A godly treatise containing and deciding certaine questions, mooued of late in London and other places, touching the ministerie, sacraments, and Church. Whereunto one proposition more is added. After the ende of this booke you shall finde a defence of such points as M. Penry hath dealt against: and a confutation of many grosse errours broched in M. Penries last treatise. Written by Robert Some Doctor of Diuinitie.

CHAP. 7. THEY WHICH WERE baptized in the Popish Church by Popish Priestes, receiued true Baptisme, touching the substance of Baptisme. (Book 7)

R. Some.

THe Popish priestes doe retaine the es∣sentiall forme of Christes baptisme, that is, they doe baptize in the name, not of Pope or idole, but of the holy Trinitie: therefore it is not mans, but Gods baptisme, which is deliuered by them. If it be Gods baptisme, I am sure it is true baptisme. Master Caluin calleth them Catabaptists, which denie that we are rightly baptized in the Popish Church. Insti∣tut. lib. 4. cap. 15. Sect. 16.

I. Penry.

Nowe to the examination of your reason brought to prooue that they which were baptized in Poperie, haue receiued true baptisme. Your con∣clusion, you must remember, I doe not denie, though your reason proueth not the same, which is thus framed. Whosoeuer deliuer Gods baptisme, they deliuer true baptisme: But Popish priestes deliuer Gods baptisme, therefore true baptisme. You haue changed the conclusion from that which was done, vnto that which is done: But this ouersight I omit. The assumption you proue thus: Whosoeuer baptize in the name not of Pope or Idols, but of the holy Trinitie, they deliuer Gods baptisme: but Popish priestes doe baptize in the name of the holy Trinitie, therefore they de∣liuer Gods baptisme. Your proposition in this last Sillogisme is most false, and such as vpon the grant whereof, not onely the communicating with vnpreaching ministers might be aduouched, but also Gods whole ordinance in the institution of his holy Sacraments quite ouerthrowen. For if it were true, that there were no more required to make substantiall baptisme (as you here require no more) but to baptize in the name of the Trinitie: then these impious absurdities would followe thereof. 1 That an Amalekite might deliuer true circumcision, as touching the substance. 2 That true baptisme might be administred vnto a substance not capable of baptisme: But this odious instance I will not vrge. 3. That a woman, 4. That any man not being a Minister, as a childe of fiue yeeres olde, a Turke, or Iewe, might deliuer true baptisme as touching the substance. For

these pronouncing the words of Institution, might retaine, by your reason the essentiall forme of Christs baptisme, and so to vse your owne wordes, they baptizing not in the name of Pope or of Idols, but of the holy Trini∣tie, should deliuer Gods baptisme and not mans? If Gods baptisme, then true baptisme I am sure: in like maner, by this reason they should be Ca∣tabaptists, which denie men to be rightly baptized by Turkes or women.

R. Some.

You denie not my conclusion. I must you say re∣member it. You haue sung this song very often. It needed not. A worde had bene ynough if it had so pleased you. You tell me, You wil omit an ouersight of mine. You deserue no thankes for this courtesie: therefore I will giue you none. But what I beseeche you is my ouersight? Forsooth, I doe accompt it as true baptisme, which is administred now as hereto∣fore in the Popish Church. Call you this an ouer∣sight? Was it true baptisme yesterday and is it none to day? A marueilous case: This is like those absurde fellowes, of whome Tertullian writeth in an other case: Hodie presbyter, quicras laicus. De prescr. aduersus Haer. That is, to day a Minister, but to morow none. You are one of the strāgest Diuines that euer I hard of. Very ignorant: very bould: very absurde. You are such a one as the Apostle mentioneth, 1. Tim. 1.7. To proceede: my reason you say prooueth not my proposition. In the iudgement of any learned man it doeth: if not in yours, the matter is not great: for your iudgement is not worth a rush. The argumēt I made is in deede M. Caluines, & a very sure one. It is allowed of all Churches, that I can heare of. It plea∣seth you to set downe my reason thus: Whosoeuer deliuer Gods baptisme, they deliuer true baptisme: But Popish priests deliuer Gods baptisme, therfore true baptisme. You say I proue my Minor thus:

Whosoeuer baptize in the name not of Pope or i∣dols, but of the holy Trinity, they deliuer Gods bap∣tisme: But Popish priestes &c. Your answere is that my Maior propositiō is most false, & that vpon the grant of it, many absurdities would folow, &c. Your dealing with mee is most absurde. It shall appeare thus. My Minor proposition set downe by you, was: Popish priests deliuer Gods baptisme. You say I proue it thus: Whosoeuer baptize in the name not of Pope or idols, but of the holy Trinitie, they deli∣uer Gods baptisme. Vpō this you inferre many cōse∣sequēts at your pleasure: viz. that Turkes, Iewes, wo∣men, priuate men, children, might deliuer true bap∣tisme touching the substance. You pretende great sinceritie. Answere mee directly. I appeale to your conscience, if you haue any. Did I euer deliuer such a Maior proposition? If I haue, quote the page, set downe the words. If I haue not, (which I am wel as∣sured of) you haue grosly abused me. You may as ea∣sily fetch oyle out of a flint, as any such consequents out of my writings. The godly reader may see by this litle, howe neere you are driuen, when you vse such beggerly shifts to bumbast your Treatise. Honest Matrones vse no painting: but harlots doe. Simple trueth needes no lies to welt and gard it: grosse er∣rours haue neede of such Vermilion. They which haue either heard my Sermōs, or read my writings, doe knowe very well, that I allowe none whatsoeuer without a calling, to administer a Sacrament or preach the word, therefore neither woman nor pri∣uate man. Yea, mine owne wordes in this present chapter are as cleare as the sunne: viz. Popish priests doe retaine the essentiall forme of Christes bap∣tisme,

&c. which Popish priests haue a calling thogh a faultie one. It is very strāge that you could not see this. I perceiue, the vaile of malice did hinder your sight. The odious instance you mention, doeth best become your Spirit. It is sutable to the rest of your writings, that is, most absurd and childish.

I. Penry.

I would be fulsory, that the errours of the Catabaptists or Anabaptists, coulde not bee confured by you with sounder reasons, then this you haue brought: and I would be also sory, that you shoulde defende such absurd consequents as I wil driue you vnto whether you will or no, vnlesse you re∣uoke (as I hope you will) that which you haue written. Pardon me, I pray you. I deale as reuerently as I may with you, retayning the maiestie of the cause I defend, and I deale not against you, but against an erroneous asser∣tion, which I now leaue: desiring you very earnestly, that you would consi∣der howe vnreuerently the ordinance of God in the holy Sacraments is dealt with, when the same is made to depende vpon the pronouncing of a few sill ables, without any consideration either of the person who is to ad∣minister, or of the substantial forme of consecration conteined in the ex∣position of the holy institution of baptisme, & the inuocation of the Name of God, all which are necessarily required in the administration of bap∣tisme, and could not possibly be in Egypt, where all was and is couered vn∣der the darkenes of a strange tongue.

R. Some.

You pretend great sorrow for me. I do not thanke you for it. Be sorie for your owne absurdities, which are many & grosse. The absurde consequents which you will driue me perforce vnto, vnlesse I reuerse my writings, are easily numbred. They are not one, thankes be to God. Your lusty speech can not daunt me. It is but a visour. I haue bene long acquainted with the boysterous speeches of such ignorant and bolde companions as you are. Touching the argu∣ment nowe in hand betweene vs, spare me not: I de∣sire no fauour: I will not reuoke any iot I haue set downe. You desire pardon of me. If you recant your Anabaptisticall errours, you shall haue an easie suit:

Otherwise, I do and wil account verie basely of you. Hath the cause you deale for, Maiestie in it? You might haue spared the name of Maiestie verie well. It is too costly a garment for such a leprous body, as your Treatise is. But I must beare with you. It is the maner of Sectaries to vse maiesticall & loftie words, that their ignorant followers may commend them aboue the skies. The reuerend dealing you talke of, is idle speech. I haue and doe refuse it. The erroni∣ous assertion which you fight against, is not mine: I did neuer so much as once thinke of it. It is yours: vse it as you list. You may be bolde with it. You giue out, that I make the Sacrament to depend vpon the pronouncing of a fewe sillables, without conside∣ration of the person who is to administer it. My answere is, that you are a wicked slaunderer. You re∣quire three things necessarily in the administration of baptisme. First, one which hath calling to admi∣nister it. I agree with you in this. Secondly, the sub∣stantiall forme of consecration conteined in the ex∣position of the holy institution of Baptisme. I dissent from you in this, and yet doe like sound preaching as well as you. Lastly, the inuocation of the name of God. I say Amen to this. Then you adde this Mi∣nor: but these could not possibly be in Egypt, that is, in the Popish Church, &c. Will you stand to the se∣cond branch of the three? If you doe, I may iustly conclude, first that you account Consecration, not Christs words in baptisme, as you ought, but some glosse vpon Christes wordes, which you ought not: Secondly, that you denie any Sacrament to be deli∣uered by Popish Priests, & vnpreaching Ministers; &c. And yet you haue said often, and haue desired

mee to remember that you denie it not. I doe not wring your wordes, and pull them out of ioynt, as you doe mine. Such dealing is an argument of a vile nature and wrangling spirit. It is verie farre, I thanke God, from me: I doe detest it. If I were of your hu∣mour, I could chase and pursue you hotly, for your inconstancie & errour: Inconstancie, for affirming and denying one and the selfe same particular: Er∣rour, for giuing out that the worde preached is ne∣cessarily required to the Essence of the Sacrament. If a sermon were necessarily required to the Essence of a Sacrament, these absurdities woulde followe: First, the Sacraments are dead Sacraments, that is, seales without writing, and plaine blankes, if there vvant a sermon: Secondly, if Baptisme be no sacra∣ment vvithout a sermon, then can it not regenerate or bee effectuall to any vvhich either haue bene, or are baptized vvithout a sermon.

Obiection of the fantasticall crew.

The Popish Priests haue no lawfull calling: therfore it is no true Bap∣tisme which is deliuered by them.

R. Some.

The Argument followes not. I confesse that Po∣pish priests haue no lawfull calling: yet they haue a calling, though a faultie one. They which are not lawfully called vnto the ministery, are to be accoun∣ted in another place then they which haue no cal∣ling. Caiphas was not in deed the lawfull high Priest: for he entred by money, and the Priesthood in his time was rent in pieces: yet because hee sate in the high Priestes chaire, hee was accounted the high Priest. A faultie vocation may hurt him that v∣surpes an office, but it doeth not defile those thinges which are done by that partie. This is M. Bezaes

iudgement in his 142. question.

If any shall gather of this, that I allow the Popish Priesthoode, he deserues rather a censor, then con∣futer. For I confesse, that Sacerdotium Papisticum est sacrilegium: that is, that the Popish Priesthoode is Sacriledge.

I. Penry.

Your distinction that Popish Priestes haue a calling, though a faultie, is a begging of the question. For as I haue shewed, Popish Priests haue no calling at all in the Church, and therefore howe can they sit in the chaire of the ministerie? Is there a ministerie out of the Church? Caiphas priest∣hood commeth afterward to be considered of.

R. Some.

The distinction vvhich you say is mine, is in deed M. Bezaes. It is tearmed by you a begging of the question. Nay rather, your answere to M. Beza is beggerly, and none at all. If Popish priests (as you write) haue no calling at all: first, Luther, which had imposition of handes in the Popish Church, had no externall calling at all: Secondly, in your iudge∣ment, either no Baptisme was deliuered by Popish Priests in the Popish Church: or, Baptisme, if any were in the Popish Church, was administred by pri∣uate men: for they which haue no calling at all, are priuate men. I neede not driue you to absurde con∣sequents: you cast your selfe headlong into them, as into a dangerous quauemire. Your Treatises where∣in you haue sowen grosse errours thicke and three∣folde, are witnesses ynough of this. Are not your dis∣ciples most vnhappie, which depende on you as on another Pope? You aske whether there is a ministe∣ry out of the Church. What my iudgemēt is, appea∣reth hereafter. In the meane time, you deny not, that there is true baptisme (therefore consequently a mi∣nistery)

in the Popish Church which (you say) is no Church. Caiphas Priesthoode hath both searched and founde you out. It bewrayeth your grosse ig∣norance.