The defense of the aunsvvere to the Admonition against the replie of T.C. By Iohn VVhitgift Doctor of Diuinitie. In the beginning are added these. 4. tables. 1 Of dangerous doctrines in the replie. 2 Of falsifications and vntruthes. 3 Of matters handled at large. 4 A table generall.

¶ Of matters touching Baptisme. Tract. 16. (Book 16)

Of Interrogatories ministred to infants.

Chap. 1. the. 1. Diuision.

Admonition.

And as for baptisme, it was inough with them, if they (i 1.1) had water, and the partie to be baptised, fayth, and the Minister to preach the worde and minister the Sacramentes. Nowe, we must haue Surplesses deuised by Pope Adrian, Interrogatories ministred to the Intant, God∣fathers and Godmothers, brought in by Higinus, holy fontes inuented by Pope Pius, crossing and such like peeces of Poperie, which the Church of God in the Apostles tyme neuer knew (and therefore not to be vsed) nay (which we are sure of) were and are mans deuises brought in long after the puritie of the primitiue Churche.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 105. Sect. vlt. &c.

Interrogatories to be ministred to the infant, be not straunge,* 1.2 neyther lately inuented, but of great antiquitie. For Dionysius Areo∣pagita in his booke entituled De caelest. Hierar. and seuenth chapter, speaking of the baptising of infantes, and of their sureties or godfa∣thers, and answering to certayne prophane deriders (as he termeth them) which sayde that one was baptised for an other, bycause the Godfather did promise and answere for the childe, speaketh thus in the name of the Godfather. Neque enim hoc ille ai〈1 line〉〈1 line〉, Ego pro puero abrenunciationes facio, aut fidei Sacramenta prositeor, sed ita puer renunciat & profitetur, id est, spondeo puerum in∣ducturum, cum ad sacram intelligentiam venerit, sedulis adhortationibus meis, vt abrenuntiet con∣trarijs omnino, profiteatur{que}, & peragat diuina quae pollicetur. Neyther doth he say this, I renounce for the childe, or professe the Sacraments of faith, but in this sort the childe doth renounce or professe, that is to say, I promise so to instruct the childe, vvhen he commeth to the yeares of discretion, vvith dayly ex∣hortacions, that he shall renounce all contrary thinges, and professe and per∣forme those heauenly thinges, vvhich he doth promise.

T. C. Pag. 133. Sect. vlt. & Pag. 134. Sect. 1.

There followeth the interrogatories or demaundes ministred vnto the infantes in baptisme, for the proofe whereof is brought, in the first place Dionysius Areopagita, a worthy couer for such a cup. For to let passe that M. Doctor alleageth the celestiall Hierarchie in steade that he should haue cited the ecclesiasticall Hierarchie, this testimonie beyng found in the one and in the other, dare M, Doctor be so bolde as to delude the worlde in so great light, with such babies as this? doth he thinke that the Authour of these bookes of Hierarchies, beyng so full of subtile speculations, vayne and idle fantasies, wicked blasphemies, making one order of Popes, an other of Prelates, the third of Sacrifie〈1 line〉〈1 line〉s, and then of Monkes, (some of which orders came not many hundred yeares after that time wherein Denise the Areopagite liued) which mentioneth many foolish ceremonies and corruptions, (that no other Authour neyther Greeke nor Latine stories, nor other diuers hundreth yeares after doth make mention of besides him) I say doth he thinke to abuse menne, and to giue them such drosse in steade of Siluer, such chaffe in steade of corne, as to make vs beleeue, that he that wrote these bookes of Hierarchie, was S. Paules scholler? for the better blasing of this Denis armes, I will sendè the reader vnto that which Erasmus writeth of this Denis of M.

Doctors, vpon the. 17. of the Aetes of the Apostles, where he also sheweth togither with his owne iudgement, the iudgement of Laurentius Ualla. I am not ignorant what Nicephorus a fabulous Historiographer and of no credite in such matters (in those matters especially which might like or mislyke those times wherein he wrote) sayeth of S. Paules communicating with Denis, and* 1.3 an other concernyng the heauenly and ecclesiasticall hierarchie. But bycause I thinke M. Doctor be now ashamed of his Deuis, I will follow it no further.

By this it may appeare that M. Doctors Dionysius, beyng a counterfet and start vp, these Interrogatories and demaundes ministred vnto infantes haue not so many graye heares, as he would make vs beleeue, although in deede the question lieth not in the antiquitie. As for reasons he hath none, but only as one which hath learned his aequipollences very euill, he maketh it all one to say (I renounce) and to say (I will teach another to renounce.)

Io. Whitgifte.

I knowe there is contrary opinions of learned men touching the authoritie, and Authour of these bookes. And yet it cannot be denied, but that they be very aun∣cient, neyther is it any shame for me to alleage his authoritie, seing the B. of Saris∣burie is not ashamed to alleage the same booke against Harding, to proue reading of* 1.4 the Scriptures in the Church, with as great credite as I do. Howbeit, I wil not take vpon me the defense of them, neyther do I doubte, but that something may be thrust in vnto them, but of all other thinges this is the least to be suspected, that I haue in this place alleaged. Neyther am I any more ashamed of him, than you are of so of∣ten alleaging the Canons of the Apostles, Hyginus, &c. the which authorities are as much doubted of as the bookes of Dionysius. His reason is to be considered, agreing fully with the true meaning of this Churche of Englande, but you wipe it away with a floute, as your manner is, when you are driuen to a pinche.

Chap. 1. the. 2. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 106. Sect. 1. & Pag. 107. Sect. 1.

Augustine also in his Epistle written ad Bonifacium, answering* 1.5 this Question, why, seing we dare promise nothing of the infantes behauiour and manners when he commeth to mans state, yet when* 1.6 he is brought to baptisme, and the question is asked of those that of∣fer him to be baptised, whither the infant beleeue or no, they answere that he doth beleeue, sayth on this sorte: Nisi sacramenta quandam haberent si∣militudinem, &c. Except Sacramentes had a certayne similitude, and likenesse of those thinges vvhereof they be Sacramentes, they vvere no Sacramentes at all, and by reason of this same similitude oftentymes they are called by the names of the thinges themselues, therefore as after a crtayne manner of speaking, the Sacrament of the body of Christe is the body of Christe, the Sacrament of the bloud of Christe is the bloud of Christe, so the Sa∣crament of the fayth is fayth, neyther is it anything els to beleeue, than to haue fayth: and therefore vvhen ansvvere is made, that the infant dothe beleeue, not hauing as yet fayth in deede, it is ansvvered that he doth beleeue for the Sacrament of fayth, and that he doth conuert himselfe vnto God for the Sacrament of conuersion, bycause the ansvvere it selfe doth perteyne to the celebration of the Sacrament. And a litle after he sayeth: Itaque par∣uulum, etsi nondum fides illa quae in credentium voluntate consistit, iam tamen ipsius fidei Sacra∣mentum, fidelem facit. Nam sicut credere respondetur, ita etiam fidelis vocatur, non rem ipsa mente annuendo, sed ipsius rei Sacramentum percipiendo. Therfore although that faith vvhich

consisteth in the vvill of the beleeuers, dothe not make the ehylde fayth∣full, yet dothe the Sacrament of that fayth make him faithfull: for euen as it is ansvvered that he dothe beleeue, so is he also called faithfull, not by signifying the thing it selfe in his minde, but by receyuing the Sacrament of the thing.

By these two authorities it is manifest that Interrogatories were ministred to infantes, at the time of their Baptisme, and that they had sureties, which we call godfathers, that answered for them and in their name.

T. C. Pag. 134. Sect. 1.

As for S. Augustines place (although I can (*) 1.7 not allow his reason that he maketh, nor the proportion that is betweene the sacrament of the body and bloude of our Sauiour Christe, and his body and bloude it selfe of one side, and betwene the sacrament of Baptisme and fayth of the o∣ther side: saying that as the sacrament of the body of Christe, after a sorte is the body: so the bap∣tisme of the sacrament of fayth, is after a sort fayth, (a) 1.8 whereas he should haue sayd, that as the sup∣per beyng the sacrament of the body of Christe, is after a sorre the body of Christe, so baptisme be∣yng a sacrament of the bloude of Christe, is after a sorte the bloud of Christe. For fayth is not the subiect of Baptisme, as the body and bloude of Christ is the matter of the supper.) Yet I say that S. Augustine hath no one worde to approue this abuse of answering in the childes name, and in his person, but goeth about to establishe, an other abuse, which was, that it was lawfull for those that presented the chylde, to say, that it beleeued, so that it is lyke, that the minister did aske those whiche presented the infant, whither they thought that it was faythfull, and did beleeue, and those which presented it, sayde it was so: wherevpon this question rose, whither it was lawfull to say, that the chylde beleeued.

Io. Whitgifte.

I neuer hearde that any learned man as yet mislyked this place of Augustine, but I knowe they haue vsed it as a moste manifest testimonie, agaynst Transub∣stantiation, and the Reall presence, and as a true declaration wherefore the sacra∣mentall breade and wyne be called the body and bloude of Christe, beyng but the sacramentes of the bodie and bloude of Christe. And nowe you with vnwashed handes not vnderstanding the place, presume to giue a blinde and vnlearned cen∣sure, vpon so worthie and learned a Father, euen there where he speaketh moste soundly and learnedly: But howe should your arrogancie else appeare? The supper is a sacrament bothe of the body and bloud of Christe, the breade of the body and the* 1.9 wine of the bloude, as S. Augustine there sayeth: and Baptisme is truly called by him the Sacrament of fayth, bycause it is Signaculum iustitiae fidei, as Circumcision the figure of Baptisme was, accordyng to the worde of the Apostle ad Rom. 4. and therefore in reprouing S. Augustine, for callyng it the Sacrament of fayth, you séeme to be ignorant of this place of the Apostle. To this saying of Augustine, doth that of Tertullian in his booke De Poenitentia very well agrée, where he speakyng of Bap∣tisme* 1.10 sayeth, Lauacrum illud obsignatio est Fidci, That washyng is the sealyng of faythe. And Chrysostome opere imp. Homil. 5. in Matth. sayeth also that Baptisme is the seale of* 1.11 fayth, neyther did euer any man before you mislike this kinde and phrase of speache, that baptisme is the sacrament of fayth.

S. Augustines woordes be euident, that there were questions in Baptisme mo∣ued in the name of the infant, whiche coulde not be, vnlesse there were also answe∣ring to the same.

Chap. 1. the. 3. Diuision.

Admonition.

Thyrdely, they prophane holy Baptisme, in toying foolishely, for that they aske questions of an infante, whiche can not answere, and speake vnto them, as was wonte to be spoken vnto men, and vnto such as beyng conuerted, answered for themselues, and were Baptised. Whiche is but a mockerie (l 1.12) of God, and therefore agaynst the holy Scriptures.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 192. Sect. 1. 2.

To the thirde superstitious toy (as you call it) that is, the questi∣ons demaunded of the Infant, at the tyme of Baptisme, I haue also answered* 1.13 out of S. Augustine, in the firste parte: where it may also appeare, that this manner of questionyng was vsed in the Baptising of In∣fantes long before Augustines tyme, for Dionysius Areopagita ma∣keth mention of them in like manner.

To proue that this questioning with the infant is a mocking of God, you quote Galat. 6. verse. 7. Be not deceyued, God is not moc∣ked, for vvhatsoeuer a man sovveth that shall he reape. Paule in this place taketh away excuses, which worldlinges vse to make for not nourishing theyr pastours, for no feyned excuse will serue bycause God is not mocked: But what is this to the questionyng with in∣fantes? howe followeth this? God is not mocked, Ergo, he that questioneth with Infantes mocketh God. Truely you mocke God when you so dally with his Scriptures, and seeke rather the glo∣rie of quoting of many places of Scripture, than the true applying of any one.

T. C. Pag. 134. Sect. 2.

In the. 191. and. 192. pages he speaketh of this agayne, but he bothe nothing else, but re∣peate, in bothe places that whiche is here, onely he sayeth that it is a mockyng of God to vse the place of the Galatians, (God is not mocked) agaynst this abuse, and his reason is, bycause S. Paule speaketh there agaynst those, that by feyned excuses seeke to defraude the Pastor of his liuyng, as who shoulde saye S. Paule did not conclude that particular conclusion, thou shalte not by friuolous excuses defraude the minister, with this generall saying (God is not mocked) for his reason is, God is not mocked at all or in any matter, therefore he is not mocked in this, or as who shoulde say, bycause our Sauiour Christe saying that it is not lawfull to separate that whiche God hath ioyned speaking of diuorce, it is not lawfull to vse this sentence, beyng a generall rule, in other thinges, when as we knowe it is as well and properly vsed agaynst the Papistes, which seuere the cup from the breade, as agaynst the Iewes, which put away their wiues for eue∣ry small and triflyng cause.

Io. Whitgifte.

In déede it is a very mocking of God thus to abuse the Scriptures, for the Au∣thours of the Admonition alleage this text to proue, that to question with Infantes is to mocke God, when there is not one worde in that place spoken of questioning with infantes, and therefore this texte is alleaged without purpose, except you will say that it is quoted onely for the Phrase and manner of speakyng. It is true that God is not mocked, but this proueth not that questioning in Baptisme is to mocke God, and therefore vaynely it is applied. Those which seuer the cuppe from the bread, in the Lordes Supper do separate that which God hath coupled, and therefore that text may well be alleaged agaynst them, but suche as question in Baptisme, in the name of those that are to be baptised do not mocke God, and therefore that texte is in the Admonition altogither abused.

Chap. 1. the. 4. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 134. Sect. vlt.

And as for this questioning it can be little better termed, than a very triflying and ioying, for first of all children haue not nor cannot haue any fayth, hauing no vnderstanding of the worde of God. I will not denie but children haue the spirite of God, whiche worketh in them after a wonderfull fashion. But I denie that they can haue fayth whiche commeth by hearing, and vn∣derstanding, which is not in them.

Secondarily, if children coulde haue fayth, yet they that present the chylde, can not precisely tell whether that particular childe hath faith or no, and therefore can not so absolutely answere that it beleeueth: Bicause it is comprehended in the couenant, and is the childe of faithfull parentes, or at least of one of the Parentes, there is warrant vnto the presenters to offer it vnto Baptisme, and to the minister for to baptise it. And further we haue to thinke charitably and to hope, that it is one of the Churche. But it can be no more precisely sayde, that it hath fayth, than it may be sayde precisely elected, (*) 1.14 (for in deede it is all one to say, that it is elect, and to say that it belee∣ueth) and this I thinke the Authours of the Admonition do meane, when they say, that they re∣quire a promise of the godfathers, which is not in them to perfourme.

Io. Whitgifte.

I haue tolde you before out of Dionysius and Augustine, in what sense the an∣swere is made in the name of the infant, and therefore this is no reason: for though the infant haue not fayth that commeth by hearing and vnderstanding the woorde of God, yet may the Godfathers promise, that they will endeuour so much as lieth in them, that the infant may be instructed in that faith, that they haue professed in his name. Likewise as Augustine sayth, It may be sayde to beléeue, propter Sacramentum fidei, For the Sacrament of fayth.

Your seconde reason is all one with the former reason, and therefore one an∣swere* 1.15 doth serue them bothe: sauing that you here adde a manifeste vntruthe, for it is not all one to saye, that it is elect, and to say it beleeueth: for the Scripture Actor. 8. sayth that Simon Magus beleeued, yet was he not elected.

Chap. 1. the. 5. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 135. Lin. 7.

Thirdly, if both those thinges were true, that is that infantes had fayth, and that it might be precisely sayde that it beleeueth, yet ought not the minister demaunde this of the chylde, whome he knoweth cannot answere him, nor those that answere for the childe, ought to demaunde to be baptised, when they neither meane, nor may be, (beyng already baptised,) but it is meete, that all thinges shoulde be done grauely, simply and playnely in the Churche. And so (if those other two thinges were lawfull) it ought to be done, as seemeth to haue bene done in S. Augustines tymes, when the minister asked those that presented the infante, and not the infant, whither it were faith∣full, and those which presented answered in their owne persons, and not in the childes, that it was faythfull.

Io. Whitgifte.

These be mere cauilles and vnworthie the name of reasons. Those that shall reade the booke of Common prayer touching that matter, may easily perceyue that this reason might well haue bene blotted out of your booke. For the minister spea∣king to those that answere for the childe sayeth thus: VVherefore after this promise made by Christe, these infantes muste also faythfully for their parte, promise by you that be their sureties, that they will forsake the Deuill and al his workes, and constantly beleeue Gods holy worde, and obediently keepe his commaundementes: whereby you may

vnderstande, what is ment bothe by those questions, and answeres. But what will not malice quarrell with? and what is there so good and profitable, that may not be (by contentious persones) drawne into question? the question is as∣ked in the name of the chylde, the Godfathers answere in their owne persons, signifying thereby that they will labour and endeuour so much as in them lieth, to bryng that to passe in the childe, which they haue promised for it, and in the name of it.

And why is it not as lawfull for suche questions to be asked in the name of the childe, as it is for the childe to make a rehearsall of his fayth, and to desire to be bap∣tised in the same, by the mouth of the Parent, or some other in the Parentes name, as the Admonition affirmeth fol. 109. in these woordes? That the parties to be Bapti∣sed, if they be of the yeares of discretion, by themselues and in theyr owne persons, or if they be infantes by their parentes, (in whose roome if vpon necessary occasion they be absent, some one of the congregation knowing the good behauiour and sounde fayth of the Parentes) may both make rehearsall of theyr faith, and also if theyr fayth be sounde, and agreable to the holy Scriptures, desire to be in the same Baptised. Is it not as muche for the infant to professe his fayth (which you say he hath not) by his Parentes and by him also, to desire to be Bapti∣sed, as it is for the Godfather to answere interrogatories ministred vnto him, in the name of the Childe?

¶ Of Godfathers and their promise.

Chap. 2. the. 1. Diuision.

Admonition.

Secondly, they require a promise of the Godfathers and Godmothers, (as they terme them) whiche is not in (k 1.16) their powers to perfourme. We saye nothing of those that are admit∣ted to be witnesses, what ill choyce there is made of them.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 191. Sect. 1. 2.

The seconde thing you mislyke is, that wee requyre a promise of the* 1.17 Godfathers, and Godmothers, which is not in theyr powers to perfourme: to this ca∣uillation I haue answered before, and haue declared bothe out of Dionysius Areopagita, and August. why they answere so in the in∣fantes name, and why they make that promise, whiche I thinke they performe sufficiently, if they pretermit nothing that lieth in them to the perfourmance thereof: and so sayeth Dionysius, for such promises are not made absolutely, but Quantum in nobis est. So much as lieth in vs.

To proue that it is not in the Godfathers to perfourme that which they promise, you quote the saying of S. Paule to the Rom. cap. 7. vers. 15. I allovv not that vvhich I do, for vvhat I vvoulde that I do not, but vvhat I hate, that I do. And vers. 18. For I knovve that in me, that is, in my fleshe, dvvelleth no good thing, for to vvill is present vvith me, but I finde no meanes. &c. And vers. 21. I finde then by the lavve, that vvhen I vvoulde do good, euill is present vvith me. In all these places* 1.18 the Apostle declareth, that infirmities remayne euen in the fayth∣full by reason of the fleshe, and that they can not come to suche

perfection in this lyfe, as they doe desyre. But howe doe these places proue, that Godfathers are not able to perfourme that which they promise for the infant? Truely these proofes are to farre fet∣ched for my vnderstanding. In the ninth to the Romaines, the A∣postle sayth, That it is not in him that vvilleth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that shevveth mercie. In the which wordes he sheweth, that the cause of our election is not in our selues, but in the mercie of God. But what is this to the promise of Godfathers made at the baptising of Infantes? If you woulde haue a man to promise no∣thing but that which is in his power to perfourme, then must you simplie condemne all promises made by man, for there is nothing in his power to perfourme, no not mouing of his foote, not comming to dinner or supper. &c. Therefore as all other promises bee made* 1.19 with these secrete conditions, if God will, so muche as lyeth in mee, to the vttermoste of my power, if I lyue. &c. So is the pro∣mise in baptisme made, by the Godfathers likewise.

Io. Whitgifte.

There is nothing answered to this.

Chap. 2. the. 2. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 107. Sect. 2. and Pag. 193. Sect. 1.

It is also manifest by these authorities, that Godfathers or suretyes were required at the baptising of Infantes: which Ter∣tullian also signifyeth in his booke de Baptismo. But you your selfe* 1.20 confesse Godfathers to be of great antiqnitie in the Churche of Christ, for you say that Higinus brought them in, and Higinus was the ninth Bishop of Rome, and liued. Anno. 141,

Touching the last, which you Rhetorically say, you will speake no∣thing of, that is, the euill choyse of witnesses; I thinke in part it is true, but you speake that without the booke, and therefore without my com∣passe of defense: For I meane not to take vpon me the defense of any abuse within the booke (if there be any) muche lesse without the booke.

T. C. Pag. 135. Sect. 1.

For Godfathers there is no controuersie betweene the Admonition, and master Doctors booke, which appeareth not onely in their corrections, but plainly in the. 188. page, where they declare that they rather condemne the abuse, whilest it is vrged more than greater matters, and which are in deede necessarie, this being a thing arbitrarie, and left to the discretion of the Church,* 1.21 and whylest there is so euill choyse for the most part of Godfathers, which is expressedly mentio∣ned of the Admonition, and whilest it is vsed almost for nothing else but as a meane for one friende to gratifie an other, without hauing any regarde to the solemne promise made before God and the congregation, of seeing the childe brought vp in the nurture and feare of the Lorde. For the thing it selfe, considering that it is so generally receyued of all the Churches, they doe not mislike of it.

Io. Whitgifte.

Peraduenture they are better aduised nowe than they were when they wrote

the Admonition. But it is good for the Reader to note that you make Godfathers a thing arbitrarie, and left to the discretion of the Churche: and yet was it inuented* 1.22 (as the Authours of the Admonition say) by Pope Higinus. So that some thing be∣like of the Popes inuentions may remayne in the Churche, thoughe the same bée not expressed in the worde of God. Indéede this is the libertie that you chalenge, to allowe what you list, and disallowe at your pleasure: all is perfect that you con∣firme of whome soeuer it was borrowed. And why may not I say the same for in∣terrogatories ministred to the Infant? You adde this reason in the ende (Conside∣ring it is so generally receyued of all Churches) and yet page. 18. you disallow Sainct Au∣gustines* 1.23 rule tending to the same effect, so that you may say and vnsay at your plea∣sure, and no man say vnto you, blacke is your eye: or Domine cur ita facis?

Of Fontes, and crossing in Baptisme.

Chap. 3. the. 1. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 107. Sect. vlt.

You may as well finde fault with Pulpit and Church, as with* 1.24 the fontes, and the reason is all one. In the tyme of the Apostles they did not baptise in Basons, as you doe nowe, but in Riuers and other common waters, neyther was there in the Apostles time any Churches for Christians, or Pulpits to preache in, and therefore you had best to plucke downe Churches, and Pulpits, and to baptise in common riuers and waters.

T. C. Pag. 135. Sect. 2.

As for Fontes I haue spoken of before, both particularly, and in generall. But whereas M. Doctor sayth, in the Ipostles tymes they baptised in no Basons but in ryuers, and common wa∣ters, I would know whether there was a riuer or common water in Cornelius, and in the Iay∣lers houses, where Paule and Peter baptised.

Io. Whitgifte.

And I woulde also gladly learne, howe you can proue that they did baptise in Basons there: I doe not say that they alwayes baptised in Riuers and common wa∣ters, but that they did so and that most commonly, which no man can denie. But I require one sillable in Scripture to proue that they did baptise in Basons, not that I* 1.25 disallowe it if tyme and place doe require, but bycause I woulde haue you to per∣forme, that in your Ceremonies, which you require in ours, that is, to proue them di∣rectly by the worde of God.

Chap. 3. the. 2. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 108. Sect. 1.

Touching crossing in baptisme, I will onely recite vnto you the* 1.26 opinion of M. Bucer, which is this. Signam hoc non tam quod est vsus in Eccle∣sijs antiquissimi, quam quòd est admodùm simplex, & presentis admonitionis crucis Christi, adbi∣beri, nec indecens, nec inutile existimo: si adhibeatur modò purè intellectum, & religiose excipiatur, nulla nec superstitione adiuncta, nec elements seruitute, nec lenitate, aut vulgari consuetu∣dine. I thinke it neyther vncomely nor vnprofitable to vse the signe of the Crosse, not onely bicause the vse therof is very auncient, but also because

it hath an expresse signification of the passion of Christ: so that it be purely vnderstoode and religiously receyued vvithout any superstition or serui∣tude of the element, or leuitie, or common custome.

T. C. Pag. 135. Sect. 3.

To proue crossing in Baptisme, M. Bucers authoritie is brought. I haue sayde before what iniurie it is to leaue the publike workes of Bucer, and to flie vnto the Apochryphas, where∣in also they might driue vs to vse the like, and to set downe likewise his wordes whiche we finde in his priuate letters. But it is first of all to be obserued of the reader, howe and with what name those notes are called, which are cyted of M. Doctor for the defense of these corrup∣tions: they are called by M. Doctors owne confession (Censures) which worde signifieth and implyeth, as much as corrections and controlments of the booke of seruice, and therefore we may take this for a generall rule throughout the whole booke of Seruice, that in whatsoeuer things in controuersie M. Doctor doth not bring Bucers authoritie, to confirme them that those things Bucer mislyked of, as for example in priuate Baptisme, and Communions ministerd in houses, for interrogatories ministred to Infants, and such lyke, for so muche as they are not con∣firmed here by M. Bucers iudgement, it may be thought that he mislyked of them, and no doubt, if eyther M. Bucers notes had not either condemned or misliked of diuerse things in the Seruice booke, we shoulde haue had the notes printed and set forth to the full. This I thought in a worde to admonish the reader of.

Io. Whitgifte.

To your first cauill, I haue answered before, where you made the same. To your seconde of master Bucers Censures (though the booke be not so intituled) the* 1.27 answere is short and plaine, it was his iudgement vppon the first Communion booke, in the time of king Edwarde wherein he misliked some things: but alloweth both priuate Baptisme, and the Communion ministred to the sicke, as I before de∣clared, and you might haue remembred, if your memorie had not fayled you.

Chap. 3. the. 3. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 135. Sect. 4.

Unto M. Bucers authoritie I could here oppose men of as great authoritie, yea the autho∣ritie of all the reformed Churches, which shal also be done afterwarde. And if there were nothing to oppose but the worde of God, which will haue the Sacraments ministred simplie, and in that since∣ritie that they be left vnto vs, it is enough to make all men to couer their faces, and to be ashamed, if that which thy shall speake be not agreeable to that simplicitie.

The reasons which M. Bucer bringeth I will answere, wh〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ch in this matter of crossing are two: first that it is auncient, and so it is in deede: For Tertullian maketh mention of this vsage.* 1.28 And if this be sufficient to proue the goodnesse of it, then there is no cause, why we shoulde mislyke of the other superstitions and corruptions which were likewise vsed in those tymes. For the same* 1.29 Tertullian sheweth that they vsed also at baptisme to taste of milke, and honie, and not to washe all the weeke after they had ministred baptisme.

Io. Whitgifte.

These be but wordes without proofe, Crossing in that maner and forme, that we vse it, verie well agréeth with the simplicitie of the worde of God. If it doe not so, shewe any worde agaynst it.

Your answere to that reason is very base, for it is not onely auncient, but it hath continued, and béene generally receyued: which you allowed before as a sufficient reason for Godfathers. As for milke and honie, the vse of them was neyther continued long, nor yet generall: and therefore the reason of them, and of the other is not lyke.

Chap. 3. the. 4. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 135 Sect. vlt.

But here I will note the cause, wherevppon I suppose, this vse of crossing came vp in the Primitiue Churche, whereby shall appeare, howe there is no cause nowe why it it should be re∣teyned, if there were any why it shoulde be vsed in the Primitiue Churche. It is knowne to all that haue read the Ecclesiasticall stories, that the Heathen did obiect to the Christians in tymes past in reproche, that the God which they beleeued of was hanged vpon a Crosse. And they thought good to testifie that they were not ashamed therefore of the same God, by the often vsing of the signe of the Crosse, which carefulnesse and good mynde to keepe amongest them an open profession of Christ crucifyed, although it be to be commended: yet is not this meanes so: for they might otherwise haue kept it, and with lesse daunger, than by this vse of crossing, and if they thought the vse of the Crosse to be the best meanes, yet they shoulde not haue beene so bolde, as to haue brought it into the holy Sacrament of Baptisme, and so mingle the ceremonies and inuentions of men, with the Sacramentes and institution of God. And as it was brought in vpon no good grounde, so the Lord left a marke of his curse of it, and whereby it might be percey∣ued to come out of the forge of mans brayne, in that it beganne forthwith, while it was yet in the swadling cloutes to be superstitiously abused. For it appeareth by Tertullian also in the same booke de Corona militis, that the Christians had such a superstition in it, that they woulde doe nothing, nor take nothing in hande, vnlesse they had crossed them, when they went out, when they came in, when they sat or lay downe, and when they rose, and as Superstition is alwayes strengthned, and spreddeth it selfe with the time, so it came from crossing of men vnto crossing of euerie thing that they vsed. Wherevpon Chrysostome commendeth the crossing of the Cuppe before a man drinke,* 1.30 and of the meate before it was eaten. But if it were graunted that vppon this consideration which I haue before mencioned, the auncient Christians did well, yet it followeth not, that wee shoulde so doe: for we liue not amongest those Nations whiche doe cast vs in the teeth or re∣proche vs with the Crosse of Christ. If we liued amongst the Turkes it were an other matter, and then there might peraduenture some question be, whether we shoulde doe as they did, and ha∣uing the same sore, vse the same playster. But nowe we liue among the Papistes, that doe not contemne the crosse of Christ, but which esteeme more of the woodden crosse, than of the true crosse of Christ, (which is his sufferings,) we ought nowe to doe cleane contrariewise to the olde Chry∣stians, and abolishe all vse of these crosses, for contrarie diseases, must haue contrarie remedyes: if therefore the olde Christians to delyuer the crosse of Christ from contempt, did often vse the crosse, the Christians nowe to take away the superstitious estimation of it, ought to take away the vse of it.

Io. Whitgifte.

I thinke your supposition in parte to bée true: I am also perswaded that the originall cause of vsing this signe was lawfull and good, and yet the thing if selfe afterwardes abused, and the cause of vsing is cleane altered, and wholy conuerted to superstition: but the abuse béeing taken away, I sée no cause why it may not be vsed in Baptisme, in that manner and forme, as it is in this Churche of Eng∣lande, that is, In token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confesse the fayth of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight vnder his banner, agaynst sinne, the worlde, and the deuill, and to continue Christes faythfull Souldiour and seruant vnto his lyues ende. And though there be no Turkes among vs or Iewes, yet is it lawfull to vse suche Christian ceremonies to put vs in minde of our dutie. And notwithstanding the same might be done by other meanes, yet it hath pleased the Churche to thinke this meanes also conuenient, and therefore hath vsed hir libertie therein. As for Pa∣pistes,* 1.31 we are farre enough off from them, for they pictured the signe of the crosse and did worshippe it, so doe not we: they vsed it to driue away spirites and diuels, so do not we: they attributed power and vertue vnto it, so doe not we: they had it in theyr Churches, so haue not we: they vsed it dayly and nightly for religion sake, we onely in Baptisme for a signe and token, as I haue sayde before: so that their ab∣using of it is sufficiently corrected. Neyther is there any man that knoweth not to what ende and purpose we vse it.

Chap. 3. the. 5. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 136. somevvhat past the middest.

Concerning the other reason of the profitable signification of the Crosse, I haue shewed that that maketh the thing a great deale worse, and bringeth in a newe worde into the Churche, whereas there ought to be no Doctor heard in the Churche but onely our Sauiour Christ. For 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ese significations be good, then the Papistes haue to answere vs, that theyr Ceremonyes be 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ot dumbe, whiche haue as likely and as glorious significations as these are, and so indeede they 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ay that theyr ceremonyes are not dumbe ceremonies, for so much as they signifie so good things. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ut although it be the worde of God that we shoulde not be ashamed of the Crosse of Christ, 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉t is it not the worde of God, that we shoulde be kept in remembrance and obseruation of that, 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 two lynes drawne a crosse, one ouer another in the childes foreheade, but a fonde toy, and ydle 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉uise of mans braine.

Io. Whitgifte.

The signification of the Papisticall ceremonies, was onely knowne to them∣selues,* 1.32 being vsed in the Church without any declaration of suche signification, and therefore they might worthily be counted dumbe, and vnprofitable, but it is not so in this, for the signification is ioyned with the signe, & published in a tongue knowne. The Papisticall Ceremonies were in number many, and they had annexed vnto them an opinion of worship, and a necessitie vnto saluation. &c. whiche made them wicked, but all these be farre from this, and other Ceremonies vsed by vs, and for as much as there is no worde of God agaynst it, and it hath a profitable signification, the Church may vse it though it be not expressed in the worde, as it may doe other rites, according to that that I haue proued before intreating of the authoritie of the* 1.33 church in such matters.

Chap. 3. the. 6. Diuision.

Admonition.

Fourthly, they doe superstitiously and wickedly institute a newe Sacrament, which is pro∣per to Christ onely, marking the childe in the foreheade with a Crosse, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confesse the fayth of Christ. We haue made mention before of that wicked deuorse of the worde and Sacraments,

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 192. Sect. 3.

Concerning the fourth toy, that is Crossing the childe in the forehead, which you call wicked and superstitious, I haue before declared Maister Bucers opinion: It may be left, and it hath beene vsed in the Primi∣tiue Churche, and maye bee so still, without eyther superstition or wickednesse. Neyther doth it any more make a Sacrament (by∣cause* 1.34 it is in token that hereafter hee shall not bee ashamed to con∣fesse Christ crucifyed) than your sitting doth at the communion in to∣ken of rest, that is a full finishing through Christ of the Ceremoni∣all* 1.35 lawe. &c. I thinke you knowe that euerie Ceremonie betoke∣ning something, is not by and by a Sacrament, and therefore here is as yet no wicked diuorse of the worde and Sacraments, except it be made by you.

T. C. Pag. 134. Sect. vlt.

In the. 192. page, vnto the Admonition obiectiing that by this significafion it is made a Sacramēt.

M. Doctor answereth that euerte ceremonie which betokeneth something is not a Sacrament. I woulde knowe what maketh a Sacrament, if a doctrine annexed vnto an outward signe doth not make a Sacrament. And I am sure there was no outwarde signe neyther in the olde Testament, nor i〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 the newe which hath a doctrine 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉oyned with it, which is not a Sacrament. For if he will take the nature of the Sacrament so straightly as Augustine doth, and that there be no Sacra∣ments but when as to the element, there cometh the word, (*) 1.36 the Circūeision can be no sacrament: besydes that, seeyng that master Doctor hath condemned the allegorie and signifycation of sytting at the Lordes supper, saying that it is Papistieall, I maruell what priuiledge he hath or speciall licence, that he may allow that in him selfe and in his owne assertions, which he sayth is vnlawfull and papisticall in others, especially seeing the allegorie of the sytting was neuer vsed by the Pa∣pists, but this of crossing is. And if the licence of allegories be allowed, I see not why Oyle may not be brought into the Sacrament, as well as crossing, both bicause it hath beone a Sacrament of God before, and for that the signifycation thereof (betokening the giftes of the holy Ghost, and shadowing out the power and efficacie of those giftes) caryeth as great a shewe of wisedome and Christian instruction, as doth the crossing.

Io. Whitgifte.

You are not ignorant, I am sure, that to the making of a Sacrament, besydes* 1.37 the externall element, there is required a commaundement of God in his worde, that it should be done, and a promise annexed vnto it, where of the Sacrament is a seale: so it was in circumcision, and so it is in the Supper and Baptisme. And sure∣ly I maruell at this your saying, If we will take the nature of the sacrament straightly* 1.38 as Augustine doth, and that there be no sacraments, but where as to the element, there com∣meth the worde, the Circumcision can be no sacrament. I thinke you are not well adui∣sed, for what doth Saint Augustine require in a Sacrament? Doth he not requir〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 the worde, and an externall element? And are not both these to bée founde in circumcision? The externall element is the foreskinne: it is commaunded in Genesis. 17. And there is the promise annexed, whereof it is a seale and a Sacra∣ment:* 1.39 and what doth Saint Augustine requyre more in a Sacrament? But I will impute this saying of yours rather to some ouersight or lacke of due conside∣ration, than to ignorance, for I thinke it vnpossible that a man of your profession shoulde be ignorant in the nature and definition of a Sacrament. A Sacrament, I meane not in the largest signification, but as it is properly vsed, and as we call the Lordes Supper and Baptisme Sacramentes. For Sacramentes in the proper signification, be mysticall signes ordeyned by God himselfe, consisting in the worde of* 1.40 God, in figures and in things signified, whereby he keepeth in mannes memorie, and sometymes renueth his large benefites bestowed vpon his Church, whereby also he sealeth or assureth his promises, and sheweth outwardly, and as it were layeth before oure eyes those things to beholde which inwardly he worketh in vs: yea by them he strengthneth and increaseth our fayth, by the holy Ghost working in our heartes. And to be short, by his Sacramentes he separateth vs from all other people, from all other religions, consecra∣ting vs and binding vs to him onely, and signifyeth what he requyreth of vs to be done. Nowe euerie ceremonie signifying any thing, hath not these conditions and proper∣tyes,* 1.41 Wherefore euerie ceremonie signifying any thing, is not a Sacrament, and therefore crossing in Baptisme though it signifyeth some thing, yet it is no Sa∣crament.

The allegory of sitting is dombe and speaketh nothing: but to the signe of the crosse is added the signification in expresse woordes, as I haue before declared, wherefore there is more cause to condemne the one, than there is to cōdemne the other: More〈1 line〉〈1 line〉∣uer sitting at the Lordes supper hath not bene vsed in the Churche that I can reade of, but crossing in baptising hath, wherefore that were to inuent a newe Ceremonie, and this is to reteyne the olde, so that the reason of their allegorie and of this Cere∣monie is not lyke.

Of refusing 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉yle in baptisme, the Churche hath iust cause: and it vseth hir liber∣tie in reteyning crossing: neyther will it burden the Sacramentes with a multitude of vnnecessary and vnprofitable Ceremonies, and yet reteyne such as shall be thought moste conuenient.

Chap. 3. the. 7. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 137. Lin. 3.

And to conclude, I see no cause why some crosses should be vnlawefull, and other some com∣mendable: and why it should be a monument of Popery in woode and metall, and yet a Christian badge in the forehead of a man, why we should not lyke of it in streates and hyghewayes, and yet al∣lowe of it in the churche.

Io. Whitgifte.

As there is great difference betwixt the paynting of an Image, to sette foorth an historie, and placing of it in the Churche to be worshipped, so is there also as great dif∣ference, or more, betwixt crossing a childe in the forehead at the time of baptisme, with expressing the cause and vse of it, and the placing of crosses in Churches or highways and streates.

The crossing of the childes forehead, is but for a moment, the crosse of wood and stone remayneth and continueth: the crosse in the childes forehead is not made to be adored and worshipped, neyther was euer any man so madde, as to imagine any such thing of it: but the crosses in churches, streates, and highwayes, of mettall and woode, were erected to be worshipped, and were so accordingly, and therefore there is no like perill in the one, as there is in the other.

¶ Of the parties that are to be Baptised.

Chap. 4. The first Diuision.

Admonition▪

That the parties to be baptised, if they be of the yeares of (p) 1.42 discretion, by them selues and in their owne persones, or if they be infantes, by theyr parentes (in whose rooine if vpon necessary oc∣casion they be absent, some one of the congregation, knowyng the good behauiour and sounde faythe of the par〈1 line〉〈1 line〉tes) may both make rehersall if theyr faythe, and also if their fayth be sounde, & agrea∣ble to holy scriptures, desyre to be in the same baptised. And finally, that nothyng be done in this or any other thing, but that which you haue the expresse warrant of Gods worde for.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 111. Sect. 1. 2.

I muse what you meane to saye on this sorte: The parties to be bapti∣sed* 1.43 if they be of the yeares of discretion. &c. You knowe that in this Church of England none tarry for baptisme so long, except it be in some secrete congregation of Anabaptistes. The place alledged out of the third of Matthew telleth how they that were baptised cōfessed their sinnes, it speaketh nothing of any confession of faith.

It is well that you admitte some to answere for the infant in the* 1.44 absence of the parent, and why not in his presence to? what scripture haue you, that the Parent at the baptising of his childe should make a rehersall of his fayth, and desire that his childe should bee therein baptised? this I desire to knowe for myne owne learning, for I nei∣ther remember any such thing in scripture, neither yet in any auncient wryter: I do herein but desire to be instructed.

T. C. Pag. 139. Lin. 6.

And bicause I would haue all those thyngs togither that touche this matter of baptisine, I come to that which he hath in the next Section and in. III. page, where after his olde manner, he〈1 line〉〈1 line〉

wrangleth and quarrelleth. For although the Admonition speaketh so playnely and so clearely, that as Hesiod. sayth, it myght 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 satisfie Momus, yet M. Doctor goeth about there, to bryng it in suspicion of Anabaptisme, bicause allowing in playne wordes the baptisme of infantes, they adde that if the parties be of discretion and yeares, them selues in their own persons, should de∣maunde to be baptised. For sayth he in this Church they tary not for baptisme so long: But is ther no cause or may there not be, when they that be of age may be baptised? It may be there are Iewes in Englande, which vnderstanding their blyndnes and confessing their synne, may desyre to be bap∣tised, and 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉here be dyuers Mores in noble mens & gentlemens houses, which are sometimes brought to the knowledge of Christe, whereby th〈1 line〉〈1 line〉re is some vse and practise of this case.

Io. Whitgifte.

Anabaptisme being so crafty an heresy, that it dissembleth many things, vntill it* 1.45 haue sufficient ayde, a man can not be to suspicious of it, especially in those that walke in steppes so lyke vnto it. And yet I speake nothing in that place, that may bryng the A〈1 line〉〈1 line〉thours of the Admonition into suspicion of Anabaptisme, vnlesse they suspect them selues, or that you would haue them suspected: for you knowe the olde prouerbe. Con∣scius ipse sibi. &c. It may be in deede that there be Iewes in Englande, & Mores, & Turkes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and that some of them being conuerted to the fayth, be afterward〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 baptised, and 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 it is so, but the case is very rare, and there is no man that doub∣teth but 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 to be examined in their fayth before they be admitted to baptisme. This is against nothing that I haue sayde.

Chap. 4. the. 2. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 111. Sect. 3. & Pag. 112. Sect. 1.

I knowe not what you meane when you saye (That in the absence of* 1.46 the parentes some one of the congregation knowing the good behauiour and sound faithe of the Parentes, may both make a rehersal of their fayth: and also if their faith bee sounde and agreable to holy scriptures, desire in the same to be baptised) what if the parētes be of euil behauiour? what if it be the child of a drūkard, or of an 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ar∣lot? what if y^e parentes be Papistes? what if they be heretikes? what* 1.47 if they erre in some point or other, in matters of fayth? shall not their children be baptised? herein you haue a further meaning than I can vnderstande, and I feare fewe do perceiue the poyson that lieth hid vnder these wordes: may not a wicked father haue a good childe? may not a Papiste or heretike haue a beleuing sonne? wil you seclude for the Parentes sake (being himselfe baptised) his seede from bap∣tisme? Surely your fantasies, naye your daungerous errours wyll burste out one daye in more playne manner.

This reformatiō you seeke for and desire, were rather a deformatiō nay a confusion: and whylest you will nothing to bee done but that, for the whiche there is expresse warrant in Gods worde, you your selues prescribe that whiche is not to be founde in all Gods worde.

Admonition.

Howe conuenient it were, seyng the chyldren of the faythfull onely are to be baptised, that the father should and myght, if conueniently, offer and present his chylde to be baptised, makyng an o∣pen confession of that fayth, wherein he would haue his chylde baptised, and how this is vsed in well ordered Churches.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 193. Sect. 2.

But I knowe not wherto this tendeth that followeth: that is, How cōuenient it were, seeing that the children of the faithfull only are to be baptised. &c. Do you not comprehende those vnder the name of faithfull, which be baptised? for else it passeth mans vnderstanding, to knowe who bee faythfull in deede, bicause the vnbeleuers maye make a confession of* 1.48 faythe in wordes: and in this worlde it can not certainly by man be determined, who among Christians be faithfull, who be vnfaithfull. I praye you answere me this one question: If a chylde bee founde whose father and mother be vnknowen (as it hath happened some∣times in our remembrance) will you not baptise it bicause the Pa∣rentes be not forth comming, to make a confession of their faith? or bi∣cause the sound faithe of the Parentes is vnknowen? but hereof I haue spoken in another place.

T. C. Pag. 137. Sect. 1.

After that M. Doctor hath cast him selfe in derision, at the feete of the authours of the Admo∣nition, and desired to be taught of them whome he hath so contemptuously condemned as vnlear∣ned, he doth by and by rayse vp himself into his ch〈1 line〉〈1 line〉yre, and there sitteth doctorally, 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉pposing the au∣thors of the Admonition, as if they were his schollers: and vpon occasion of the sounde faythe and good behauiour of y^e parentes of the infant, mentioned by y^• Admonitiō, asketh first of al, what if the infant be the childe of a drunkarde? what if he be of a harlot? shall not sayth he, the infant be bapti∣sed? If it were not that M. Doctor in asking these questions, doth also answere them, & answereth thē farre otherwyse than y^e truth doth su〈1 line〉〈1 line〉fer, I would not be drawē from the causes which we haue in hande by these rogyng questions: nowe I can not leaue them vnanswered, bicause I see that M. Doctor doth make of the holy Sacrament of baptisme (which is an entri〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 into the house of God) and whereby onely the family of God must enter, a common passage whereby he will haue cleane and vncleane, holy and prophane, as well those that are without the couenan〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e, as those that bee within it, to passe by: and so maketh the churche no housholde, but an Inne to receyue whosoeuer commeth.

Io. Whitgifte.

All this is but a declaration of your modestie, and a signification of the mildenesse of your spirite, and therefore I wyll passe it ouer and leaue it to the Reader to be con∣sidered of. Onely I must tell you, that I make the holy Sacrament of baptisme no other kinde of passage, than God him selfe hath made it, and the Church of Christe hath euer vsed it. Good and euill, cleane and vncleane, holy and prophane, must néedes passe by it, excepte you will in déede in more ample and large manner tye the grace of God vnto it, than euer did the Papistes, and saye that all that be baptised be also saued: or else ioyne with the Anabaptistes in this, that after baptisme a man cannot sinne.

Who can tell whither he be holy or vnholy, good or euill, cleane or vncleane, elect or reprobate, of the housholde of the Churche, or not of the Churche, that is baptised, be he infant, or at the yeares of discretion? I tell you playne this assertion of yours sa∣uoureth very strongly of heresy in my opinion: but let vs come to your reasons if you haue anye.

Chap. 4. the. 3. Diuision.

T. C. pag. 137. Sect. 1.

I will answere therefore almoste in as many wordes as the questions be asked. If one of the Parentes be neyther drunkarde nor adulterer, the chylde is holy by vertue of the couenante, for one of the Parents sakes. If they be both, and yet not obstinate in their synne, whereby the Churche hath not proceeded to excommunication, (them selues beyng yet of the Churche) theyr chylde can∣not,

nor ought not to be refused. To the seconde question, wherein he asketh what if the chylde be of Papistes or heretykes. If both be Papistes or condemned heretikes (if so be I may distinguishe Papistes from heretikes) and cut of from the church, their children cannot be receyued, bicause they are not in the coucnant, if either of them be faythfull, I haue answered before that it ought to bee receyued.

To other questions wherin he asketh, what if they erre in some poyntes of matters of fayth. If it be but an error, and be not in those pointes which rase the foundations of fayth, bicause they styll, notwithstanding their error are to be counted amongst the faythfull, their children pertcyne vnto the promyse, and therefore to the sacrament of the promise.

Io. Whitgifte.

Surely these be very short answeres for so waighty questions, and so necessary* 1.49 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 y^e 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* 1.50 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* 1.51 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,* 1.52 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,* 1.53 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* 1.54 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* 1.55 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

and cut of from the Churche, do notwithstanding Retinere baptismum, keepe styll their baptisme, (as Saint Augustine sayeth) I sée not howe by any meanes you can iustifie the secluding of theyr chyldren from being baptysed: or if otherwyse I can not sée howe a Papiste beyng conuerted, can bee receyued into the Churche, without he bée anewe baptysed, or howe suche chyldren of knowen Papistes, and excommu∣nicate persones, as haue bene baptised in this Churche of Englande or else •• here, from the beginning of the Gospell to this daye, can be coumpted Christians, vnlesse they be rebaptised.

And concernyng Papistes, whome you haue denyed to bée in the Churche,* 1.56 and to whose chyldren also you here denye baptisme, I wyll aske you but this one question, what you thynke of all those, whiche are not onelye chyldren to professed and knowen Papistes, but baptised also in the Romishe Churche? for if the chyl∣dren of knowen Papistes, may not be baptysed, what shall wée saye of our selues, and of our Parentes and predecessours, who all, or the moste of them were profes∣sed Papistes? is not this the grounde of Rebaptisation, and Anabaptisme?

But that the Reader maye the better vnderstande your erroure, and the rather beléeue it to be an errour in dée〈1 line〉〈1 line〉, I wyll set downe M. Beza his opinion of this mat∣ter, from whome you are lothe (I am sure) to be thought to dissent. In his booke of Epistles, Epist. 10 answering this question (whether the infantes of suche as are excom∣municated* 1.57 may be baptised, and in whose fayth, when as they of whome they are begotten, are not members of the Churche) determineth thus.

God forbidde that we should iudge all one and a lyke of all suche as are not called the members of the Churche, for there are foure kyndes of men farre differing among them selues. One is of them, whiche neyther by election, neyther in them selues are by anye meanes the members of Christe, whome we cal by the worde of God reprobate and the ves∣sels of anger, and appointed to destruction, although many of them sometime in appa∣rance, that is in outwarde profession, yea and a certayne semblance of faythe, continuing for a tyme, wherewith they mocke both them selues and other, are reckened among the mem∣bers of the Churche, of whome Iohn sayeth, if they had bene of vs, they would haue taryed with vs.

The seconde is of those, whiche are chosen in Christe by eternall election, and there∣fore are the members of Christe, yet by purpose onelye not in deede: in whiche sense Paule sayth that he was seuered from his mothers wombe, when as notwithstanding, hee was a long tyme the member of Sathan persecuting Christ: and in an other place sayeth, that grace was giuen vs in Christe before euerlasting tymes: and agayne, that God loued vs when we were his enemies.

In the thyrde kynde wee counte them, that bothe by election and in deede are the sonnes of God, bycause as the Apostle sayth, they are ruled by the spirite of God.

Finally, in the fourth place wee recken those, who whereas they appertayne to the e∣lection of God, and be engraffed in Christ, yet bycause hauing fallen in some thing (as men often doe) they be an offence to the other members, therefore least the wound should bee deadlye, whiche Sathan and the fleshe hath gyuen them, neede a more sharpe remedye, and are therfore excommunicated or delyuered to Sathan, not that they should peryshe (for it is not possible that they should peryshe whiche are the members of Christe) But that god∣lye sorowefulnesse may cause repentance, eyther that their fleshe (that is the olde man) dying, their spirite may be saued in the daye of the Lorde.

These therefore be they whome we call excommunicated, and who for two respectes are not members of the Churche, one according to men, bycause they are excluded from the holy felowship of the faythfull: the other according to God, bycause that saying of Christe is sure, that, that is bounde in heauen, whiche is ryghtlye bounde of the Churche in the earth.

But it is an other thyng truelye to bee bounde in heauen, than to bee cast out of that true kyngdome of heauen, whiche neuer happeneth to anye of the electe. For that say∣ing of Christe standeth, that those shall neuer bee caste out whome the Father hath giuen

the Sonne: and that of Lohn, if they had bene of vs, they woulde haue taried with vs: and that of the Apostle, the foundation of God standeth sure, hauing this seale, the Lorde knoweth who be 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉is. Therefore as touching Christe, these are sayd not to be his, nor mem∣bers of the Churche, not as the firste whiche are reprobate and damned, but bycause for a tyme as concernyng the force and efficacie of the spirite, they are without hym, as beyng so engraffed in hym, that they receyue not that lyuelye nouryshement of the spirite of Christe for a tyme, that is, tyll grace of repentaunce be gyuen them. To conclude, the difference betwixt these and the firste is such, as is betweene a legge of woode ioyned cunninglye to a true bodye (whiche notwithstanding is not a legge in deede, neyther is truely called a parte of that man) and betwyxt a true legge, that yet for a tyme receyueth not nouryshement in suche sorte, that vnles it be refreshed by the strengthe of some sharpe medicine, it wyll ne∣cessaryly putrific and cleane peryshe. VVherefore seeing these thinges be thus, and charitie byddeth vs to hope well of all, yea and also to take care for them, whiche are helde as captiues in the snare of the Deuyll: God forbydde that the Parentes beyng excommuni∣cated, wee should conclude that theyr posteritie belongeth not to the kyngdome of God. Furthermore, there is great difference betweene those, whiche although they bee noto∣rious offendours, neuerthelesse departe not from the Churche, and betweene those that are manifeste rennegates, ioyning them selues with the enimies to oppresse the truthe of the Gospell. Further, it were vnreasonable to esteeme of Papistes, muche lesse Christi∣ans excommunicated, no otherwise than of Turkes: for although it bee vnpossible to serue the Pope and Christ togyther, yet it is certayne that Poperie is an erring of the Christian Churche. VVherefore the Lorde hath in the middest of that goulfe of Pa∣pistrie preserued Baptisme, that is the first entering into the Churche: whereby it appea∣reth (as also the thing it selfe proueth in vs) that although Papisme be not the Churche, yet the Churche hathe bene and is (as it were) drowned or couered in it: whiche can not by anie meanes bee sayde of the Turkes, whiche neuer gaue theyr names to Chryst. Lastly, for so muche as the goodnesse of God is extended to a thousande generations, that is (as it were) without ende, it were harde if wee shoulde iudge of the children, whe∣ther they belong to the couenant of God or no, by the profession of their last Parentes. Therefore of all these argumentes ioyned togither, we conclude that the children of per∣sons excommunicate, abyding yet in the Churche of God, can by no right bee debar∣red from Baptisme, if in case a meete suretie bee had, whiche will make promyse to the Church that they shall be vertuously brought vp, which I thinke ought to be done of the Ministers them selues, and other Godly men, rather than theyr Baptisme shoulde anie longer be deferred. Yet it shall not be amisse, if the Minister before he baptise the infant, taking hereof occasion, earnestly exhort the father that is excommunicated being present, to 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉epentance before the assemblie, whiche is oftentymes practised in oure Churches. Hitherto Beza.

Chap. 4. the 4. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 137. Sect. 2.

And in the. 193. page, he asketh what if the Parentes of the childe be vnknowen, if it be, yet if godly men will present it to baptisme, with promyse of seing it brought vp in the feare of the Lorde, for so much as it is founde in a place where the churche is, and therefore by likelyhoode to apper∣teyne to some that was of the churche, I thynke it may be baptised, if the churche thynke it good in this last case.

Io. Whitgifte.

And why should you but thinke so? what reason is there why it should not be bap∣tised? But yet this answere of yours dothe nothing iustifie the Aomonition: Whiche would, The parentes to presente their chyldren, if conuentently, makyng an open confession of that faythe, wherein he would haue his chylde baptised: For this can not be done where the Pa∣rentes be vnknowen, neither is (in such case) any other man able to testifie of what faythe or behauiour the parentes were.

Chap. 4. the. 5. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 137. Sect. vlt.

Then he goeth forth in the. III. Page to proue that the children of those, which he hath recke∣ned may be baptised, and demaundeth whither a wicked father may haue a good childe, a Papist or Heretike father a beleeuing chylde? yes verily may they. So may haue, and hath the Turke and the Iewe, and yet their children are not to be receyued vnlesse their fayth doth fitste appeare by confession, But you say the Papiste an Heretike be Baptised, and so are not the Iewes and Turkes. Their baptisme beyng cut of from the Churche, maketh them as much straungers vn∣to it, as was Ismaell and Esau, whiche albeit they were circumcised, yet beyng caste out of the Churche, they were no more to be accompted to be of the body of Gods people, then those whiche neuer were in the Churche. Now you see (*) 1.58 the poyson (as you terme it) which lieth hidde vn∣der these wordes, and if it be as you say poyson, let vs haue some of your triacle. In all the reste of that section, there is nothing but that, which he spake of before, onely the Eldership is 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉amed, which commeth to be intreated of in the next section.

Io. Whitgifte.

If their baptisme be so cut of, that it also taketh away the priuiledge from their children, howe can they be admitted agayne into the Churche without rebaptisation? S. Augustine in the place before recited, sayeth that Heretikes though they be cut of from the Churche yet they do retayne their Baptisme, whiche beyng true, there is no reason to seclude their children frō it. I cannot learne but that the Sonnes of Is∣maell were circumcised: for it is written of the Egyptians (as P. Martyr doth note)* 1.59 that they circumcided at. 14. yeares of age, bycause Ismael was then circumcised: Which tyme of circumcision the Arabians obserued in lyke manner. And therefore it is not vnlike but that the Posteritie of Ismael was circumcised. And as for the Sonnes of Esau it is not like that they were debarred from circumcision, seyng E∣sau himselfe receyued the signe of the couenant, notwithstanding he was before re∣iected.* 1.60 And that his posteritie were not so farre estraunged from the people of God as those that neuer were in the Churche, it may appeare by that which is written in Deutronomie, where the Israelites are willed to acknowledge them for their* 1.61 Brethren, and to admitte their children in the thirde Generation, into the congregation of the Lorde. And yet are not the Papistes like vnto Ismael and Esau: but rather the same with the Israelites vnder Ieroboam, &c. for as they professed the lawe of Moses, had circumcision, and were not in all poyntes straunge from the fayth of the Iewes: but yet ioyned therevnto Idolatrie, and the false worshipping of God: euen so the Papistes pretende the lawe of God, vse the Sacramentes, professe Chri∣stianitie, and are not in all poyntes straunge from Christian fayth, but yet haue cor∣rupted the same with idolatrous worshipping, and diuerse other kindes of supersti∣tion, and errours. Therefore sayeth M. Beza very well in the wordes before re∣cited,* 1.62 Papismus est Ecclesiae Christianae aberratio. Papisme is the erring of the Christian Churche: And Ecclesia est velut immersa in Papatu, quod de Turcis dici nullo modo potest, qui nunquàm Cbristo nomen dederunt: the Churche is as it were couered or drowned in Pa∣pisme, whiche can by no meanes be sayde of Turkes, whiche neuer gaue their names to Christe or professed Christianitie. Wherefore if you had made a right comparison, you should not haue compared them to Ismaell and Esau, but to the reuolting Isra∣elites, as M. Martyr dothe, saying thus expresly, Quales olim Israelitae, &c. Such are the* 1.63 Papistes at this day, if they be compared with the professours of the Gospell, as were the Israelites in respect of the Iewes. But full well you knewe that in so doing, your er∣rour would soone haue bene espied: for though the Israelites were separated from the true Churche, yet were not their children cut of from the couenaunt, or debarred from the signe thereof.

The poyson which (you say) we nowe see, and that lieth hid vnder these woordes, is,* 1.64 the debarring of children from Baptisme for their parentes offences beyng baptised, and rebaptisation: Both which you do in more playne manner affirme than the Ad∣monition doth, and therefore for triacle to cure these venemous diseases I sende you to the learned workes of S. August. Contra epist. Parmeniani: de Baptis. contra Donatistas: of M. Bullinger, Zuinglius, Caluine and others, which haue written against these poysoned poynts of the Anabaptistes and Donatistes.

Notes

• i 1.1

  Act. 8. 35. 36. 37. Act. 10. 47.
• * 1.2

  Interroga∣tories mini∣stred to in∣fantes. Dionysius A∣reopag.
• * 1.3

  2. Lib. 20. cap.
• * 1.4

  Defense of the Apolog. Parte. 5.
• * 1.5

  Augustine.
• * 1.6

  An obiection made by Au∣gustine. The Answere to the same.
• (*) 1.7

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• (a) 1.8

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.9

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉. Rom. 4.
• * 1.10

  Tertull.
• * 1.11

  Chrysost.
• l 1.12

  Gal, 6. 7.
• * 1.13

  Augustine al∣loweth que∣stions to the infant.
• (*) 1.14

  An vntru〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.15

  Not al one to say it belee∣ueth, and it is elected. Act. 8.
• k 1.16

  Rom. 7. 15. 18. 21. Rom. 9. 16.
• * 1.17

  The promise of the Godfa∣thers restray∣ned to theyr power.
• * 1.18

  Infirmities be in all men.
• * 1.19

  Conditionall promises.
• * 1.20

  Of Godfa∣thers.
• * 1.21

  Godfathers al∣lowed by T. C.
• * 1.22

  Godfathers allowed thogh brought in by Pope Higi∣nus.
• * 1.23

  The Replyer vnconstant. Pag. 18. Sect. 7
• * 1.24

  Of fontes. The Apostles baptised not in Basons.
• * 1.25

  The replyer put to the proofe of his ceremonies.
• * 1.26

  Of crossing in baptisme. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ucer.
• * 1.27

  M. Bucers Censures vp∣pon the first booke in king Edwardes time.
• * 1.28

  Li. de resur∣rect. carnis.
• * 1.29

  Li. de coro∣na militis.
• * 1.30

  Vpon the 1. Tim. 4. cap.
• * 1.31

  Difference betwene cros∣sing in Papi∣strie, and in our church.
• * 1.32

  Difference betwix〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sticall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nies 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.33

  Tract. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.34

  Crossing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sacra〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.35

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• (*) 1.36

  A monifest 〈◊〉〈◊〉,
• * 1.37

  What is re∣quired to the making of a sacrament.
• * 1.38

  Circumcision a Sacrament according to Augustines rule.
• * 1.39

  Gen. 17.
• * 1.40

  The proper signification of sacraments
• * 1.41

  Euery signi∣fying ceremo∣nie is not a 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉acrament.
• (p) 1.42

  Math. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉. 6.
• * 1.43

  Of those that are to be bap∣tised.
• * 1.44

  Of the parēts answering 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉or their children.
• * 1.45

  Anabaptisme a crafty here∣sy〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.46

  Of the saythe a〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ood be∣〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 of the Parentes. &c.
• * 1.47

  Whether the chi〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 of a wic∣ke〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 man may be baptised.
• * 1.48

  No man knoweth who 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, who is n〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.49

  The presump tiō of the Re∣plier.
• * 1.50

  Pag. 34. Sect. 1
• * 1.51

  Caluine. Bullinger.
• * 1.52

  The assertion of the Replier tendeth to re∣baptisation.
• * 1.53

  Baptisme once ministred remaineth per petuall.
• * 1.54

  Heretikes loose not their baptisme.
• * 1.55

  The Replier nere to Do∣natis〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e.
• * 1.56

  Pag. 34. Sect. vii.
• * 1.57

  Beza li. Epist. Epist. 10.
• (*) 1.58

  It is poyson in deede, and the same whi〈1 line〉〈1 line〉he I suspected.
• * 1.59

  P. Martyr in 4. Rom.
• * 1.60

  Rom. 9.
• * 1.61

  Deut. 23. vers. 7. 8. The papistes ly〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉o the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 v〈1 line〉〈1 line〉der Iero∣boani &c.
• * 1.62

  Beza Epist. 10.
• * 1.63

  Martyr. in. 3. cap. 1. Reg.
• * 1.64

  The poyson that is hidde in the Repli∣ers doctrine.