurre togeather to the Baptizing of one For when there are multiplicite of Ministers there may be many Baptismes which were dangerous For if the one should be before the other then the first did Baptize and the other Rebaptize which were a great fault Also S. Paule sayeth Eph. 4. There is one God one faith one Christ and one Baptisme So it were fitte there should be but one Minister to Baptize one partie CAP. 11. VVhether one may Baptise himself THe generall opinion is that one can not Baptize himself no not in danger of death or what other necessitie soeuer For better vnderstanding I will propose the case For example A Iew or a Pagan hauing heard or read of Baptisme or liued sometyme amongst the Christians and being desirous of Christianitie lying at the poynt of death amongst his owne neere no Christian and so consequentlie haueing no meanes to get any other man to Baptize him taketh water putting himself therin saying I Baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost The question is whether in this case he be Baptized and receaue the Sacrament of Baptisme The resolution is that he is not Baptised nor can of himself receaue the Sacrement of Baptisme The reason is for that Baptisme is a spirituall birth or regeneration but no man can be generated or borne of himself but necessarilie of an other so no man can be Baptized of himself but of necessitie must be Baptized of an other Also it is gathered out of Christs owne words that the Baptizer must be a different person from the Baptized For he sayed to his Apostles Goe yee and Baptize all nations And to signifie thus much we may also thinke that Christ would not Baptize himself but be Baptized of Iohn If you doe aske me what I thinke of this Iewe or Pagan in this case whether he should be saued or not I answere with Pope Innocentius the Third that he could not be saued by the Sacrament of Baptisme for that he had it not but no doubt he might be saued by the fayth vowe and desire of baptisme and the zeale feruour and loue to Christ and so he might haue it supplied by Christ in will and affection Read Innocentius libro 4. decretalium tit 42. de Baptismo eius effectu CAP. 12. VVhether the intention of the Minister be necessarie that the Sacrament take effecte ALL Diuines agree it is decreed in two generall Councells of Florēce and Trent and deduced expresslie out of Scripture that to the substance of Baptisme as necessarie are three thinges that is water as the matter the words as the forme and a minister to doe it and effect it For the two first I haue sufficiently proued before in my second booke that they are the two essentiall partes of Baptizme now that the minister must of necessitie haue intention to doe this acte I will briefly shewe When Christ instituted this Sacrament and gaue the forme he sayed to his Apostles Goe yee Baptizing no man can thinke Mat. 28. but that Christ meant that they should intend what he had instituted Secondlie if a man should take water say the words and cast it and powre it vpon an other and haue no intention to Baptize it were no Sacrament no Baptisme because there was no intention to doe the acte of Baptisme As also if a player vpon a stage should but shew the acte of Baptisme no man would say he Baptized And why There was water the word the minister and all other things
argument The Church doth vse that most ancient Cerâ—monie in Baptisme Aug. li. 1. de pe mâ—ritis ca. 34. l 6. in Iulian c. 2. that is by exorcismes Insufflations to expell the Deuill euen from Infants and children before theâ— be Baptized which she would not vse but that therby she intendeth to instructe teach that eueÌ„ childreÌ„ by Originall sinne were subiect to the power of SathaÌ„ The Meleuitane councell vnder S. Innocentius the First of that name hath decreed Anathematized those Quicunque paruulos recentes ab vteris matrum Baptizandos negat aut dicit eos in remissionem peccatorum Baptizari sed nihil ex Adamo trahere originalis pâ—ccati quod lauacro regenerationis expietur Anathema sit VVhosoeuer dothe denie that children newly borne are not to be Baptized or doeth affirme that children are to be Baptized vnto remissioÌ„ of sinne but so that they coÌ„tracte from AdaÌ„ nothing of originall sinne which is to be purged cleansed by the lauer of regeneration let him be accursed Wherfore to conclude it is necessarie that Infants and Children be Baptized for remission of Originall sinne CAP. 3. VVhether Originall sinne doth appertaine or be to be imputed to Childâ—eÌ„ borne of ChristiaÌ„ PareÌ„ts I Haue in generall proued in the precedent chapters that all men borne of man and woman since Adam except Christ and the B. virgin are conceaued and borne in Originall sinne and therby constituted and made sinners also that it is of necessitie that Children and Infants be Baptized in remission of this sinne and for the cleansing and taking away therof Now the question is in particular whether to be borne of Christian parents be a sufficient meanes to remoue Originall sinne from their children that it may not appertaine or be imputed vnto them I moue this question not that Christian people shoulde make any doubt of the valâ—â— vertue and force of Baptisme instituted by Christ vnto remission of sinne as the ordinarie meanes for Originall sinne in children and Infants but to decypher the dangerous doctrine of Caluin Caluin li. 4. Inst c. 16. §. 24. Antid ad can 5 sess 6. who dares not auouch with the Pelagian Heretikes condemned by the Church of God aboue some twelue or thirteene ages past that Children borne of Christian Parents doe not by birth and conception contract Originall sinne Yet notwithstanding hath this newe Ghospeller found out this new deuise that this sinne shall not be imputed nor layd to the charge of children borne of Christian Parents but couered and hidden in the sight of God And what is his intent hereby Surely no other then Iudaizare to play the Iewe to debilitate and weaken the vertue power and strength of the Sacrament and to take away the necessitie therof for the saluation of Infants and Children and withall to make Christian men carelesse of Christianitie in their children and posteritie If I should demaund of anie in different man whether it were not better and a more safer way to haue Originall sinne cleane washed by Baptisme vtterlie abolished and taken away by the Holy Ghost working in and by that Sacrament and so to haue the wound and sore perfectlie cured then to haue the sinne remaine although not imputed but couered not perfectlie cured but plastered I thinke this would be a sufficient argument to confute this errour to make meÌ„ beware to endaÌ„ger their childreÌ„s saluation vpon this slipperie doctrine For what warrant hath Caluin or any of his Complices or partakers our Contreimen out of Scripture That children borne of Christian Parents shall not haue Originall sinne imputed vnto them But sure I am that we haue the testimonie of Christ and his Apostles that Baptisme doth open the gate to heauen â—nd regenerate and cause vs to be borne a new to Christ Ioa. 3. Eph. 5. And that it is a washing and cleansing of our soules in the word of life And that we therby die to sinne that we may walke in newnesse of life RoÌ„ 5. Therfore let all Christian Parents of our countrey with all their Predecessours and the whole Christian world round about them seeke the saluation of their children by the Sacrament of Baptisme and not trust vnto the new deuise of Caluins not imputation least they be guiltie of their Childrens damnation But for further confutation I will alleadge two or three examples out of Scripture that to be borne of faith full parents is not a sufficieÌ„t meanes to free them from contracting Originall sinne or being contracted therfore not to haue it imputed Dauid was the sonne and child of faithfull parents and true beleeuers in God as also of the seed of Abraham yet he confesseth That his mother conceaued him in sinne Psal 50 But where can it be found in Scripture that his Parents was the cause that this sinne should not be imputed and not rather Circumcision to be the true cause which was a figure of Baâ—tisme And S. Paule when he was borne his Parents were of the faithfull true beleeuers yet sayed he that he as well as the rest was by nature the child of wrath But how became he the child of God and to be cleared of all sinne By his Parents in that they were true beleeuers No. The Scripture telleth vs no such thing but rather by the Sacrament of Bâ—ptisme Act. 22. For Ananias bidde him arise and be Babtized and so to wâ—sh away his sinnes And the same Apostle proueth the Iewes to be reprobate although they came of Abrahams flesh And that to be the sonne of God goeth not by birth but by the grace of God For example Esau twinne to Iacob was borne of Isaac the Father RoÌ„ 9. and Rebecca the mother faithfull Parents and immediatlie from Abraham yet Esau was a reprobate sayeth S. Paule from his birth Wherfore we may conclude that it is not the parents that freeth their children from Originall sinne let them be true beleeuers and faithfull before Christ or now Christians after Christ Cyp 11. 3. Epist ep 8. de InfaÌ„t BaptizaÌ„dis Therfore S. Cyprian writing to fidus the Priest concerning Baptizing of Infants before the eight day willeth that no man be hindred froÌ„ Baptisme the grace of God but especiallie children and Infants newly borne taken euen from their mothers wombe For although they haue no actuall sinne yet because they are borne carnallie according to Adam they must needs contract Originall sinne Worthely then we may conclude with S. Augustine Quicunque dixerit c. Aug. ep 28 non loÌ„ge a fine VVhosoeuer shall say that children â—lso shall liue in Christ who departe this life without participation of the Sâ—crament of Baptisme by him instituted in verie deed that man doeth oppose himselfe against the open Apostolicall declaration and condemneth the whole Church seing that for that cause she doth hasten the Baptizing of câ—ildren because without doubt it is beleeued that no other way at all they can
after he instituted Circumcision and threatened all those who had it not that they should perish but CircumcisioÌ„ was a figure of Baptisme Therfore although we be partakers of the benediction yet we must be Baptized or els we perish eternallie Secondlie this promise and benediction is to be vnderstood either carnally or spiritually If carnallie then it belongeth only to the Iewes who where of the seed and flesh of Abraham and the carnall children of him If spirituallie then they onlie are partakers who Rom. 9. as S. Paule sayeth Doe imitate the faith workes of Ahraham For so are they made the Children of Abraham But the Children of the faithfull doe no way imitate Abrahams faith or workes vntill they be Baptized and receaue the Sacrament of faith wherby they are in deed Verè fideles and become trulie faithfull For as we haue proued before the ChildreÌ„ caÌ„ not haue faith but by Baptisme For actuall faith they are not capable of and habituall faith they haue infused in them only by Baptisme Therfore that they be the children of Abraham it is necessarie they be Baptized to receaue faith Thirdlie this absurditie would follow that children should not contract Originall sinne which were to reuiue the Pelagian heresie For if children be iustified by this that they are of the seed of Abraham yf you vnderstand it according to the flesh there is no doubt but in the first instance of their conception they are of Abrahams seed and so consequentlie iustified Therfore not borne in Originall sinne Wherfore we must needes conclude that this place of Scripture no way can proue M. Caluins opinion The second obiection is out of S. Paule Ob. 1. Cor. 7. where he sayeth That the vnbeleeuing man is sanctified by the faithfull woman and that the Children of them are cleane and holy Therfore the children may be borne sanctified by the Fathers faith To this I answere Sol. that no man will thinke if a Turke should marrie a Christian woman and be content to liue with her and let her vse her conscience that the Turke therby should be sanctified and made lust Or if a ProtestaÌ„t marrie with a Catholike womaÌ„ be coÌ„tent to liue with her let her vse her coÌ„science that therfore the Protestant becomes a Papist But it may verie well be thought that by the prayer of the wife by her perswasion by her good example of life the Turke may become a Christian the Protestant a Catholike but the one must be Baptized and the other reconciled or els the faith of the woman will not suffice So I say the faith of the Parents without the Sacraments of Baptisme can not cleanse or wash the soule of the Infant from Originall sinne contracted But this benefit the Child may haue being borne of Christian Parents that they will and are bound to haue care and seeke the onlie remedie for the soule of their Children which is Baptisme Therfore Saint Augustine sayeth Aug. li. 3. de anima c. 9. Si vis esse Catholicus noli dicere noli docere noli credere Infantes c. If thou wilt be a Catholike doe not say doe not teach doenot beleeue that Infants dying before the come to Baptisme can obtaine indulgence pardon or remission of originall sinne Secondly I answere that the Pelagians vrged this place of Saint Paule against Saint Augustine to proue that Children borne of faithfull Parents did not contract Originall sinne and so consequentlie were not to be Baptized to take away Originall sinne And Caluin vrgeth the same place not daring plainly to say that Infants doe not contract from their Parents Originall sinne but to proue by their Fathers faith that they may be saued without Baptisme because Originall sinne shall not be imputed Therfore the same answere Saint Augustine gaue to the Pelagians I thinke may also satisfie the Caluinists Aug. li. 2. de Pect meritis ca. 26. l. 3. ca. 12. First Saint Augustine sayeth that the cleannesse sanctitie and holines that the children haue from their parents the Apostle doth not meane to be sanctitie or holines to Iustification saluation or to remission of sinnes For then it would follow that the Turke or Infidell should be saÌ„ctified by the beleeuing woman and that by the verie coniunction of matrimonie he should become Iust and saued which were against Scripture and reason Haeb. 11. because it is impossible to please God without faith Also it is manifest by Scripture that Christ hath layd an other foundation of Iustification saluation then the beleeuing woman for the husband and the faith of the Parents for the Infant and that is to be borne againe by water and the Holy Ghost and to be incorporate to Christ by Baptisme No doubt but the true sense and meaning of the Apostle was not to seperate man and wife although they were different in Religion because who knoweth whether one may be an occasion of the others Conuersion sayeth the Apostle So also the Parent may be a cause of the Saluation of the Infant in seekeing to haue the Sacrament dulie ministered And thus expoundeth S. Chrisostome vpon this place of S. Paule the Infidell man to be sanctified by the faithfull woman Chry. in hunc loc Quia spes est quod 〈◊〉 fideli pertrahatur ad fidem because there is hope that by the faithfull woman he may be drawen to true faith and beleefe And concerning the Infants of the faithfull Saint Ierome doeth interpret those words of Saint Pauâ—e Nunc Sancti id est Fidei Candidati Iero. li. 1. cont Ioui c. 5. ep ad Paulin. â—oc est deputati ad Christianam fidem Now â—hey are holy that is now they are cloaâ—hed in white endeauoring to obtaine â—aith That is as much to say Now â—hey are deputed vnto Christian faith and sanctitie esteemed and admitted as Christians because there is a great hope that by the industrie and care of the one Parent being faithfull the children may be brought to Baptisme This was S. Ieromes opinion and this I hope may satisfie anie reasonable man CAP. 7. VVhat punishment Children dying without Baptisme shall haue after this life HAuing sufficientlie proued in the precedent Chapters that Infants and Children contract Originall sinne and are by nature therby become the Children of wrath and in deeâ— constituted sinners and that the only ordinariâ— meanes to restore them to grace Innocenciâ— againe is by Christs institution the Sacramenâ— of Baptisme without which if they departe thiâ— life they can not be saued It must needes consequently follow that they shall absolutlie bâ— depriued of the Kingdome of heauen that theâ— shall neuer possesse eternall beatitude and blessednes which consisteth in the fruition anâ— sight of God they shall perpetuallie want thâ— blessed vision that is neuer to see God anâ— consequentlie they shall be no companions oâ— blessed Angells nor Saintes of Christ in heauen So that it is the generall opinion of
of the sayncts of the primatiue church by the aduise and instructiō of the auncient fathers this ceremonie to blesse our selues with the signe of the crosse and to instruct others to doe the like is not superstitious Idle or vn profitable as protestants would haue it vnlesse they will accuse the three Apostles of superstition and condemne the saynctes Doctors of the primatiue church in their practise doctrine and instructiō thervnto wherfor to conclud this ceremonie of takinge the right hand of the Infant or partie to be Baptised to deliuer and geue vnto him the signet seale or signe of our lord Iesus Christ therby to protect and defend himselfe from the aduerse part the deuil and heresie and remaine in the Catholick fayth this ceremonie I saye is ancient profitable and conforme to antiquitie the practise of the the Apostles and primatiue church What reason then haue the protestants not only to condemne contemne and blot it out of their bookes but also to forbid both younge and old to blesse them selues with the signe of the crosse sure I knowe none but one and that is to take awaye from Christean people their armor of defence that they may lye open to Satan and heresie CAP. 15. VVhether the abrenunciation of sathan and his worckes and pompes be a Ceremonie approuable HAuinge spoken of the precedent ceremonies such as are acted befor the chyld be brought to the font Now we are to entreat of such as are done and performed at the font The priest takinge the chyld by the right hand bringeth him into the church sayinge Enter thou into the temple of god that thou mayest haue eternal life and liue for euer And so beinge brought to the font the priest extendeth his hand ouer him the god father or godmother holdinge the chyld then sayeth the priest Abrenuncias sathanae Doest thou renounce satan the godfather and godmother make answere Abrenuncio I do renounce him the priest proceedeth omnibus operibus eius and all his workes I renounce them all omnibus pompis eius and all his pompes and pride I renounce them For the proofe of this ceremonie we neede not much to stand for it is manifest that it hath discended vnto vs from the Apostles by tradition and so continued in the church vntill this daye and not contradicted by the Protestants S. Clement the fyrst of that name and the thyrd pope after S. Peter in his constitutions speaketh of this ceremonie of the renunciation of sathan his workes and pompe Lib. 4. Const can 41. 42. And S. Dionisius Areopagita conuerted by S. Paule in his ecclesiasticall Hierarchie in the chapter of baptisme Tertullian and others CAP. 13. Whether multiplicitie of God Fathers and God mothers are necessarie BY the generall and ordinarie constitution and custome of the church yf the Infant be a boye on God Father is sufficient without Godmother yf it be a wench or girle on Godmother without Godfather yet accordinge to the custome of the countrie we maye admitte both De Cōsecr dist 4. Cānon plures De refor ses 24. c. 2. De eccl Hiero. c. vlt. Lib. de baptis that is a God Father and a Godmother to on child but not aboue So pope Leo decreed lett no man sayeth he come to receaue or take the Infant from the fonte and baptisme but one and that a man or a woman Accordinge to this order hath the Tridentine Counsell made a reformation agaynst multiplicitie of God Fathers and God mothers and instituted that on was sufficient or two at the most S. Dionisius calleth them susceptores that is vndertakers for them whome they receaue out of the fonte in baptisme And Tertullian calleth them sponsores for that they doe promise on the behalfe of the baptized Aug. homil 3. ad Neophit And some other call them fideiussores that is suerties for that they make themselues pleadges for the baptized CAP. 14. VVhether the God Father is to geue-the name vnto the child I Make no doubt of the question but it hath allwayes bine a lawdable costome in the church that the God Father doth impose or geue the name of the child And the ancient christeans euer called them after some of the Apostles as Peter Andrewe Iames or some other of the saynctes as Frances Edward and so forth It is a prophane custome of late crept into our countrie to name their children after their surnames as Hatton Dudley Baggot Brase Winter Talbot c. Much more prophane is it to call them after hethenish names as some haue vsed contrarie to the custome of the ancient christeans Can. 30 and the constitution of the Counsell of Nice CAP. 15. VVhat God Fathers and God mothers are bound vnto who Christen Children SAyncte Augustine exhorteth God Fathers and God mothers to remember that they are Suerties and pleadges for their spirituall children Sermo post pasc hodier dies and sayeth that they are to instruct them in good workes and aboue all thinges that they learne the Apostles Creed the Pater noster and the tenne cōmandementes and that they hold constantly the Catholike fayth and beleeue the doctrine of the church 3. p. q. 68. a. 8. S. Thomas conclusion is that euerie on is bound to execut the office they take vppon them but the God Father at the font doth take vppon him to instruct and teach the baptized ergo he is bound to haue care of their instruction more particularly when there is iust cause as yf the baptised were to liue amonge Infidles or amonge heretikes as nowe at this tyme our countrie standinge as it doth euerie God Father is bound to haue a speciall care of his spirituall children But in christean catholike countries his charge is not so great because ther is no danger in education for the parents and pastors of their churches will see the children sufficiently instructed and for this cause now there is no exception taken of the God Fathers and God mothers concerninge their sufficiencie to instruct But in the primatiue church it was not so For as Dionisius sayeth Oportet doctū esse in diuinis the God Father ought to be able to instruct in the rudiments of Christean doctrine and beleife eccles Hiera c. 7. CAP. 16. VVhether the vnction or annoyntinge of the breast and shoulders be allowable THe priest doth exequut this ceremonie in this manner he taketh hollie oyle sayinge I doe annoynt the vppon thee breast with the oyle of health And between thy shoulders in Christ Iesu our lord that thou mayest haue life eternall The reason of this ceremonie as S. Ambrose sayeth is lib. 1. de Sacramēt c. 2. because he beinge annoynted vppon the breast and showelders he is made a champion of almightie god that he maye be able to wrastel in gods cause and take courage and force agaynst the enimie And Innocentius the 3. of that name sayeth that the child is annoynted in the breast lib.