Defense of Writings on the Ignorant Ministry, Text

Defense of Writings on the Ignorant Ministry · Text

p. 1A defence of that which hath bin written in the queſtions of the ignorant miniſterie, and the communicating with them. By IOHN PENRI.

THere bee two thinges (M. D. Some) wherein you by oppugning that trueth which out of the worde of God I had ſette downe, concerning the two former queſtions, hauehave beene wanting both vntounto your ſelfe and to the cauſe; the defence whereof you vndertook. The former want of the 2. appeareth by your ſpare dealing in a matter of ſuch great waight; wherein you hauehave dealt with ſo illiberall a hande, that what hath bin written by you, might ſeem to proceed rather from any, then frō a man whoſe giftes and learning ſeemed to promiſe the affordinge, of greater and more waightie matters, then any ſet downe in that treatiſe.

The nomber of my reſons were many, you onelyonly hauehave touched 2. of thē, the reſt are not dealt with. And therfore the cauſe as yet remaineth whol. For be it you had aunſwered theſe 2. p. 2as you hauehave not, yet had you not ſatisfied the doutful cōſcience of thoſe that know not in theſe points which way to turn them, as long as any one of my reaſons remained vnanſwered.

In this point there is alſo another want, which I would had bin redreſſed. And that is of two ſorts. Firſt, a manifeſt going from the controuerſie; For the queſtion being, whether ignorant men, not ordained of God for the gatheringe together of the Saints, be miniſters or no; you leaue that, and prooue the Sacraments adminiſtred by them, viz. by popiſhe prieſts, and our dumbe miniſters in the daies of blindnes and ignorance to be ſacraments, which is no part of the matter in controuerſie, but another point to be diſcuſſed (if men will be gotten at all to enter therevnto) when the former is determined and decided.

Secondly, your reaſons are ſo few, & ſo commonly knowen vntounto all, that for their nomber, a ſmall deate of paper might containe an anſwere vntounto p. 3them, for their noueltie, they coulde not put a man that had accordinge vntounto knowledge, but once allowed of the cauſe, to anye great labour in anſwering them. As being things ſo commonly obiected by all, learned or vnlearned, that holde our readers to be miniſters, and thinke it lawfull to cōmunicate with them, as by courſ of ſpech they fal vntounto that diſcourſe, wher al men may eaſily ſee, that there was a great ouerſight committed by M. SOME, in deeming that the oppugning of a cauſe countenanced by moſt of the godly learned, would be taken in hand by any, who could not anſwere the reaſons which he might be ſure would be obiected by al. And who could be ignorant, that the odious controuerſie, cōcerning the profanation of baptiſme, both by popiſh prieſts & our dumb miniſters, would offer it ſelfe in the forefront to withſtand the trueth? that the ciuill magiſtracie, the miniſterie of the dumbe Leuites, the corrupt outward calling of our readers woulde require an anſwere, p. 4which are the reaſons, and the onelyonly reaſons vſed by you.

The laſt want I finde in you, is contained in the inſufficiency of your reſons, which euidently ſhew the inſufficiencie of the cōcluſion, that would be inferred by them. Your reſons are all of them faultie, eyther becauſe they deſire that for granted which is the queſtion, or make thoſe things of like nature, wherin there is a gret diſſimilitude. Frō the firſt of the 2. falts it commeth to paſſe, that you take for granted, that the writings of reuerende and godly men, as of Auguſtine, M. Beza, &c. will prooue that, which the word of the eternall God doth not warrant. Hence you take it graunted, that popiſh prieſts were miniſters: that the outwarde approbation of the Churche maketh a miniſter; that whenſoeuer the word of inſtitution is pronounced with the outward element, ther muſt preſently be a Sacrament, that I take an euill miniſter for no miniſter; that there was a nullity both of Caiphas his miniſterie, p. 5becauſe he came in by briberye, and of the litigious miniſters in the Church of Philippi, &c. How ſoeuer you take thoſe things as granted principles,1. Phil. 1.15.Phil 1:15 yet they are the points in controuerſie, and ſo far from beeing yelded vntounto by me, that I hauehave ſhewed eueryevery one of them to be manifeſtly falſe.

The diſsimilitude is in the reaſons drawn from the Leuitical prieſthood, and the ciui magiſtracie, with whom if you compare the miniſtery of the new couenaunt, you ſhall finde, firſte that you bring in a ſimilitude to ſhew that whiche is not prooued; and ſecondly that you make thoſe to bee twinnes, which all men muſt needes graunt to be as vnlike, as crooked & ſtraight lines are vnmatchable.

And thus much I thought needfull generally to ſet downe concerninge your manner of dealing: Not that I wold any way diſgrace, you whō I reuerence, for that is no part of mine intent, the Lorde is my witnes. Nay, I would be loth to let that ſyllable eſcape p. 6me, that might giuegive you or any els the leaſt occaſion in the world, to thinke that I carrye any other heart towards you, then I ought to beare towards a reuerend learned man fearing God. And howſoeuer, vnles you alter your iudgment, I can neuer agre with you in theſe pointes; becauſe I am aſſured you ſwarue frō the truth: yet this diſagreement ſhalbe ſo farre from making a breach of that bonde of louelove, wherewith in the Lord I am tyed vntounto you, that I doubt not, but we ſhalbe at one in that day, when al of vsus ſhall be at vnitie in him that remayneth one and the ſelfe-ſame for euer.

Now I am to come to your booke, from the 20. page whereof, vntounto the 28. laying the foundation of the reaſons you vſe againſt mee, to prooue the lawfulnes of communicatinge with dum miniſters, you handle two neadles points. Firſt that they which were baptized by popiſh prieſts, hauehave receiued true baptim as touching the ſubſtance. Secondly that they are p. 7the ſacramentes of baptiſme and the holy ſupper of the Lorde, which are deliuered in the Church of England by vnpreching miniſters. In theſe two pointes M. Some, you hauehave prooued nothing that my writinges hauehave denied; but you hauehave quickened a dead controuerſie, not vnlikely to giuegive the wrangling ſpirits of this age, cauſe to breed greater ſturres in the Church. I ſee no other effect, which the handling of theſe queſtions can bringe foorth but this. And it is to be feared that the ſlendernes of the reaſons vſed in your booke, to prooue that which you hauehave vndertaken to ſhew; will geeue occaſion vntounto mannie, whoe of them-ſelues are too too readie to iangle, to doubt of that wherof before they made no queſtion. So that by ſeeking to ſtay the courſe of a needful cōtrouerſie, you hauehave both giuen it a larger paſſage, and opened the doore vntounto a queſtion very fruitleſſe in our time. you know I deale in neither of theſe pointes. If you cannot be ſtayed from entring into controuerſies, p. 8that are very odious, and more impertinent vntounto the matter in hand: it were good that the church were further and more ſoundly ſatiſſied by you in theſe 2. pointes, which you alone in our Churche hauehave publikly called in queſtion. And for mine owne parte, when you hauehave done, I know not who will be your aduerſarie, I ſee no reaſon whie I ſhould deal in controuerſies of ſo ſmal gaine. Of this I am aſſured, that neyther popiſh prieſts, nor any other ignoraunt guides are miniſters. whether the element adminiſtred by thē, be a ſacrament or no, look you to that, which hauehave in your treatiſe debated that, which my writings neuer called into queſtion. If you wil needs proue readers to be miniſters, becauſe you can not get me to denie that which hath bene adminiſtred to be a ſacrament, you ſhall but preſſe that which will prooue nothing. Your reaſon is, as if you ſhoulde ſaye, that eyther all they which ſupplie the places of miniſters are miniſters, or els an inconuenience p. 9is likely to follow. A ſtrange manner of demonſtration, Gods ordinaunce muſt needs be thruſt out of the dores becauſe an inconuenience would be likely to enſue the admittinge of it. The cauſe will not be thus anſwered at your hands; and I am ſorie that a man ſo reuerende in mine eyes, hath dealt ſo vnſubſtantially in a matter belonging to the ſeruice of the euerliuing God: the ſlenderneſſe of the reaſon is apparant. In the latter ende of the booke I hauehave farther ſhewed the ſame; thither I am to referre you and the reader.

Now I coulde well ouerpaſſe theſe two pointes, becauſe of them-ſelues they containe nothing that I hauehave withſtoode: But in as muche as you hauehave not onelyonly grounded them vpō falſe principles, and ſuch as in no wiſe can be warraunted by the canon of the word, but alſo inferre vponupon their grant, that our readers are miniſters, and conſequently, that it is no ſinne to communicate with them. I am firſt to ſet downe the ſtate of the queſtion, p. 10which in deed is and ought to be decided betweene you and me concerninge the elemente adminiſtred, both by popiſh prieſts, and other vnpreaching miniſters: and ſecondly to examine the groundes whereby you prooue the element alreadie deliuered by them to be a ſacrament, which you know I do not denie to be ſo.

And this is the point that concerneth our ſtate rather then the other.The queſtion therefore is not whether the one or the other of them hauehave deliuered a ſacrament in reſpect of the action done; but whether a chriſtian going vntounto them for thoſe holy ſeales, may be aſſured, that hee can receiue the ſame at their handes. I affirme that wee can not; M. Some taketh it graunted that we may; my warrant is out of the worde, becauſe there is no promiſe made to vsus therin, that the action celebrated by ſuch men, is a ſacramentall action, and where there is no promiſe, there can bee no aſſuraunce, becauſe our aſſurance ariſeth onelyonly of fayth, whiche muſt be grounded vponupon the promiſes ſet downe in the word; wee hauehave p. 11no promiſe that they can deliuer vsus a ſacrament, becauſe they are no miniſters. For they onelyonly are enioyned by our Sauiour Chriſt to deliuer a ſacrament,Matth. 28.18.19.Matt 28:18Matt 28:19 neither do we know what hee can deliuer which is no miniſter.

So that the queſtion is now growne to this iſſue, whether popiſh prieſtes and our vnpreachinge miniſters, bee miniſters or no; whom if I can proue to be none, then the matter is cleare, that no man going vntounto them for the ſacrament, can aſſure himſelfe there to hauehave the ſame. And this ſhall be a generall reaſon, equally belonginge vntounto both the pointes handeled by you, the particulars whereof ſhal follow in their places.

That no popishe prieſt therefore is a miniſter.

1 EueryEvery miniſter muſt be at the leaſt by profeſsion, a member of the true Church. No popiſh priſt is by profeſsion a member of the true Church. Therfore no popiſh prieſt is a miniſter.

2 EueryEvery miniſter hath an office with in the bodie of the Churche. No p. 12popiſhe prieſt hath an office within the bodie of the Church. Therfore no popiſh prieſt is a miniſter.

The propoſitions or firſt part of both theſe reaſons are ſet downe euidently and plainely by the wiſedome of God, in theſe wordes. For as we hauehave many members in one bodie,Rom. 12.4 5.6.Rom 12:4 and all members hauehave not one office; ſo we being many, are one bodie in Chriſt, and euerye one an others members, ſeeing then that we hauehave giftes that are diuers. &c.

The place ſheweth cleerly, that whoſoeuer is not a member, is not of the bodie, if not of the body, then no miniſter. A gaine, 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 mente a member of the bodie, by election in the ſecret counſell of God, and not in the acknowledgemente 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 p. 13hauehave an office therein; of which ſort the Apoſtle ſpeaketh in this place. by vocation, I meane that whereof the holy ghoſte ſpeaketh, where it is ſaid, Many are called, but few are choſen:Matth. 20.10.Matt 20:10 neither can any man denie him to be a member of the Churche, which by outward profeſsion ſubmitteth himſelfe vntounto true religion, and ſuch are the members, whereof the Apoſtle ſpeaketh:To be a member ſo the true Church is one thing, and to bee a true member of the Church is another thing. namely ſuch as are mēbers in the iudgement of the Church, Iudas was a member in the iudgement of the Churche, 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 to: and ſhall he be accounted a miniſter amōg vsus, that is a ſtranger from the profeſsion of the trueth, & a profeſſed Idolater? Iſhmael & Eſau, were circumcized, and the ſonnes of thoſe fathers vntounto whome the couenaunt was made; Euen I will be thy God, & the God of thy ſeed. They & p. 14their poſterities fell from true religion: well admit that the profanatiō of circumciſiō had ſtil cōtinued in their houſes: yet a man ſupplying the place of a prieſt among them, was no prieſt in deed, thogh he ten thouſand times profaned circumciſion, and woulde brag neuer ſo often, that he worſhipped after his Idolatrous maner, no other God but the God of his father Abraham, & ſware onelyonly by the feare of his father Iſaak. The reaſon herof, is, becauſe that eueryevery prieſt vnderunder the law, muſt be an Iſraelite by profeſſiō, that is a member of the true Church, neither could any of the godly aſſure them-ſelues, that an Edomitiſhe prieſt adminiſtred true circumciſion according to the ſubſtance. Now I rekō of a popiſh priſt no otherwiſe thē I would hauehave done of an Iſmaelitiſhe or Edomitiſh circumciſiſer; the profanation of that ſeal of the couenant, ſtill continuing in mount Seir.

Whereas in the aſſumption or ſecond part of both the reaſons, I deny popiſh prieſtes to be members of the p. 15church; my meaning is not that there are none of the elect, within the bodie of poperie, whom the Lorde may cal in his good time: For I would not denie this vntounto Mahometiſm, or that there are not left in poperie certaine rubiſhes and ſteps of true religion, for this difference I make betweene thē and other Infidels, though the Iewes alſo may claim this vntounto themſelues. But I meane that the popiſh religion is ſuch a religion as whoſoeuer liueth and dyeth in the profeſſion thereof: he liueth & dieth out of the Church, where ſaluation is not poſsibly to be had, for any thing that is made knowen vntounto man. Whence it neceſſarily followeth, that in poperie there is no Church. If it be obiected that the papiſtes are within the couenaunt, inaſmuch as long ſince they profeſſed the trueth. Mine anſwere wil be, that popery was neuer the trueth as yet, that no papiſt in that he was a papiſt, euer profeſſed the trueth, and that God made no couenant with profeſſed Idolators, as all papiſts are.

p. 16Antichriſt I grant ſhould ſit as God in the temple of God,2. Theſ. 2.4.2 Thess 2:4 but it was neuer the temple of God, ſince he planted his peſtilent chaire therein. Poperie in deede hath inuaded the ſeats and poſſeſsions of true religion, and began firſt where the trueth was profeſſed. For the myſterie of iniquitie firſt appeared within the Churche, & not elſe-where, where true religion flowriſhed, and not among the heathen: neyther coulde he be that aduerſarie, whoſe beginning ſhoulde be in Paganiſme. But although poperie tooke roote in the ſoyle where the true Churche was planted; yet it ſo grew there, that it ſtill continued to be the ſynagogue of Sathan, & could neuer as yet be the Churche of God; howſoeuer it hath ouergrowen the poſſeſsion thereof. And what though their fathers, who nowe are papiſtes, were within the couenant, as profeſſing true religion; ſhall it therefore followe that their Idolatrous ſonnes ſhould be ſo to: If they returne the Lorde hath merciemercy in ſtore for them p. 17I denie not. But what is there in this point ſaid for the papiſtes, which the Iewes cannot with far more ſhewe of reaſon pretend for themſelues? The profaning of baptiſm among the papiſtes can make them no more to be within the Churche, then the continuance of the profanation of circumciſion among the Iſhmaelits & Edomits could keepe them under the couenant. And why ſhould …opiſh baptiſme any more tye the …des couenaunt 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 Lorde himſelfe hath ſayd, In Iſaak ſhall thy ſeed be called,Rom. 9.7. gen. 21.12. Mal. 1.2.3. rom. 9.13.Rom 9:7Mal 1:2Mal 1:3 and Iaacob hauehave I loued, and hated Eſau; whie the ſame Lorde in reſpect of his reuealed wil, for with his ſecret election men muſt not meddle, hath ſaide, the profeſſors of true religion do I louelove, but the Idolatrous papiſts my ſoule abhorreth; It will be heere demanded, whether I make no more account of popiſhe baptiſme, then of … p. 18Edomitiſh circumciſion, I ſee no reaſon why I ſhoulde. For a circumciſed Edomite being receiued, to be a true worſhipper at Ieruſalem, ſhoulde as well content himſelfe with that circumciſion (circumciſion being not a thing inuented by man, or don in reſpecte of man, but ordained by the Lord, and done in regarde of the couenant made vntounto Abraham) as wee do with popiſh baptiſm, 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 poperye; for there be many large regions nowe profeſsing popery, where not ſo much as the name of Chriſt was heard, vntill they were become groſſely popiſhe. So that their firſt ſtep was out of paganiſme vntounto poperye. And this is the eſtate of all thoſe poor oppreſſed vaſſals the weſt Indians, who now in great nombers profes Romiſh Idolatrie. For at ſuch time as the Spanyard inuading their land, brought vppon them the moſt p. 19miſerable ſlauery of bodie and ſoule, that are vponupon any people vnderunder heauen, they had not ſo much as hearde whether there was anye Chriſte,Peter. M. de rebus Occeanicis. Decad 4.5. but were moſt hethniſh, & ſenceles Idolaters, as may appeare by the popiſhe hyſtoriographers them-ſelues, who wrote the ſtories of thoſe times. And therefore (to omit, whoſe poſterities many of the nations within Europe are, that hauehave refuſed the light of the Goſpell) though it were granted, that the reſt of the popiſh rable were with in the couenant; yet theſe miſerable hethē papiſts, can be ſaid to be vnderunder no couenant, but that which is made vntounto poperie 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 coulde be aſſured to receiue thoſe holy ſeals at the handes of the heathen maſſemongers remaining in Cuba, hiſpaniola, Mexico, or any other the Eaſtern partes.

And thus muche concerning the p. 20aſſumption, I am not ignoraunt that famous and worthy men,M. Caluin epiſt. 103. hauehave otherwiſe written concerning the popishe Church, and therefore I am not to be preſſed with theyr authority.

I might in the 3. place vſe agaynſt you M. Some, a reaſon of your owne thus concluded. No miniſterye is ſacriledge, becauſe eueryevery miniſterye is an ordinance of God, which cannot be turned vntounto ſacrileage. The popiſh priſthood is ſacriledg, as you hauehave ſet downe, page 21. Therfore the popiſh prieſthood is no miniſtery, and conſequently popish prieſts are no miniſters. You may ſee that you hauehave ouerthrown your owne cauſe. But this manner of reaſoninge, although it ſhould be of force againſt your ſelfe, inaſmuch as your owne wordes are brought to expreſſe your owne meaning, yet I account inſufficient, my third reaſon therefore is this.

3 They are no miniſters whoſe very miniſterye ouerthroweth directly the prieſthood of our ſauior chriſt But the very miniſtery of popishe p. 21prieſts, directly ouerthroweth the prieſthood of Chriſte: therefore they are no miniſters.

I know not what can be pretended againſt the propoſition, vnleſſe men woulde dreame of a miniſtery, wyth whom the prieſthood of the Lord Ieſus cannot ſtande. The latter part of the reaſon is true,Heb. 9.28. & 10.10. 1. iohn 1.7 act. 4.12. Epheſ. 1.7. Heb. 10.12.15. and 9.26. Heb. 5.25. & 10.14. & 9.14.Heb 9:28Heb 10:10Heb 10:1Eph 1:7Heb 10:12Heb 10:15Heb 9:26Heb 5:25Heb 10:14Heb 9:14 if it bee true that Chriſt is the onelyonly ſacrifice for ſinne, that he is no more to be offred, that by once offering himſelfe, he hath made full ſatisfaction for the ſinnes of the whole worlde, and that the popiſhe prieſtes dayly ſacrifice to apeaſe Gods wrath, for the ſinnes of the quicke and the dead.

Laſtly, they are no miniſters who are made, that is, called, elected & ordained by Idolaters. Popiſh prieſts are called, choſen and ordained by Idolators. Therefore they are no miniſters.

The propoſition appeareth in that a miniſter can be made by none, but by ſuch as vntounto whom the Lord hath giuen leaue to deale in that action, otherwiſe p. 22the action is fruſtrate. As if a company of women, though religious and godly, ſhoulde goe about to make a miniſter, the action is nothing. Of the aſſumption that popiſh prieſts are made by Idolators, I make no queſtion. And when did god giuegive Idolators leaue to make miniſters.

Seing therefore that popiſh prieſts are no miniſters, I ſee no ſhew of probabilitie wherevpon my fayth, or the faith of any can be aſſured to receiue true baptiſme at their hands: vnleſſe it can be ſhewed by you, M. Some, that eyther there may bee fayth where there is no promiſe, or that there is a promiſe to receaue a ſacrament where there is no miniſter, which no man of any chriſtian modeſtie wil affirme. Hence alſo it followeth, that neyther the obſtinate crue of recuſants in this land, who offer their children to be profaned by trayterous & runnagate Ieſuits, nor any els within the body of the Romiſh Babylon, can aſſure themſelues that their children receiue the ſubſtaunce of baptiſme. p. 23My reaſons beſides that they are no miniſters, are theſe. And I deſire that they may be examined by you, good M. Some; where you muſt remember that I ſpeake not of that which hath bene done yeſterday, but of the aſſurance that may be had of that which to morow is to be done.

Where there is no true chriſt whervnto men can bee engraffed by baptiſme: There true baptiſme as touching the ſubſtaunce cannot be gotten;Rom. 6.3. gal. 3.27.Rom 6:3 for what baptiſme is that, which is not an ingraffinge into the true Chriſt.

But in popery there is no true chriſt, wherevnto men may be ingraffed, becauſe he is not the true Chriſte, who cyther will not,Rom. 5.15.19.Rom 5:15Rom 5:19 or cannot ſatisfie the wrath of God for the ſinnes of the elect, without their merits,Heb. 5.25.Heb 5:25 and ſuch is the Chriſt profeſſed in popery and no other.

Therefore men can not be aſſured to hauehave the ſubſtance of baptiſme in the popiſh Church.

No man can aſſure himſelf to hauehave p. 24the ſubſtance of baptiſme out of the Churche, and that by thoſe that are without the Church, for then a ſacramēt might be had out of the Church, which were very impious and abſurd to be affirmed.

But popery is out of the Churche, and ſo are all popiſh prieſts.

Therefore no man can aſſure himſelt to hauehave the ſubſtance of baptiſm in popery by any popiſh prieſt.

That there is no Churche at all in popery, and that al popiſh prieſts are out or the Church, beſids the former reaſons, this one doth further ſhewe, If there be a Churche in popery, or if all popiſhe prieſtes be not out of the Churche, then thoſe magiſtrates that hauehave ſeparated themſelues and their ſubiectes (and all others that made this ſeperation) from the Romiſh religion, as from that ſynagogue where ſaluation is not to be had, and conſequently, where there is no Churche, are ſchiſmatikes, to ſpeake the leaſt. Becauſe it is a ſchiſme to make this ſeparation from the Churche, deteſt p. 25the corruptions thereof we may, but make ſuche a ſeparation from the Churche, wee ought not vnleſſe wee would be accounted ſchiſmatiks. But thoſe magiſtrates and their people, that made this ſeparation, are not ſchiſmatickes, becauſe in popery the foundation is ouerthrowen, You ſay in your booke (M, Some) page 33. that you could preſſe the argument of the magiſtracie againſt me very far; whether you may or no, that ſhall be conſidered when I deale with the point, but this I am aſſured off, that in this point, you ſhalbe driuen either to defend the abſurditye, that baptiſme is to bee had out of the Churche in a companye eſtraunged from Chriſte, which I thinke you will not doe, or vrged ſo farre, as to the plaine breach of a ſtatute (which far be it from me) euen in the cauſe of treaſon. Will yee ſay that baptiſme may be had out of the Church:13. Eliza. A ſtrange Church that hath not Chriſt for the foundation. the aſſertion is abſurd; or wil you hold that there is a church in popery? the aſſertiō is dangerous, and I hauehave prooued it falſe. It is dangerous p. 26becauſe it affirmeth our magiſtrates to be ſchiſmatiks,My meaning is onelyonly to ſhew the danger, & not to preſſe the fame. inaſmuch as they hauehave ſeperated thēſelues frō the Church: I hope rather then you will fall in to eyther of theſe pointes, that you will grant me the cauſe.

Laſtly, if men might be aſſured that they could hauehave the true ſubſtance of baptiſme in popery, then they ought not to keep their children from popiſh baptiſme, if there were no other baptiſme in the world to be had. For men might come to their baptiſme and deteſt their corruptions, if it bee Gods baptiſme, as you M. Some affirmed it to be, page 20. And they can ad an edifying worde vntounto the ſacrament: if the recitall of the wordes of inſtitution be an edifying worde, and that be ſufficient to make a ſacramēt, both whiche you hauehave written, page 23.24. But men ought rather to keep their children vnbaptized, then to offer them to be profaned by popiſh baptiſme, both for the former reaſons, and becauſe wee ought to hauehave no more felowſhip with papiſts in the p. 27ſeruice of God, then with pagan Idolaters. M. Caluin hath written otherwiſe in this point,L. Zo. 'Epiſt. 10.4. therefore againe I appeale to the word.

Seing therefore in popery there is no Church, no miniſtery, no Chriſte; ſeeing we ought in no caſe to be ioyned with papiſts in their religion, but to bee ſeparated from them, as from thoſe that are out of the church; and ſuch as are become a very filthy cage and neſt of vncleane and ſacriledgious Idolators: therefore alſo it neceſſarily followeth, that neither our popiſh recuſants, nor any elſe, offring their children to bee baptized in the popiſh ſynagogue, by thoſe polluted and vncleane prieſts; may aſſure thē ſelues that they can bee there pertakers of true baptiſme, as touchinge the ſubſtance of baptiſme.

Nowe to the examination of your reaſon brought to prooue that they which were baptized in popery, hauehave rece iued true baptiſme. Your concluſion you muſt remember, I do not deny, though your reaſon prooueth p. 28not the ſame, which is thus framed.

Whoſoeuer deliuer Gods baptiſm, they deliuer true baptiſme; but popiſh prieſtes deliuer Gods baptiſme: therefore true baptiſme.

You hauehave changed the concluſion from that which was done, vntounto that whiche is done, but this ouerſight I omit the aſſumption you thus proue.

Whoſoeuer baptiſe in the name, not of Pope or Idols, but of the holy Trinitie, they deliuer Gods baptiſm; but popiſhe prieſts do baptize in the name of the holy trinitie: therefore they deliuer Gods baptiſme.

Your propoſition in this laſt ſyllogiſme, is moſt falſe, and ſuch as vponupon the grant whereof, not onelyonly the cō municating with vnpreaching miniſters, might bee aduouched, but alſo Gods whole ordinaunce in the inſtitution of his holy ſacramentes quite ouerthrowen. For if it were true that ther were no more required to make ſubſtantiall baptiſme (as you here require no more) but to baptiſe in the name of the trinitie; then theſe impious p. 29abſurdities would follow therof.

1 That an Amalekite might deliuer true circumciſion, as touching the ſubſtance. 2 That true baptiſm might bee adminiſtred vntounto a ſubſtaunce not capable of baptiſme, but this odious inſtaunce I will not vrge. 3 That a woman, 4 That any man not being a miniſter, as a child of fiue yeares olde, a Turke or Iewe might deliuer true baptiſm as touching the ſubſtance. For theſe pronouncing the wordes of inſtitution, might reteine by your reaſon, the eſſential form of Chriſtes baptiſme, and ſo to vſe your owne wordes; they baptizing not in the name of Pope or of Idols, but of the holy trinitie, ſhould deliuer Gods baptiſm and not mans? if Gods baptiſme, then true baptiſme I am ſure, in like manner, by this reaſon they ſhould be Catabaptiſtes, which denie men to be rightly baptized by Turks or women. I would be full ſorie that the errors of the Katabaptiſts or Anabaptiſtes, coulde not be confuted p. 30by you withe ſounder reaſons then this you hauehave brought; and I would be alſo ſorie that you ſhould defende ſuch abſurd cōſequents as I wil driue you whether you will or no, vnleſſe you reuoke (as I hope you will) that which you hauehave writtē. pardone me I pray you. I deale as reuerently as I may with you, retaining the maieſtie of the cauſe I defend; and I deale not againſt you, but againſt an erroneous aſſertion, which I now leaue; deſiring you very earneſtly, that you woulde conſider how vnreuerently the ordinance of God in the holy ſacraments is dealt with when the ſame is made to depend vponupon the pronouncing of a few ſyllables, without any conſideration eyther of the perſon who is to adminiſter, or of the ſubſtantiall forme of conſecration contained in the expoſition of the holy inſtitution of baptiſme, and the inuocation of the name of God, al which are neceſſarily required in the adminiſtration of baptiſme, and could not poſſibly be in Aegypt, where all was and p. 31couered vnderunder the darkneſſe of a ſtrange tongue. Your diſtinction that popiſh prieſts hauehave a calling, though a faltie, is a begging of the queſtion. For as I hauehave ſhewed, popiſh prieſtes hauehave no calling at all in the Church, and therefore how can they ſit in the chaire of the miniſterie? Is there a miniſtery out of the Church, Caiphas his prieſthood commeth afterwarde to bee conſidered of. The ſeconde point is to be handled next.

That vnpreaching miniſters are no miniſters.

They are affirmed to bee no miniſters, not becauſe they are euill miniſters, but becauſe their miniſterye is an euill and profane mininiſtery: So that in this pointe the faulte is not found with the euil miniſter, but with the euill miniſtery. Their miniſtery is profane and euill, becauſe there is no mention made of it in the word. And a miniſterye not mentioned in the worde is no miniſtery but a profane conſtitution. For the Lorde hath expreſſely ſet downe euerye miniſterie of the new teſtament, that ſhould be p. 32in the Church vntounto the worlds ende;Ephe. 2.11Eph 2:11 wheras he hath not once mentioned the miniſtery of our readers, becauſe it is not a preaching miniſterye. The ſumme of this whole controuerſie is contayned in theſe three axiomes.

1 EueryEvery miniſtery is expreſſely ſet downe in the word.Rom. 12.6.7.8. 1. Cor. 42.28. rom. 10.14. 1. Cor. 1.21.Rom 12:6Rom 12:7Rom 12:81 Cor 1:21

2 EueryEvery miniſtery of the newe teſtament is a preaching miniſtery.

8 The miniſtery of our vnpreaching miniſters, is not a preaching miniſterye.

If you can ſhewe eyther of theſe 3. points to be falſe, I am ouerthrowne, if neyther, you muſt yeeld. The truth of all three, I hauehave ſhewed out of the word, in the laſt edition of my book. The two former are confirmed by the places quoted on the margent, the latter I will briefly prooue by theſe reaſons.

1 If the miniſtery of vnpreaching miniſters be a preaching miniſterye, or if their function be a paſtorall or doctorall function, then there had bene a preaching miniſtery, a paſtorall p. 33and doctorall function known in the Church, though there neuer had bene anye preacher therein. Otherwiſe, howe can their miniſterye bee a preaching miniſtery, or their function bee a paſtorall function, whereas the ſame may bee in the Churche, no preaching miniſtery or paſtorall function beeing knowne there? But no Churche, much leſſe a miniſtery had there beene knowne, if there neuer had bene any that coulde hauehave preached; becauſe God ordained the ſaints and ſo a Churche, onelyonly to be gathered together by preaching ordinarily, but not by the miniſtery of readers, becauſe it might hauehave bene in the world, and yet no ſaint gathered thereby; which thing experience in our Churche prooueth to bee to true.

My 2. and 3▪ reaſons are drawn out of theſe words of Paule, Rom. 13.6.7.8. Seeing then that wee hauehave giftes that are diuers, acording to the grace that is giuen vntounto vsus; whether wee hauehave propheſie, let vsus propheſie, according p. 34to the proportion of fayth; or an office, let vsus wait on the office; or hee that teacheth on teaching, or he that exhorteth on exhorting, &c. the 2. reaſon is thus concluded.

Whoſoeuer hath receiued a miniſterye, and ſo a paſtorall or doctorall function, he hath receiued propheſie ſpoken of in this place, verſe 6. Becauſe eueryevery paſtoral or doctorall function, mencioned in the 7. & 8. verſe, vnderunder theſe words: he that teacheth, hee that exhorteth; are contained vnderunder the word propheſie. verſe 6. Inſomuch as he that hath not receiued that propheſie there ſet down, wherby is ment the interpretation of the worde; he hath not receiued the paſtorall or doctoral function ſet down verſ. 7.8. But vnpreaching miniſters hauehave not receiued the propheſie ſpoken of in this place, which is expreſly ſet downe, verſe 6. to bee one of the diuers gifts beſtowed for the gouermēt of the body, which is the church. Therefore alſo, they hauehave receiued neither a paſtorall nor a doctorall p. 35function, and ſo no preaching miniſterye.

3 No miniſtery is ſeperated from a gift, becauſe propheſie ſpoken of in this 6. verſe, vnderunder which as we ſee, eueryevery paſtorall and doctorall miniſtery is contayned, can not bee ſeuered from a gift: but the miniſtery of our readers is ſeuered in them from a gyft: therefore in them it is no miniſtery.

It is no miniſterye in them I ſay, although that miniſterye, the generall name whereof they hauehave, is not ſeuered from a gift in preaching miniſters: but what is that to them? what is the miniſterye of other men vntounto them? they are not miniſters, by the miniſtery wherewith other men are endued, but by their own, which being ſeuered from a gifte, is no miniſtery. Paul had bene no Apoſtle, and had receiued no Apoſtleſlip, vnleſſe he coulde hauehave ſayde, I am a miniſter according vntounto the grace giuen vntounto me, Ephe. 3.7. and not according to the grace giuen vntounto other Apoſtles: p. 36the generall name of whoſe Apoſtleſhip I am entituled with. A ridiculous ſpeeche it were, to ſaye mine apoſtleſhipp hath receiued grace, but I that am the apoſtle hauehave receiued none.

How then may our readers claime a preachinge miniſterye vntounto themſelues, ſeing the miniſtery which they challenge is altogether in them with out a gifte, though it be not ſo in others?

4 EueryEvery vnpreaching miniſter ſinneth in executing the works of a paſtoral function, as the ſacraments. &c therefore he hath no miniſtery; and ſo nyether a paſtorall nor doctorall function. Hee hath no miniſtery, becauſe, his calling is not the calling of the miniſtery, his callinge is not the calling of the miniſterye, becauſe hee ſinneth in intermedlinge withe the workes thereof. And this is an infallible trueth, that no man ſinneth becauſe he dealeth with the workes of his calling. For this is the duety that God requireth at the hands of eueryevery man. Manye ſinne in deede becauſe p. 37they walk corruptly in their callings, & hauehave no care to glorifie God therin. Col. 3.17. But leaue thy corruption and thou ſinneſt not, in keeping thee to the works of thy calling. The hypocrits in the daies of Iſayah. 1.13 ſinned not becauſe they offered ſacrifice, but becauſe they did the ſame through hypocriſie. Their hypocriſie they ought to hauehave lefte, but not his ſeruice in ſacrificing according to his commaundement; but our readers though they ſhould with as little corruption, and as great zeale to Gods glory and the good of his Churche as any men, deale in the workes of a paſtoral miniſtery, yet they ſhould ſtil do that which the Lord had forbidden them to doe, whence it appeareth, that the works of the miniſtery are not the works of their caling. For God forbiddeth no man to deale therewith, & not the being workes of their calling, they are no miniſters, and hauehave neyther paſtorall nor doctorall function.

5 This is farther ſhewed, foraſmuch p. 38as the Lorde doeth not commit vntounto bare reders the charge of thoſe ſouls, ouer whom they are, which he doth vntounto euerye one that hath a paſtorall function, Acts. 20.16.28. 1, theſ. 5.12 Heb. 13.17. For to what ende elſe, ſhould he commit a miniſterye vntounto anye, who hauehave ſoules vnderunder their charge? The Church indeed may cō mit the ſouls of men vntounto reders, but certainly the Lord committeth none vntounto them. And he is no miniſter, vntounto whom the Lorde doth not cōmite this charge, as the places before quoted do ſhew. For the Lord hath in his word, ordained not onelyonly offices, the executors whereof ſhoulde hauehave the ouerſight of ſoules, but alſo the perſons who were to execute thoſe functions. 1. Cor. 12.28. 1. Pet. 4.10. rom 12.6.7.8. Epheſ. 4.7.11. Now vnpreaching miniſters are non of thoſe perſons, becauſe the Lorde knoweth thē not to bee able to feede ſoules. And let not men bee ſo iniurious vntounto the Lorde, as to affirme, that hee according vntounto his reuealed ordinance p. 39(for therof I ſpeke as of a miniſtery, & not of his ſecret iudgments) bequeathed the ſoules of men to be ſtarued and kept from ſaluation, As hee muſt needes be conuinced to doe if he bequeathed them vntounto thoſe men, the diſpenſation of whoſe miniſtery is able to beget none, feede none, ſaue none. you muſt vnderſtande againe, that I ſpeake of the miniſtery whereby readers are miniſters, that is of their owne, and not of the miniſtery whereby preaching miniſters are miniſters, wherewith readers hauehave nothing to doe.

Moreouer howe can the Lorde bee ſaide to commit the charge of ſoules according to his owne reuealed ordinance, vntounto thoſe who may truely obiect vntounto him, that he dealeth iniuriouſly with thē, by exacting thoſe thinges to bee perfourmed at their handes and in their owne perſons, as neceſſary duties of their callings, vntounto the performaunce whereof, they hauehave receiued no abilitie from him. Is man to bee aunſwerable vntounto the p. 40Lorde of that which he neuer receyued? doth the Lorde require the vſe of that tallent which hee neuer beſtowed? doth he laye that vponupon any, whereof hee may hauehave iuſte cauſe to complaine? when did hee impoſe a charge vponupon any, vntounto whom he gaue not gifts to diſcharge the ſame? now the charge of ſoules whiche he committeth vntounto anye, hee requireth at their handes vntounto whom he hath cō mitted it, which he could not doe, if hee had not giuen abilitie to the diſcharge thereof.

What then? ſhall ignoraunt miniſters be free from the blood of ſouls, in aſmuch as the lord neuer cōmitted any ſoule vntounto their charge. It were well with thē poore men, if the caſe ſo ſtood. But alas it is not ſo. And yet the cauſe of their deſtruction proceedeth not from their vnfaithfulneſſe in the diſcharge of that vocation whiche hee hath allotted vntounto them, but it commeth iuſtly vponupon them, in that they hauehave deſperatly thruſt thē ſeiues contrary vntounto Gods reuealed p. 41will, vponupon thoſe men with the ouerſight of whoſe ſoules God neuer truſted ſuch as they are. The Lord ſayth vntounto them, intrude your ſeiues and you will, vntounto the places of paſtors, and ſo enforce me to bring heauy & ſwift damnation vponupon you: but ſurely I wil bequeath no ſoule vntounto your cuſtodye. They on the other ſide in their practiſe ſay, Lord whether thou committeſt vntounto vsus any charge of any ſoule or no, wee care not, but rather then wee ſhoulde not hauehave the meanes to liue in this life, (for this is their onelyonly ſcope in continuinge in the miniſterye) require the blood of ſoules, and what thou wilte at our hands. And ſo ſenſeles men, they ſell them-ſelues, body and ſoule vntounto euerlaſting wo and deſtruction.

The pretence that the Lord committeth the chardge of ſoules vntounto their miniſtery, and not vntounto them, is firſt a deſiring of that in queſtion; (for they are denyed to hauehave any miniſtery) and otherwiſe many wais vnſufficient. 1 Becauſe the Lord committeth p. 42not the charge of ſoules there, where the puniſhement of their deſtruction cannot take holde, as it can not vponupon the miniſtery:Act. 20.28.Acts 20:28 2 the miniſtry is but a dead thing of it ſelf; moſt beautifull in deed, as being an ordinance of the Lorde, but able to ſaue none, vnleſſe it be committed vntounto a perſon, who in the execution therof, is able to ſhew himſelf to be appointed of God for that glorious worke. This is taught Epheſ. 4. where the Apoſtle verſes 6 and 7. hauing ſpoken of the giftes beſtowed vponupon men for this miniſteriall work, aſcribeth verſ. 11.12▪ the gathering together of the ſayntes, not vntounto the giftes or functions, but vntounto men endued with the ſayde giftes. For he doth not ſay that the Lord hath appointed for the gathering together of the ſaynts, an apoſtleſhipp , a paſtorall or doctorall function, &c. but that he ordained apoſtles, paſtors, &c. for that end and purpoſe; whereunto becauſe our readers were not appoynted, it forcibly enſueth that they hauehave no miniſtery, p. 43no paſtorall or doctorall function, and ſo are no miniſters: which concluſiō alſo in the laſt edition of mine Exhortation vntounto my countrimen, I hauehave enforced by manye ſtrong and as I am aſſured inuincible reaſons, drawne out of the infallible trueth of Gods worde. I woulde intreate yon M. Some, when you hauehave anſwered the reaſons I hauehave nowe ſet downe to anſwere alſo, the 1.2.3. and 25. reaſon that I hauehave there vſed. For you ſhall but ſtriue in vayne againſt the concluſion, as long as the premiſes whereby it is inferred remaine firme. If the reader woulde be further ſatiſfied in this poynte concerning the dumbe miniſtery, he is to be referred vntounto that which in the aforeſaid treatiſe I hauehave ſet downē.

Nowe to the concluſion, If vnpreaching miniſters be no miniſters, and if I cannot be aſſured to receiue a ſacrament, but onelyonly at the hands of a miniſter; both which you ſee M. Some to be prooued by me, then cannot I aſſure my ſelfe, that an vnpreaching p. 44miniſter can deliuer a ſacrament vntounto me: and therefore it is vnlawfull for me or any chriſtian to go vntounto an vnpreaching miniſter for the ſacraments; if vnlawfull, then a ſinne, if a ſin, thē the godly are polluted which goe vntounto them for the ſacramentes: you know (M. Some) what I meane by an vnpreaching miniſter; namely, eueryevery one learned or vnlearned, that cannot ſhewe him-ſelfe by the good trial of his gifts, to hauehave that fitnes to teach, whereof we read. 2. tim. 2.2.1. tim. 3.3. which ability the Lord doth not ordinarily beſtowe vponupon any in theſe our dayes, without the knowledge of the artes, eſpecially the two handmaydes of all learninge, Rhethoricke and Logick, and the two originall tongues wherein the worde was written. And therefore I am as farre from accounting the vnskilfull preachers, which ſpeake hand ouerhead, they care not what; againſte whom your complaint is very iuſt to be miniſters, as I am from acknowledging many of our abſurd doctors p. 45to be apt to teach, who can bring nothing into the pulpit, but that which other men hauehave written, and that very often, ſo fit to the purpoſe, of edification, as the reaſon from the corner to the ſtaffe, is ſoundly concluded. In theſe three ſortes of ſuppoſed miniſters (and there could be a fourth added vntounto them) conſiſteth the woe of our Church.

The reſt of your booke is nowe to be examined. Your concluſion, page 22. that they which were baptized by vnpreching miniſters, are rightly baptized as touching the ſubſtaunce of baptiſme; I do not gainſay. Your reaſons are weake. For how coulde wee proue your concluſion, if men ſhould denie popiſh baptiſm to be true baptiſm, as I do not you know & he ſhuld do me great iniurie, which would lay that to my charge. Were it ſufficient for vsus to ſay they were Katabaptiſtes which denie popiſhe baptiſme? How could this be proued? and this ſhould not prooue the matter doubted off. Shall wee ſaye that they ſinne, in not p. 46preſenting themſelues to be baptized. To whome ſhoulde they preſent themſelues? who would baptize thē? Admit they ſinned in receauing the Lords Supper before they were baptized, ſhould they therefore bee bereaued of the comfort of baptiſme? to affirme that this weare a goinge backward, is no reaſon, becauſe they were perſwaded that they had baptiſme, otherwiſe they would not hauehave beene ſo farr on their iourney, vntill they had beene accompanied therewith. But they omitted baptiſme of ignorance and not of contemt: therfore they denie the receiuing of the Lordes ſupper to hauehave bene a ſinne, anye more then it woulde be a ſinne in them nowe to receiue the Lordes ſupper, if they coulde not hauehave baptiſme. Baptiſme they woulde hauehave, if they coulde orderlye come by the ſame. Becauſe men will bee ſo iniurious vntounto them, as to denie them the comfort of baptiſme which they cannot hauehave, ſhould they denie to themſelues the comfort of the Lords ſupper p. 47which they may hauehave? Ye, but no vncircumciſed might eate the paſcall lambe. Exod. 12.48. True; But what ſhall we ſay vntounto thoſe that were vncircumciſed in the wilderneſſe fortie yeres almoſt. Ioſh. 5.5. Did they neuer eate the paſſeouer all that time? If they did, the place of Exodus will be quickly anſwered. It is plaine that the paſſeouer was celebrated in the wildernes once at the leaſt. Nom. 9.1, If eueryevery yeare, why ſhould the godly of the family be excluded from the family be excluded from the action, the cauſe why they were vncircumciſed not being in them. None vncircumciſed might miniſter before the altar. True, but did non of the Leuits that were borne in the wilderneſſe teach Iaacob the law, or offer the incenſe of his God in all thoſe fourtye yeares?

Thus many thinges you ſee might be obiected againſt your reaſons, & I take the obiections to bee of ſome waight, It had bin well you had conſidered of them before you had publiſhed p. 48your booke. And the baptiſme by vnpreaching miniſters, muſt hauehave better prooffes then anye you hauehave brought as yet, or elſe I feare me, our poſterities will not be ſatisfied therwith.

Your next reaſon, page 23. is ſlender. Readers pronounce the wordes of inſtitution with the deliuerie of the element, therfore ſaye you they deliuer a ſacrament: you hauehave once already alledged this to prooue popiſh baptiſme, page 20. I hauehave anſwered it page 29. 30. 31. And the place of Matth. 28.29. brought in by you page 23. proueth your conſequent to bee falſe. For it ſheweth that he who is to baptiſe, muſt bee alſo able to teache, which abilitie is wanting in our readers. Go ſayth our Sauiour, and teach all nations, baptizing, &c. Therefore if he that deliuereth the element bee not able to teach, we cannot be aſſured that it is a ſacrament. Becauſe the commandement is not generally to all that could pronounce the wordes of inſtitution, beeing thereunto permitted p. 49by the corruptiō of the time, but perticularly limited vntounto them that can teache, vnleſſe you will ſaye, that the Lorde biddeth thē go teach, who cannot teach whiche were not once to be concerned of his maieſtie. The corruptiō in the Church of England, that the deliuery of the element ſhold be ſeuered from the preaching of the word, is a breach of Gods ordinance, you cannot deny, Matth. 28 19. act. 20.7. and therefore vngodly and intollerable. Whether it mak the action fruſtrate or no, that is not the queſtion.

Your 3. reaſon pag. 24. is this.

Vnpreaching miniſters do ad an edifying word vntounto the element, therfore it is a ſacramente. This reaſon is the ſame with the former, which ſheweth the great nakednes and pouerty of the cauſe, that one reaſon muſt be thriſe periured to proue the goodnes of it, which notwithſtanding it cānot ſhew. I deny the antecedent, & conſequent. Your reaſon of the antecedent, that the recitall of the ſum p. 50of Chriſts Sermon that is, the wordes of inſtitution is an edifying worde is falſe, and maintaineth charming. For do you thinke that the worde of inſtitution, being as you ſay, the ſumm of Chriſtes Sermon, is then an edifying word, whenſoeuer it is recited by a profane perſon, euen in the profanation of Gods ordinance? Looke 2. tim. 4.3. and you ſhall finde that the worde barely reade, and to no other purpoſe then to edifie by reading, is not wholeſome doctrine. The popiſh prieſte eyther without or, within the booke, pronounceth in his darke Latine, the ſumm of Chriſtes Sermon, is that an edifying word, which he profanely breatheth. The worde of God vttered, is not an edifying worde, vnles it be vttered according to the ordinance, both in regarde of the perſons that vtter the ſame, and the end wherefore it is vttered. No learned man will denie the Lordes prayer rightly ſayd to be an edifying worde. And yet by your leaue, no learned man vnleſſe he fauoreth charming or p. 51popery, will ſay that the Lords prayer pronounced by an ignorant man, in a ſtrange tongue , or profaned by a witch, is an edifying word.

Concerning your conſequent, doe you thinke that euerye one that can ad an edifying word vntounto the elemēt, may miniſter a ſacrament? it is not ſo. For Paul requireth the words of eueryevery chriſtian (wemen & al) to be edifying wordes, Eph. 4.29. euen in common talk. Shal therefore the element adminiſtred by euerye chriſtian be a ſacrament? God forbid. And yet eueryevery chriſtian can ad the ſum of Chriſts ſermon vntounto the element in the adminiſtration of the ſupper; which if it were ſufficient, as by your reaſon it is, then wemen, children, &c. idiots that coulde not read might deliuer a ſacrament.

The reaſon concluding vnpreaching miniſters to be non, becauſe they are not apt to teache, you hauehave twiſe repeated within one twelue lines, pag 24.25. and made two ſeuerall obiections thereof. That was an ouerſight: p. 52The ſufficiencie of the argument, I hauehave ſhewed to be ſuche, as Caiphas his miniſtery, and Herods magiſtracy brought in by you, pag. 25. 26. will neuer aunſwer the ſame. Both of them with the reaſon from the outwarde calling of readers, pag. 25. I referre to your next chapter, where they are repeated: thyther nowe I am come, where the contradictorie of the queſtion ſhall be ſet downe and prooued briefly; becauſe the nullitie of the vnpreaching miniſtery, may be in ſteede of a 1000. reaſons to proue the ſame. By pollution, doubt not, you meane ſinne.

The godly do ſinne, vvhichwhich do communicate vvith vnpreaching miniſters.

Becauſe 1. they communicate with thoſe who are no miniſters. 2. they cannot be aſſured to receiue a ſacrament at their hands. 3 they do not examine them-ſelues aright, and ſo are not worthy receiuers, 1. Cor. 11.28. inaſmuch as they do not acknowledg it a ſinne to communicat where there is no miniſter. 4. becauſe they p. 53eyther make the element to bee a ſacrament naturally in it ſelfe, and not by the ordinance of God, or els think the ordinance of God in the inſtitution of the ſacrament onelyonly to conſiſt in the recitall of the words; I baptize thee, &c. or rake eate, &c, wheras a miniſter is a moſt principall part of the ordinance. 5 Becauſe they make the ſacraments to be marks no more eſtentiall vntounto the Church, then to other idolatrous ſynagogues. For the element may be deliuered out of the Church by a publike perſon, euen as ſubſtantially, as by our mere readers. 6 They approoue the ſin of the vnpreaching miniſtery. Laſtly, becauſe they are perſwaded, that Chriſt doth deliuer vntounto them the ſeales or their ſaluation, by the hands of thoſe that are not miniſters; to wit, by vnpreaching readers. In al which points, the godly ſinne, and therefore are polluted in communicating with vnpreaching miniſters. Nowe let vsus ſee howe you hauehave proued the contrary.

Where the reader muſt againe be p. 54put in minde, that I you hauehave prooued nothing vnleſſe the queſtion bee graunted vntounto you: and 2 that your reaſons are repeated too often.

The miniſters ignorance ſaye you, page 28. cannot peruert Gods ordinance: and againe, page 29. the ſacramentes are not the worſe for the ignorance of the miniſter, &c. All this I grant, but bare readers are not miniſters, and the doubt is, whether the action performed by them be the ordinaunce of God, whether it be a ſacramēt. Theſe be the queſtions which you ought to hauehave prooued, and not hauehave taken thē as principles, though you do this: the 3 and 4 time, pag 28. line 6. and 24.

M.D. Some, pag. 28. the worthy pertaker receiues a bleſsing, if a bleſsing no pollution.

Iohn Penri; firſt it is doubted whether we may be aſſured that it is a ſacrament; 2 he is no worthye receiuer that receiueth of an Idoll miniſters: 3 there may be a bleſsing receiued, & yet pollution in the receiuer: p. 55Looke 2. Chronic. 30.17.18.19. Nom. 9.7. The obiection concerning the giuer & the receiuer, in your 31. pa. was neuer mine: I coulde turne it againſt you, but I muſt be briefe.

Concerning the nullity of our readers miniſtery, we are to knowe that there is a nullitie of a miniſterye before God; eyther becauſe the action proceedeth from a corrupt miniſter, as pſalm. 50.16. whom God would not hauehave to deale with his ordinances, or from a corrupt and euill miniſterye, which is none of Gods ordinaunce. The action of the former is ſubſtantiall in regard of vsus, of the latter wee know no ſubſtance it can hauehave. Of the former there is a nullitie onelyonly in the ſight of God; of the latter, both in reſpect of the Lorde and alſo of vsus. The nullitie of our readers miniſtery is of this latter ſorte, namely ſuche as we ought in no wiſe to account a miniſtery. Whereas therefore you graunt that there is a nullity of our readers miniſtery before God, and yet affirm them to be miniſters, you ſwarue frō p. 56the point, and ſo your anſwere, page 31. Is nothinge to the purpoſe, but a deſiring of the queſtion after your vſuall manner. As Caiphas then, and the reſt of the ſleepye dogges againſt whom the prophet cryeth out,Iſa. 56.9.Isa 56:9 were wicked men, God woulde not hauehave ſuch to be his miniſters: hyther refer Iſa. 1.13. but as they had the miniſtery which God allowed of, they were miniſters vntounto the people. This miniſtery, our readers want, therfore they can be miniſters, neither in reſpect of the Lord,Ier. 29.31. Zac. 14.14.29.9. Zach 13.5. Iere. 29.25. There is a difference betweene the nullitie of the miniſter, and the nullity of the miniſtery.Jer 29:31Zech 13:5Jer 29:25 nor of the Church. Shemaiah was a wicked man, and a falſe prophet, ſo were the reſt of his ſtamp. The Lord deteſted both thē & their miniſtery. Zephania & Caiphas hie prieſts with their cōpany, were as wicked as any of the falſe prophetes, the Lord abhorred the mē, but their miniſtery was his ordinance.

Hence M. Some, it followeth, that neyther the bribery of your Caiphas, nor the blindenes of your ignoraunt Leuites, can make ſuche a nullitie of their prieſthood, as they ſhould be no p. 57prieſtes vntounto the people. And therefore great reaſon whie the parentes of our ſauiour, & the reſt of the godly whereof you ſpeake. page 28, 19. ſhould not leaue the ſeruice of God for the pollution of the prieſtes. Iſai ſpeaketh againſt blind watchmen, 56 10, but chap. 42.19.20. It ſhal appear that they ſaw many things, but kept them not, I pray you confer the places and it can neuer be prooued that any of them were ſo blinde, as they could not declare by preachinge the generall vſe of the ſacrifices and ceremonies. Their wants might be many but not like the inſufficiency of our readers. Beit they were as inſufficient yet their miniſtery might be allowable. For

Vnfitnes to teach, made not a nullitie of the Leuiticall prieſts office.

Becauſe 1 it was ſufficient to make him a lawfull, though not a good prieſt,Nom. 3.10 Leuit. 8. Exo. 29.Lev 8Exod 29 for him to be of the line of Aron: 2 there was no commandemēt concerning the tryall of his fitnes to teach: 3 It is not mentioned that p. 58any were put from the priſthood for want of this ability, wheras the dout whether they were the ſonnes of Aaron. Ezra. 2.63. and their idolatry, 2. Chron. bereaued them thereof;Act. 21.26.Acts 21:26 4 the example of Paule confirmeth this, who communicated ſince his conuerſion with thoſe priſts that wer as vnlearned as euer anye; whiche he woulde not hauehave done if inability to teach, had made them no prieſts.

Nowe therefore M. Some to make your argument from the Leuiticall prieſthood to bee forcible. For your vnpreching miniſters, you muſt proue that either our readers miniſtery is a Leuiticall miniſtery, that the continuance therof is vnderunder the new couenāt or ſhew that the corrupt aprobation, for ſo I name the beſt outwarde calling they can hauehave of the Churche, is as forcible to make thē miniſters, as was the ordinaunce of God to make the ſons of Aaron ſacrificing at Ieruſalem to be prieſts. Now,

That the corrupt allovvance of the Church cannot make our readers to be ſubſtanciall miniſters

p. 59For ſo all men and wemen, without or within the Church might be capable of the miniſtery, becauſe all may be capable of this outward alowāce; 2 and perticularly a man, not furniſhed with naturall capacity; 3 a man that could not read, though he wanted alſo the gift of interpretation; for ſuche a one might recite the liturgie without the booke; 4 the Churche might make a man miniſter againſt his will, though he ſhould neuer conſent thervnto. And this is the willingnes that I meane, when I ſay that the inward caling is contained in the ſufficiency of gifts, & willingnes to practize, which willingnes I gather vponupon the wordes, Epith mei and oregetai, vſed of the A poſtle. Your reaſon therfore from the malicious Philippian miniſters, toucheth not the queſtion.1. Tim. 3.1.1 Tim 3:1 Thus Caiphas with his crue of vnworthye and monſtrous prieſts (who within a fewe pages, in your booke hauehave impudently ſo often troubled the reader) is anſwered. And I thinke it a great iudgment of God that the p. 60ornaments of our Engliſh and welch miniſtery, for the moſt part conſiſteth in the deformitie of ſuche lothſome ſpots.

M.D. Some page 32. They of whoſe magiſtracie there is a nullitye before God, though they hauehave an outwarde calling, ought not to bee accounted magyſtrates. I.P. You demand what I thinke of this propoſition. Surely my iudgement is, that it is altogether without ſence, and ouerthroweth it ſelf. For it is as if you ſaid, he of whoſe fayth there is a nullitye before God, though he be aſſured of his ſaluation is not to be accounted a faythful mā. Why? to be aſſured of ſaluation, & to hauehave a nullitie of fayth before God, cannot ſtand together. No more can the outward calling of the magiſtracy ſtand with the nullity thereof. For the outwarde calling maketh a ſubſtantiall magiſtrate.

There be three eſſentiall differences betvveene an euill magiſtrate and a reading miniſter

1 The outwarde calling of an euill magiſtrate, maketh him a ſubſtantial p. 61magiſtrate, ſo cannot the outward alowance of readers make them to be miniſters. 2 The magiſtracie of an euill magiſtrate, may be allowable before God, ſo cannot the miniſtery of readers. 3 Men may bee aſſured to receiue that accordinge to the ordinaunce of God ſubſtantially at the handes of an euill magiſtrate, which concerneth them to hauehave from him, ſo can they not of a bare reader; For there is no man that can aſſure himſelfe to be pertaker of a ſubſtantiall ſacrament, at the hands of ſuch, and preache they cannot. I hauehave handled this poynte of the magiſtracie in my former booke, from page 47. to 51.

But M. Some, where is that reaſon which you could preſſe ſo far? is this it? they of whoſe magiſtracie there is a nullity before God, ought not to be accounted magiſtrates. I ſay your propoſition is true, aſſume what you wil, you know what maner of nullity I meane.

My reaſon concluding the vnlawfulnes of communicatinge with readers p. 62hauing but an outward calling: becauſe it is a ſinne to communicate with them, whiche onelyonly want the ſame hauing fitnes to teache, is ſuch as I can not but maruell that you would thinke it could bee anſwered by a deſiring of the queſtion, which is a fault in reaſoninge, wherein be like you ſeeme to take delight; you ſay againe, that readers deliuer a ſacrament. How can we be ſure thereof, & why may not I ſay as well, that a man indued with giftes to teach, doth deliuer a ſacrament, though he hauehave no outwarde calling, whiche aſſertion would be falſe. By an extraordinarye ſacrament, I meane baptiſme or the Lords ſupper, adminiſtred either priuatly by a miniſter, or any way by on that is no miniſter. I neuer affirmed, the elements deliuered by readers to be ſacraments. It is one thing not to deny them, another thing to affirme them to be ſacraments; the former I hauehave written, the latter I neuer did; & they doe my writinges great iniurie, that report the contrary.

p. 63Thus M. Some I hauehave run through the pointes in your booke that concerned me, I hauehave beene driuen to deale briefly therein. I had determined, and I am inforced to ende, and to omit that, which page 9. line 11. I promiſed to handle in the latter end, with diuers other I hauehave not the like libertie for printing that you M. Some doe inioy. Let me but hauehave the fauor to bee iudicially heard according to the word, and I will perſonally vponupon the perill of my life, defend theſe two points againſt all men. I am ſory that you whom I reuerence, ſhould be the inſtrument to oppugne a trueth. The Lord reſpect the cauſe of his owne glorie, and pardon our ſinne. Amen.

ERRATA.

Page 1. line 20. & 23. for 2. read 3. pag, 47. line 14. blot out, family be excluded from the

End of the text · John Penry, Defense of Writings on the Ignorant Ministry (1588)