A17192:184
A most sure and strong defence of the baptism of children, against [the] pestiferous…A moste sure and strong defence of the baptisme of children, against [the] pestiferous…
A most sure and strong defence of the baptism of children, against [the] pestiferous sect of the Anabaptists. set forth by that famous clerk, Henry Bullynger: & now translated out of Latin into English by John Veron SenonoysA moste sure and strong defence of the baptisme of children, against [the] pestiferous secte of the Anabaptystes. set furthe by that famouse clerke, Henry Bullynger: & nowe translated out of Laten into Englysh by Ihon Veron Senonoys
printed by John Oswen, 1551printed by Ihon Oswen, 1551
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
I have brought these things therefore that thou mayest see & understand, that the baptism of children is no new invention, & that they which teach such things do lean to no truth, but to plain error. For although christ was not baptized, till he was .xxx. years old, yet being an infant he was circumcised upon the eight day, that I should in the mean season let pass, that baptism was ⟨image 37⟩not yet instituted, which had his beginning of John. But now we will strike up our sail clothes, and show how unkunninglye ye gather your arguments, when ye do reason after this manner. We do not read that the apostles did baptise the children of the faithful: Ergo, they ought not to be baptised. If we should only goo by conjectures and reason, it is more likely, that the Apostles did baptise the infants then otherwise in the family, and household of Stephana, of Lidia, of the keeper of the prison, & of other, if at lest, there were any infants in those families and households,1 which examples ye shall never be able to confute. There be many things done both by Christ and by the apostles, that never were written. Nor we can not make our argument after this manner: This thing was not done. ergo, it may not lawfully be done. That we should grant unto you ye the apostles did baptise no children, yet have ye not proved therefore, that children ought not to be baptized. Again we may not to this affirmative. (The apostles did baptise them that were of age & did believe) infer or bring in, this negative (Ergo children ought not to be baptized) ⟨image 37⟩for we may never, neither in the profane nor yet in the holy scriptures, make our argument, a facto ad jus, 2but then it is lawful to bring the fact and deed for a law, when it is proved that the deed was done rightfully.
I haue brought these thynges therfore yt thou mayste see & vnderstand, that ye baptisme of children is no new inuention, & that they whyche teche suche thinges do leane to no truth, but to plaine errour. For although christ was not baptized, tyll he was .xxx. yeares old, yet being an infant he was circūcised vpon ye eyght daye, that I shoulde in the meane season let passe, that baptisme was