A Second Reply to an Answer Made by Doctor Whitgift Part 2, Part 5
THE ELEƲENTH TRACTATE, AGAINST THE CORRVPTIons in doctrine, tovuching the holy Sacramentes.
The firſt chapter vuhereof is, against the ſacriledg of priuate perſons, and vuemen eſpecially: in adminiſtring the holy Sacrament of Baptim, as it beginneth pag. 503 of the D. book.
LEaving to the readers iudgment, vponupon theDiuiſ. 1. reaſons alledged, whether the meaning of the book be to admit baptim by Midwiues, for as much (as I truſt) there shal no ſuch horrible profanation be ſuffered hereafter: let him obſerue how the An. becauſe he hath once vndertaken this cauſe (couertly as he dare) continueth the defence thereof. Iwis, of folies the shorteſt are best. yt had bene better for him, to hauehave laid his hand vponupon his mouth: or rather in confeſsing of his faut, to hauehave giuen god the glory. But let vsus ſee what he bringeth.
To that which was alledged ovut of the place of S. Mathevu, Math. 28. …9.that yt maketh as much againſt baptim by vuemen, as againſt there preaching: he anſwereth, that by that reaſon, Pastors may nether preach nor baptiz, for that they are no Apostles: which foloweth not. For the Paſtor ſucceding vntounto the Apoſtles, as touching preaching and baptiſing in their proper churches: hauehave by the ſame place autority to doe boeth. For further anſwer whereto: I refer the reader, to that I hauehave written aIn the former part p. 369. line 30.before. And I think, there is not ſo much as one of the godly writers, ether ould, or nue, which ſpeaking of the ordinary miniſtery vnderunder the goſpel, whether it be to ſtablish or ouerthrow thinges perteyning to it: vſeth not the places, that were firſt ſpoken to the Apoſtles alone. As for M. aInſt. booK 4. chap. 25. ſect. 22.Caluin, he vſeth this place expresly, which the Adm. doeth: to proue that wemen owght, at no hand, to baptiſe, but onelyonly the Ministers ordeyned to preach the goſpel: the ſame doeth M. bQuaest. de Sacram. quaest. 136.Beza. yea the Anſ. him ſelf, to proue the Bishops ſaying to thoſe he ordeyneth cpag. 227.alledgeth theſe wordes, receiu the holy goſt: which notwithſtanding were firſt ſaid, by our Sauior Chriſt, vntounto the Apoſtles alone: ſo that the Anſ. frowardnes, is here vntollerable. Nether is it any thing excuſed by Zuinglius. For, althowgh baptim be not inſtituted here, which was inſtituted in the miniſtery of Iohn Baptiſt, nor here be mentioned any circumſtance: yet the miniſter of that inſtitution, which is no circunſtance, but a ſubordinate efficient cauſe, may wel be appointed.
For confirmation hereof, I alledged that the miniſtery of the vuord and Sacramentes, ioyned of god togither, ovught not to be pulled aſonder: and therfore cyted examples, vuherin vue ſee obſerued continually, that the ſame vuere Miniſters of boeth togither. whereūto fyrſt he anſwereth generally, that examples proue not: which is dIn the former part p. 155. &c.before anſwered. Thē vntounto the particular example of the Ark, he excepteth, firſt that if that were a ſacrament, the Miniſter may make ſacramentes, for that Noah made yt: as if it owght to be ſo ſtraung, that the Miniſter miniſterially and ſubordinately, according to the inſtitution praeſcribed of god, should be ſaid, to make the ſacrament. For as yt it often tymes ſaid, that the Prieſtes made the ſacrifices: So, the Miniſter in vſing the water,Leuit. 9. 7. 22. et 14. 19▪ &c. which was common before, vntounto that vſe, and after that ſort, which Chriſt hath appointed, maketh yt holy and Sacramental water. Nether owght yt to be more ſtraung vntounto him, that the miniſter should after this ſort make the ſacrament: then that he should e1. Tim. 4….ſaue his hearers, fIſay. 6….that he should harden their heartes, cloſe vp their eyes, ſtop vp their eares, &c. al which thinges, the ſcripture aſcribeth vntounto the miniſter.
Secondly he ſaith, it had no promiſe of eternal life, nor was a ſeal of any promiſe: boeth which are vntrue. For it confirmed Noah in the promiſe that god had giuen, that he should not be drowned, with the reſt of the world. And as the promiſes, made of temporal bleſsinges vntounto the fathers, extended them ſelues vntounto the euerlaſting: ſo the ſacramēts to confirm thoſe promiſes, were ſacramentes to confirm thē, in the hope of eternal life. This doeth S. Peter confirm, which teacheth that the preſeruation of Noah in the Ark, was the ſame…. Epiſt. 3. 21 to him and his, which baptim is to vsus: to whome, the Anſ. doeth in this point, directly oppoſe him ſelf.
Thirdly, he addeth, that it was a figure of the church, and therfore no ſacrament: which foloweth not. For the bread and wine in the holy ſupper, are ſo a Sacrament of the body and blood of Chriſt: that they are neuertheles, Sacramentes of the church repreſented thereby, in that, a1. Cor. 10.as many cornes make one loaf, and many grapes one cup of wine: ſo many members, make one body of Chriſt, which is the church. Nether is the example of the miracles, vnaptly alledged: for they be ſignes to confirm the word of god, as are the Sacramentes. therefore whoſoeuer can shew, that Miniſters of the word owght onelyonly to be Miniſters of the ſignes, wherby it is confirmed: sheweth, that they onelyonly muſt be Miniſters, of the Sacramentes.
To proue, that the forbidding of them, from the miniſtring of the word, is their forbidding from the miniſtring of the Sacramentes: I browght an argument of contraries, for that S. Paul being bidden to miniſter the word, as in thinges which goe togither, did withowt further commandement, miniſter the Sacramentes: which was, belike, as a pil, that he could not wel ſwalow, conſidering that he anſwereth nothing. And if this, be not a good argument, then there is no commandement in the ſcripture, to bar wemen from being publik miniſters of the Sacramentes: for it is no where expresly forbidden them, to miniſter the ſacramentes, but onelyonly to miniſter the word. Yf therfore the godly learned, hauehave iudged them vnmeet, to miniſter the ſacramentes, becauſe the holy ſcripture hath diſabled them, to miniſter the word: yt foloweth neceſſarily, that none may hauehave power to miniſter the ſacramētes, which hath not alſo to miniſter the word. for otherwiſe, if thoſe might publikly miniſter the ſacramentes, which can not doe the word: wemen by reaſon of their ſex, are not ſo shut owt, but that they may hauehave entrance into that miniſtery.
Againſt this, and to proue, that there may be miniſters of the ſacramentes and not of the word: he referreth me to his pag. 483, where are cited Chryſoſtom, Ambroſe, Martyr and Caluin vpō theſe wordes, Chriſt ſent me not to baptiſe, but to preach. For anſwer whereunto, firſt it muſt be vnderſtanded, that when S. Paul ſaith, that he was not ſent to baptiz: his meaning is not, that he had no maner of ſending at al to baptiz. For ſo should his own mouth condemn hym: as one which had vndertaken to doe that, wherunto he was not ſent: conſidering that he confeſſeth in the ſame place, that he baptized certein howshouldes. what is then his meaning? Verely euen that, which he declareth by his practis: that he was rather ſent to preach, then to baptiz. And of ſuch negatiues by cō pariſon, the Anſ. could not be ignorant: ſeing boeth he hath otherwhere made mention of them, and it is a thing which a yong diuine, and he that hath yet the pap in his mouth, may eaſely vnderſtand. As when it is ſaid, receiu my diſcipline, Prou. 8. 10.and not ſiluer: Likewiſe that thy name shal be no more Geneſ. 32. vſus. 28.called Iacob, but Iſrael: that is to ſay rather diſcipline, then ſiluer, rather Iſrael, then Iacob.
Now, ſeing S. Paul did boeth preach and baptiz, by autority of god, and vertue of his calling: al may ſee, that no man can cōclude of this place, that one may be miniſter of the ſacramētes, and not of the word. if any thing cā be cōcluded, it is: that ſome may be occupied in adminiſtring the word, more thē in the ſacramentes. And this is alſo an anſwer to that alledged owt of Zuinglius, towching Chriſt teaching and his diſciples baptiſing: conſidering that the diſciples preached alſo althowgh not ſo much as our Sav. Chriſt.
Secondly, in ſo great numbers of men and wemen to be baptized, if to the end that the Apoſtles cours of preaching should not be ſtayed, others had that charge to pour on the water, which were no Miniſters of the word: that was in the beginning, before any ordinary miniſtery of Bishop was erected in the churches: and therfore nothing perteyning to our quaeſtion, which in quire, what owght to be the ordinary and ſettled gouernment of the church. For is it credible to a man of any iudgment, that ether the Apoſtle would commit, or theſe writers would ſay: that he committed the office of baptizing, vntounto thoſe which were not Miniſters of the word, paſsing by the Paſtor him ſelf.
Albeit, where there was no Paſtor to aſsiſt the Apoſtles: I ſee not, why the help that others, which were no miniſters of the word, gaue in that adminiſtration, should be properly called baptizing: no more then he which ſerueth the Paſtor, ether in carying abowt the bread, or reaching the cup, can be ſaid to hauehave miniſtred the lordes ſupper. So that, the Apoſtle S. Peter, hauing preached of the vſe of baptim, and pronounced the wordes of the inſtitution: althowgh he powred not the owtward element of water with his own hand, might wel be ſaid, to hauehave baptized them al. Beſide that, nothing hindereth, why the wordes Act. 10 he commanded them to be baptized: may not be expounded, that he commā ded water to be browght, wherwith they should be baptized.
Howſoeuer it was, yt could not be, as the D. ſaith very dangerously owt of Ambroſe: for that he would not vouchſafe to doe it him ſelf, other miniſters being preſent: conſidering that the miniſtery of the holy ſacramentes, being of the ſame nature with the preaching of the word, is of greater excellency, then any man vponupon earth is worthy to handle. Beſide that, ſeing he aloweth of Ambroſis place to the Epheſians, which affirmeth that al men preached in the Apoſtels tymes: he can receiu; no benefite of him in this place. For if al did preach, aſwel as baptiz: then it is true which I ſay, that none had the miniſtery of the ſacramentes, but he which had the miniſtery of the word withal: and vntrue which he affirmeth owt of Ambroſe, that ſome were ministers of the word, which were not of the ſacramentes.
Likewiſe is the teſtimony owt of M. Beza (wherto I hauehaveIn the Tractat of the Deacon. anſwered before) flat againſt hym in this cauſe: conſidering that his iudgment is, that the Deacons did boeth preach, and adminiſter the ſacramentes ſometyme. And as there is no harmony betwene hym, and his autorityes: ſo is there none, betwene the ſentences of his autors, which he hath mashed togither. For where ſome ſay, al: other ſay, that Prieſtes onelyonly baptized. where he ſaith Muſculus doeth alow, that ſome should miniſter the ſacramentes, which can not preach: yt is very true, and further, that he would rather hauehave yt doen by them, then by thoſe that can preach. But his ground, is vponupon the miſvnderſtanding of Act. the 6: whileſt he toke the ministring to tables, which is the prouiſion for the poor, for the miniſtring of the lordes ſupper. The foundation therefore of his aſſertion, being naught: the aſſertion yt ſelf, can hauehave no place.
The place of the 1. Timoth. 5. is aIn the tractat of the presbytery.anſwered: bIn the former part p. 371. line 10ſo is his queſtion. To cdiu. 3. and 4. pa. 506. 507.return again therfore to his demaund. where he asketh, what point of Anabaptiſm it is, that wemen may preach in the church, when there is no other that can, nor wil? I anſwer, that yt approcheth to that braunch, whereby the Anabaptiſtes hould, that mē may preach withowt an owtward calling of the church: onelyonly, if they think it needful.
Vuhere I obiected, his building vponupon examples, of a fevu particular perſons, vuhich alovueth not ours, althovugh they be grounded vponupon the general vſe of the churches in the Apostels tyme: he anſwereth, that he buildeth no neceſſary rule, but onelyonly that yt may be doen vponupon like occaſion. But this is but a vayn shift. For thoſe extraordinary actes whych are comendable, were doen ether by expres cō mandement, or by ſpecial direction of the ſpirit of god: the obedience whereunto, was not at their chois to doe, or to leau vndoen. So that, if the Anſ. wil hauehave theſe examples, to be the directers of baptim by midwiues: they not onelyonly may, but owght to doe yt. And if there were any ſuch caſe of neceſsity, as he vntruly pretendeth, and that yt might in ſuch a caſe be miniſtered by wemen: it were abſurd to leau it in the chois of the Midwife, whether she would miniſter it or no.
But note (I beſeche yow) what horrible confuſion, he bringeth into the world, by this ſaying. For if extraordinary examples doe proue, that ſuch thinges may be doen in ſuch caſes: then may priuate men execute malefactors, becauſe Phinees did ſo: and men may borow and neuer pay, as did the Iſraelites. If he ſay, that he addeth vponupon like occaſion and circumſtance: it is true, but thereby he meaneth, yf like need or neceſsity be. For if he mean as he owght, hauing a particular commandement of god by word, or a rare and extraordinary inſtinct by the ſpirit of god: his anſwer is nothing to purpoſe, conſidering that he wil not (I think) ſay, that the Midwiues hauehave any of theſe two: and if they had, they doe it not in reſpect of the former example, but onelyonly by reaſon of the extraordinary, ether commandement, or motion.
His example of the Samaritan woman Iohn 4, is friuolous: that she should become a publik preacher, which had not yet learned her catechiſm, nor was ſcarce owt of her Chriſtian A. B. C. where it is manifeſt, that she did nothing, which belongeth not to eueryevery one: that is, that we should exhort one another, to goe where the knowledg of Chriſt is to beIſay 2. 3. had: ſo that, she did onelyonly, as it were, towl the bel, to draw the Samaritanes to our Sau. Chriſt, that he might preach vntounto them. Nether doeth his other example, of the wemen Math. 28 which preached the reſurrection, help him. For if that may be called a publik miniſtery, it hath an expres commandement of the lord, by the Angel. which commandement, as oftMath. 28. 7 as Midwiues can shew, we wil acknowledg their miniſtery lawful: otherwiſe the general commandement, which we are1. Cori. 14. 34. 1. Tim. 2. 11. bound to folow, is direct againſt their preaching, which being shewed of me, is vnanſwered by hym. So that here he merely trifleth, often ſaiyng, that there is nothing against the baptim by wemen, and neuer anſwering the ſcriptures alledged, wherby it is generally forbiddē thē, to deal in theſe matters.
To that I concluded of his wordes (wemen may preach, if there be no man that ether can, or wil) that vuemen by that meanes hauehave his licence to preach in diuers places: he anſwereth it needeth not, ſeing the ſcriptures are red in al places. But that is but an eſcape: conſidering that althowgh they hauehave a reader, yet they hauehave no preacher, reading not being preaching, as I hauehave a shewed. And who ſeeth not, that many with vsus, forIn the for… mer part Tract. 5. want of teaching, ly in horrible ignorance of the truth: ſo that, by his rule, this is the tyme, in which wemen may teach openly with vsus.
But here again, he oppoſeth M. Caluin, which ſaith there is a Diui. 5. and 6. p. 507.tyme wherein a woman may ſpeak. Yf he mean in her own hows, or otherwhere priuat…ly, I graunt: if publikly in the church, vponupon an extraordinary calling, I graunt that alſo: otherwiſe I can not graunt it, for the reaſons before, and after alledged. And that M. Caluin, had no ſuch meaning as he pretendeth:Inſt. 4. booK. chap 15 ſect. 20. appeareth, in that he wil at no hand, admit baptim by wemen: to whome, althowgh he oppoſe Zuinglius, yet he sheweth not, nor (I think) is able to shew, that he alloweth, of baptim by Midwiues.
The next diuiſion, which sheweth that godly vuemen neuer toke the miniſtery of the vuord, but by extraordinary calling from god, approued ether by miracle, or ſome not able yſſu, (ſaith he) is needles, as that wherunto he agreeth: which is not ſo. For hereby is condemned, the baptizing boeth by wemē, and other priuate perſons whatſoeuer: as that which hath no ſuch calling, and approbation of god. The next to it, sheweth his pouerty: which endeuoring to defend the baptim by wemen, was ignorant of the principal hould of that cauſe: and was needfully met with for their ſakes, whom that might trouble.
In he next, he would inſinuate, that they may baptiz in the hows: for that S. Paul biddeth them teach in priuat places. where, if he had made his argument iuſt, and to claſp wel togither: he should hauehave concluded, that they owght to teach their howshold in priuate places, therefore they owght to baptiz in priuate places: and they owght to teach their families ordinarily, therefore they owght to baptiz their families ordinarily. thus muſt the argument be cut owt, according to his meaſure: and he may as wel ſay, that a woman owght to doe the ſame in the holy ſupper. But the knot is not yet looſed, my anſwer whereunto is, that if there were any priuate ſacramentes, as there is priuate teaching: I would accord vntounto him, that wemen hauing power to teach priuately, might alſo miniſter the ſacramentes priuately. But becauſe that the holy ſacramentes are publik, as is the preaching: his argument, hath no force. For in what place, wil he lodg this argument: a woman may doe a priuate act, therfore she may doe a publik. The diuiſion folowing, being euil ſeuered of him from the next chapter, whereunto it belongeth: I leau, vntil I come vntounto that matter.
Now, it may pleaſe the reader, to turn vntounto the 5 chapter pag. 516, which is alſo of this point in hand: towching the perſon, by whom this ſacrament should be adminiſtred. where firſt mark (I pray yow) a wily diſtinction, which in effect is, that he defendeth not baptim by wemen, but improueth the Adm. that diſaloweth yt: as thowgh one could improue the one, and not defend the other. And vnles he had browght the example of Sephora, to mayntein baptim by wemen, it had bene fondly alledged: conſidering that the wordes of the Adm. are of the practis of the Apoſtles tymes, an exception againſt which, fetched from the tyme which was 1000 yeares before, might ſeme to come from him, whoſe wittes were not at home: eſpecially, when the queſtion is, what was doen, and not what owght to be doen, as he hym ſelf now pretendeth.
Secondly he ſaith, he wil not contend with me in diuers thinges in this diuiſion, for that he misliketh their error, which condemn infantes that be not baptized, as much as I: which is not ſo. For he ſaith, that the lak of baptim, may ſeme to be a probable token and ſign of reprobation, p. 524.which is boeth vntrue, and perillous: conſidering that not the want, but the contempt or neglect onelyonly of the holy Sacrament, can draw any, the leaſt apparance of the lordes wrath. Nether is that ether neglect, or contempt preiudicial to the infant, but to the parentes onelyonly, whoſe faut that is. which notwithſtanding, can be none, where they ſeek to thir vttermoſt, that yt may be baptized of the miniſter of the church, orderly, and conueniently: no more then it was preiudicial, ether to the childe, or parentes vnderunder the law, when the infant died, before the eight day, which was the tyme apointed, for the adminiſtration of the Sacrament of circū ciſion. For as the eight day, was to them: ſo is a conuenient, and orderly tyme, to vsus.
Yt is therfore a shameful dealing, that he maketh vsus here to ioyn with the Anabaptistes: which reiect childrē from baptim, vntil they be able to make profeſsion of their faith. whereas we confes it owght to be miniſtred, with al conuenient ſpeed: ſo it be by the miniſter, whome god hath ordeyned for the ſame purpoſe. In which accuſatiō of Anabaptiſm, with vsus, he windeth vp alſo (as it were in one bottom) the reformed churches: where it is not permitted, that the infant in any caſe should be baptized, but by the miniſter. withal, the reader may perceiue, how idle he is, which translateth a great peece of M. Caluin: to proue that, which none denieth. whom alſo, he goeth abowt to oppoſe to him ſelf, which is of the ſame aInſt. 4. booK chap. 15. ſect. 20. Lib. epiſt. p▪ 179.iudgment with vsus, in this behalf: althowgh, there be not ſo much as a tittle in the wordes he ſetteth down, bending that way.
Yt may wel stand, that this profanation came from the Gentils, from Victor, and from the Papiſtes: Victor borowing it of the heathen, and the Papiſtes of hym. For boeth popery is like a bundel of corruptions, which being picked owt of ſundry tymes and places, it hath cocked vp togither: and the Pope is like a hog, which when he cometh into a garden, leauing the ſweet flowers, taketh him ſelf alwaies to that, which is moſt filthy in al the place. otherwiſe, the D. might deny, any corruption almoſt, to be papiſtical: ſeing they hauehave few, whereof ether paganiſm, or declinyng from Chriſtianiſm, hath not bene the firſt founder.Diuiſ. 3. pa. 517.
To that I alledged, to proue the vnlawfulnes of the circumciſion by Moſes wife, for that she did it, in preſence of her husband a Prophet, which is M. Caluins reaſon: he oppoſethInſt. 4. booK chap. 15 ſect. 22. the note of the bible printed at Geneua, that he could not doe it, becauſe he was ſik, and that the Lord required it then. whether he was able or no, I wil not ſtriue: but that the lord required circumciſion, if there were no ordinary miniſter for it, doeth not appear. For, as it was an order of god, that the male childe should be circumciſed the eight day: ſo was yt alſo his order, that he should be circumciſed by a miniſter. Now, how can it be shewed, by that the lord ſtrake Moſes, that he would therefore, hauehave this ordinance changed: when as the ſiknes ſent, was a correction for the breaking of one of his orders, and not a trumpet blown, to cal them to the breach of the other.
And what if (as it cometh to pas) the lord had, as yt were, ſtricken Moſes by ſiknes in the childe, or that the childe, being of diſcretion, had hym ſelf willingly wanted circumciſion: owght the childe therfore, by and by, with the preſent hazard of his life hauehave bene circumciſed? no verely. But as this ſiknes, should hauehave inſtructed boeth father and ſon, to repent them of the former negligence, and to purpoſe the amendement of yt, when the childe should be able to abide the wound: ſo the ſiknes of Moſes, was for that end ſent, that he should repent him of the former negligence and amend it, when it might be according to the order appointed.
To that alledged, that she did it in a koler: he anſwerereth not. To that, that Moſes recouery is no proof of the lavufulnes of it, conſidering that vuhen thinges are meaſured by the euent, the good are condemned, and the vuicked iuſtified oftentimes: he anſwereth that the euent oft declareth the thing, which is but to waſt winde. For if it doe oft otherwiſe: it can ſerue for no reaſon, or allowance of that circumciſion. And if the iudgment by the euent, be to be taken, it is there, where the cauſes doe not appear: but here the cauſe of circumciſion, which is the inſtitution of god, is able to try the matter. where alſo appeareth, how affamished he is, to finde contrarietyes in my book: in that he ſuppoſeth variance in this, that here, I cal Moſes a prophet, and in another place, ſay that the priesthood vuas taken from hym, and giuen to Aharon: which is to foul an ouerſight. For boeth, there were Prophetes, which were no Prieſtes nor of the race of Prieſtes: and the tyme of the deliuerance ouer of the Prieſthood vntounto Aharon, was long after the tyme, here ſpoken of.Diniſ. 4. p. 518.
Againſt that I affirm it a neceſſary point of the Sacrament, that yt be ministred by a Miniſter, he maketh many owtcryes: but they be not theſe lowd clamours, which can gain the cauſe, where there is ſo deep ſilence of reaſon: and where owt of the ſcripture, not ſo much as one ſily reaſon, is once pretended. Therefore, to cut his comb, that he crow not ſo lowd hereafter: he hath flatly betrayed his cauſe, in that, not able to alledg one reaſon owt of the word of god, he placeth the ſtrenght of this cauſe herein, that against baptizing by lay men in the tyme of neceſsity, we hauehave (as he ſaith) no ſcripture and he hath learned men for yt. For firſt, in that he can bring no reaſon owt of the word of god, why a lay man or woman in tyme of neceſsity (as he termeth yt) may baptiz: yt is manifeſt, that he owght not to hauehave ſet yt down. For this is a matter of doctrine, and a matter of faith: euen in that narrow ſignification, that he taketh matters of faith. this is none of the variable ceremonies, which alter by the diuerſity of tymes, of countreis, and of perſons: and therfore by his own rule, here an argument of the autority of the ſcripture negatiuely, is good: ſo that here it is a good argument, the ſcripture commaundeth not that lay men or wemen should baptiz, therfore they may not baptiz.
Beſide alſo, that he doeth vsus wrong, in ſaying, that it is auouched withowt proof. It might hauehave contented him, to hauehave ſaid withowt good proof: for proof there is, whatſoeuer yt be. where, that which he affirmeth, that the ſcripture doeth not forbid lay men to baptiz, is an vntruth: conſidering it forbiddeth that any should take honor to him ſelf, but he vuhich is called as vuas Aaron. which ſentēce doeth manifeſtly shutHeb. 5. 4. owt, al priuate perſons from this adminiſtration: ſeing yt is a ſingular honor, in the church of god. As for that ſtring, which he continually runneth vponupon, that in tyme of neceſsity, it may be admitted: yt is but a plain asking of that in cōtrouerſy. For, it being confeſſed, that baptim is neceſſary, whē it may be adminiſtred according to the order which god hath ordeyned: the ſtate of the queſtion is, whether there be any ſuch neceſsity of baptim, as for the atteining thereof the order which god hath ſet in his church, of adminiſtring it by a publik miniſter, owght to be broken. Of the ſame ſort, is his oftē idle talk, of the refuſal, neglect, or contempt of baptim: as thowgh, there could be any of theſe, in this caſe. If he can shew, that wemen, or lay men owght to baptiz in ſuch tymes, and that god hath ordeyned, that in defaut of a Miniſter, they may lay to hand: then let him talk his fil.
But that I am aſſured he can not, the contrary rather may be ſeen: that the lord hath condemned ſuch rashnes, as may appear by the examples of Saul and Vzziah. For what greater1. Sam. 13. 11 apparance of neceſsity of ſacrificing, could there be: then when Saul toke vponupon him, to ſacrifice. And how probable reaſons, in the iudgment of men, doeth he bring to defend his fact: as that the people would otherwiſe hauehave forſaken hym, that the Philiſtins preſſed hym, that Samuel, came not within the tyme appointed. Likewiſe what greater apparance of neceſsity: then when Vzziah ſtayed the ark, otherwiſe like to hauehave fallen. yet (theſe neceſsityes notwithſtāding)2. Samu. 6. 6. 7. foraſmuch as they toke vponupon them, that wherevnto they were not called: they receiued, the reward of their bouldnes. whereas here there is (as I hauehave ſaid) no danger: ſo that the ordinary meāes be not neglected. And verely it is al one, as if he should ſay, that if there be no magiſtrat at hand, or none that wil doe his dutie in executing iuſtice againſt a murtherer: that then a priuate man may take vpō him, to hang the murtherer.
Now where he propoundeth, to proue two pointes, the one that baptim by lay men is lawful, the other, that althowgh they were no fit nor lawful Miniſters, yet that the baptim is lawful: to the end the reader may hauehave more light wherwith to iudg of theſe matters, or euer I towch the ſecond, I wil rid his argumē tes of the former point. for he hath confuſedly blinded and meddled them boeth together.
His autorities here, for the moſte part, are idly ſet down: as thoſe which I confeſſed before, when I graunted the auncienty of this corruption. But ſeing they are here: I wil ſpeak a word with them. Firſt owt of Ambroſe vponupon Epheſ. 4. is cited, that al baptized. If this make any thing, to proue baptim by lay men: it proueth not onelyonly, that they may baptiz in this pretended tyme of neceſsity, and priuately, but that they may daily, ād publikly baptiz: ſo that he, by this meanes, wil hauehave lay mē ordinary Miniſters. Then, let the reader obſerue, how vnhoneſtly he dealeth with hym. For in the ſame place, it is conteyned, how in the tyme wherein Ambroſe liued, it was not permitted vntounto lay men, nor vntounto clerkes them ſelues, which were an inferior order of church men, to baptize: ſo that this Autor maketh directly againſt him, affirming that althowgh it were ſo then, yet that it is no direction for vsus now.
Auguſtin foloweth, another of his witneſſes, in this cauſe: whoſe iudgment is herein flat againſt hym. For when he dowteth, whether one baptized by a lay man, ovught to be 2. li. contrae litteras Parm. ca. 13rebaptized: it is manifeſt, that he aloweth not, that a lay mā should take vponupon him to baptiz, but onelyonly ſtandeth in dowt, whether that baptim, being ſo vnduly miniſtred, owght to be counted for baptim. Otherwiſe, if he had houlden the miniſtery of a lay man lawful: there had bene no place vntounto his dowt, whether the baptim be good or no. And therefore the D. durſt not ſet down his wordes: but caried them thr…e or fower diuiſions further, where they ſerue hym, for the ſecond point in controuerſy.
Hys third witnes, is Ierom ad Luciferianos: which maketh not to proue, what was lawful by the word of god, but what was permitted then by the church. There remayn therfore Tertull. and Zuinglius, which doe affirm yt lawful: to whom, if the matter should be tried by autority, he hath his own Ambroſe, and Auguſtin to encounter with. Chryſoſtome alſo, as him ſelf apag. 483.citeth him: which wil giuegive none leau to baptiz, but a Prieſt. Ad to theſe bCypr. ad Iubatanū.Cyprian, who althowgh he erred in rebaptization, yet proueth by ſubſtantial reaſons, cNomb. 16. Leuit. 10.of the vengeance of god againſt Chore, Dathan, Abiram, and of the ſonnes of Aaron: that onelyonly the ministers of the church, may baptiz: ſecluding thereby a lay man, althowgh he be neuer ſo catholik. I leau his Denys, which is here ful for vsus, and come to the later writers: where he hath beſide M. Caluin before alledged, dBeza in quaeſt. de ſacr. quaeſt. …37.Beza, and eBulling. 5. Decad. Ser. 8.Bullinger with others. Beſide that whatſoeuer, or whoſoeuer shal be alledged afterward, to proue that the Sacramentes owght to be celebrated in a publik aſſembly, ſerueth to bar al priuate perſons and eſpecially (by the D. own confeſsion) wemen, from this adminiſtration of Sacraments.f In the ſecond part of the last Tractate and third chap.
Now, it may pleaſe the reader, to turn ouer the leaf in his book page 521: where this queſtion is yet purſued, and examples browght of lay men which preached in Origins tyme. where it is firſt to be noted, that the Anſ. is contrary to him ſelf: which page 139 and laſt ſection, denieth that any man may preach the word, no not ſo much as to shew a proof of his ability, vnles he be at the least admitted into the miniſtery. Yf he hauehave an admittance, to the miniſtery of the word: how is he a lay man? As for that he addeth, it was vponupon occaſion: I would know what occaſion there could be then, when the churches were builded, and an order ſet, why lay men should preach. Or why might not thoſe Bishops, which gaue lay men leau to preach, hauehave ordeyned them miniſters of the word: ſeing the Bishop onelyonly (by his opinion) had then the ordeyning of them. was it not as eaſy for them, to hauehave made them Miniſters of the word, and ſo to hauehave kept the order of god: as to hauehave ſent them owt in the quality of lay men, contrary to that order: ſo that, his drift ſeemeth to be to bring in al diſorder and confuſion, into the church of god.
Then I anſwer, that althowgh they were not duly choſen, yet were they not mere lay men: cōſidering, that thei, had an eccleſiaſtical calling, ſuch as yt was, euen the Bishops admiſsion: vnles he wil hauehave al the Miniſters with vsus, lay men, which hauehave onelyonly the ſame admiſion. The place was browght of me before, not that I approued it in al pointes, as I alſo noted: but to shew in what eſtimation that election was had, which was made by the Bishop alone.
Here, vponupon that I ſaid, that Baptim miniſtred by an heretical Diuiſ. 7. p. 521.Minister, is good: he thincketh it to be rather good, when it is miniſtred of a lay man, that is a member of the church: which is a foul error. For an heretical Miniſter, ſo long as he is ſuffered to enioy his miniſtery, and not depoſed therefrom: is boeth a member of the church, and a Miniſter of god, althowgh boeth and euil member, and an euil Miniſter. And, it is as much, as if he should ſay, that the execution of a malefactor by a priuate man, which is honeſt: is rather lawful, then by a publik Magiſtrat, which is a briber. withal, let it be noted, that here the Anſ. boeth contrary to the truth, and contrary to that hym ſelf profeſſeth, hangeth the effect of the ſacrament, vponupon the goodnes or naughtines of the Miniſter: in that, in this reſpect, he preferreth the ſacramēt miniſtred by a priuat mā, being good, vntounto that which is miniſtred by an euil man, althowgh he be a publik Miniſter. The reſt in this diuiſion: ether hath had anſwer, or requireth none.
Yt had bene (as I ſaid) a gros error: if M. Bucer had iudgedDiui 8. and 9 pag 522. it meet, that wemen should baptiz. And whether the Anſ. would hauehave had hym ſo vnderſtood, or no: I leau to the readers iudgment, vponupon the diſcours in boeth his bookes. Nether can it want, ſome skar of error: to alow of the title of priuate baptim. for, althowgh it were cōueniēt, that the childe should be baptized in the hows, when there is danger to bring it to the church: yet, forſomuch as that owght not to be withowt a conveniēt nombre of the faithful, and withowt the publik Miniſter, the baptim is not (as alſo it can not be) priuate, but publik. As for the reaſons, they hauehave bene anſwered: and come to be anſwered further, in the treatiſe of adminiſtration of the ſacramentes, in priuate howſes. How vnworthy a thing it is, that he should charge vsus vuith priuate vuritinges, vuhich he kepeth in his study, leauing his publik vuorkes: let the reader iudg.
I made mention, of other gros abſurdities, of M. Bucers: leaſt the excellency of his learning and godlines, should cary the ſimpler ſort to beleue any thing, contrary to the truth. And yf it be iudged of the godly, that I might hauehave ſpared that ſpeach: it is a thing, wherin I wil not ſtand againſt them, in myne own defence.
Here, firſt he asketh, where Auguſtin diſaloweth baptim by wemen. Diuiſ. 10 p. 523.althowgh theſe wordes of myne doeth not alovu, be not ſo ful: yet, in that, talking of this ſurmiſed caſe of neceſſity, he neuer cometh ſo low, as to the baptim by wemē, but ſtayeth in that which is miniſtred by lay men: it is manifeſt, that he diſalowed the baptim by wemen. For otherwiſe, if he had thowght, that wemen in that caſe might hauehave baptized: it ſtoed him vponupon to hauehave taught, that in defaut of a lay man, a woman might be taken: ſeing that, in his iudgment, the ſaluation of the childe, ſtoed thereupon. when he dowteth alſo, vuhether it ovught to be miniſtred again, vuhich Contra Epiſt. Parm. lib. 2. ca. 13.vuas ministred by a lay man: he could hardly leau any dout, of the vtter misliking of baptim by wemen. whereunto ſerueth, the practis of his tymes, which was (as hath bene shewed) in ſuch caſes: to run to the church, vuith their children. His other queſtion, cometh to be answered afterward.
Againſt the fourth Councel of Carthage, which forbiddeth Diuiſ. 11. p. 523. Tom. prim. Can. 100.vuemen to baptiz: he runneth for aid to Gratian, the common falſifier of the good canons, of whome I hauehave aIn the former part p. 285.before ſpoken. Althowgh if the anſwer be true, which he frameth owt of this forger, that she may not baptiz in publik: forſomuch as al baptim is to be miniſtred in publik aſſembly, and that euen then, when it is miniſtred in the hows, it foloweth that a woman may neuer baptiz. And to the intent, the Anſ. may know his error the better: let hym repair vntounto M. aDecad. 5. ſer. 8.Bullinger, who citeth this canon, to condemn al maner of baptizing by wemen. Here alſo, let it be noted, that albeit the Anſw. ſeing ſuch conſent of the learned againſt baptim by wemen, dare not flatly meynteyn it: yet, where he finedeth any thing to defend yt by, althowgh neuer ſo baſe, he forgetteth it not.
To that alledged, that the breaking of the orders of god, Diuiſ 12. and 13. p. 523vuhereof one is, that the miniſter onelyonly should baptiz, the other, that it be doen publikly, confirmeth men greatly in that hereſy, that al are damned, vuhich are not baptized: he anſwereth nothing. Likewiſe, to that, that if a man could not be ſaued vuithovut baptim, yet vue might not therefore break the order of god, he anſwereth alſo nothing, but wandereth idly in talking of the neceſsity of baptim, which we confes, as hath bene bIn the 5. and 6. diuiſions of this chap.before declared. Vuhere, againſt his abſurd ſaying, that the teaching of this kinde of priuate baptim, implieth no more the tying of ſaluation vntounto the ſacrament, then to teach that children should be baptized before they be able to anſwer for them ſelues, I replied that the baptim of young children, hath ground in the ſcripture, but baptim by lay men or vuemen hath none: he anſwereth, that this confirmeth his ſaying. wherein, the reproch of triflyng, is to eaſy, to ſet forth his vntollerable abuſing of his reader. For to hauehave anſwered, he owght to hauehave tawght, a rule owt of the word of god, whereby it might hauehave appeared: that a priuate perſon, may take vponupon him in this pretenſed caſe of neceſsity, to doe that which god hath not committed, but vntounto the Miniſter: ſo that here, it is manifeſt, that he had neuer a knee to bow vntounto the truth,Alces. Caeſar li. 6. de bel. gall. but was like that beaſt, which hauing neuer a ioynt in her leg, muſt rather break then bend.
To that I alledged, of the continual, and almost general practis of the church: he anſwereth, that lay men from the beginning hauehave bene permitted to baptiz: whereof let the reader iudg. In the mean ſeaſon, he is able to shew no practis of baptim by wemen, but in the extreme ruines of the church: otherwiſe we should hauehave bene ſure to hauehave heard of yt. Howbeit here he asketh whotly, what order of god is broken in priuate baptim: euen the ſame which is broken in priuate preaching. So that whatſoeuer hath bene aIn the former part p. 72. &c.before ſpoken of the church preaching, that it owght to be publik and not priuate: ſerueth in like maner, for the holy Sacramentes. The next diuiſion, muſt reſt in the readers iudgment.
Now remayneth the other point which is, whether baptim adminiſtred by one which is no Miniſter, althowgh againſt the word (as yt is conteyned in his pag 518 &c.) be yet auailable. the D. ſaith yea. his firſt reaſon is, that otherwiſe many should goe vnderunder the name of Chriſtians, which were neuer baptized: and ſo (ſaith he) I may proue my ſelf to be no Chriſtian. where I deny the argument, and withal deſire the reader to take heed of the venom: which, he going abowt in other places to hide, brake owt here at vnawares. In an other bpag. 524.place, he ſaid that it is a probable ſign of reprobation, if children dy withowt baptim: but here he ſetteth down flat, that they be no Chriſtians, which are not baptized. So that, the children of the faithful, by his doctrine, are not Chriſtians, before they be baptized: and conſequently condemned. whereas the truth is otherwiſe, that if he be not a Chriſtian, before he come to receiu baptim: baptim can make him no Chriſtian, which is onelyonly the ſeal of the grace of god before receiued. And what wil he here ſay, to thoſe in tymes paſt of Theſſalia, with whome the ſacrament of baptim cSocra: 5. li. chap. 22.was celebrated but once a year, namely at Eaſter: were al the children paganes al that while? what wil he ſay to that tyme, wherein they receiued it not, but at their death: were they alſo al the tyme of their life paganes? I graunt, boeth the cuſtomes naught: but in the mean ſeaſon, he shal doe the good Emperours, and other good men great iniury, in ſaying that they were heathen, or no Chriſtians.
His ſecond reaſon is, that there must be by this mean; ſome general rebaptization: which is the flat reaſon of the Anabaptiſtes, and in deed plain Anabaptiſm, that for a dowt whether ſome be baptized or no, al should be rebaptized. For thusZuing. lib. de baptiſ. Tractat 2▪ they proue, that men muſt be rebaptized: becauſe (ſay they) they are not aſſured, whether they were baptized or no: as it is reported of Zuinglius. But it is enowgh for me, which am aſſured of the fauour of god in Chriſt Ieſus, the thing it ſelf whereof baptim is the ſacrament: that I know my ſelf to hauehave bene born in that people, where the common vſe is to adminiſter baptim by a publik Miniſter, ſuch as he was. So that, vnles he can shew aſſuredly, that I was not baptized by ſuch a one: the want of baptim, shal not hurt me: ſeing that I nether neglect it, nor contemn yt.
And if he could shew, that I was not baptized: yet the caſe of rebaptization is not ſo clear, as he maketh yt. conſideringa Euſeb. 7 lib. cap. 9. that Dyoniſius the great and famous Bishop of Alexandria, when one came vntounto hym, which ſware that the baptim he receiued of the heretikes, was nothing like the catholik baptim, but ful of horrible blaſphemies, and deſired to be baptized of him, for that he was trobled in his conſcience: ſaid that b he durst not baptiz him, adding that forſomuch as he had often ſaid Amen vntounto the thankes giuing in the church, and receiued the holy ſupper of the lord: that he should therevuith content, and comfort hym ſelf. Yf the Anſ. had but ſuch an autority, vncontraried of other: he would quikly shape vsus owt, a definitiue ſentence. howbeit, I ſtay not thereupon: onelyonly I bring it, that whē ſuch a caſe should befal, we come not vntounto this remedy, withowt inquiring into the matter, and that yt be not doen vponupon the D. bare word.
Vuhere I alledged that the Miniſter is of the ſubſtance of the ſacrament, conſidering that it is a principal part of Chriſts inſtitution: he anſwereth, that the eſſential form, is to baptiſe in the name of the father, the Son and the holy gost: which being kept, the Sacrament remayneth, by whomſoeuer, or howſoeuer yt be miniſtred. This he fathereth of Augustin, and Zuinglius: whereas, nether of them goeth further then to the perſon, by whome yt is miniſtred: ſo that he hath here falſified them. Beſide that I hauehave pag. 521. 523.shewed, that Auguſtin ſtandeth in dowt, whether baptim by a lay man, be available or no. where, by al likelihood, he was owt of dowt, that that which was miniſtred by a woman, whoſe vnaptnes herein is dubble to that of a lay man: was of none effect. he citeth alſo M. Caluin: but vtterly to another purpoſe, then he meaneth. For where he sheweth, that the goodnes or euilnes of the Miniſter maketh not, nor marreth not the ſacrament: the D. pretendeth, as thowgh it were not to be eſtemed, whether he were a publik miniſter or no, which is a mere abuſing. For further anſwer, I refer the reader to that bIn the examinatiō of the D. cenſures.already anſwered: ſo doe I, for anſwer to that of Miniſters which crepe in withowt calling, vnſeaſonably ſpoken of: likewiſe for the cauil of rebaptization.
Now, if the reader compare the anſwers of his togither: he shal ſee, that the Anſ. him ſelf, hath clean ouerthrown his own groundes. And firſt of al this, that the being of the ſacrament hangeth onelyonly hereof, if the form of wordes, I baptiz the in the name of the father &c. be kept. For to proue that the being of the ſacrament, dependeth not in any reſpect of the perſon which miniſtreth yt: he alledgeth firſt, that ſo we should be alwaies in dowt, whether we be baptized: which maketh ſtronglier againſt this, that the being of baptim dependeth of the vſing of thoſe wordes I baptiz the in the name of the father &c. then againſt this that yt dependeth vponupon a publik Minister. for al may vnderſtand, that yt is eaſier for a man to know, that he was in his infancy baptized of a publik Miniſter: then to know, that the Miniſter then vſed theſe wordes, I baptiz the in the name of the father &c.
Another reaſon is, for that the force of the ſacrament is not in the mā, but in god him ſelf, his ſpirit, and free effectual operation: and thereto abuſeth 1. Corinth. 3. what is Paul &c. which is rather to proue, that the being of the ſacrament dependeth not of the vſing of the wordes, I baptize the in the name of the father &c. foraſmuch as S. Paul ſpeaketh there, of the vocale miniſtery, whereof this is a part, wherein the D. hym ſelf placeth the being of the Sacrament. And in deed, the drift of his reaſon is, that there is no owtward thing whatſoeuer, neceſſarily required in the being of the Sacrament: which is a shameful error.
Howbeit, let it be, that the vſage of theſe wordes, is the onelyonly eſſential form: what shal be the material cauſe? For there muſt be aſwel a matter, whereof the ſacrament muſt conſiſt, as a form whereby it is: and as wel is the material cauſe of the ſacrament a ſubſtantial cauſe, as ys the form. For euē as a thing can not ſtand withowt the form: ſo can yt not ſtand withowt the matter. Now when the one is as neceſſary, to the conſtitution of a thing, as the other: let him shew me, why a faut in the form, or departing from the wordes, should more deſtroy the nature of the ſacrament, then a defaut, or departure from the matter, which is the water. And verely for my part, I would rather iudg him baptized, which is baptized into the name of Chriſt, withowt adding the father and holy goſt, when the element of water is added: then when the other wordes being duly kept, ſome other liquor is vſed.
This alſo is declared by his own example of the …ue baptized with ſand: in that yt was decreed, that he should hauehave vuater povured on hym. whereby appeareth, that yt is vntrue which he ſaith, that the ſacrament alway remayneth, what error ſoeuer be committed, when the form of wordes is retayned. For there the wordes were kept, and yet the ſacrament was not ſuppoſed, to be miniſtred. Althowgh the example otherwiſe, in my poor iudgment, be vnſound: that a man hauing the wordes ſaid at one tyme, and the Element powred at another, should be iudged baptized. For it is as much, as if a man receiuing the bread in the church at Eaſter, and the cup at the Natiuity: should be therfore ſaid, to hauehave receiued the holy duplicate page duplicate page holy ſupper of the lord.
Therefore, howſoeuer ſome learned and godly, giuegive ſome liberty in the change of the Elementes of the holy ſacramē tes, yet I doe not ſee, how that can ſtand: cōſidering alſo that the … Ioel. 1. 9.prophet threatning a general dearth of corn, wyne and oyl, sheweth, that the Prieſtes should wepe and lament, for that boeth the meat offering, and drink offerīg should …eas. whereas, nether the offeringes needed to hauehave ceaſed, nor the Prieſtes for that to hauehave lamēted: if they might for wine and oyl hauehave vſed water, or for the beaſtes of the land, taken the fishes of the ſea, or other creeping thinges for their offeringes.
Hauing thus ſpoken of the matter, that it muſt neceſſarily be ſuch as the inſtitutiō of god hath preſcribed: let vsus come to the Miniſter, which is a ſubordinat efficiēt cauſe. whome ſeing I hauehave alſo proued (whatſoeuer he ſay) to be inſtituted the onelyonly miniſter of the ſacramentes: let him shew me, why the breach of the inſtitutiō in the form should make the ſacramēt vnavailable, and not the breach of this part. for if this be not alſo neceſſary, and of the being of the ſacram: then when two goe togither, if one ſpeak the wordes of the inſtitution, althowgh no man powr on water, but god onelyonly by rayn from heauen, yt is baptim. And if it be baptim which is miniſtred of a childe in ſport (which thing M. Farel derideth as a mere toy) then if a mad mā, with minde to hurt, doe ſpeaklibr. Epiſto. Calu. p. 85. thoſe wordes in powring water vponupon his head, which is not baptiſed, it shal be baptim alſo. further, if it be adminiſtred by him, which is by profeſsion a Turk: it muſt, by his rule, be a good baptim. ſo we shal come to the dotage of the papiſtes, which imagin that the Shepard in the field cōſecrated their hoſt; in ſaying certeyn wordes of the inſtitutiō of the ſupper: which was the cauſe why, afterward, they would hauehave thē mūbled vp in ſecret. Theſe thinges beīg abſurd, it is certeyn that the D. rule, that it is baptim by whomſoeuer it be miniſtred: is crooked. But whē none cā wash vsus from our ſynnes but our S. Chriſt, and none can repreſent his perſon in that owtward ſacramēt of the inward washing, but he whome our Sav. Chriſt hym ſelf hath appointed: if we wil receiu the benefit of the holy ſeal of baptim, to aſſurance of our conſcience, that we are washed frō our ſynnes, we muſt hauehave the publik miniſter. If it be ſaid, that this is to ty men to ſtreight to the owtward meanes, and that for ſomuch as it is Chriſt that washeth from ſinnes, there is les matter who be the Miniſter: I anſwer, that as our Sa. Chriſts bloud, being the ſpiritual matter of the ſacrament, and that onelyonly wherewith we are purged, yet we may not therfore lak the water, which he hath ordeyned: ſo althowgh he be he which alone washeth vsus from our ſynnes, yet we may not therefore lak that owtward miniſter, which he hath appointed.
And if the wil of a Prince, doe make that onelyonly to be his ſeal, which he hath appointed for that purpoſe, ſo that althowgh another ether withowt or againſt his wil be made, of the ſame matter and faſchion, and in al thinges like yt, yet the ſame is none of his ſeal: how much more owght the wil of god, which is, that onelyonly thoſe should miniſter the ſacrament, which hauehave a publik calling thereūto, hauehave that autority. And, as by the ſeal, which the Prince hath ſet apart to ſeal his grauntes with, when it is ſtollen, and ſet to by hym that hath no autority, there groweth no aſſurance vntounto the party that hath yt: ſo if it were poſsible to be the ſeal of god, which a woman should ſet to, yet for that she hath ſtollen yt, and put it to, not onelyonly withowt, but contrary to the cō mandement of god: I ſee not, how any can take any aſſurance by reaſon therof. If it be ſaid, that the Princes confirmation afterward, maketh euen that ſtollen ſeal, which was ſet to, of force: I anſwer, that where yt can be shewed, that baptim by wemen is confirmed of god, there I wil graunt the like in yt. hetherto may be referred, the purſuit of the former compariſon. For as a priuate man, kylling a murtherer, hath hym ſelf murthered, and executed no iuſtice, becauſe he had no calling thereunto: euen ſo, thoſe which withowt al calling hauehave taken in hand to baptize, hauehave made a prophane washing, and miniſtred no ſacrament of the lord.
That a distinction hath bene kept in names of offices, vuhen the offices thē ſelues hauehave not bene diſtinguished, or at leaſt not ſo thorowghly as they owght: is an eaſy thing to shew, if it were to great purpoſe. But yt is enowgh for vsus, that the D. hym ſelf can not deny: but that baptim, which is miniſtred, by him which they cal a Deacon with vsus, is miniſtred by a Miniſter of the word: ſo that there is here, no danger of rebaptization.
I alledged, that part of the institution (as that vuhich Diuiſ. 5. p. 520.tovucheth the vuordes of the holy Trinity) being obſerued, and not this, it is no more baptim, then the papiſtes communiō is the ſupper, vuhere one peece takē, the other is left. whereto he anſwereth, that the cup is of the ſubſtance, becauſe it is expresly commanded. So is this of the Miniſter alſo commanded: therfore by his own anſwer, of the ſubſtance of the ſacrament. But (ſaith he) I can not shew a commandement, that a Minister onelyonly shal celebrate the Baptim, or els be no Baptim: no more can he in ſo many wordes, that if the cup be not receiued, it is no ſupper. But yf his proof be ſufficient, becauſe the lord hath cō manded that yt should be receiued: my proof is alſo, that hauehave shewed the ſame in the miniſtring of baptim: eſpecially ſeing the breach is not in the circumſtance, but in the cauſes.
He alledgeth further, that circumciſion miniſtred by ſuch as were no Prieſtes, was good: I graunt, if it were doen by thoſe which were ſimple Leuites, if yt were doen alſo by Prophetes which were no Prieſtes: But if he can shew it good, doen by thoſe to whom it belonged not, then he ſaith ſome what.
To that I browght ovut of S. aRom. 10. …5.Paul, that he can not Diuiſ 6. p. 520.preach vuhich is not ſent: he anſwereth it is vnderſtanded of the extraordinary calling: as thowgh it were not aſwel required in ordinary callinges, that one be ſent, as in the extraordinary. For althowgh, there be diuers ſortes of ſendinges: yet that the Miniſter be ſent, is required of al. So that althowgh S. Paul should there draw that diſputation, vntounto the ſending of the Apoſtles: yet the rule wherby he confirmeth the Apoſtelship, is general. For a Paſtor can no more preach now, in a particular congregation withowt a ſending: then an Apoſtle could then, in al the world. The wordes I added, no not althovugh he ſpake the vuordes of the ſcripture, be no ſuch addition, as he ſurmiſeth: ſeing they are neceſſarily conteyned, in the Apoſtles ſentence. For when him ſelf denieth not, but that one which is not ſent, may ſpeak the wordes of ſcripture, and the Apoſtle ſaith, that the ſame can not preach: it foloweth, that one not ſent, althowgh he ſpeak the wordes of the ſcriptures, can not therefore be ſaid to preach.
He procedeth further, ſaying that as it is the word of god which is preached by miniſter, or other: ſo is baptim true baptim, by whomſoeuer it be miniſtred. as if he had already gotten, ether that whoſoeuer ſpeaketh the word preacheth yt: or that it were already baptim, withowt the publik miniſter, boeth which are in demaund. Moreouer, if he can proue, that the washing with the element, withowt any to apply it, is a ſacrament, as the word is the word, althowgh no man handle yt, or ſpeak of yt: then I wil graunt, that which he ſaith. But if it be no Sacrament, but when it is browght into vſe, and the vſe be defined to be ſuch as is ſaid: then yt is apparant, that there is a great difference, betwene the word and ſacramentes, in this reſpect.
Laſt of al, as he, which taking one part of the wordes of the ſcripture, an leauing another that should goe with yt, propoundeth not the word of god, but his own idle fancy: euen ſo, he that keepeth one principal part of the ſacramtē, leauing another behynde, miniſtreth no ſacrament of god, but a deuiſe of his own head. Now, where he would draw this cauſe into hatered, in that there is (as he ſayth) no learned man of this iudgment: althowgh the reaſon be weak, and yt vnmeet, that the trwth should be miſtruſted, becauſe she can fynde no ſuertishyp emongeſt men: yet, if that wil help hym, he hath M. Beza which doeth praeciſely affirm, that the baptim Libell. …e quaeſt. in Sacra. quaeſt. 139. &c.vuhich is miniſtred by a priuate man (much more by a vuoman) is vtterly void.
Seing then they onelyonly are bidden in the ſcripture to adminiſter the Sacraments, which are bidden to preach the word, and that the publik Miniſters hauehave onelyonly this charge of the word: and ſeing that the adminiſtration of boeth theſe, are ſo lincked together, that the denial of licence to doe one, is a denial to doe the other, as of the contrary part, licence to one is licence to the other: conſidering alſo, that to miniſter the Sacraments, is an honor in the church, which none can take vntounto hym, but he which is called vntounto yt as was Aaron: and further, foraſmuch as the baptizing by priuate perſons, and by wemen eſpecially, confirmeth the dangerous error of the condemnation of young children, which dy withowt baptim: Laſt of al, ſeing we hauehave the conſent of the godly learned of al tymes, againſt the baptim by wemen▪ and of the reformed churches now, againſt the baptim by priuate men: we conclude, that the adminiſtration of this Sacrament by priuate perſons, and eſpecially by wemen, is merely boeth vnlawful and void.
There remaineth another quaeſtion, whether the infantes of papiſtes, are to be receiued to baptim. Of which, as of a thing more dowtful amongeſt the godly learned, becauſe I wrote priuately and more at large: when I came to the confutation of the D. book in that point, I paſſed by yt, with mynde to take afterward my reply thereunto, more commodiously from the diſcours I wrote of yt. Howbeyt, the trwth is, vntil I came to the place of the printing, where I had not his book with me: I forgot yt. Yf therefore in anſwering, I ether pas by any weight of reaſon, or aſcribe any thing to hym otherwiſe then trwth: I deſire the readers gentle ſupport herein, ether vntil his next anſwer, or els vntounto another opportunity, when the argumentes of boeth ſides may be more fully debated. VntoUnto the reaſon that I alledged owt of a1. Cor. 7. 14.S. Paul (to my remembrance) he anſwereth nothing: but onelyonly oppoſeth M. Bezas autority in his epistles, which yf they had not come forth whileſt his book was in making, yt ſeemeth, that he had bene vtterly deſtitute of anſwer. His reaſon owt of hym, that the papistes are to be compared with the Iſraelites, which fel away from the t…w religion, and not vuith the Idumeans: can not help hym, oneles he firſt shew, that the infantes of thoſe Apoſtatas were lawfully circumciſed. For, if they were not circumciſed by gods order and inſtitution, but rather at the luſt and pleaſure of thoſe which, being fallen away from the covenant, ceaſed not to put to the ſeal, as yf they had bene ſtil within the couenant: yt foloweth that, in this reſpect, there is no more ſuccour for the Papiſtes in their reſemblance with ſuch Iſraelites, then when they are matched with the Idumeans or Iſmaelites.