An apologetical reply to a book called an answer to the unjust complaint of…An apologeticall reply to a booke called an ansvver to the unjust complaint of…

For the third. If they say, yea, to such demands as are made by the minister, in reading the liturgy of baptism, though (as some times it appeareth, and may be often suspected) the presenter understand not what the minister demandeth, or saith, for want of knowledge of the Dutch language, or be altogether unknown to the Church, yet the child is baptised.

For the third. If they say, yae, to such demāds as are made by the minister, in reading the leitourgy of baptisme, though (as some times it appeareth, and may be often suspected) the presenter understand not what the minister demandeth, or sayth, for want of knowledge of the Dutch language, or be altogether unkowne to the Church, yet the child is baptised.

These things being premised, I proceed to set down my grounds from the Scripture, whereupon I refused thus promiscuously to administer the Sacrament, which are four, and every one of them concludeth it to be a sin, so to do.

These things being premised, I proceed to set downe my grounds from the Scripture, whereupon I refused thus promiscuously to administer the Sacrament, which are fowre, and every one of them concludeth it to be a sinne, so to doe.

Reas. 1 Because it is a profaning of the Sacrament thus promiscuously to administer it, as that writing requireth.

Reas. 1 Because it is a prophaning of the Sacrament thus promiscuously to administer it, as that wrighting requireth.

¹Dr. Whittaker used this Argument against Bellarmine contending for the simple & absolute necessity of Baptism to Salvation. For to prove that infants dying without Baptism might be saved, he showed that the righteousness of faith belongeth to them before they are baptised, out of Rom: 4.11.² where Circumcision & so Baptism) is called a seal of the righteousness which is by faith: and thence he inferreth, that they must have a right to Christ before Baptism, else baptism it self, being administered to them, will be profaned; as the kings seal is profaned, if it be put to a false charter or grant. This he amplifieth by showing that baptism is a symbol and seal of Adoption in Christ, and therefore aught not to be given to those that have no part in Christ, because the seal followeth the gift, and therefore to give the seal to him that hath not the gift, & to whom the promise is not made, is to abuse the seal, and to profane it. Thus he.

¹Dr. Whittaker used this Argument against Bellarmine contending for the simple & absolute necessity of Baptisme to Salvation. For to prove that infants dying without Baptisme might be saved, he shewed that the righteousnes of fayth belongeth to them before they are baptised, out of Rom: 4.11.² where Circumcision & so Baptisme) is called a seale of the righteousnes which is by fayth: and thence he inferreth, that they must have a right to Christ before Baptisme, else baptisme it selfe, being administred to them, will be profaned; as the kings seale is profaned, if it be put to a false charter or grant. This he amplifyeth by shewing that baptisme is a symbol and seale of Adoption in Christ, and therefore aught not to be given to those that have no part in Christ, because the seale followeth the gift, and therefore to give the seale to him that hath not the gift, & to whom the promise is not made, is to abuse the seale, and to profane it. Thus he.

1. 1Whittak: prelect. de Sacram: quest: 2, de necessit: Bapt: Cap 3.
2. 2Rom: 4.11 P. 237. 238.

¹Beza, writing against Erastus, speaketh to the same purpose, The Lord forbiddeth to give holy things to Dogs, Mat: 7.6. By holy things, saith he, are meant those holy mysteries whereof the ministers of Christ are dispensers, 1. Cor: 4.1. and the swine and dogs are those obstinate sinners, who are convicted and judged by the Church to be such. Afterwards, he putteth a case of one of years that desireth baptism, & is ready to make profession of his faith, but leadeth a wicked life, and being called upon (according to the other demand in baptism) to profess his repentance and amendment of life, by forsaking such and such evils, as are there mentioned, he refuseth to do it. Thereupon he asketh Erastus, whether he think that the Sacrament of regeneration should be given to such a man, impudently desiring it? or whether he should not rather be repelled thence with shame? Again (which cometh nearer to the case of infants) ⟨p. 135⟩showing how little the profession of faith will advantage such, who, by reason of their obstinacy in sin, are convicted, and judged by the Church to be swine and dogs, and that their estate is the worse for their profession that they know God, ²when in their works they deny him, he instanceth in Ismael, and Esau, who were both circumcised and outwardly acknowledged the true God with Abraham and Isaac, yet both were disinherited and made lively patterns, both to that, and succeeding ages, of Ecclesiastical excommunication &c. Thus far he. From whence, how easily may it be collected that infants are deprived of right to those holy mysteries in such parents, as the Ishmaelites, and Edomites were deprived of right to Circumcision, in Ismael and Esau, though their parents had been circumcised?

¹Beza, wrighting against Erastus, speaketh to the same purpose, The Lord forbiddeth to give holy things to Doggs, Mat: 7.6. By holy things, sayth he, are meant those holy mysteries whereof the ministers of Christ are dispensers, 1. Cor: 4.1. and the swine and doggs are those obstinate sinners, who are convicted and judged by the Church to be such. Afterwards, he putteth a case of one of yeares that desireth baptisme, & is ready to make profession of his fayth, but leadeth a wicked life, and being called upon (according to the other demand in baptisme) to professe his repentance and amendment of life, by forsaking such and such evills, as are there mentioned, he refuseth to doe it. Thereupon he asketh Erastus, whether he thinck that the Sacrament of regeneration should be given to such a man, impudently desiring it? or whether he should not rather be repelled thence with shame? Againe (which cometh nearer to the case of infants)

Before both these, Mr. Cartwright declared the same thing more fully and particularly to the case in question,¹ upon the same ground. For Dr. W. (upon occasion of the sound faith & good behaviour of the parents required in the Admonition) asking the authors of that book, What if the infant be the child of a Drunkard? what if it be of a harlot? shall not (saith he) the infant be baptised? Mr. Cartwright answereth thus. Because I see that Mr. Doctor doth make of the holy Sacrament of baptism (which is an entry into the house of God, and whereby the family of God must enter) a common passage, whereby he will have clean and unclean, holy and profane, as well those that are without the covenant, as those that be with in it, to pass by, and so maketh the Church no household, but an Inn to receive whatsoever cometh; I will answer. If one of the parents be, neither drunkard, nor adulterer, the child is holy, by virtue of the covenant, for one of the parents sake: if they be both, & yet not obstinate in their sin, whereby the Church hath proceeded to excommunication (themselves being yet of the Church) their child cannot, nor aught not to be refused. To the second question, wherein he asketh, what if the child be of papists or heretics? If both be papists or condemned heretics (if so be J may distinguish papists from heretics) & cut off from the Church, their children can not be received; because they are not in the covenant. If either of them be ⟨p. 136⟩faithful; I have answered before, that the infant aught to be received. To other questions, wherein he asketh, what, if they err in some points of matters of faith? If it be an error, and be not in those points that raze the foundations of faith, because they still, notwithstanding that error, are to be accounted amongst the faithful, their children pertain to the promise, and therefore to the Sacrament of the promise.

Before boath these, Mr. Cartwright declared the same thing more fully and particularly to the case in question,¹ upon the same ground. For Dr. W. (upon occasion of the sound fayth & good behaviour of the parents required in the Admonition) asking the authours of that booke, What if the infant be the child of a Drunkard? what if it be of a harlott? shall not (sayth he) the infant be baptised? Mr. Cartwright answereth thus. Because I see that Mr. Doctor doth make of the holy Sacrament of baptisme (which is an entry into the house of God, and whereby the family of God must enter) a common passage, whereby he will have cleane and uncleane, holy and profane, as well those that are without the covenant, as those that be with in it, to passe by, and so maketh the Church no houshold, but an Jnne to receive whatsoever cometh; I will answer. If one of the parents be, neither drunkard, nor adulterer, the child is holy, by vertue of the covenant, for one of the parents sake: if they be boath, & yet not obstinate in their sinne, whereby the Church hath proceeded to excommunication (themselves being yet of the Church) their child cannot, nor aught not to be refused. To the second question, wherein he asketh, what if the child be of papists or hereticks? If boath be papists or condemned hereticks (if so be J may distinguish papists from hereticks) & cut off from the Church, their children can not be received; because they are not in the covenant. If either of them be

¹Else where he demandeth, whether a wicked father may have a good child, a papist or heretic father a believing child? Yes verily may they (saith he) So may have, and have the Turks, and Jews, and yet their children are not to be received, unless their faith doth first appear by confession. But, you say, the papists and heretics be baptised, and so are not the Jews and Turks? Their baptism, being cut off from the Church, maketh them as much strangers unto it, as was Ismael, & Esau, which albeit they were circumcised, yet, being cast out of the Church, they were no more to be accounted to be of the body of Gods people, then those which never, were in the Church. The same author, in his next Reply to the same Doctor reasoning out of Beza in his epistles, that the papists are to be compared with the Israelites with fell away from true Religion,² and not with the Idumaeans, answereth. This cannot help him, unless he first show that the infants of those Apostates were lawfully circumcised. For, if they were not circumcised, by Gods order and constitution, but rather at the lust and pleasure of those, which, being fallen away from the covenant, ceased not to put to the seal, as if they had been still within the covenant, it followeth, that, in this respect, there is no more succour for the papists, in such resemblance with such Israelites, then when they are matched with the Ishmaelites or Idumaeans.

¹Else where he demandeth, whether a wicked father may have a good child, a papist or heretick father a beleiving child? Yes verily may they (sayth he) So may have, and have the Turckes, and Jewes, and yet their children are not to be received, unles their fayth doth first appeare by confession. But, you say, the papists and hereticks be baptised, and so are not the Iewes and Turcks? Their baptisme, being cut off from the Church, maketh them as much strangers unto it, as was Ismael, & Esau, which albeit they were circumcised, yet, being cast out of the Church, they were no more to be accounted to be of the body of Gods people, then those which never, were in the Church. The same authour, in his next Reply to the same Doctor reasoning out of Beza in his epistles, that the papists are to be compared with the Israelites with fell away from true Religion,²

Mr, Cartwright his judgment is the more to be regarded in in this matter, because what he wrote in those Replies, he wrote as a public agent, in the name, and with the concurrent judgement of many worthy ministers, who pleaded for the purity of Christs ordinances, at that time. So that it is not to be accounted ⟨p. 137⟩his singular opinion, but the judgement of many m•n of eminent note.

Mr, Cartwright his judgment is the more to be regarded in in this matter, because what he wrote in those Replyes, he wrote as a publick agent, in the name, and with the concurrent judgement of many worthy ministers, who pleaded for the purity of Christs ordinances, at that time. So that it is not to be accounted ⟨p. 137⟩his singular opinion, but the judgement of many m•n of eminent noate.

Master I: del'Espine minister of the word in the Church of Angers, upon a most dreadful Apostasy,¹ & revolt of many from the profession of the truth, in the Churches of Anjou, on St. Bartholomeus day memorable for ever & infamous for that bloody massacre, wrote a learned and excellent treatise against those that persisted in their Apostasy, wherein he proveth them to be deprived of God, of Christ, of the Spirit, and of those means whereby they may come unto God, that they have no faith, and are without the Church, and that they are deprived of the Sacraments, as well as of the word, of baptism as well as the supper of the Lord. For their baptism no more serveth them for a token to testify and declare them to be members of the Church, from which they are separated, or that they pertain any longer to the Father, to the Son, or to the Holy Ghost whose house and dwelling place they have forsaken. As if a Knight having received that order of the King, and taken the accustomed oaths, if afterwards he should depart from the troth which he had given, in token whereof he should send him back his order to signify to him that he would afterward be freed and released from his oath: So the Apostates, having given over the covenant of God, have also, by the same means, forsaken the tokens and marks thereof, &c.

Maister I: del'Espine minister of the word in the Church of Angers, upon a most dreadfull Apostasy,¹ & revolt of many from the profession of the truth, in the Churches of Anjou, on St. Bartholomeus day memorable for ever & infamous for that bloody massacre, wrote a learned and excellent treatise against those that persisted in their Apostasy, wherein he proveth them to be deprived of God, of Christ, of the Spirit, and of those meanes whereby they may come unto God, that they have no fayth, and are without the Church, and that they are deprived of the Sacraments, as well as of the word, of baptisme as well as the supper of the Lord. For their baptisme no more serveth them for a token to testifye and declare them to be members of the Church, from which they are seperated, or that they pertayne any longer to the Father, to the Sonne, or to the Holy Ghoast whose house and dwelling place they have forsaken. As if a Knight having received that order of the King, and taken the accustomed oathes, if afterwards he should depart from the troth which he had given, in token whereof he should send him back his order to signifye to him that he would afterward be freed and released from his oath: So the Apostates, having given over the covenant of God, have also, by the same meanes, forsaken the tokens and markes thereof, &c.

Before all these, Johannes a Lasco,¹ a learned noble man of Poland obtained of Edw: 6. K. of England, of famous memory, that the Churches of strangers in London, principally of Germans, might have the liberty of their Religion, under the broad seal of England, which was by that most pious Prince graciously granted, not without the approbation of renowned Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, and other eminently learned and godly men, at that time. What their care was to prevent the profanation of this Sacrament by such a promiscuous admission of all, as is practised in this place, will appear in his own report, which I do translate from the latin copy, thus.

Before all these, Iohannes a Lasco,¹ a learned noble man of Poland obtayned of Edw: 6. K. of England, of famous memory, that the Churches of strangers in London, principally of Germans, might have the liberty of their Religion, under the broad seale of England, which was by that most pious Prince graciously granted, not without the approbation of renowned Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, and other eminently learned and godly men, at that time. What their care was to prevent the prophanation of this Sacrament by such a promiscuous admission of all, as is practised in this place, will appeare in his owne report, which I doe translate from the latin copy, thus.

1. 1Anno 1550.

Baptism in our Church is administered in the public assembly of the Church, after the public sermon. For,¹ seeing Baptism ⟨p. 138⟩doth so belong to the whole Church, that none aught to be driven thence which is a member of the Church, nor to be admitted to it, which is not a member of it; truly it is equal that that should be performed publicly in the assembly of the whole Church which belongeth to the whole Church in common.² And Paul testifieth that, by Christs ordinance, the Church it self, without excepting any member of it, is to be accounted clean (or holy) by the Ministry of Baptism. Whence we may easily see, that Baptism doth, neither belong to those who are altogether without the Church, nor may be be denied to any members of the Church. Now seeing our Churches are, through Gods blessing, so instituted by the Kings Matie, that they may be, as it were, one parish of all strangers dispersed thorough the whole city, or one body corporated (as it is called in the Kings grant) and yet, in the mean space, all strangers do not join themselves to our Churches (yea, there are many, who, whilst they turn from, and fly all Churches, will pretend to the English Churches that they are joined with us, and to us that they are joined with the English Churches, and so do abuse both them and us) we, least the English Churches, and the Ministers thereof should be deceived by the impostures of such men (and that under colour of our Churches) do baptise their infants alone, who have adjoined themselves to our Churches, by public confession of faith, and observation of Ecclesiastical discipline. And that our Churches may be certain that the infants, which are to be baptised, are their seed, who have joined themselves to our Churches, in manner aforesaid; the father of the infant to be baptised, if he can possibly do it, or other men or women of notable esteem (or credit) in the Church do offer the infant to Baptism, & do publicly profess that it is the seed of the Church. Yet we suffer no stranger to offer their infants to baptism in our Churches, who hath not made public profession of his faith, and willingly submitted himself to the discipline of our Church: least, otherwise, they, who should present their children to baptism, might, in time, plead that they belong to our Churches, and so should ⟨p. 139⟩

Yet nevertheless, that we may openly testify that the English Churches and ours are one and the same Church, although we differ somewhat from them, both in language and ceremonies, we do not refuse that the English may, as public witnesses of the Church, offer the infants of our members to baptism in our Churches, if they have, both the use of our languages and a certain testimony of their piety: as, in like manner, our members are accustomed to offer the infants of the English to baptism in the English Churches.

Yet nevertheles, that we may openly testifye that the English Churches and ours are one and the same Church, although we differ somewhat from them, both in language and ceremonyes, we doe not refuse that the English may, as publick witnesses of the Church, offer the infants of our members to baptisme in our Churches, if they have, both the use of our languages and a certaine testimony of their piety: as, in like manner, our members are accustomed to offer the infants of the English to baptisme in the English Churches.

By this declaration, it appeareth what care they took, to prevent the profanation of this ordinance, and how well this care of theirs was approved of, in those days, by the public liberty they had so to do, under the broad seal. The same thing will further appear, in the questions which they propounded to those godly persons, by whom the infant was presented, which that they might understand, and so answer, upon knowledge, one thing required in them was that they should have the use of their language. To these men they put three questions.

By this declaration, it appeareth what care they tooke, to prevent the prophanation of this ordinance, and how well this care of theirs was approved of, in those dayes, by the publick liberty they had so to doe, under the broad seale. The same thing will further appeare, in the questions which they propounded to those godly persons, by whom the infant was presented, which that they might understand, and so answer, upon knowledge, one thing required in them was that they should have the use of their language. To these men they put three questions.

Quest. 1 Are those infants, which you offer, the seed of this our Church, that they may lawfully be here baptised by our Ministry? Answer. Yea.

Quest. 2 Do you acknowledge our Doctrine, which you have heard concerning Baptism, and the Mysteries thereof to be true? &c. Answer. Yea.

Quest. 2 Doe you acknowledge our Doctrine, which you have heard concerning Baptisme, and the Mysteries thereof to be true? &c. Answer. Yea.