A17192:185
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.
SIMON. As I do hear the controversy is of the fact, and of the right or lawfulness.
SIMON. As I do hear the controuersye is of the facte, and of the ryghte or lawfulnes.
JOI. Thou sayest truth if any thing be lawful, as soon as thou hast done it, thou hast done well though that none of the apostles did it afore thee. Therefore baptism ought not to be denied unto infants, because that we do not read expressly, that the apostles did baptise infants. Both because that it may be, that they did baptise infants (as we have proved & showed already, and hereafter, if need be, will show more largely) & yet it was not written, & also because that no mans facts ought to be prejudicial unto the law, much less the things that are left undone. Therefore, if it were written any where with plain & express words of the apostles after this manner: The apostles did not baptise infants, yet it should not follow that they ought not too be baptized: but we ought too enquire and search, whether that they left it undone, because that it was not lawful, ⟨image 38⟩Christ did not baptise.1 John. iiii. Ergo, after or according to your saying, we ought not to baptise at all. Who is so mad to say so? For the Apostles did baptise & that lawfully. Ergo, If the apostles, did baptise lawfully, though christ him self did never baptise, we shall also lawfully baptise infants, though the apostles did not baptise. There is no diversity at all, yea, we have gotten the better end of the staff, sith that we have Christ ye did not baptise, & yet we ought to baptise, and ye only have the apostles. Bring ye therefore any law that forbiddeth to baptise children. We do not go about by these reasons & examples, as by some strong foundation, to prove or strengthen the baptism of infants (For we have many other strong arguments & foundations) But we will show, ye ye do both rashly & lyingly say, that the apostles did never baptise infants or young babes. For ye have no testimony of that thing. And though ye had never so much, yet it should not follow therefore, that infants ought not to be baptized: For upon a thing that is done, or left undone, nothing can be surely concluded, but only upon that, which is sure by God's word to be lawful. Again, we did bring so many reasons &