Surely these be very short answeres for so waighty questions, and so necessary* 1.1 poyntes of doctrine: wyll you presume thus to determine in matters of saluation and danmation, the doctrine being so straunge and vnheard of, without either scripture, reason, or other authoritie? are we nowe come to (ipse dixit)? nay it may not be so, you haue no such authoritie or credite ye I know. But let vs a little better cōsider your as∣sertions, and marke your drifte, Page. 34. you saye that there are no whoremongers, nor* 1.2 drunkardes in the churche that are knowem, bycause the churche doth excommunicate them, wher∣by you seme to runne headlong into this heresye of the Anabaptistes, that, that is not the Churche of Christe, in the whiche are knowen drunkardes and whoremongers, & no excommunication vsed against them. The whiche heresye is well and learnedlye* 1.3 confuted by M. Caluine in his booke against the Anabap. and by M. Bullinger likewyse, Lib. 6. cap. 10. aduersus Anabap.
Moreouer this your assertion séemeth to bring in rebaptisation. For if whoremon∣gers,* 1.4 drunkardes, and such lyke wycked persones by excommunication be so cut of from the Churche, that their children may not be baptised, then must it followe that their baptisme is cut of also: which if it be true, howe can they vpon repentance be admitted againe except they be rebaptised? and what is this else but to make baptis∣me, to be iterated as the Lorde▪ supper is, when as by the consent of all the Chur∣ches,* 1.5 there is but one baptisme, wherewith it is sufficient once to be Christened, sée∣ing that baptisme once receyued doth endure for euer, as a perpetuall signe of our ad∣option. And how can you allowe the baptisme of heretikes to be good, if you disallowe the baptising of their children that be excommunicated? may an heretike excommu∣nicated baptise, and is that baptisme good, and may not the children of hym that is ex∣communicated receyue the sacrament of baptisme? can any faulte of the parentes, ha∣uing once receyued the scale of the couenant, seclude their chyldren from rcceyuing the same seale? you haue neyther example nor precept in scripture to iustifie your as∣sertion with: it is against the nature of the sacrament, the practise of the Church, and the whole consent of learned wryters (some fewe excepted which erred in rebaptisa∣tion) and yet you boldely here set it downe, without any further proofe at all.
S. Augustine in his booke Contraepist. Parme. reasoneth wholy to the contrary, for there he proueth that heretikes whiche cut of them selues from the Churche, do ney∣ther* 1.6 amittere baptismum, nor ius dandi baptismum, that is, neither leese their baptisme, nor au∣thoritie to baptise: and therevpon concludeth against rebaptisation, whiche must néedes followe if eyther of the other be taken away. The Donatistes them selues were at the length compelled to confesse, that heretikes deuided from the churche, did not amitte〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e bapt〈1 line〉〈1 line〉smum, leese their baptisme. And in the same booke August. hath this ge∣nerall sentence, That the faulte of such heretikes, is in cutting of them selues from the churche, which may be corrected by returning againe to the churche, non in sacramentis quae vbicunque sunt, ipsa vera sunt, not in the sacramentes, which wheresoeuer they are, are true. This being so (as it is) then are you very nere to Donatisme, nay farre beyonde it, in* 1.7 saying that the chyldren of the heretykes, and suche as by excommunication are cut of from the Churche, maye not be baptised. Surelye if the Parentes beyng here∣tikes