he was a papist euer professed the trueth My answere is that they did and doe erre in very many things but yet they did and doe professe some trueth and I doubt not but that many which liued and died in the time of popish darkenesse died Gods seruants If you thinke that a man being wide in many things is wide in all things then because you M. Penry haue deliuered manie blasphemous Anabaptisticall and other errours I might iustly conclude that you hold nothing soundly but I wil not offer you such measure If I did I should deale absurdly with you Howe professed papists are Idolaters appeareth in my second proposition which is newly added to my former treatise Thither I referre you I. Penry Antichrist I grant should sit as God in the temple of God but it was neuer the temple of God since he planted his pestilent chaire therein Poperie in deed hath inuaded the seates and possessions of true religion and began first where the trueth was professed For the mysterie of iniquitie first appeared within the Church and not else-where where true religion flourished and not among the heathen neither could he bee that aduersarie whose beginning shoulde bee in Paganisme But although Poperie tooke roote in the soyle where the true Churche was planted yet it so grewe there that it still continued to be the synagogue of Satan and could neuer as yet be the Church of God howsoeuer it hath ouergrowen the possession thereof And what though their fathers who now are Papists were within the couenant as professing true religion shall it therefore followe that their Idolatrous sonnes should be so too If they returne the Lord hath mercie in store for them I denie not But what is there in this poynt saide for the Papists which the Iewes cannot with farre more shewe of reason pretend for themselues The profaning of Baptisme among the Papistes can make them no more be within the Church then the continuance of the profanation of Circumcision among the Ishmaelites and Edomites could keepe them vnder the couenant And why should popish Baptisme any more tye the Lords couenant to an Idolatrous race then an Ishmaelitish or Edomitish cutting off of the foreskinne linke him to be the God of those adulterous generations Oh but the Lord himselfe hath said in Isaak shall thy seede be called and Iaacob haue I loued and hated Esau Why the same Lorde in respect of his reuealed will for with his secrete election men must not meddle hath sayd the professours of true religion do I loue but the Idolatrous papists my soule abhorreth It will be here demaunded whether I make no more account of popish baptisme then of an Edomitish circumcision I see no reason why I should For a circumcised Edomite being receiued to be a true worshipper at Ierusalem should as well content himselfe with that circumcision circumcision being not a thing inuented by man or done in respect of man but ordeyned by the Lord and done in regard of the couenant made vnto Abraham as we doe with popish baptisme which is not called in question And yet that which is spoken concerning the profession of the trueth by the forefathers is not altogether true in popery for there bee many large regions nowe professing poperie where not so much as the name of Christ was heard vntill they were become grossely popish So that their first step was out of paganisme vnto poperie And this is the estate of all those poore oppressed vassals the west Indians who now in great numbers professe Romish Idolatrie For at such time as the Spanyard inuading their land brought vpon them the most miserable slauerie of the body soule that are vpon any people vnder heauen they had not so much as hearde whether there was any Christ but were most heathnish and sencelesse Idolaters as may appeare by the popish hystoriographers themselues who wrote the stories of those tymes And therefore to omit whose posterities many of the nations within Europe are that haue refused the light of the Gospel though it were granted that the rest of the popish rable were within in the couenant yet these miserable heathen papists can be said to be vnder no couenant but that which is made vnto popery and paganisme I hope M. Some howsoeuer you may be perswaded that other popish shauelings can deliuer a sacrament yet that you will doubt whether any man could be assured to receyue those holy seales at the hands of the heathen massemongers remayning in Cuba Hyspaniola Mexico or any other the Easterne parts And thus much concerning the assumption I am not ignorant that famous and worthie men haue otherwise written concerning the popish Church and therefore I am not to be pressed with their authoritie R. Some If your writings were as sounde as they are absurde they would giue many times great aduantage to the Papist Anabaptist c. If the popish church was neuer the temple of God since Antichrist planted his pestilent chaire there then in your iudgement the Pope is not Antichrist for Antichrist doth and must sit in the Temple of God that is in the Church of God I haue handled this argument before I rest in that I haue written there You say that a circumcised Edomite being receiued into the Church of Ierusalem should content himselfe with his circumcision in Idumea because circumcision was the Lords ordinance c. I agree with you in this If the Edomitish circumcision was the Lords ordinance then it was a seale of Gods couenant to the Idumeans and consequently the Edomites in your iudgement were not Aliens from Gods couenant for the seale of the couenant doth import and presuppose a couenant Besides if the Edomitish circumcision was true circumcision and the Edomitish Church no Church then a Sacrament was out of the Church c. How like you this M. Penry You knowe my meaning You adde that you call not popish baptisme in question Here I grant you doe not but a little after you vse these wordes viz. where there is no true Christ wherunto men can be engraffed by baptisme there true baptisme as touching the substance cannot be gotten c. But in popery there is no true Christ c. mendacem oportet esse memorē Your memory is very short You would neuer I thinke haue vēted such motley stuffe as this if you had thought it would haue bin looked on I can assure you that besides me whom you haue put to a litle paines your treatise hath beene viewed and reuiewed by very many learned men who condemne it for a foolish and fantasticall bable If the west Indians after profession of their beliefe in the holy trinitie were baptized as you say by popish shauelings I assure my selfe that they receiued true baptisme were therfore engraffed into Christ We in the Church of England neede not saile thanks be to God to the massemōgers in Cuba Hispaniola Mexico or any other part of the Indians we haue Gods holy
are made by Idolaters I make no question And when did God giue Idolaters leaue to make ministers Seeing therefore that popish priests are no ministers I see no shewe of probabilitie whereupon my faith or the faith of any can be assured to receyue true baptisme at their hands vnlesse it can bee shewed by you M. Some that eyther there may bee fayth where there is no promise or that there is a promise to receiue a sacrament where there is no minister which no man of any christian modestie will affirme Hence also it followeth that neither the obstinate crew of recusants in this land who offer their children to bee profaned by trayterous and runnagate Iesuites nor any else within the body of the Romish Babylon can assure themselues that their children receyue the substance of baptisme R. Some If by ministers in your Maior proposition you meane lawfull and good ministers of God I agree with you If you meane otherwise I dissent If by idolaters in your Maior propositiō you vnderstand not Pagane but popish idolaters my answere is that such as were called elected and ordained by them had a calling though a faultie one Otherwise Luether Ridley Cranmer Hooper c. had no calling at all For this point I referre you to that I haue set downe before chap. 18. of this Treatise You aske this question viz. When did God giue idolaters leaue to make ministers I answere euen then when he gaue the Israelites leaue to make your ignorant Leuites priests and when hee gaue foolish electours of Magistrates leaue to chuse such Magistrates as your foele Candaules was that is Almightie God gaue no leaue at all And yet you are resolute that the ignorant Leuitical priests which might be wel begged for idiots were lawfull priestes though not good priestes and that such as are chosen Magistrates euen against the wooll haue both the life and birth of Magistrates It pleaseth you to say that because Popish priests are no ministers in your iudgement that you cannot be assured to receiue baptisme at their hands Then belike if you were perswaded as all learned men are that Popish priests haue a calling you would be content that infants should be presented to baptisme in the Popish Church vvhich Popish Church in your iudgement is no church at all What I thinke of that particuler I vvill not presently vvrite but this I tell you that this Argument doeth not necessarily follow viz. True circumcision was giuen in Idumea and true baptisme hath bene may be giuen of excommunicated heretiques therefore they of Ierusalem in the former times might require circumcision amongst the Edomites or they of Hippo or Carthage in latter times might require baptisme amongst the Donatists I. Penry My reasons besides that they are no ministers are these And I desire that they may be examined by you good M. Some where you must remember that I speake not of that which hath bene done yesterday but of thē assurance that may be had of that which to morow is to be done R. Some Sir you desire me to examine your reasons You shall haue an easie suite of this for I am very forvvarde to doe you that pleasure You graunt it to be baptisme vvhich vvas administred yesterday in the Popish church but you doubt of that vvhich is deliuered to morow Then yesterday a Sacrament and to morovv none You dare not for your eares say in flat termes that it vvas no baptisme vvhich vvas deliuered heretofore in the Popish church for then many thousandes vvhose Christendome you call in question would condemne you for a Catabaptist But it hath pleased you to set dovvne this marginal note in an other place viz. As I doe not deny that which hath bene done to be a Sacramēt so if any can proue it to be none I will not withstande him In your Exhort to the gouernours c. of Wales pag. 31. If I vvere not vvell acquainted vvith your absurd vvritings I should vvonder at you more then I doe Your reasons such as they are do follovv I. Penry Where there is no true Christ whereunto men can be engraffed by baptisme there true baptisme as touching the substance cannot bee gotten for what baptisme is that which is not an ingraffing into the true Christ But in popery there is no true Christ whereunto men may be ingraffed because he is not the true Christ who either will not or cannot satisfie the wrath of God for the sinnes of the elect without their merits and such is the Christ professed in popery and no other Therefore men cannot be assured to haue the substance of baptisme in the popish Church R. Some I denie your Minor proposition for such as were baptized in the Popish church were engraffed by baptisme into a true Christ The essentiall forme of baptisme was and is retained by the Popish priestes viz. To baptize in the Name of the holy Trinitie If your Minor proposition were true as it is very false then very many in this and other landes which were baptized by Popish priests in the Popish church are vnbaptized for baptisme is an engraffing into the true Christ and you write that no such engraffing is in the Popish church because no true Christ is professed in poperie If you tell me that you speake not of that which was done yesterday but of that which is to morowe it is a blinde and beggerly shift for the Christ professed in poperie was a deuided Christ when her Maiestie was baptized as euen nowe he is in the Popish church That case and profession is all one To proceede because I will answere your reason thorowly I wil set it down in this sort The Christ professed in Poperie is a deuided Christ and cōsequently not a true Christ therefore none in the Popish church are engraffed by baptisme into the true Christ This is your reason M. Penry My answere is your Antecedēt is true I denie your argument My reason is the false profession of any man whatsoeuer cānot separat Christ from his owne institution Rom. 3 therefore seeing Christs institution is in Popish baptisme the true Christ is there that is in that baptisme I doe set downe my wordes more warily then I needed because I finde you to be a meere wrangler and to take vp that which I neuer let fall Besides circumcision in Idumea as you write was true circumcision and a seale of Gods couenant yet the Edomites which you cannot denie failed in the true worship of Almightie God I hope you see by this time that your Arguments are scopae dissolutae very loose ware and slenderly trussed together I am sure you esteemed them mountaines but they are not worthie the name of mollhils I deale plainely with you If my answeres please you not confute them directly and not with ifs ands and whies in which kinde of answering if I may call it answering you haue a speciall grace I. Penry No man can assure himselfe to haue the
of 80. godly men hee killed 70. of them Ier. cap. 41. Iudas kissed Christ but he betrayed him Matth. 26. You vse goodly wordes sometimes but proud malice will appeare it cannot bee hidden Marcus Cicero in his time had many hollow friendes After his returne from banishment he was reuenged of them Nihil credendo omnia cauendo that is in crediting them in nothing and bewaring of them in euery thing If I serue you so I can not bee iustly blamed You pretende great sinceritie and innocencie but your hereticall absurdities in your treatise and your shamelesse dealing with our Magistrates and learned men doe crie aloude that you are in deede very litle acquainted with sincerity and innocencie I tell you plainely that I like better Humile peccatum quà m superbā innocentiam that is humble sinne then proud innocēcie The humble Publican was more accounted of then the proude Pharisee Luk. 18. I pray God with all my heart to keepe me and all such as loue the religion and detest your Anabaptisticall fancies from such as you and the fantasticall sort are You and they are strange cattel Your hope that I will graunt you the cause you defend is a vaine hope for I thinke great scorne to be one of ignorāt Penries disciples that is a proud and ignorant Anabaptist If you will haue any thing at my hands in diuinitie matters you must gaine it by force of argument If you thinke that I will come off otherwise you are in a wrong boxe for I intend not to be at your whistle Yea I require and charge you in the name of God if you be not voyde of grace to confesse your ignorance to detest your errours to yeeld vnto Gods truth that Gods blessing may rest vpon you If you refuse to doe this take heede that Gods vengeance seaze not vpon you I. Penry Lastly if men might be assured that they could haue the true substance of baptisme in Popery then they ought not to keepe their children from Popish baptisme if there were no other baptisme in the worlde to be had For men might come to their baptisme detest their corruptions if it be Gods baptisme as you M. Some affirmed it to be pag. 20. And they can adde an edifying worde vnto the Sacrament if the recitall of the wordes of institution be an edifying word and that be sufficient to make a Sacrament both which you haue written page 23. 24. But men ought rather to keepe their children vnbaptized then to offer them to bee prophaned by Popish baptisme both for the former reasons and because wee ought to haue no more fellowship with Papists in the seruice of God then with Pagane idolaters M. Caluine hath written otherwise in this point therefore againe I appeale to the word R. Some I vvill ansvvere this section of yours both briefly and roundly by the grace of God That baptisme deliuered in the Popish church was and is Gods baptisme I make no question For proofe of this point I haue set downe waightie reasons in my former treatise One of M. Caluines an other ab Absurdo Your answeres to them are very foolish and are so accounted of by the learned sort I haue examined them a litle in this Treatise It is the iudgement of all the reformed Churches that there was is true baptisme in the Popish church Before you denied it not but now the case is altered you accompt it an errour to affirme it What mutabilitie is this Hee that would saile after your compasse for Diuinitie matters should proue as giddie as a goose I pray God with all my heart to blesse his people in England Wales and to keepe them from such blinde guides as the ignorant sort are and from such blinde guides as the ignorant sort are and from such shamelesse and fantasticall guides as you M. Penry are Concerning this question viz. whether men ought to offer their children to Popish baptisme if there were no other baptisme in the world to be had M. Penry saith one while that they ought if Popish baptisme be Gods Baptisme which before he denied not An other while he is peremptory that mē ought rather to kepe their childrē vnbaptized His reason is because we ought to haue no more fellowship with papists in Gods scruice then with pagane Idolaters The issue therefore nowe is first whether infants ought rather to be kept vnbaptized then to bee presented to popish baptisme Secondly whether no more fellowship is to be had with papists in Gods seruice then with heathen Idolaters Concerning the first question M. Caluines resolution is affirmatiue if the parents which they cannot do without peril of life do publikely detest the popish corruptions M. Caluines reason is the omitting of baptisme is contempt of Christianitie Cal. Epist 104. Of this iudgement are Melanchthon and Peter Martyr Cal. Epist 103. Viretus Tract de commun fid cum papist Cer. pag. 61 62 70. I confesse freely that this is a very waightie question but in this our time a needelesse question and that men of great excellēcie for learning haue their seueral iudgements I would be loath to stirre coales in this argument Touching the other question M. Penry saith that no more fellowship is to be had in religion matters with papists then with pagane Idolaters I dissent from him in this My reasons are first the papists professe the holy Trinitie so doe not the pagane Idolaters Secondly the papists are not altogether aliens from Gods external couenant but the heathen Idolaters as yet are Lastly M. Caluine is very flat against you in this point Epist 104. In steed of answering his reasons in that Epistle you appeale to the word A strange kind of appealing whē M. Caluines arguments are drawen out of the holy word If you wil deale plainly as you ought neuer piddle any longer goe through stitch withall seeing you are ouer shoes aduenture ouer bootes too confute Caluines 104. Epistle and that which he hath written very excellently vpon the 20. verse of the 16. chap. of Ezechiel If you giue the vnset and fayle whereof I make no question you shall lose no credite of learning for you neuer had any as yet Qui semel verecundiae limites c. you knowe the rest I. Penry Seeing therfore in Popery there is no Church no Ministery no Christ Seeing we ought in no case to be ioyned with Papistes in their religion but to be separated from them as from those that are out of the Church and such as are become a very filthy cage and nest of vncleane and sacrilegious idolaters therefore also it necessarily followeth that neither our Popish recusants nor any else offring their children to be baptized in the Popish synagogue by those polluted and vncleane Priestes may assure themselues that they can bee there partakers of true baptisme as touching the substance of baptisme R. Some Seeing therefore in the iudgement of all learned men and all reformed Churches there is in
edifying word vnlesse it be vttered according to the ordinance both in regard of the persons that vtter the same and the ende wherefore it is vttered Chap. 8. pag. 99. This is a Popish errour for the Scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of credite in it selfe Reade my answere Chap. 8. pag. 102. M. Penry saith that there is no Church at all in Popery Chap. 23. pag. 175. 176. This is a grosse errour condemned of very famous men and all reformed Churches If there be no church at all in Popery these absurdities will followe first the Pope is not Antichrist Secondly the infants of Papists may not be baptized in any reformed Church though some of the Religion doe present them to Baptisme and publiquely vndertake the good education of them Reade that which I haue written Chap. 17. pag. 147. 148. 149. and Chap. 23. pag. 176. M. Penry saith that if there be a Church in Popery our Magistrates c. are Schismatiques inasmuch as they haue separated themselues from the Church of Rome Chap. 17. pag. 151. This is a grosse and Popish collection and cannot stand with the duetie of a subiect Reade my answere Chap. 17. pag. 151. 152. M. Penry writeth that men in the Popish Church are not ingraffed by Baptisme into a true Christ His wordes are these Where there is no true Christ whereunto men can be ingraffed by Baptisme there true Baptisme as touching the substance cannot be gotten c. But in Popery there is no true Christ whereinto men may be ingraffed c. Chap. 23. pag. 173. This is a grosse errour condemned of all famous writers and Churches Reade that which I haue written Chap. 23. pag. 173. 174. and cha 20. pag. 156. 157. Maister Penry writeth that if baptisme administred by vnpreaching ministers were denied to be a Sacrament he would wish none to offer themselues to that holy Sacrament for sixe causes First we are already receyued into the bosome of the Church and acknowledged to haue the seale of the couenant in as much as we were once offered and receyued into the number of the godly by the outwarde elemēt though corruptly To what end then should baptisme serue vs againe In his exhort to the gouernonrs c. of Wales pag. 31. If this be true which M. Penry saith the outwarde and bare element deliuered by him which in M. Penryes iudgement is no minister is the seale of Gods couenant Which is a most absurd heresie Secondly the absolute necessitie of baptisme to saluation by this meanes might seeme to be mainteined False They which require men vnbaptized to offer themselues to Baptisme are perswaded that the contempt of the Sacrament is damnable they doe not thinke that all which die without Baptisme if contempt bee absent are damned Besides Baptisme is necessarie in respect of our obedience but what obedience is performed when Baptisme is refused Thirdly least wee should seeme to agree with the heretical Catabaptists If no Baptisme was deliuered by vnpreaching ministers M. Penry is an hereticall Catabaptist if hee dehort any such from holy Baptisme as were baptized by vnpreaching ministers Fourthly other Churches haue not publikely decided the cause They needed not They made no question of it for with one voyce they condemne your Anabaptisticall fancies Fiftly that the practise should not enforce them to bee rebaptized which haue bene alreadie baptized by such as had commission from the Lord to deale in those mysteries If they be already baptized no reason they should desire a second Baptisme for Baptisme may not be iterated I haue prooued this point in my Treatise of the Sacraments and in this booke Chap. 19. pag. 156. Lastly they who being nowe in the age of discretion haue beene baptized by Idoll ministers are either called or not called to saluation If called why should they be rebaptized seeing alreadie they haue bene made partakers of the outward element and accompted in the number of Christians If not called neither should they be baptized vntill they declared by their workes that they were Gods children If they receiued the Sacrament before they neede not If they receiued no Sacrament they cannot absteine from Baptisme without intollerable both sinne and vengeance None that are effectually called either haue or will refuse to offer themselues to Baptisme which Baptisme before they had not Cornelius example doeth teach vs that Acts. 10. Yea I dare be bold to say that her Maiesties subiects which are vnbaptized and do not offer themselues to Baptisme are not as yet effectually called whatsoeuer either they or you pretende The reason is None are effectually called which are not within the compasse of Gods couenant The words of Gods couenant are these I will be thy God and the God of thy seede Gen. 17. Are they within the compasse of this couenant which either wittingly omit or wilfully refuse Baptisme which is the seale of Gods couenant M. Penry sayth that the preaching of the worde is necessarily required in the administration of Baptisme chap. 7 pag. 82. If this were true al such as were Baptized without a Sermon receiued no Sacrament I referre you to my answere Chap. 7. pag. 84. M. Penry sayeth that Baptisme is not out of the Church Chap. 23. pag. 176. This is a grosse errour Reade that which I haue written Chap. 21. pag. 158. c. M. Penryes iudgement is that Queene Elizabeth and many thousandes in England are vnbaptized That his iudgement is such I proue it by his owne wordes He writeth thus c. In Popery there is no true Christ whereunto men may be ingraffed c. And a litle before What Baptisme is that which is not an ingraffing into the true Christ Chap. 23. pag. 173. A litle after he hath these words There is no Church at all in Popery chap. 23. pag. 175. 176. And in an other place c. that Baptisme is not out of the Church If M. Penry shall answere that it was Baptisme in the Popish church yesterday but it is not so either to day or to morowe because the Christ professed now in Popery is not a true but a deuided Christ I must needes tell him that Christ in the Popish profession was diuided as well when her Maiestie c. was Baptized as he is deuided in the Popish profession in this day Besides M. Penry writeth that the Popish church was neuer the Temple of God since Antichrist planted his pestilent chaire therein Chap. 22. pag. 165. To conclude seeing there is in M. Penryes iudgement no Church no Baptisme no Ministery in the Popish church c. I may be bold to affirme that in M. Penryes iudgement her Maiestie and many thousandes more are vnbaptized M. Penry saith that the holy Supper is an extraordinary Sacrament which is deliuered priuately by a Minister Chap. 14. pag. 139. This error is condemned by M. Caluine whose resolution is that it is lawfull to administer the holy Supper priuately if certaine cautions be
euery one of your reasons bee answered A peremptorie resolution They are pinned be like on your sleeue I hope wee shall not haue a Pythagoras of you Woulde you haue your boisterous speech go for an Oracle and cary all as a violent streame before it God forbid It were a hard case I trust you desire it not If you doe you are not like to haue it I. Penry In this point there is also another want which I would had beene redressed And that is of two sortes First a manifest going from the controuersie for the question being whether ignorant men not ordeyned of God for the gathering together of the Saintes bee ministers or no you leaue that and proue the Sacraments administred by them viz. by popish priests our dumbe ministers in the dayes of blindnes and ignorance to be sacraments which is no part of the matter in controuersie but an other point to be discussed if men will be gotten at all to enter thereunto when the former is determined and decided R. Some Your speeches are very idle I swarue not one iot from the cause I dealt in For proofe of this consider what I write Certaine in London gaue out in my hearing first that such as were baptized by Popish Priests in the Popish Church and by vnpreaching ministers in our Church receiued no baptisme Secondly that the Godly were polluted which receyued any Sacrament at the hands of vnpreaching ministers To heale these sores I was desired to prouide a plaister I did so and God hath giuen a good blessing vnto it All this time your booke was as great a stranger to me as it is nowe to the Duke of Medina What say you M. Penry Haue I faulted as you imagine Had you any the least cause so roughly to seaze vpon me and to charge me with going from the point Bee iudge your selfe yea I refuse not the iudgement of your disciples if they haue any dramme of equitie in them I. Penry Secondly your reasons are so fewe and so commonly knowen vnto al that for their number a small deale of paper might conteyne an answere vnto them for their noueltie they could not put a man that had according vnto knowledge but once allowed of the cause to any great labour in answering them As being things so commonly obiected by al learned or vnlearned that hold our readers to be ministers and thinke it lawfull to communicate with them as by course of speech they fall vnto that discourse where all men may easily see that there was a great ouersight committed by M Some in deeming that the oppugning of a cause countenanced by most of the Godly learned would bee taken in hand by any who could not answere the reasons which he might be sure would be obiected by all And who could bee ignorant that the odious controuersie concerning the profanation of baptisme both by Popish Priestes and our dumbe Ministers would offer it selfe in the forefront to withstande the trueth that the ciuill Magistracie the ministerie of the dumbe Leuites the corrupt outwarde calling of our readers woulde require an answere which are the reasons and the onely reasons vsed by you R. Some If my arguments be fewe I haue done you pleasure for they are sooner answered They haue you say no noueltie I like them the better for they are as I desired If they bee not for your diet I doe not passe my thought is taken If nothing were good or bad but that which you like or mislike precious pearles should go for tile sherdes and pebble stones for Diamonds Tichonius a Donatist said of himselfe and his fellowes Quod volumus sanctum est Your musicke I hope is not like his If it bee you are too imperiall You will not be abidden What and how weake my reasons are must bee decided hereafter for your wordes are no arguments If my reasons were sutable to your answeres they were very wofull Your odious speech that I withstand the trueth is vsed often it is a speciall flowre in your booke This course hurts you and not me It hurts you for it bewrayes your humour It hurts not me for your tongue cannot disgrace me I. Penry The last want I finde in you is conteyned in the insufficiencie of your reasons which euidently shewe the insufficiencie of the conclusion that would be inferred by them Your reasons are all of them faultie either because they desire that for graunted which is the question or make those things of like nature wherein there is a great dissimilitude From the first of the two faults it commeth to passe that you take for graunted that the writings of reuerend and godly men as of Augustine M. Beza c. will proue that which the worde of the eternall God doth not warrant Hence you take it granted that Popish Priests were ministers that the outward approbation of the Church maketh a Minister that whensoeuer the word of institution is pronounced with the outwarde element there must presently be a Sacrament that I take an euill Minister for no Minister that there was a nullitie both of Caiphas ministerie because he came in by briberie and of the litigious Ministers in the Church of Philippi c. Howsoeuer you take those things as graunted principles yet they are the poynts in controuersie and so farre from being yeelded vnto by me that I haue shewed euery one of them to be manifestly false R. Some You finde many faults You are a hard man you couer none Moates with you are beames and molhils mountaines yea no moates and no molhils are beames and mountaines if they appeare at your barre It pleaseth you to giue out that all my reasons are faultie If you meane in your eye I doe easily graūt it If you meane in the eye of the learned you mistake the matter But what are the faultes which you pursue so hotly Forsooth I take that you say for graunted which is the question viz. that Popish priests were ministers that whensoeuer the word of institution is added to the element there is a Sacrament and that such a thing is thus and so because Augustine and Beza write so Your tongue is no slander Did I euer say or write that Popish priestes had a lawfull calling I haue written I confesse that Popish priests haue a calling though a faultie one Of this iudgemēt are Beza Caluin the reformed Churches But all these are wide of the Butte onely you do hit the white you wil teach them Sus Mineruam It becōmeth not the house Did I euer say or write that whensoeuer the worde of Institution is added to the elemēt there must presently be a Sacrament There is no sillable in my treatise that lookes that way You imagine I say so and of this absurd conceite you conclude that priuate men children women idiots in my iudgemēt may administer a Sacramēt You pretend great sinceritie but your dealing with me in this and some other points is neither honest nor scholerlike It
these two points which you alone in our Church haue publiquely called in question And for mine owne part when you haue done I knowe not who will be your aduersarie I see no reason why I shoulde deale in controuersies of so small gaine Of this I am assured that neither Popish priestes nor any other ignorant guides are Ministers Whether the Element administred by them be a Sacramēt or no looke you to that which haue in your Treatise debated that which my writings neuer called into question If you will needes proue readers to be Ministers because you cannot get mee to denie that which hath bene administred to be a Sacrament you shall but presse that which will proue nothing Your reason is as if you should say that either all they which supplie the places of ministers are ministers or els an inconuenience is likely to followe A strange maner of demonstration Gods ordinance must needes be thrust out of the doores because an inconuenience would be likely to ensue the admitting of it The cause will not be thus answered at your hands and I am sory that a man so reuerend in mine eyes hath dealt so vnsubstantially in a matter belonging to the seruice of the euerliuing God the slendernesse of the reason is apparant In the latter end of the booke I haue further shewed the same thither I am to referre you and the reader R. Some You are come at the last to my treatise In Gods name You giue out that I dealt in two needelesse points Not so by your leaue for some in London and other places being seduced by vnskilfull teachers denied them both You do not so your words are as cleare as the day and are these In these two poyntes M. Some c. you haue proued nothing that my writings haue denied I thanke you for this You are nowe in a very good moode but you will not be so long Virtutes latere nō possunt Ful vessels wil burst if they haue not a vent If you deny not that true baptisme was deliuered by popish priestes and vnpreaching ministers you cannot deny popish priestes and vnpreaching ministers to haue a calling My reason is Nullum Sacramentum sine ministro that is No Sacrament without a minister The wrangling spirits you write of are the more because of your absurde writings but they are not so many thankes be to God as you imagine They which are so forwarde in iangling of these points are either of your humour which is very bad or Anabaptisticall recusants which is somewhat worse You adde these words A strange manner of demonstration c. They do proclaime your ignorance they doe not answere my reason I perceiue an argument ab absurdo is a pille that will not downe with you The slendernes of my reasons is repeated by you euery handwhile It is like the Cuckoes song It pleaseth you againe to reuerence me You are at more cost then I would haue you This reuerence is either a burden or a benefit If a burden lade some other with it If a benefit beneficium non datur inuito I will none of it I. Penry Nowe I coulde well ouerpasse these two pointes because of themselues they contayne nothing that I haue withstoode but in as much as you haue not onely grounded them vpon false principles and such as in no wise can be warranted by the Canon of the worde but also inferre vpon their graunt that our readers are ministers and consequently that it is no sinne to communicate with them I am first to set downe the state of the question which in deede is and ought to bee decided betweene you and me concerning the Element administred both by popish priestes and other vnpreaching ministers and secondly to examine the grounds whereby you prooue the Element already deliuered by them to be a sacrament which you knowe I doe not deny to be so R. Some Because I haue an ill memory you tell me againe and againe that you deny not the sixth and seuenth proposition of my treatise It is well done of you I would you woulde keepe you there Onely you mislike the foundatiō I built on and some consequents I am sory for your heauinesse My grounds you say shal be examined Spare them not Arraigne them if you will But what shall I reason of or looke for at your hands To be acquited no hope of that To be condemned It is certaine for it hath pleased you to giue sentence before examination Harde dealing but I must abide it I. Penry The question therefore is not whether the one or the other of them haue deliuered a Sacrament in respect of the action done but whether a Christian going vnto them for those holy seales may be assured that hee can receiue the same at their hands I affirme that wee cannot M. Some taketh it graunted that we may My warrant is out of the worde because there is no promise made to vs therein that the action celebrated by such men is a Sacramentall action and where there is no promise there can be no assurance because our assurance ariseth onely of faith which must be grounded vpon the promises sette downe in the worde We haue no promise that they can deliuer vs a Sacrament because they are no ministers For they onely are enioyned by our Sauiour Christ to deliuer a Sacrament neither doe we knowe what he can deliuer which is no minister R. Some No maruaile though you dissent from me Conueniet nulli qui secum c. You are at warre with your selfe Your wordes agree like harpe and harrowe One while you denie not that popish priestes and vnpreaching ministers haue deliuered a sacrament An other while you knowe not what they can deliuer for they are as you say no ministers To that ende you depraue Christs speech in S. Matthew c. What dealing is this Sacrament and no Sacrament and all with one breath What can such as are no ministers deliuer a Sacrament If you say No then popish Priestes vnpreaching ministers neither haue nor can deliuer a Sacrament for they are as you say no ministers that is they haue no calling at all Your disciples are fit vessels to receiue any liquor of yours but men of learning and wisedome are otherwise affected They see clearely that your dealing is absurde and dangerous Absurde for it is voyde of trueth Dangerous for it woulde breede confusion The magistrates thankes bee to God neither doe nor will suffer this bad course of yours If they should fancies woulde as weedes growe too too fast and this noble land shoulde receiue more hurt then your head is worth I doubt not of their godly wisdome The miserable estate of Germanie heretofore by reason of Sectaries may and will awake them If you be restrained for your grosse errours as some other are very iustly you may not cry persecution persecution your note must be poena perfidiae that is that you are iustly met with Otherwise you sing
out of tune I. Penry So that the question is now growen to this issue Whether Popish priests and our vnpreaching Ministers be Ministers or no whom if I can proue to bee none then the matter is cleare that no man going vnto them for the Sacrament can assure himselfe there to haue the same And this shall be a generall reason equally belonging vnto both the pointes handled by you the particulers whereof shall follow in their places R. Some If you can proue that I will commende and preferre you before Martyr Bucer Caluine Beza and other very famous men and Churches Yea I will denie her Maiestie and a great number of her excellent subiects to bee baptized which I am sure are baptized The marke you leuell at is as I take it either to send many thousands to the Font againe or to make them guiltie of contempt of Baptisme One of these two must needes fall out if Popish priestes and vnpreaching Ministers without any calling did administer a Sacrament You may leuell and leuell againe at this marke but you shall neuer hit it The Bowe you shoote in is too strong and your armes are very weake Besides you would faine haue me confesse that either Popish priests and ignorant Ministers are lawfull and good Ministers of God or that no Sacrament was or is deliuered by them I will graunt you neither Not the first for I abhorre that defence Not the second for I detest your Anabaptisticall fancies The next thing you deale in is that neither Popish priestes nor vnpreaching Ministers are ministers In which Treatise you bewray intollerable both pride and ignorance What I like or mislike in that discourse appeareth in the end of this booke Thither I referre you I will now set downe that part of my Treatise which you fight against CHAP. 7. THEY WHICH WERE baptized in the Popish Church by Popish Priestes receiued true Baptisme touching the substance of Baptisme R. Some THe Popish priestes doe retaine the essentiall forme of Christes baptisme that is they doe baptize in the name not of Pope or idole but of the holy Trinitie therefore it is not mans but Gods baptisme which is deliuered by them If it be Gods baptisme I am sure it is true baptisme Master Caluin calleth them Catabaptists which denie that we are rightly baptized in the Popish Church Institut lib. 4. cap. 15. Sect. 16. I. Penry Nowe to the examination of your reason brought to prooue that they which were baptized in Poperie haue receiued true baptisme Your conclusion you must remember I doe not denie though your reason proueth not the same which is thus framed Whosoeuer deliuer Gods baptisme they deliuer true baptisme But Popish priestes deliuer Gods baptisme therefore true baptisme You haue changed the conclusion from that which was done vnto that which is done But this ouersight I omit The assumption you proue thus Whosoeuer baptize in the name not of Pope or Idols but of the holy Trinitie they deliuer Gods baptisme but Popish priestes doe baptize in the name of the holy Trinitie therefore they deliuer Gods baptisme Your proposition in this last Sillogisme is most false and such as vpon the grant whereof not onely the communicating with vnpreaching ministers might be aduouched but also Gods whole ordinance in the institution of his holy Sacraments quite ouerthrowen For if it were true that there were no more required to make substantiall baptisme as you here require no more but to baptize in the name of the Trinitie then these impious absurdities would followe thereof 1 That an Amalekite might deliuer true circumcision as touching the substance 2 That true baptisme might be administred vnto a substance not capable of baptisme But this odious instance I will not vrge 3. That a woman 4. That any man not being a Minister as a childe of fiue yeeres olde a Turke or Iewe might deliuer true baptisme as touching the substance For these pronouncing the words of Institution might retaine by your reason the essentiall forme of Christs baptisme and so to vse your owne wordes they baptizing not in the name of Pope or of Idols but of the holy Trinitie should deliuer Gods baptisme and not mans If Gods baptisme then true baptisme I am sure in like maner by this reason they should be Catabaptists which denie men to be rightly baptized by Turkes or women R. Some You denie not my conclusion I must you say remember it You haue sung this song very often It needed not A worde had bene ynough if it had so pleased you You tell me You wil omit an ouersight of mine You deserue no thankes for this courtesie therefore I will giue you none But what I beseeche you is my ouersight Forsooth I doe accompt it as true baptisme which is administred now as heretofore in the Popish Church Call you this an ouersight Was it true baptisme yesterday and is it none to day A marueilous case This is like those absurde fellowes of whome Tertullian writeth in an other case Hodie presbyter quicras laicus De prescr aduersus Haer. That is to day a Minister but to morow none You are one of the strāgest Diuines that euer I hard of Very ignorant very bould very absurde You are such a one as the Apostle mentioneth 1. Tim. 1.7 To proceede my reason you say prooueth not my proposition In the iudgement of any learned man it doeth if not in yours the matter is not great for your iudgement is not worth a rush The argumēt I made is in deede M. Caluines a very sure one It is allowed of all Churches that I can heare of It pleaseth you to set downe my reason thus Whosoeuer deliuer Gods baptisme they deliuer true baptisme But Popish priests deliuer Gods baptisme therfore true baptisme You say I proue my Minor thus Whosoeuer baptize in the name not of Pope or idols but of the holy Trinity they deliuer Gods baptisme But Popish priestes c. Your answere is that my Maior propositiō is most false that vpon the grant of it many absurdities would folow c. Your dealing with mee is most absurde It shall appeare thus My Minor proposition set downe by you was Popish priests deliuer Gods baptisme You say I proue it thus Whosoeuer baptize in the name not of Pope or idols but of the holy Trinitie they deliuer Gods baptisme Vpō this you inferre many cōsesequēts at your pleasure viz. that Turkes Iewes women priuate men children might deliuer true baptisme touching the substance You pretende great sinceritie Answere mee directly I appeale to your conscience if you haue any Did I euer deliuer such a Maior proposition If I haue quote the page set downe the words If I haue not which I am wel assured of you haue grosly abused me You may as easily fetch oyle out of a flint as any such consequents out of my writings The godly reader may see by this litle howe neere you are driuen when you vse such beggerly shifts
calling at all first Luther which had imposition of handes in the Popish Church had no externall calling at all Secondly in your iudgement either no Baptisme was deliuered by Popish Priests in the Popish Church or Baptisme if any were in the Popish Church was administred by priuate men for they which haue no calling at all are priuate men I neede not driue you to absurde consequents you cast your selfe headlong into them as into a dangerous quauemire Your Treatises wherein you haue sowen grosse errours thicke and threefolde are witnesses ynough of this Are not your disciples most vnhappie which depende on you as on another Pope You aske whether there is a ministery out of the Church What my iudgemeÌ„t is appeareth hereafter In the meane time you deny not that there is true baptisme therefore consequently a ministery in the Popish Church which you say is no Church Caiphas Priesthoode hath both searched and founde you out It bewrayeth your grosse ignorance CHAP. 8. THEY ARE THE SACRAments of Baptisme and the holy Supper which are deliuered in the Church of England by vnpreaching Ministers I. Penry YOu knowe M. Some what I meane by an vnpreaching Minister namely euery one learned or vnlearned that cannot shewe himselfe by the good triall of his giftes to haue that fitnesse to reach whereof we read 2. Tim. 2. 1. Tim. 3. Which abilitie the Lord doeth not ordinarily bestow vpon any in these our dayes without the knowledge of the Artes especially the two handmaides of all learning Rhetoricke and Logique and the two originall tongues wherein the worde was written R. Some If none are to be accounted ministers ordinarily which are not furnished as you prescribe and require many in the primitiue Church after Christes Ascension were no ordinarie ministers Valerius a godly man whom Augustine succeeded at Hippo in Afrique was no ordinarie minister Possid in vita Aug. cap. 5. Samsucius a godly Bishop was no ordinarie minister Aug. epist 168. Augustine which was a famous man was no ordinarie minister Many profitable pastours in this age are no ordinarie ministers Yea M. Penryes ignorant Leuiticall priestes whome hee alloweth and defendeth to bee lawfull Priests were no ordinarie ministers If such as were baptized in the popish Church receiued true baptisme I trust they are rightly baptized in the Church of England which are baptized by vnpreaching ministers I. Penry The rest of your booke is now to be examined Your conclusion pag. 22. that they which were baptized by vnpreaching ministers are rightly baptized as touching the substance of baptisme I doe not gainesay Your reasons are weake for howe could we proue your conclusion if men shoulde denie popish baptisme to be true baptisme as I doe not you knowe and he should doe me great iniurie which would lay that to my charge Were it sufficient for vs to say they were Catabaptists which denie popish baptisme howe coulde this be proued and this shoulde not proue the matter doubted of R. Some Do you answere of this fashion this is as farre off as Yorke from London The summe of your answere is that my reasons are weake that you denie not my conclusion Are my reasons weake because you say so If they were like your senseles answeres they were strange stuffe If you deny not theÌ„ which were baptized by vnpreaching ministers to be rightly baptized it is a necessarie consequent euen in your owne iudgement first that either vnpreaching ministers are ministers or that priuate men may deliuer a Sacrament secondly that it was and is a Sacrament which is administred without a Sermon They which denie that such as were baptized in the popish Church receiued true baptisme touching the substance of baptisme are Catabaptists in the iudgement of all learned writers and reformed Churches I rest in their iudgement R. Some If such as were baptized by popish priests in the popish Church and by vnpreaching ministers in the Church of England receiued no Sacrament many grosse absurdities would followe First very many are vnbaptized and if they be vnbaptized they sinne grieuously in not presenting themselues to the holy Sacrament I. Penry Shall we say that they sinne in not presenting themselues to be baptized To whom should they present themselues who would baptize them R. Some What meane scholer in either of the Vniuersities yea what Russet coate in the Countrey would shape such an answere In steade of answering my reasons you aske me two questions I must be content to answere there is no remedie Your first question is Shall we say that they sinne in not presenting themselues to be baptized My answere is they doe sinne no learned and godly man doubtes of it my reasons are First Baptisme is externus character that is the outward marke and badge of a Christian so writeth that famous man M. Foxe Cap. 14. in Apocal. Secondly the contempt of circumcision was grieuously punished Gen. 17. Yea the Angel would haue killed Moses because his sonne was not circumcised Exod. 4. Thirdly they in the primitiue Church which had excellent graces presented themselues to baptisme which baptisme before they had not So did many in Ierusalem after Peters sermon Act. 2. many in Samaria after Philips sermons Act. 8. many in Corinth after Pauls sermons Act. 18. Your second question is to whom should they preseÌ„t them selues who would baptize them my answere is after a publique profession of their faith in the christian assembly they must present themselues to be baptized of the minister So did Cornelius in Caesarea Act. 10. Lidia in Philippi Acts. 16. Crispus and Gaius in Corinth Act. 18.1 Cor. 1. and a Iewe of late yeeres in London I speake nowe of such as be of yeres and are vnbaptized I hope you wil not gather of this that I shut our infants from the holy Sacrament of Baptisme if you should you deserue rather to be censured by the Magistrate then to be confuted by argument R. Some If such as were baptized by popish priests in the popish Church and by vnpreaching ministers in the Church of England receiued no Sacrament a great number haue sinned grosly in partaking the holy Supper My reason is none vncircumcised might eate the Passeouer Exo. 12.48 therefore none vnbaptized may receiue the holy Supper I. Penry Admit they sinned in receiuing the Lords Supper before they were baptized should they therefore be bereaued of the comfort of baptisme to affirme that this were a going backward is no reason because they were perswaded that they had baptisme otherwise they would not haue bene so farre on their iourney vntill they had bene accompanied therewith But they omitted baptisme of ignorance and not of contempt therefâ—â—e they denie the receiuing of the Lords Supper to haue bene a sinne any more then it would be a sinne in them nowe to receiue the Lords Supper if they could not haue Baptisme Baptisme they would haue if they could orderly come by the same Because men will be so iniurious vnto them as
to deny them the comfort of baptisme which they cannot haue shoulde they denie to themselues the comfort of the Lordes Supper which they may haue Yea but no vncircumcised might eate the pascal lambe Exod. 12.48 True But what shall we say vnto those that were vncircumcised in the wildernesse fortie yeeres almost Ios 5.5 Did they neuer eate the passeouer all that time If they did the place of Exodus will be quickly answered It is plaine that the passeouer was celebrated in the wildernesse once at the least Nom. 9.1 If euery yeere why should the godly of the familie bee excluded from the action the cause why they were vncircumcised not being in them R. Some You answere very strangely Your wittes I thinke were a wooll gathering If they sinned in partaking the Lordes supper before they were baptized there is great reason they shoulde abstaine from the holy table vntill they bee baptized which Baptisme if the case so required might orderly and easily bee come by But they omitted baptisme you say of ignoraunce not of contempt therefore they sinned not which being vnbaptized did partake the holy Supper I denie your argument My reason is Ignorātia excusat non à toto sed à tanto that is Ignorance maketh the fault lesse it doth not make it none M. Penry at the length toucheth one part of my reason but by his leaue I will first set downe my whole reason and then his answere My reason is this None vncircumcised might eat the passeouer Exod. 12.48 therefore none vnbaptized may receiue the holy Supper M. Penryes answere is conteined in these wordes True But what shall we say vnto those that were vncircumcised in the wildernesse fortie yeeres almost Iosua 5.5 Did they neuer eate the Passeouer all that time If they did the place of Exodus will be quickely answered It is plaine that the Passeouer was celebrated in the wildernesse once at the least Nombers 9.1 If euery yeere why shoulde the godly of the familie bee excluded from the action the cause why they were vncircumcised not being in them Call you this answering There was neuer any such I am sure in Cambridge or Oxford It came I thinke out of Barbarie I hope you are ashamed of it by this time You aske mee whether they which were vncircumcised in the wildernesse almost fortie yeeres did all that time neuer eate the Passeouer My answere is that no such thing appeareth in the text and where the holy Ghost stayeth his penne it becommeth vs to stay our tongues Yea it is cleare in Iosue that the Israelites after they were circumcised did keepe the feast of the Passeouer Ios 5.8.10 You adde If the Israelites being vncircumcised did partake the Passeouer that the place in Exodus will be quickely answered You say true If the skie fall you shall catch Larkes When you proue this if of yours I wil accept your answere Till then you shal pardon me You proceed in this sort It is plaine you say that the Passeouer was celebrated in the wildernesse once at the least Numb 9. Will you conclude of this therefore they which were vncircumcised did eate the Passeouer If you doe I denie your argument My reason is If they had admitted any vncircumcised to the Passeouer they had prophaned the holy Sacrament The wordes in the text are manifest If a stranger dwell with thee and will obserue the Passeouer of the Lord let him circumcise all the males that belong vnto him and then let him come and obserue it and he shall bee as one that is borne in the lande for no vncircumcised person shall eate thereof One lawe shall bee to him that is borne in the land and to the stranger that dwelleth among you Exod. 12. An other reason of yours is the cause why the Israelites were vncircumcised was not in them therefore the godly vncircumcised of the family might not be barred from the Passeouer I answere your argument is naught and verie sawcie for you comptroll Almightie God by whome they were barred This is no pride M. Penry I might say to you as the Apostle in another case O man who art thou that pleadest against God hath not the potter power of the Clay c. Rom. 9. I confesse that the Israelites ceased from circumcision in the wildernes and yet were not faultie in omitting and deferring circumcision for they had Gods speciall dispensation to do so because they were in cōtinuall trauaile and people being newly circumcised could abide no labour For the surer proofe of this point vidz that none which are knowen to bee vnbaptized may either present themselues or be admitted to the holy Supper I offer these reasons to the godly Reader First Baptisme is an entrāce into the visible church the holy Supper is a confirmation of this entrance Secondly they which were of yeeres in the primitiue Church were first baptized and afterwarde receiued the holy Supper This is manifest in these wordes of S. Luke Then they that gladly receyued his worde were baptized and the same day there were added to the Church about three thousand soules And they continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers c. Act. 2. By breaking of bread is vnderstanded the partaking of the Lords Supper Thirdly None may present themselues to the holy table before due examination of themselues 1. Cor. 11. This examination consisteth of faith and repentance which faith and repentance are not in them which either wittingly omit or wilfully contemne the holy Sacrament of baptisme which baptisme is the Sacrament of repentance Matth. 3. Calu. Inst. lib. 4. cap. 19. sect 17. Lastly all famous men and Churches are of my side If maister Penry dissent it is no great matter His writings are not as the lawes of the Medes and Persians c. R. Some If such as vvere baptized by popish Priests in the popish Church and by vnpreaching ministers in the Church of England receiued no Sacrament many excellent men haue vsurped the preachers office My reason is It is vnlawful for any man to be a publique teacher in the visible Church which is not by baptisme graft into and so become a member of the visible Church Our Sauiour Christ was baptized of Iohn in Iordane before he preached Mat. 3. and 4. Chap. The Apostle Paule was baptized of Ananias in Damascus before he preached Act. 9. I. Penry None vncircumcised might minister before the altar True but did none of the Leuites that were borne in the wildernes teach Iacob the law or offer the incense of his God in all those forty yeeres R. Some The truth I perceiue is mightie It maketh the enemie many times to confesse it so doth it you in this place Your wordes are cleare for me and flat against your selfe You grant that none vncircumcised might minister before the altar I thanke you for it Of this I conclude therefore none vnbaptized may be a publique teacher in the visible church Thus
you see by the way which may not be forgotten that an argument may bee drawen from the Leuiticall priesthood to the ministerie of the newe testament which priesthood and ministerie are not twinnes are vnmatcheable and cannot stand together I confesse my selfe greatly bound vnto you you deale very liberally with me for you reach me arguments as weapons to smite your selfe withall M. Penry a little after in steede of answering my reason asketh a question after his vsuall manner Did saith he none of the vncircumcised Leuites teach Iacob the lawe or offer incense c. I answere First that no such thing appeareth in the text Secondly that it is against the practise of the Leuiticall priefts in the olde Testament Did euer any student deale so childishly as M. Penry doth is not he a very fit man to censure famous men Churches Caluine Martyr Beza Augustine c. are no body with him I did neuer see him that I knowe of but ex vnguibus leonem I see by his answeres what a deepe clarke he is I. Penry Thus many things you see might be obiected against your reasons and I take the obiections to be of some waight It had bene well you had considered of them before you had published your booke And the Baptisme by vnpreaching ministers must haue better proofes then any you haue brought as yet or els I feare me our posterities will not be satisfied therewith R. Some Your wayghtie obiections are inuincible in your eye Suum cuique pulchrum But they haue neither Suczum nor Sanguinem they haue no pith in them they are lighter then any feather and bewray your ignorance You wish I had considered before hand of your obiections Satis pro imperio You are by your leaue a litle too lordly had I nothing to thinke of but of your absurde fancies you imagine very basely of me My arguments for baptisme by vnpreaching ministers are such as you are vnable to stirre for proofe of this I referre the reader to your vnscholerlike answeres Your feare that the posteritie will not rest in my reasons is a vaine feare c. R. Some The vnpreaching ministers doe adde the worde vnto the Element in the administration of Baptisme therefore it is the Sacrament of Baptisme which is deliuered by them Accedit verbum ad Elementum fit Sacramentum August Tract 80. in Iohan. that is The worde is added to the Element and it becomes a Sacrament By worde in Baptisme is vnderstanded the worde of Institution which is to baptize in the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost c. Of this iudgement are Beza confess Cap. 4. Art 47. and Musculus de sig Sacram. Art 4. I. Penry Your next reason page 23. is slender Readers pronounce the wordes of Institution with the deliuerie of the Element therefore say you they deliuer a Sacrament You haue once already alledged this to prooue popish baptisme page 20. I haue answered it page 29. 30. 31. And the place of Matth. 28.19 brought in by you page 23. prooueth your consequent to bee false For it sheweth that hee who is to baptize must bee also able to teache which abilitie is wanting in our Readers Goe sayth our Sauiour and teache all nations baptizing c. Therefore if hee that deliuereth the Element be not able to teache we cannot be assured that it is a Sacrament Because the commaundement is not generally to all that coulde pronounce the wordes of Institution being thereunto permitted by the corruption of the time but particularly limitted vnto them that can teache vnlesse you will say that the Lorde biddeth them goe teache who cannot teache which were not once to bee conceiued of his Maiestie R. Some Whatsoeuer passeth from me is slender in your opinion All that you deliuer is ex tripode an oracle at the least You answered before wisely like your selfe So you doe in this place semper idem you are no changeling You deny my consequent and doe adde for your reason an obiection set downe by me a litle after My answere to that obiection is extant and very direct I rest in it I did neuer say or thinke that Almightie God did either command or allow any to be a priest in the old or a minister in the new Testament which had not gifts in some measure It pleaseth you to write in your treatise that vnfitnes to teach made not a nullitie of the Leuiticall priests office If you meane that it made not a nullitie before God you conceiue very basely of Almightie God for you make him to allowe ignorant men to be his priests in the olde Testament which absurde course would haue brought great dishonour to his Maiestie and great hurt to the Church of the Israelites I doe nowe but touch this grosse and blasphemous paradoxe of yours and with the dog of Egypt doe as it were sippe and away but I will examine it more surely hereafter that the reader may see clearely as in a Christall glasse what base ware you commend vnto vs for excellent diuinitie I. Penry The corruption in the Church of Englande that the deliuerie of the Element shoulde be seuered from the preaching of the worde is a breach of Gods ordinance you cannot deny Matth. 28.19 Actes 20.7 and therefore vngodly and intollerable Whether it make the action frustrate or no that is not the question R. Some You meane as I take it by the worde added to the Element the worde preached but you doe not say flatly here though you haue a little before that the want of a Sermon maketh the action frustrate that is the sacrament to be no sacrament I confesse that Paul preached at Troas in the administration of the holy Supper Act. 20.7 and that the Apostles did teach the Gentiles before they baptized them Mat. 28.19 But no learned man will conclude of this that a Sermon is simplie necessarie to the Essence of a Sacrament If you will know what I thinke of sound preaching before the administration of the holy sacramēt my answer is that I do greatly both like and commend it Yea I doe wish with all my heart that all the Churches in Englande had able teachers to performe that dutie This minde was I euer of since I knewe what Gods religion and good diuinitie meant Of this minde are all godly and learned men in the Church of England An obiection of the fantasticall sort Christ sayde to his Apostles Goe and teach all nations baptizing c. Matt. 28.19 Therefore if the worde preached bee not added to the Element it is no sacrament of Baptisme Answere The Argument is verie weake I confesse that Christ cōmanded his Apostles first to teach such as were of yeres and alients from his religion and then to baptize them If the Gentiles had not bene first taught they woulde not haue offered themselues nor the Apostles admitted them to the holy sacrament of Baptisme If any will conclude of this place in saint
vt eadem prorsus à nobis iudicari debeat eo haberi in loco quo aut Mahumetana aut Iudaica quae Christum penitus repudiant ab eius legibus institutis abhorrent Nam sinulla omnino extarent in ea veteris Ecclesiae vestigia Daniel non praedixisset futuram abominationem in loco sancto nequè Paulus perditum illum filium in Templo Dei sessurum Quomodo enim sederet Antichristus in Templo Dei si nullae amplius superessent illius Templi saltem reliquiae aliqua ruinarum vestigia aut quomodo occupare abominatio lucū sanctum si totus adeò esset profanatus vt ne vllus quidem vel exiguus angulus pristinae sanctitati relictus esset Nam etsi praeualet ac latiùs dominari videtur hominum iudicio impietatis regnum Et Christi Ecclesia vsqué eò oppressa ac pene suffocata vt vix spiritum ampliùs trahere possit nondū tamen penitus animam exhalait Viret Tract de Commun fid cum Pap. cer pag. 66. 67. The summe of his wordes is first that the popish Church may not be accompted of as the Mahomet Iewish Churches which refuse Christ altogether Secondly that if no prints of Gods Church remayned in the popish Church Daniel and Paul would not haue foretold the one that abomination should be in the Holy place the other that Antichrist should sit in the temple of God Lastly that the Church of God amōgst the Papists though it be almost smothered hath not as yet giuen vp the ghost Daneus writeth that the Popish Church is the Church and Temple of God not simply but secundum quid that is after a sort His reason is because the popish Church retaineth some printe of the markes and badges of Gods Church Tract de Ant. cap. 17. M. Foxe hath these words Neque enim Romam ita totam c. In Apoc. cap. 13. pag. 235. that is we doe not so seuer Rome frō al felowship of the church that it shal haue no coniunction at all with the body of Christ If M. Penry mislike my first reason let him confute it c. 2 Ieroboam did set vp Calues at Bethel and Dan. In his time the seruice of God was strangely corrupted yet certaine prerogatiues belonging to the Church remained then amongst the Iewes Circumcision which was the Lordes Sacrament could not be so defiled by the vncleane hands of the Iewes but that it was alwayes a signe and Sacrament of Gods couenant therefore God called the infants of that people his children c. In the Popish Church God hath preserued Baptisme c. Besides there remaine amōgst them other remnants vidz the Lords prayer the Articles of the faith the Commandements c. least the Church should vtterly perish c. Lastly Almightie God hath miraculously preserued amongst them the remnants of his people though poorely and thinly scattered c. Of this M. Caluine concludeth that the popish Churches are Churches Institut lib. 4. cap. 2. sect 11.12 If my second reason taken out of M. Caluine please you not confute that part of M. Caluines Institutions 3 If there be no Church at all in Poperie the infants of Papists are not to bee baptized in any reformed Church though some of the religiō doe answere for vndertake the good educatiō of them Which I take to be a great errour Master Caluine and the rest of the learned men in Geneua being required of M. Knoxe to set downe their iudgement touching this question vidz whether the infants of Idolaters and excōmunicate persons might be admitted to baptisme c. deliuer this answere Promissio non sobolem tantum cuiusque fidelium in primo gradu comprehendit sed in mille generationes extēditur Vnde etiam factum est vt pietatis interruptio quae grassata est in papatu c. Calu. Epist 285. The summe of their words is that Gods promise doth not onely comprehend the posterity of the faithfull in the first degree but reacheth vnto a thousand generations and that those children which descended of such ancestours as were godly many yeeres ago do belong to the body of the Church though their parents and grandfathers were Apostates c. M. Beza writeth thus of this argument Iniquū esset Papistas c. Epist 10. The summe of his wordes is that Papists are otherwise to bee accompted of then Turkes because Popery is an aberratiō of the Christian Church Besides because Gods goodnes extendeth it selfe to a thousande generations that it were a hard case to iudge by the profession of the later parents whether the infants pertaine to Gods couenant c. Thus farre M. Beza If any shall reply that Gods couenant hath no place at all amongst the Papists and therefore that their infants are at no hande to bee baptized in our Churches howsoeuer some of the religion offer them in the assemblie to the holy Sacrament M. Caluines answere is Certum est adhuc illic manere residuum faedus Dei exparte quia quamuis c. Cal. Ezec. 16.20 That is It is certaine that the couenant is there on Gods behalfe and therfore that Popish baptisme needeth not to be renued besides that Satan albeit he raigned of late in the Popish Church could not altogether extinguish the grace of God imò illic est ecclesia Alioqui falsum esset Pauli vaticinium vbi dicit antichristum sedere in Dei templo 2. Thes 2.4 That is A Church is there otherwise Paules prophecie that Antichrist should sit in the temple of God were false c. If it shall please the learned reader to reade M. Caluines Commentarie vpon chap. 16. and vers 20. of Ezech. It will be worth his labour A Popish obiection of the absurde Papists and of Master Penry If the Church of Rome be a Church those Magistrates which haue separated themselues and their subiects from the Popish Church are Schismatikes c. Answere Our Magistrates people c. haue seuered themselues not from the Church but from Idolatry not from the common wealth but from tyranny oppressing the common wealth not from the Citie but from the plague which pestereth the Citie c. that is separation is not frō any trueth remaining in the Popish Church nor from the poore Church that is there holden vnder captiuitie but from the corruptions of the Popish Church and from the tyrannie of Antichrist which is more grieuous then the yoke either of Egypt or Chaldaea therfore godly princes people cannot iustly be called Schismatikes Thrasibulus withdrewe himselfe to Phile during the time that thirtie tyrants did teare in peeces the common wealth in Athens Camillus withdrew himselfe to Veies during the time that the Gaules wasted the Citie of Rome If any shal conclude of this that Thrasibulus and Camillus separated themselues from the common wealths of Rome and Athens and not from the tyrannie vnder which the Atheniens and Romanes then were hee reasoneth most absurdly c. The
they receiued true Baptisme The argument followeth for baptisme is an engraffing into the true Christ Rom. chap. 6.3 The Antecedent is manifest in M. Penries iudgement for he will not haue them to offer themselues againe to baptisme therefore he is either a Catabaptist or els there was and is euen in his iudgement true baptisme in the popish Church 2 They which were circumcised in the time of Ieroboam and Caiphas were accompted true circumcised persons although at that time the state of the Church was almost altogether peruerted and corrupted therefore such as were and are baptized in the popish Church c. This argument is vsed of the greatest learned men of the religion and is allowed of all the reformed Churches 3 Caluine and Beza are resolute for this Calu. Ion chap 1. v. 16. Ezech 16. v. 20. Epist 103. and 104. Beza Confess chap. 4. Art 49. and chap 7. Art 11. Epist 10. and 81. Viretus hath these words Baptismum qui à sacerdotibus Papisticis collatus est c. that is we do allow popish Baptisme albeit we condemne the vaine and superstitious ceremonies which are vsed in it Tract de cōmun fid cum Papist cer pag. 64. Of this iudgement are all learned men and all reformed Churches None dissent but Catabaptists Anabaptists M. Penry and the rest of the fantasticall order CHAP. 21 THERE HATH BENE AND may be true Baptisme out of the Church THe Donatists thought otherwise in Augustines time but they are notably cōfuted by Augustine in his bookes de baptis contra Don. 2 True Circumcision was amongst the Edomites 3 They which were baptized out of the Church by heretikes neither were nor might be rebaptized therefore they receiued true baptisme The Antecedent is manifest for it is a rule in Diuinitie and receiued of all learned men Baptizati ab haereticis non sunt rebaptizandi that is they which are baptized of heretickes are not to be rebaptized The reasons are Where the essentiall forme of baptisme is obserued non haereticus sed haeretici manu Christus baptizat that is not the hereticke but Christ doth baptize by the hand of the hereticke Aug. passim de bapt cōt Don. It is not the baptisme of hereticks or schismaticks but of God the Church wheresoeuer it be found and whithersoeuer translated Aug. de bapt contra Don. lib. 1. cap. 14. The heresie is theirs the errour is theirs c. but baptisme which is Christes must not be accompted theirs Aug. de baptis contra Don. lib. 3. cap. 11. Ciprian was of an other iudgemēt in the Church of Carthage but hee was condemned for that errour by the best Churches in that age 4. The Arke of the testament which was taken of the Philistims lost not the vertue of Sanctification 1. Sam. 4. Dagon can teach vs that 5 Si foris nemo potest c. that is if no mā can haue any thing which is Christs out of the Church neither can any man haue any thing which is the deuils within the Church Aug. de bapt contr Don. lib. 4. cap. 7. 6 Non itaque ideo non sunt sacramenta Christi Ecclesiae c. that is they are not therefore not the Sacraments of Christ and the Church because heretikes and wicked men do vnlawfully vse them They that is the heretikes c. are to be amended or punished but the Sacraments are to bee acknowledged and reuerently esteemed of c. Question How doe heretikes possesse baptisme Answere Baptismum legitimum habent sed non legitimè habent that is heretikes haue lawful baptisme but they haue it not lawfully Aug. de Bapt. cont Don. lib. 5. cap. 7. Neque licitè foris habetur tamē habetur sic illicitè for is datur sed tamen datur that is Baptisme is not had lawfully out of the Church notwithstanding it is had In like sort it is giuē out of the church vnlawfully notwithstanding it is giuen Aug. de Bap. contra Don. lib. 6. ca. 15. If any shall aske whether it be lawfull to offer our infants to baptisme out of the Church c. because all learned men except the Donatists c. in Augustines time and M. Penry and his worthie disciples in our time haue and doe affirme that true baptisme hath bene and may be out of the Church My answere is negatiue as Augustines was I referre the learned reader to his writings contra Cresc gram lib. 1. cap. 23. and de Bapt. contra Don. lib. 1. cap. 4. CHAP. 22. I. Penry THAT NO POPISH Priest is a Minister EVerie Minister must bee at the least by profession a member of the true Church No Popish Priest is by profession a member of the true Church Therefore no Popish Priest is a minister Euery minister hath an office within the body of the Church No popish priest hath an office within the body of the Church Therfore no popish priest is a minister The propositions or first part of both these reasons are set down euidently and plainly by the wisdome of God in these words For as we haue many members in one body and all members haue not one office so we being many are one body in Christ and euery one anothers members seeing then that we haue gifts that are diuers c. The place sheweth cleerely that whosoeuer is not a member is not of the bodie if not of the bodie then no minister Againe whosoeuer is no member he hath no office in the bodie if no office no minister He that should obiect that in this place is ment a member of the bodie by election in the secrete counsell of God and not in the acknowledgement of the Church by profession would not deserue the answering Because it is vocation and not election that maketh such a member in the Church as may haue an office therein of which sort the Apostle speaketh in this place By vocation I meane that whereof the holy Ghost speaketh where it is sayde Many are called but fewe are chosen neither can any man denie him to be a member of the Church which by outward profession submitteth himselfe vnto true religion and such are the members whereof the Apostle speaketh namely such as are members in the iudgement of the Church Iudas was a member in the iudgement of the Church though not belonging to election A further proofe of the propositions you shall find 1. Cor. 12.26.28 Hee was no priest in the olde Testament that was not a Iewe by profession yea and of the line of Aaron too and shall he be accounted a minister among vs that is a strāger from the profession of the trueth and a professed Idolater Ishmael and Esau were circumcised and the sonnes of those fathers vnto whome the couenant was made Euen I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed They and their posterities fell from true religion well admit that the profanation of circumcision had still continued in their houses yet a man supplying
substaunce of baptisme out of the Church and that by those that are without the Church for then a sacrament might be had out of the Church which were very impious and absurd to be affirmed But popery is out of the Church and so are all popish priests Therfore no man can assure himselfe to haue the substance of baptisme in poperie by any popish priest R. Some Before that I deny any part of your reason I must tell you that I haue proued alreadie that true baptisme hath bene and may be out of the Church Ciprian thought otherwise and therefore would haue such as were baptized by excōmunicated hereticks to be rebaptized But he was and is condemned for that errour by ancient later writers You giue out very peremptorily that it is very impious and absurde to affirme that baptisme either hath bene or may be out of the Church So did the Donatists in Augustines time It is no great matter what you say Your bolt is soone shot Your water is very shallow Many points vvhich you condemne in your Consistorie for grosse absurdities are manifest trueths in the sound iudgement of all reformed Churches So is this present particuler Touching your argument I denie your Minor My reason is the Popish church is a church though an vnsound Church and Popish priestes haue a calling though a faultie one For proofe of this I referre you to that vvhich I haue vvritten before in this Treatise If you like not my reasons confute them I. Penry That there is no Church at all in poperie and that all popish priests are out of the Church besides the former reasons this one doth further shew If there be a Church in poperie or if all popish priests bee not out of the Church then those magistrates that haue separated themselues and their subiects and all others that made this separation from the Romish religion as from that synagogue where saluation is not to be had and consequently where there is no Church are schismatikes to speake the least Because it is a schisme to make this separation from the Church detest the corruptions thereof we may but make such a separation from the Church we ought not vnlesse we would be accounted schismatiks But those Magistrates and their people that made this separation are not schismatickes because in Poperie the foundation is ouerthrowen You say in your booke M. Some page 33. that you could presse the Argument of the Magistracie against me very farre Whether you may or no that shal be cōsidered when I deale with the point but this I am assured of that in this point you shall be driuen either to defend the absurditie that baptisme is to be had out of the Church in a companie estranged from Christ which I thinke you will not do or vrged so farre as to the plaine breach of a Statute which farre be it from me euen in the cause of treason Will ye say that baptisme may be had out of the Church the assertion is absurd Or will you hold that there is a Church in Poperie the assertion is dangerous and I haue prooued it false It is dangerous because it affirmeth our Magistrates to be schismatiks inasmuch as they haue separated themselues from the Church I hope rather then you will fall into either of these points that you will graunt me the cause R. Some I will answere your seuerall pointes very briefly The reason which you vse to prooue there is no Church at all in popery is this viz. If there bee a Church at al in popery the Magistrates and people which are of the religion are schismaticks at the least My answere is that this is a popish argument I haue answered it before and doe rest in that answere If either you or any of the popish sort mislike my answere you may confute it Besides if there be no Church at all in popery as you affirme why should the Churches of England Germany Dēmarke which were sometimes popish be called reformed Churches The very name of reformed Churches doth manifestly import that the Churches of England Germanie Denmarke c. though popish and vnsound were Churches in some sort before the reformation If you thinke that all the popish sorte which died in the popish Church ore damned you thinke absurdly for you dissent from the iudgement of all the learned protestants and doe presume to sit in Gods chaire which is intollerable sawcinesse To say or write that true baptisme hath beene and may bee out of the Church is a true proposition in diuinitie Augustine did maintaine it against the Donatists The most famous mē Churches in our time are of that iudgement I rest in that with all my heart You account it an absurde proposition The best is you are not master of the sentences as Peter Lumbard was If you were which God defend the sounde diuinity which is taught in Cambridge and Oxford should bee cryed downe and your strange fancies should be ruled cases The argument of the magistracy is touched before I perceiue it hath mooued you a litle for you drawe out a statute of Treasō c. What I beseech you good Sir No lesse then Treason you are a charitable man I haue do and will perfourme all dutie by Gods grace to the religion and my gracious Prince so long as I liue therefore treason statutes can take no hold of mee Yea the refutation of your blasphemous Anabaptisticall popish and proude errours by me is I am sure a performance of a speciall duetie to Almightie God my Prince and this Church And I doubt not but that blessing which God hath giuen already to my last treatise and which his Maiestie will giue to this will marre your market Great wordes shal not fray me c. If your ignorāt disciples wil stil magnifie you it shal not be strāge to me they do but their kind Such as bee learned wise haue do find you out Cognoscitur quis sit vt vt laudetur Coruus The most famous orators that euer were in Rome and Athens could not make the rauen to be no rauen Tertullus commended Felix Act. 24. but Felix was an absurde body and stripped of his office by Claudius Caesar The Samaritans commended Simon Magus Act. 8 Libanius the Sophister commended Iulian the Apostate Socr. lib. 3. cap. 22. Eunomius cōmended Aetius which was a pestilent heretike Theodor. lib. 2. cap. 29. You haue protested many times in your treatise that you reuerence me but here you offer me this choise either to defende that which is in your iudgemēt an absurditie but in deede is none or to incurre the danger of treason c. Doe you thinke that I haue any the least cause to beleeue your glorious protestations Ioab pretended extraordinarie good will to Abner and Amasa but he killed them 2. Sam. 3. and 20. chap. Ismael pretended extraordinarie good wil to them of Sichem Silo Samaria the beast shedde teares but they were Crocodiles teares for