Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	authority_n	church_n	person_n	1,479	5	5.0691	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12592	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.	Some, Robert, 1542-1609.; Penry, John, 1559-1593. Defence of that which hath bin written in the questions of the ignorant ministerie, and the communicating with them.	1588 (1588)	STC 22909; ESTC S117654	118,250	200

they receiued true Baptisme The argument followeth for baptisme is an engraffing into the true Christ Rom. chap. 6.3 The Antecedent is manifest in M. Penries iudgement for he will not haue them to offer themselues againe to baptisme therefore he is either a Catabaptist or els there was and is euen in his iudgement true baptisme in the popish Church 2 They which were circumcised in the time of Ieroboam and Caiphas were accompted true circumcised persons although at that time the state of the Church was almost altogether peruerted and corrupted therefore such as were and are baptized in the popish Church c. This argument is vsed of the greatest learned men of the religion and is allowed of all the reformed Churches 3 Caluine and Beza are resolute for this Calu. Ion chap 1. v. 16. Ezech 16. v. 20. Epist 103. and 104. Beza Confess chap. 4. Art 49. and chap 7. Art 11. Epist 10. and 81. Viretus hath these words Baptismum qui à sacerdotibus Papisticis collatus est c. that is we do allow popish Baptisme albeit we condemne the vaine and superstitious ceremonies which are vsed in it Tract de cōmun fid cum Papist cer pag. 64. Of this iudgement are all learned men and all reformed Churches None dissent but Catabaptists Anabaptists M. Penry and the rest of the fantasticall order CHAP. 21 THERE HATH BENE AND may be true Baptisme out of the Church THe Donatists thought otherwise in Augustines time but they are notably cōfuted by Augustine in his bookes de baptis contra Don. 2 True Circumcision was amongst the Edomites 3 They which were baptized out of the Church by heretikes neither were nor might be rebaptized therefore they receiued true baptisme The Antecedent is manifest for it is a rule in Diuinitie and receiued of all learned men Baptizati ab haereticis non sunt rebaptizandi that is they which are baptized of heretickes are not to be rebaptized The reasons are Where the essentiall forme of baptisme is obserued non haereticus sed haeretici manu Christus baptizat that is not the hereticke but Christ doth baptize by the hand of the hereticke Aug. passim de bapt cōt Don. It is not the baptisme of hereticks or schismaticks but of God the Church wheresoeuer it be found and whithersoeuer translated Aug. de bapt contra Don. lib. 1. cap. 14. The heresie is theirs the errour is theirs c. but baptisme which is Christes must not be accompted theirs Aug. de baptis contra Don. lib. 3. cap. 11. Ciprian was of an other iudgemēt in the Church of Carthage but hee was condemned for that errour by the best Churches in that age 4. The Arke of the testament which was taken of the Philistims lost not the vertue of Sanctification 1. Sam. 4. Dagon can teach vs that 5 Si foris nemo potest c. that is if no mā can haue any thing which is Christs out of the Church neither can any man haue any thing which is the deuils within the Church Aug. de bapt contr Don. lib. 4. cap. 7. 6 Non itaque ideo non sunt sacramenta Christi Ecclesiae c. that is they are not therefore not the Sacraments of Christ and the Church because heretikes and wicked men do vnlawfully vse them They that is the heretikes c. are to be amended or punished but the Sacraments are to bee acknowledged and reuerently esteemed of c. Question How doe heretikes possesse baptisme Answere Baptismum legitimum habent sed non legitimè habent that is heretikes haue lawful baptisme but they haue it not lawfully Aug. de Bapt. cont Don. lib. 5. cap. 7. Neque licitè foris habetur tamē habetur sic illicitè for is datur sed tamen datur that is Baptisme is not had lawfully out of the Church notwithstanding it is had In like sort it is giuē out of the church vnlawfully notwithstanding it is giuen Aug. de Bap. contra Don. lib. 6. ca. 15. If any shall aske whether it be lawfull to offer our infants to baptisme out of the Church c. because all learned men except the Donatists c. in Augustines time and M. Penry and his worthie disciples in our time haue and doe affirme that true baptisme hath bene and may be out of the Church My answere is negatiue as Augustines was I referre the learned reader to his writings contra Cresc gram lib. 1. cap. 23. and de Bapt. contra Don. lib. 1. cap. 4. CHAP. 22. I. Penry THAT NO POPISH Priest is a Minister EVerie Minister must bee at the least by profession a member of the true Church No Popish Priest is by profession a member of the true Church Therefore no Popish Priest is a minister Euery minister hath an office within the body of the Church No popish priest hath an office within the body of the Church Therfore no popish priest is a minister The propositions or first part of both these reasons are set down euidently and plainly by the wisdome of God in these words For as we haue many members in one body and all members haue not one office so we being many are one body in Christ and euery one anothers members seeing then that we haue gifts that are diuers c. The place sheweth cleerely that whosoeuer is not a member is not of the bodie if not of the bodie then no minister Againe whosoeuer is no member he hath no office in the bodie if no office no minister He that should obiect that in this place is ment a member of the bodie by election in the secrete counsell of God and not in the acknowledgement of the Church by profession would not deserue the answering Because it is vocation and not election that maketh such a member in the Church as may haue an office therein of which sort the Apostle speaketh in this place By vocation I meane that whereof the holy Ghost speaketh where it is sayde Many are called but fewe are chosen neither can any man denie him to be a member of the Church which by outward profession submitteth himselfe vnto true religion and such are the members whereof the Apostle speaketh namely such as are members in the iudgement of the Church Iudas was a member in the iudgement of the Church though not belonging to election A further proofe of the propositions you shall find 1. Cor. 12.26.28 Hee was no priest in the olde Testament that was not a Iewe by profession yea and of the line of Aaron too and shall he be accounted a minister among vs that is a strāger from the profession of the trueth and a professed Idolater Ishmael and Esau were circumcised and the sonnes of those fathers vnto whome the couenant was made Euen I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed They and their posterities fell from true religion well admit that the profanation of circumcision had still continued in their houses yet a man supplying

he was a papist euer professed the trueth My answere is that they did and doe erre in very many things but yet they did and doe professe some trueth and I doubt not but that many which liued and died in the time of popish darkenesse died Gods seruants If you thinke that a man being wide in many things is wide in all things then because you M. Penry haue deliuered manie blasphemous Anabaptisticall and other errours I might iustly conclude that you hold nothing soundly but I wil not offer you such measure If I did I should deale absurdly with you Howe professed papists are Idolaters appeareth in my second proposition which is newly added to my former treatise Thither I referre you I. Penry Antichrist I grant should sit as God in the temple of God but it was neuer the temple of God since he planted his pestilent chaire therein Poperie in deed hath inuaded the seates and possessions of true religion and began first where the trueth was professed For the mysterie of iniquitie first appeared within the Church and not else-where where true religion flourished and not among the heathen neither could he bee that aduersarie whose beginning shoulde bee in Paganisme But although Poperie tooke roote in the soyle where the true Churche was planted yet it so grewe there that it still continued to be the synagogue of Satan and could neuer as yet be the Church of God howsoeuer it hath ouergrowen the possession thereof And what though their fathers who now are Papists were within the couenant as professing true religion shall it therefore followe that their Idolatrous sonnes should be so too If they returne the Lord hath mercie in store for them I denie not But what is there in this poynt saide for the Papists which the Iewes cannot with farre more shewe of reason pretend for themselues The profaning of Baptisme among the Papistes can make them no more be within the Church then the continuance of the profanation of Circumcision among the Ishmaelites and Edomites could keepe them vnder the couenant And why should popish Baptisme any more tye the Lords couenant to an Idolatrous race then an Ishmaelitish or Edomitish cutting off of the foreskinne linke him to be the God of those adulterous generations Oh but the Lord himselfe hath said in Isaak shall thy seede be called and Iaacob haue I loued and hated Esau Why the same Lorde in respect of his reuealed will for with his secrete election men must not meddle hath sayd the professours of true religion do I loue but the Idolatrous papists my soule abhorreth It will be here demaunded whether I make no more account of popish baptisme then of an Edomitish circumcision I see no reason why I should For a circumcised Edomite being receiued to be a true worshipper at Ierusalem should as well content himselfe with that circumcision circumcision being not a thing inuented by man or done in respect of man but ordeyned by the Lord and done in regard of the couenant made vnto Abraham as we doe with popish baptisme which is not called in question And yet that which is spoken concerning the profession of the trueth by the forefathers is not altogether true in popery for there bee many large regions nowe professing poperie where not so much as the name of Christ was heard vntill they were become grossely popish So that their first step was out of paganisme vnto poperie And this is the estate of all those poore oppressed vassals the west Indians who now in great numbers professe Romish Idolatrie For at such time as the Spanyard inuading their land brought vpon them the most miserable slauerie of the body soule that are vpon any people vnder heauen they had not so much as hearde whether there was any Christ but were most heathnish and sencelesse Idolaters as may appeare by the popish hystoriographers themselues who wrote the stories of those tymes And therefore to omit whose posterities many of the nations within Europe are that haue refused the light of the Gospel though it were granted that the rest of the popish rable were within in the couenant yet these miserable heathen papists can be said to be vnder no couenant but that which is made vnto popery and paganisme I hope M. Some howsoeuer you may be perswaded that other popish shauelings can deliuer a sacrament yet that you will doubt whether any man could be assured to receyue those holy seales at the hands of the heathen massemongers remayning in Cuba Hyspaniola Mexico or any other the Easterne parts And thus much concerning the assumption I am not ignorant that famous and worthie men haue otherwise written concerning the popish Church and therefore I am not to be pressed with their authoritie R. Some If your writings were as sounde as they are absurde they would giue many times great aduantage to the Papist Anabaptist c. If the popish church was neuer the temple of God since Antichrist planted his pestilent chaire there then in your iudgement the Pope is not Antichrist for Antichrist doth and must sit in the Temple of God that is in the Church of God I haue handled this argument before I rest in that I haue written there You say that a circumcised Edomite being receiued into the Church of Ierusalem should content himselfe with his circumcision in Idumea because circumcision was the Lords ordinance c. I agree with you in this If the Edomitish circumcision was the Lords ordinance then it was a seale of Gods couenant to the Idumeans and consequently the Edomites in your iudgement were not Aliens from Gods couenant for the seale of the couenant doth import and presuppose a couenant Besides if the Edomitish circumcision was true circumcision and the Edomitish Church no Church then a Sacrament was out of the Church c. How like you this M. Penry You knowe my meaning You adde that you call not popish baptisme in question Here I grant you doe not but a little after you vse these wordes viz. where there is no true Christ wherunto men can be engraffed by baptisme there true baptisme as touching the substance cannot be gotten c. But in popery there is no true Christ c. mendacem oportet esse memorē Your memory is very short You would neuer I thinke haue vēted such motley stuffe as this if you had thought it would haue bin looked on I can assure you that besides me whom you haue put to a litle paines your treatise hath beene viewed and reuiewed by very many learned men who condemne it for a foolish and fantasticall bable If the west Indians after profession of their beliefe in the holy trinitie were baptized as you say by popish shauelings I assure my selfe that they receiued true baptisme were therfore engraffed into Christ We in the Church of England neede not saile thanks be to God to the massemōgers in Cuba Hispaniola Mexico or any other part of the Indians we haue Gods holy

vt eadem prorsus à nobis iudicari debeat eo haberi in loco quo aut Mahumetana aut Iudaica quae Christum penitus repudiant ab eius legibus institutis abhorrent Nam sinulla omnino extarent in ea veteris Ecclesiae vestigia Daniel non praedixisset futuram abominationem in loco sancto nequè Paulus perditum illum filium in Templo Dei sessurum Quomodo enim sederet Antichristus in Templo Dei si nullae amplius superessent illius Templi saltem reliquiae aliqua ruinarum vestigia aut quomodo occupare abominatio lucū sanctum si totus adeò esset profanatus vt ne vllus quidem vel exiguus angulus pristinae sanctitati relictus esset Nam etsi praeualet ac latiùs dominari videtur hominum iudicio impietatis regnum Et Christi Ecclesia vsqué eò oppressa ac pene suffocata vt vix spiritum ampliùs trahere possit nondū tamen penitus animam exhalait Viret Tract de Commun fid cum Pap. cer pag. 66. 67. The summe of his wordes is first that the popish Church may not be accompted of as the Mahomet Iewish Churches which refuse Christ altogether Secondly that if no prints of Gods Church remayned in the popish Church Daniel and Paul would not haue foretold the one that abomination should be in the Holy place the other that Antichrist should sit in the temple of God Lastly that the Church of God amōgst the Papists though it be almost smothered hath not as yet giuen vp the ghost Daneus writeth that the Popish Church is the Church and Temple of God not simply but secundum quid that is after a sort His reason is because the popish Church retaineth some printe of the markes and badges of Gods Church Tract de Ant. cap. 17. M. Foxe hath these words Neque enim Romam ita totam c. In Apoc. cap. 13. pag. 235. that is we doe not so seuer Rome frō al felowship of the church that it shal haue no coniunction at all with the body of Christ If M. Penry mislike my first reason let him confute it c. 2 Ieroboam did set vp Calues at Bethel and Dan. In his time the seruice of God was strangely corrupted yet certaine prerogatiues belonging to the Church remained then amongst the Iewes Circumcision which was the Lordes Sacrament could not be so defiled by the vncleane hands of the Iewes but that it was alwayes a signe and Sacrament of Gods couenant therefore God called the infants of that people his children c. In the Popish Church God hath preserued Baptisme c. Besides there remaine amōgst them other remnants vidz the Lords prayer the Articles of the faith the Commandements c. least the Church should vtterly perish c. Lastly Almightie God hath miraculously preserued amongst them the remnants of his people though poorely and thinly scattered c. Of this M. Caluine concludeth that the popish Churches are Churches Institut lib. 4. cap. 2. sect 11.12 If my second reason taken out of M. Caluine please you not confute that part of M. Caluines Institutions 3 If there be no Church at all in Poperie the infants of Papists are not to bee baptized in any reformed Church though some of the religiō doe answere for vndertake the good educatiō of them Which I take to be a great errour Master Caluine and the rest of the learned men in Geneua being required of M. Knoxe to set downe their iudgement touching this question vidz whether the infants of Idolaters and excōmunicate persons might be admitted to baptisme c. deliuer this answere Promissio non sobolem tantum cuiusque fidelium in primo gradu comprehendit sed in mille generationes extēditur Vnde etiam factum est vt pietatis interruptio quae grassata est in papatu c. Calu. Epist 285. The summe of their words is that Gods promise doth not onely comprehend the posterity of the faithfull in the first degree but reacheth vnto a thousand generations and that those children which descended of such ancestours as were godly many yeeres ago do belong to the body of the Church though their parents and grandfathers were Apostates c. M. Beza writeth thus of this argument Iniquū esset Papistas c. Epist 10. The summe of his wordes is that Papists are otherwise to bee accompted of then Turkes because Popery is an aberratiō of the Christian Church Besides because Gods goodnes extendeth it selfe to a thousande generations that it were a hard case to iudge by the profession of the later parents whether the infants pertaine to Gods couenant c. Thus farre M. Beza If any shall reply that Gods couenant hath no place at all amongst the Papists and therefore that their infants are at no hande to bee baptized in our Churches howsoeuer some of the religion offer them in the assemblie to the holy Sacrament M. Caluines answere is Certum est adhuc illic manere residuum faedus Dei exparte quia quamuis c. Cal. Ezec. 16.20 That is It is certaine that the couenant is there on Gods behalfe and therfore that Popish baptisme needeth not to be renued besides that Satan albeit he raigned of late in the Popish Church could not altogether extinguish the grace of God imò illic est ecclesia Alioqui falsum esset Pauli vaticinium vbi dicit antichristum sedere in Dei templo 2. Thes 2.4 That is A Church is there otherwise Paules prophecie that Antichrist should sit in the temple of God were false c. If it shall please the learned reader to reade M. Caluines Commentarie vpon chap. 16. and vers 20. of Ezech. It will be worth his labour A Popish obiection of the absurde Papists and of Master Penry If the Church of Rome be a Church those Magistrates which haue separated themselues and their subiects from the Popish Church are Schismatikes c. Answere Our Magistrates people c. haue seuered themselues not from the Church but from Idolatry not from the common wealth but from tyranny oppressing the common wealth not from the Citie but from the plague which pestereth the Citie c. that is separation is not frō any trueth remaining in the Popish Church nor from the poore Church that is there holden vnder captiuitie but from the corruptions of the Popish Church and from the tyrannie of Antichrist which is more grieuous then the yoke either of Egypt or Chaldaea therfore godly princes people cannot iustly be called Schismatikes Thrasibulus withdrewe himselfe to Phile during the time that thirtie tyrants did teare in peeces the common wealth in Athens Camillus withdrew himselfe to Veies during the time that the Gaules wasted the Citie of Rome If any shal conclude of this that Thrasibulus and Camillus separated themselues from the common wealths of Rome and Athens and not from the tyrannie vnder which the Atheniens and Romanes then were hee reasoneth most absurdly c. The