LXIV. Now the fault which they find with us concerning interrogatories is, our moving of these questions unto infants which cannot answer them, and the answering of them by others as in their names.
The Anabaptist hath many pretences to scorn at the baptism of children, first because the Scriptures, he saith, do no where give commandment to baptize infants; secondly, for that as there is no commandment so neither any manifest example shewing it to have been done either by Christ or his Apostles; thirdly, inasmuch as the word preached and the sacraments must go together, they which are not capable of the one are no fit receivers of the other; last of all, sith the order of baptism continued from the first beginning hath in it those things which are unfit to be applied unto sucking children, it followeth in their conceit that the baptism of such is no baptism but plain mockery.
They with whom we contend are no enemies to the baptism of infants; it is not their desire that the church should hazard so many souls by letting them run on till they come to ripeness of understanding, that so they may be converted and then baptized as infidels heretofore have been; they bear not towards God so unthankful minds as not to acknowledge it even amongst the greatest of his endless mercies, that by making us his own possession so soon, many advantages which Satan otherwise might take are prevented, and (which should be esteemed a part of no small happiness) the first thing whereof we have occasion to take notice is, how much hath been done already to our great good, though altogether without our knowledge; the baptism of infants they esteem as an ordinance which Christ hath instituted even in special love and favour to his own people; they deny not the practice thereof accordingly to have been kept as derived from the hands and continued from the days of the Apostles themselves unto this present. Only it pleaseth them not that to infants there should be interrogatories proposed in baptism1. This they condemn as foolish, toyish, and profane mockery.
But are they able to shew that ever the Church of Christ had any public form of baptism without interrogatories; or that the Church did ever use at the solemn baptism of infants to omit those questions as needless in this case? Boniface a bishop in St. Augustine’s time knowing that the Church did universally use this custom of baptizing infants with interrogatories, was desirous to learn from St. Augustine the true cause and reason thereof2. “If,” saith he, “I should set before thee a young infant, and should ask of thee whether that infant when he cometh unto riper age will be honest and just or no, thou wouldst answer (I know) that to tell in these things what shall come to pass is not in the power of a mortal man. If I should ask what good or evil such an infant thinketh, thine answer hereunto must needs be again with the like uncertainty. If thou neither canst promise for the time to come nor for the present pronounce any thing in this case, how is it that when such are brought unto baptism, their parents there undertake what the child shall afterwards do, yea they are not doubtful to say it doth that which is impossible to be done by infants? at the least there is no man precisely able to affirm it done. Vouchsafe me hereunto some short answer, such as not only may press me with the bare authority of custom but also instruct me in the cause thereof.”
Touching which difficulty, whether it may truly be said for infants at the time of their baptism that they do believe, the effect of St. Augustine’s answer is yea, but with this distinction3, a present actual habit of faith there is not in them; there is delivered unto them that sacrament, a part of the due celebration whereof consisteth in answering to the articles of faith, because the habit of faith which afterwards doth come with years, is but a farther building up of the same edifice, the first foundation whereof was laid by the sacrament of baptism. For that which there we professed without any understanding, when we afterwards come to acknowledge, do we any thing else but only bring unto ripeness the very seed that was sown before? We are then believers, because then we begin to be that which process of time doth make perfect. And till we come to actual belief, the very sacrament of faith is a shield as strong as after this the faith of the sacrament against all contrary infernal powers. Which whosoever doth think impossible, is undoubtedly farther off from Christian belief though he be baptized than are these innocents, which at their baptism albeit they have no conceit or cogitation of faith, are notwithstanding pure and free from all opposite cogitations, whereas the other is not free. If therefore without any fear or scruple we may account them and term them believers only for their outward profession’s sake, which inwardly are farther from faith than infants, why not infants much more at the time of their solemn initiation by baptism the sacrament of faith, whereunto they not only conceive nothing opposite, but have also that grace4 given them which is the first and most effectual cause out of which our belief groweth?
In sum, the whole Church is a multitude of believers, all honoured with that title, even hypocrites for their profession’s sake as well as saints because of their inward sincere persuasion, and infants as being in the first degree of their ghostly motion towards the actual habit of faith; the first sort are faithful in the eye of the world, the second faithful in the sight of God; the last in the ready direct way to become both if all things after be suitable to these their present beginnings5. “This,” saith St. Augustine, “would not haply content such persons as are uncapable or unquiet, but to them which having knowledge are not troublesome it may suffice. Wherein I have not for ease of myself objected against you that custom only than which nothing is more firm, but of a custom most profitable I have done that little which I could to yield you a reasonable cause.”
Were St. Augustine now living there are which would tell him for his better instruction that to say of a child6 “it is elect” and to say it doth believe are all one, for which cause sith no man is able precisely to affirm the one of any infant in particular, it followeth that precisely and absolutely we ought not to say the other.
Which precise and absolute terms are needless in this case. We speak of infants as the rule of piety alloweth both to speak and think. They that can take to themselves in ordinary talk a charitable kind of liberty to name men of their own sort God’s dear children, (notwithstanding the large reign of hypocrisy,) should not methinks be so strict and rigorous against the Church for presuming as it doth of a Christian innocent. For when we know how Christ in general hath said that of such is the kingdom of heaven7, which kingdom is the inheritance of God’s elect, and do withal behold how his providence hath called them unto the first beginnings of eternal life, and presented them at the well-spring of new birth wherein original sin is purged, besides which sin there is no hinderance of their salvation known to us, as themselves will grant; hard it were that having so many fair inducements whereupon to ground, we should not be thought to utter at the least a truth as probable and allowable in terming any such particular infant an elect babe8, as in presuming the like of others, whose safety nevertheless we are not absolutely able to warrant.
If any troubled with these scruples be only for instruction’s sake desirous to know yet some farther reason why interrogatories should be ministered to infants in baptism, and be answered unto by others as in their names, they may consider that baptism implieth a covenant or league between God and man, wherein as God doth bestow presently remission of sins and the Holy Ghost, binding also himself to add in process of time what grace soever shall be farther necessary for the attainment of everlasting life; so every baptized soul receiving the same grace at the hands of God tieth likewise itself for ever to the observation of his law, no less than the Jews by circumcision bound themselves to the law of Moses9. The law of Christ requiring therefore faith and newness of life in all men by virtue of the covenant which they make in baptism, is it toyish that the Church in baptism exacteth at every man’s hands an express profession of faith and an irrevocable promise of obedience by way of solemn stipulation10?
That infants may contract and covenant with God, the law is plain11. Neither is the reason of the law obscure. For sith it tendeth we cannot sufficiently express how much to their own good, and doth no way hurt or endanger them to begin the race of their lives herewith, they are as equity requireth admitted hereunto, and in favour of their tender years, such formal complements of stipulation as being requisite are impossible by themselves in their own persons to be performed, leave is given that they may sufficiently discharge by others12. Albeit therefore neither deaf nor dumb men, neither furious persons nor children can receive any civil stipulation, yet this kind of ghostly stipulation they may through his indulgence, who respecting the singular benefit thereof accepteth children brought unto him for that end, entereth into articles of covenant with them, and in tender commiseration granteth, that other men’s professions and promises in baptism made for them shall avail no less than if they had been themselves able to have made their own.
None more fit to undertake this office in their behalf than such as present them unto baptism. A wrong conceit, that none may receive the sacrament of baptism but they whose parents, at the least the one of them, are by the soundness of their religion and by their virtuous demeanour known to be men of God, hath caused some to repel children13, whosoever bring them, if their parents be mispersuaded in religion, or for other misdeserts excommunicated; some likewise for that cause to withhold baptism, unless the father, albeit no such exception can justly be taken against him, do notwithstanding make profession of his faith, and avouch the child to be his own14. Thus whereas God hath appointed them ministers of holy things, they make themselves inquisitors of men’s persons a great deal farther than need is.
They should consider that God hath ordained baptism in favour of mankind. To restrain favours is an odious thing, to enlarge them acceptable both to God and man. Whereas therefore the civil law gave divers immunities to them which were fathers of three children and had them living, those immunities they held although their children were all dead, if war had consumed them, because it seemed in that case not against reason to repute them by a courteous construction of law as live men15, in that the honour of their service done to the commonwealth would remain always. Can it hurt us in exhibiting the graces which God doth bestow on men, or can it prejudice his glory, if the selfsame equity guide and direct our hands?
When God made his covenant with such as had Abraham to their father, was only Abraham’s immediate issue, or only his lineal posterity according to the flesh included in that covenant? Were not proselytes as well as Jews always taken for the sons of Abraham? Yea because the very heads of families are fathers in some sort as touching providence and care for the meanest that belong unto them, the servants which Abraham had bought with money were as capable of circumcision, being newly born, as any natural child that Abraham himself begat.
Be it then that baptism belongeth to none but such as either believe presently, or else being infants are the children of believing parents. In case the Church do bring children to the holy font whose natural parents are either unknown, or known to be such as the church accurseth, but yet forgetteth not in that severity to take compassion upon their offspring, (for it is the Church16 which doth offer them to baptism by the ministry of presentors,) were it not against both equity and duty to refuse the mother of believers herself, and not to take her in this case for a faithful parent? It is not the virtue of our fathers nor the faith of any other that can give us the true holiness which we have by virtue of our new birth. Yet even through the common faith and spirit of God’s Church, (a thing which no quality of parents can prejudice,) I say through the faith of the Church of God undertaking the motherly care of our souls, so far forth we may be and are in our infancy sanctified, as to be thereby made sufficiently capable of baptism, and to be interessed in the rites of our new birth for their piety’s sake that offer us thereunto.
“It cometh sometime to pass,” saith St. Augustine17, “that the children of bond-slaves are brought to baptism by their lord; sometime the parents being dead, the friends alive undertake that office; sometime strangers or virgins consecrated unto God which neither have nor can have children of their own take up infants in the open streets, and so offer them unto baptism, whom the cruelty of unnatural parents casteth out and leaveth to the adventure of uncertain pity.” As therefore he which did the part of a neighbour was a neighbour to that wounded man whom the parable of the Gospel describeth; so they are fathers, although strangers, that bring infants to him which maketh them the sons of God. In the phrase of some kind of men they use to be termed Witnesses, as if they came but to see and testify what is done. It savoureth more of piety to give them their old accustomed name of Fathers and Mothers in God, whereby they are well put in mind what affection they ought to bear towards those innocents, for whose religious education the Church accepteth them as pledges.
This therefore is their own duty. But because the answer which they make to the usual demands of stipulation proposed in baptism is not their own, the Church doth best to receive it of them in that form which best sheweth whose the act is. That which a guardian doth in the name of his guard or pupil standeth by natural equity forcible for his benefit, though it be done without his knowledge. And shall we judge it a thing unreasonable, or in any respect unfit, that infants by words which others utter should, though unwittingly yet truly and forcibly, bind themselves to that whereby their estate is so assuredly bettered? Herewith Nestorius the heretic was charged18 as having fallen from his first profession, and broken the promise which he made to God in the arms of others. Of such as profaned themselves being Christians with irreligious delight in the ensigns of idolatry, heathenish spectacles, shows, and stage plays, Tertullian to strike them the more deep claimeth the promise which they made in baptism19. Why were they dumb being thus challenged? Wherefore stood they not up to answer in their own defence, that such professions and promises made in their names were frivolous, that all which others undertook for them was but mockery and profanation? That which no heretic, no wicked liver, no impious despiser of God, no miscreant or malefactor, which had himself been baptized, was ever so desperate as to disgorge in contempt of so fruitfully received customs, is now their voice that restore as they say the ancient purity of religion.
← Interrogatories in baptism touching faith, a · Contents · Of the Cross in Baptism. →
Footnotes
-
“They profane holy baptism in toying foolishly, for that they ask questions of an infant which cannot answer, and speak unto them as was wont to be spoken unto men, and unto such as being converted answered for themselves and were baptized. Which is but a mockery of God, and therefore against the holy Scriptures. Gal. vi. 7.” Admonition to the Parliament. [ap. Whitg. Def. 610.] The same defended in T. C. lib. i. p. 168. [134. And by Beza in his twelfth Epistle, Strype, Grind. 512. “Puerorum baptizandorum interrogationem non dubitamus ex eo invasisse Ecclesiam, quod episcoporum negligentia retenta sit eadem in baptismo infantium formula, quæ initio in adultis catechumenis observabatur: id quod etiam ex aliis multis quæ in baptismo papistico adhuc vigent perspicere licet. Itaque sicut chrisma et exorcismus, quantumvis vetusta, optimo jure abolita sunt, cuperemus quoque istam non modo supervacuam sed etiam ineptam interrogationem omitti, quantumvis illam in epistola quadam Augustinus ipse aliqua interpretatione tueatur.” Tract. Theol. iii. 220.] ↩
-
Aug. Epist. xxiii. [al. 98. § 7. t. ii. 266 F. “Si constituam ante te parvulum, et interrogem, utrum quum creverit futurus sit castus, vel fur non sit futurus; sine dubio respondebis, Nescio. Et utrum in eadem parvula ætate constitutus cogitet aliquid boni vel mali; dices, Nescio. Si itaque de moribus ejus futuris nihil audes certi promittere, et de præsenti cogitatione; quid est illud quod quando ad baptismum offeruntur, pro eis parentes tanquam fidedictores respondent, et dicunt illos facere quod illa ætas cogitare non potest, aut si potest, occultum est? … . . Ad istas ergo quæstiones peto breviter respondere digneris, ita ut non mihi de consuetudine præscribas, sed rationem reddas.”] ↩
-
“Sicut credere respondetur, ita etiam fidelis vocatur; non rem ipsa mente annuendo, sed ipsius rei sacramentum percipiendo.” Aug. [Ep. 23. al. 98. § 10. t. ii. 268. D. “Sæpe ita loquimur, ut Pascha propinquante dicamus, crastinam vel perendinam Domini passionem, cum ille ante tam multos annos passus sit… . Ipso die Dominico dicimus, Hodie Dominus resurrexit, cum ex quo resurrexit tot anni transierint. Cur nemo tam ineptus est ut nos ita loquentes arguat esse mentitos, nisi quia istos dies secundum illorum quibus hæc gesta sunt similitudinem nominamus, ut dicatur ipse dies qui non est ipse, sed revolutione temporis similis ejus; et dicatur illo die fieri, propter sacramenti celebrationem, quod non illo die sed jam olim factum est? Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso? et tamen in sacramento non solum per omnes Paschæ solennitates sed omni die populis immolatur, nec utique mentitur, qui interrogatus eum respondet immolari … Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Nihil est autem aliud credere, quam fidem habere. Ac per hoc cum respondetur parvulus credere, qui fidei nondum habet affectum, respondetur fidem habere propter fidei sacramentum, et convertere se ad Deum propter conversionis sacramentum, quia et ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet sacramenti. Sicut de ipso baptismo Apostolus, consepulti, inquit, sumus Christo per baptismum in mortem. Non ait, sepulturam significavimus; sed prorsus ait, consepulti sumus. Sacramentum ergo tantæ rei nonnisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncupavit.“Itaque parvulum, etsi nondum fides illa quæ in credentium voluntate consistit, jam tandem ipsius fidei sacramentum fidelem facit. Nam sicut credere respondetur, ita” &c. (ut supr.) “Cum autem homo sapere cœperit; non illud sacramentum repetet, sed intelliget, ejusque veritati consona etiam voluntate coaptabitur. Hoc quamdiu non potest, valebit sacramentum ad ejus tutelam adversus contrarias potestates; et tantum valebit, ut si ante rationis usum ex hac vita emigraverit, per ipsum sacramentum, commendante Ecclesiæ caritate, ab illa condemnatione, quæ per unum hominem intravit in mundum, Christiano adjutorio liberetur. Hoc qui non credit, et fieri non posse arbitratur, profecto infidelis est, etsi habeat fidei sacramentum; longeque melior est ille parvulus, qui etiamsi fidem nondum habeat in cogitatione, non ei tamen obicem contrariæ cogitationis opponit, unde sacramentum ejus salubriter percipit.“Respondi, sicut existimo, quæstionibus tuis, quantum adtinet ad minus capaces et ad contentiosos, non satis; quantum autem ad pacatos et ad intelligentes plus forte quam sat est. Nec tibi ad excusationem meam objeci firmissimam consuetudinem, sed saluberrimæ consuetudinis reddidi quam potui rationem.”] ↩
-
Aug. Epist. 57.[al. 187. c. vi. § 21. t. ii. 684.] “Multum mirabilis res est quemadmodum quorundam nondum cognoscentium Deum sit inhabitator Deus et quorundam cognoscentium non sit. Nec illi enim ad templum Dei pertinent qui cognoscentes Deum non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, et ad templum Dei pertinent parvuli sanctificati sacramento Christi, regenerati Spiritu Sancto, qui per ætatem nondum possunt cognoscere Deum. Unde quem potuerunt illi nosse nec habere isti potuerunt habere antequam nosse.” ↩
-
[Ep. 23. al. 98. § 10.] ↩
-
T. C. lib. i. p. 169. [136, 137.] “If children could have faith, yet they that present the child cannot precisely tell whether that particular child hath faith or no; we are to think charitably and to hope it is one of the Church, but it can be no more precisely said that it hath faith, than it may be said precisely elected.” ↩
-
[S. Matth. xix. 14.] ↩
-
2 John i. [Chr. Letter, p. 36: “What warrant have you of present grace in the verie worke wrought of baptism?”Hooker, MS. note: “Warrant sufficient I hope for present grace in the sacrament. As for in the very worke wrought, they are not my wordes, but yours. What mean you by this your glose? Doth it not shew that in my speech there is lesse than you looked for, and therefore to draw it somewhat nearer your own construction, you help it with a worde or two, but so botcht, that one peace will not hold with another. Had you placed ex opere operato where you use in opere operato, it might have stood you in more stead, and yeat the labour all one. But in and ex make no great ods, I suppose, in your theologicall dictionary.”] ↩
-
Gal. v. 3. ↩
-
“Stipulatio est verborum conceptio, quibus is qui interrogatur daturum facturumve se quod interrogatus est respondet.” l. 5. Sect. 1. ff. de Oblig. et Act. [de Verb. Oblig. Dig. xlv. 1. v. § 1. p. 660.] “In hac re olim talia verba tradita fuerunt: Spondes? Spondeo. Promittis? Promitto. Fide promittis? Fide promitto. Fide jubes? Fide jubeo. Dabis? Dabo. Facies? Faciam.” Instit. de Verb. Oblig. lib. iii. tit. 15. [p. 26.] ↩
-
Gen. xvii. 14. ↩
-
“Accommodat illis mater ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant, aliorum cor ut credant, aliorum linguam ut fateantur; ut quoniam quod ægri sunt alio peccante prægravantur, sic cum sani fiant alio pro eis confitente salventur.” Aug. Serm. 10. de Verb. Apost. [al. serm. 176. § 2. t. v. 840.] ↩
-
T. C. lib. i. p. 172. [137.] ↩
-
[Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 620. “How convenient it were, seeing the children of the faithful only are to be baptized, that the father should and might, if conveniently, offer and present his child to be baptized, making an open confession of that faith, wherein he would have his child baptized.” And p. 619. “If upon necessary occasion the parents be absent, some one of the congregation, knowing the good behaviour and sound faith of the parents, may both make rehearsal of their faith, and also if their faith be sound and agreeable to holy scriptures, desire to be in the same baptized.” Upon which Whitgift asks, “What if the parents be of evil behaviour? … . what if they be papists or heretics? … .” T. C. (i. 137.) answers, “If one of the parents be not so, the child is holy by virtue of the covenant, for one of the parents’ sakes. If they be both, and yet not obstinate in their sin, whereby the Church hath not proceeded to excommunication, (themselves being yet of the Church,) their child cannot, nor ought not to be refused. If both be papists or condemned heretics … and cut off from the Church, their children cannot be received…” In the rubric before baptism, in “the Form of Common Prayer used by the English at Geneva,” (Phœnix, ii. 237.) it is directed that “the father, or in his absence, the godfather, shall rehearse the articles of his faith.” Some such regulation was proposed in Convocation, 1562. Strype, An. I. i. 508.] ↩
-
“Hi enim qui pro Rep. ceciderunt in perpetuum per gloriam vivere intelliguntur.” Instit. lib. i. tit. 25. sect. 1. ↩
-
“Offeruntur quippe parvuli ad percipiendam spiritualem gratiam non tam ab eis quorum gestantur manibus, quamvis et ab ipsis si et ipsi boni et (om. et Bodl. MS. and A.) fideles sint, quam ab universa societate sanctorum atque fidelium.” Aug. in Epist. 23. [al. 98. § 5. t. ii. 265.] Ἀξιου̑νται δὲ τω̑ν διὰ του̑ βαπτίσματος ἀγαθω̑ν τὰ βρέϕη τῃ̑ πίστει τω̑ν προσϕερόντων αὐτὰ τῳ̑ βαπτίσματι. Justin. Resp. ad Orthod. [resp. 56.] ↩
-
[Aug. Ep. 23. al. 98. § 6. t. ii. 266. “Illud nolo te fallat, ut existimes reatus vinculum ex Adam tractum aliter non posse disrumpi, nisi parvuli ad percipiendam Christi gratiam a parentibus offerantur. Sic enim scribens dicis, ut sicut parentes fuerunt auctores ad eorum pœnam, per fidem parentum identidem justificentur; cum videas multos non offerri a parentibus, sed etiam a quibuslibet extraneis, sicut a dominis servuli aliquando offeruntur. Et nonnunquam mortuis parentibus suis, parvuli baptizantur, ab eis oblati, qui illis ejusmodi misericordiam præbere potuerunt. Aliquando etiam quos crudeliter parentes exposuerunt nutriendos a quibuslibet, nonnunquam a sacris virginibus colliguntur, et ab eis offeruntur ad baptismum. Quæ certe proprios filios nec habuerunt ullos nec habere disponunt: ac per hoc nihil aliud hic fieri vides, nisi quod in evangelio scriptum est, cum Dominus interrogasset, quis illi a latronibus sauciato et semivivo in via derelicto proximus fuisset: responsum est enim, Qui in illum fecit misericordiam.”] ↩
-
“Si Arianæ aut Sabellianæ hæreseos assertor esses, et non tuo ipsius symbolo tecum uterer, convincerem te tamen testimoniorum sacrorum auctoritate; … quid tandem si sic apud te agerem? quid diceres? quid responderes? nonne obsecro illud, … in eo te baptizatum, in eo te renatum esse? … Et vere in negotio quamvis improbo non importuna defensio, et quæ non absurde causam erroris diceret, si pertinaciam non sociares errori. Nunc autem cum in catholica urbe natus, catholica fide institutus, catholico baptismate regeneratus sis, numquid agere tecum quasi cum Ariano aut Sabelliano possim? Quod utinam fuisses. Minus dolerem in malis editum quam de bonis lapsum, minus fidem non habitam quam amissam… . Non iniquum autem, hæretice, non iniquum aut grave aliquid postulo. Hoc fac in catholica fide editus quod fueras pro perversitate facturus.” Cassian. (350-432.) de Incarn. lib. vi. cap. 5. [in Bibl. Pat. Colon. V. p. 2. 77.] ↩
-
Tertull. lib. de Spectac. [c. 4. Si ex idololatria universam spectaculorum paraturam constare constiterit, indubitate præjudicatum erit, etiam ad spectacula pertinere renunciationis nostræ testimonium in lavacro, quæ diabolo et pompæ et angelis ejus sint mancipata, scilicet per idololatriam.”] ↩