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, haue beene wanting both vnto 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 haue 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 onely haue 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. [Page 2]as you haue 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 vnto all, that for their nomber, a small deate of pa­per might containe an answere vnto [Page 3]them, for their noueltie, they coulde not put a man that had accordinge vnto 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 vnto 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, [Page 4]which are the reasons, and the onely 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, [Page 5]because 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. yet they are the points in controuersie, and so far from beeing yelded vnto by me, that I haue shew­ed euery 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 [Page 6]me, that might giue 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 loue, wherewith in the Lord I am tyed vnto you, that I doubt not, but we shalbe at one in that day, when al of vs 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, vnto 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, haue receiued true baptim as touching the substance. Secondly that they are [Page 7]the 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 haue prooued nothing that my writinges haue de­nied; but you haue quickened a dead controuersie, not vnlikely to giue 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 haue vndertaken to shew; will geeue occasion vnto 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 haue both giuen it a larger passage, and opened the doore vnto 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, [Page 8]that are very odious, and more impertinent vnto 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 haue pub­likly called in question. And for mine owne parte, when you haue 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 haue 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 [Page 9]is 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 haue 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 haue withstoode: But in as muche as you haue not onely grounded them vpō false principles, and such as in no wise can be warraunted by the canon of the word, but also inferre vpon 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, [Page 10]which 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 haue deliuered a sacrament in respect of the action done; but whether a christian going vnto 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 vs 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 onely of fayth, whiche must be grounded vpon the promi­ses set downe in the word; wee haue [Page 11]no promise that they can deliuer vs a sacrament, because they are no mini­sters. For they onely are enioyned by our Sauiour Christ to deliuer a sacra­ment, Matth. 28.18.19. 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 vnto them for the sacrament, can assure himselfe there to haue the same. And this shall be a generall reason, equally belonginge vnto both the pointes handeled by you, the particulars whereof shal fol­low in their places.

• 1 Euery 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 Euery minister hath an office with in the bodie of the Churche. No [Page 12]popishe 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 haue many members in one bodie, Rom. 12.4 5.6. and all members haue not one office; so we being many, are one bodie in Christ, and euerye one an others members, seeing then that we haue 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 [Page 13]haue 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. neither can any man denie him to be a member of the Churche, which by outward profession submitteth him­selfe vnto 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 vs, that is a stranger from the profession of the trueth, & a professed Idolater? Ishmael & Esau, were circumcized, and the sonnes of those fathers vnto whome the coue­naunt was made; Euen I will be thy God, & the God of thy seed. They & [Page 14]their 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 onely by the feare of his father Isaak. The reason herof, is, because that euery priest vnder 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 haue 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 [Page 15]church; 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 vnto 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 vnto 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 vnto 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.

Antichrist I grant should sit as God in the temple of God, 2. Thes. 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 mercie in store for them [Page 17]I 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. and Iaacob haue 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 loue, but the Idolatrous papists my soule abhorreth; It will be heere demanded, whether I make no more account of popishe baptisme, then of [...] [Page 18]Edomitish 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 vnto 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 vnto 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 [Page 19]miserable slauery of bodie and soule, that are vpon any people vnder 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 haue 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 vnder no couenant, but that which is made vnto 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 [Page 20]assumption, I am not ignoraunt that famous and worthy men, M. Caluin epist. 103. haue 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 euery ministerye is an ordinance of God, which cannot be turned vnto sacrileage. The popish pristhood is sacriledg, as you haue set downe, page 21. Therfore the popish priesthood is no ministery, and con­sequently popish priests are no mini­sters. You may see that you haue 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 [Page 21]priests, 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. if it bee true that Christ is the onely 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 vnto whom the Lord hath giuen leaue to deale in that action, o­therwise [Page 22]the 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 giue 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. [Page 23]My 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. 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. or cannot satisfie the wrath of God for the sinnes of the e­lect, without their merits, Heb. 5.25. and such is the Christ professed in popery and no other.

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

No man can assure himself to haue [Page 24]the 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 haue 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 haue 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 [Page 25]the 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 haue prooued it false. It is dan­gerous [Page 26]because it affirmeth our ma­gistrates to be schismatiks, My mea­ning is onely to shew the danger, & not to presse the fame. inasmuch as they haue 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 haue 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 vnto 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 haue 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 haue no more felowship with papists in the [Page 27]seruice 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, haue rece iued true baptisme. Your con­clusion you must remember, I do not deny, though your reason prooueth [Page 28]not the same, which is thus framed.

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

You haue changed the conclusion from that which was done, vnto that 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 vpon the grant whereof, not onely 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 [Page 29]absurdities would follow ther­of.

1 That an Amalekite might deli­uer true circumcision, as touching the substance. 2 That true baptism might bee administred vnto 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 [Page 30]by you withe sounder reasons then this you haue 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 haue 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 vpon 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 [Page 31]couered vnder the darknesse of a strange tongue. Your distinction that popish priests haue a calling, though a faltie, is a begging of the question. For as I haue shewed, popish priestes haue 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 [Page 32]in the Church vnto the worlds ende; Ephe. 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 Euery ministery is expressely set downe in the word. Rom. 12.6.7.8. 1. Cor. 42.28. rom. 10.14. 1. Cor. 1.21.

2 Euery 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 haue 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 [Page 33]and 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 haue prea­ched; because God ordained the saints and so a Churche, onely to be gathered together by preaching or­dinarily, but not by the ministery of readers, because it might haue 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 haue giftes that are diuers, acording to the grace that is giuen vnto vs; whether wee haue prophesie, let vs prophesie, ac­cording [Page 34]to the proportion of fayth; or an office, let vs 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 euery pastoral or doctorall fun­ction, mencioned in the 7. & 8. verse, vnder these words: he that teacheth, hee that exhorteth; are contained vnder 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 haue 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 haue receiued neither a pastorall nor a doctorall [Page 35]function, and so no preaching mini­sterye.

3 No ministery is seperated from a gift, because prophesie spoken of in this 6. verse, vnder which as we see, e­uery 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 haue, is not se­uered from a gift in preaching mini­sters: but what is that to them? what is the ministerye of other men vnto 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 haue sayde, I am a minister according vnto the grace giuen vnto me, Ephe. 3.7. and not according to the grace giuen vnto other Apostles: [Page 36]the 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 haue receiued none.

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

4 Euery 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 euery man. Manye sinne in deede because [Page 37]they walk corruptly in their callings, & haue 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 haue 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 haue neyther pastorall nor doc­torall function.

5 This is farther shewed, forasmuch [Page 38]as the Lorde doeth not commit vnto bare reders the charge of those souls, ouer whom they are, which he doth vnto 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 vnto anye, who haue soules vnder their charge? The Church indeed may cō ­mit the souls of men vnto reders, but certainly the Lord committeth none vnto them. And he is no minister, vn­to whom the Lorde doth not cōmite this charge, as the places before quo­ted do shew. For the Lord hath in his word, ordained not onely offices, the executors whereof shoulde haue 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 vnto the Lorde, as to affirme, that hee ac­cording vnto his reuealed ordinance [Page 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 vnto 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 haue no­thing to doe.

Moreouer howe can the Lorde bee saide to commit the charge of soules according to his owne reuealed or­dinance, vnto those who may truely obiect vnto 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, vn­to the performaunce whereof, they haue receiued no abilitie from him. Is man to bee aunswerable vnto the [Page 40]Lorde of that which he neuer recey­ued? doth the Lorde require the vse of that tallent which hee neuer be­stowed? doth he laye that vpon any, whereof hee may haue iuste cause to complaine? when did hee impose a charge vpon any, vnto whom he gaue not gifts to discharge the same? now the charge of soules whiche he com­mitteth vnto anye, hee requireth at their handes vnto 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 vnto 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 vnto them, but it commeth iustly vpon them, in that they haue desperatly thrust thē ­seiues contrary vnto Gods reuealed [Page 41]will, vpon those men with the ouer­sight of whose soules God neuer tru­sted such as they are. The Lord sayth vnto them, intrude your seiues and you will, vnto the places of pastors, and so enforce me to bring heauy & swift damnation vpon you: but sure­ly I wil bequeath no soule vnto your custodye. They on the other side in their practise say, Lord whether thou committest vnto vs any charge of a­ny soule or no, wee care not, but ra­ther then wee shoulde not haue the meanes to liue in this life, (for this is their onely 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 vnto e­uerlasting wo and destruction.

The pretence that the Lord com­mitteth the chardge of soules vnto their ministery, and not vnto them, is first a desiring of that in question; (for they are denyed to haue any ministe­ry) and otherwise many wais vnsuffi­cient. 1 Because the Lord commit­teth [Page 42]not the charge of soules there, where the punishement of their de­struction cannot take holde, as it can not vpon the ministery: Act. 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 vnto 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 vpon men for this ministeriall work, ascribeth vers. 11.12▪ the gathering together of the sayntes, not vnto the giftes or fun­ctions, but vnto 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 haue no ministery, [Page 43]no pastorall or doctorall function, and so are no ministers: which con­clusiō also in the last edition of mine Exhortation vnto my countrimen, I haue 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 haue answered the reasons I haue nowe set downe to answere also, the 1.2.3. and 25. rea­son that I haue 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 vnto that which in the aforesaid trea­tise I haue set downē.

Nowe to the conclusion, If vnprea­ching ministers be no ministers, and if I cannot be assured to receiue a sa­crament, but onely 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 [Page 44]minister can deliuer a sacrament vn­to me: and therefore it is vnlawfull for me or any christian to go vnto an vnpreaching minister for the sacra­ments; if vnlawfull, then a sinne, if a sin, thē the godly are polluted which goe vnto them for the sacramentes: you know (M. Some) what I meane by an vnpreaching minister; namely, e­uery one learned or vnlearned, that cannot shewe him-selfe by the good trial of his gifts, to haue that fitnes to teach, whereof we read. 2. tim. 2.2.1. tim. 3.3. which ability the Lord doth not ordinarily bestowe vpon 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 [Page 45]to be apt to teach, who can bring no­thing into the pulpit, but that which other men haue 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 vnto 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 vs 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 [Page 46]presenting 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 haue 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 haue bene a sinne, anye more then it woulde be a sinne in them nowe to receiue the Lordes supper, if they coulde not haue bap­tisme. Baptisme they woulde haue, if they coulde orderlye come by the same. Because men will bee so iniuri­ous vnto them, as to denie them the comfort of baptisme which they can­not haue, should they denie to them­selues the comfort of the Lords sup­per [Page 47]which they may haue? Ye, but no vncircumcised might eate the pascall lambe. Exod. 12.48. True; But what shall we say vnto 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 euery 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 [Page 48]your booke. And the baptisme by vnpreaching ministers, must haue better prooffes then anye you haue 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 haue once already alledged this to prooue po­pish baptisme, page 20. I haue 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 [Page 49]by the corruptiō of the time, but perticularly limited vnto 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 vnto 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 [Page 50]of 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 [Page 51]popery, 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 vnto the elemēt, may minister a sacrament? it is not so. For Paul requireth the words of e­uery 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 eue­ry christian can ad the sum of Christs sermon vnto 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 haue twise repeated within one twelue lines, pag 24.25. and made two seuerall obiecti­ons thereof. That was an ouersight: [Page 52]The sufficiencie of the argument, I haue 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, vvhich 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 [Page 53]eyther 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 onely 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 vnto 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 vnto 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 vs see howe you haue proued the contrary.

Where the reader must againe be [Page 54]put in minde, that I you haue proo­ued nothing vnlesse the question bee graunted vnto 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 haue prooued, and not haue 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: [Page 55]Looke 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 haue 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 vs, of the latter wee know no substance it can haue. Of the former there is a nullitie onely in the sight of God; of the latter, both in re­spect of the Lorde and also of vs. 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 [Page 56]the 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. were wicked men, God woulde not haue such to be his ministers: hyther refer Isa. 1.13. but as they had the mi­nistery which God allowed of, they were ministers vnto 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. 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 [Page 57]priestes vnto 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. 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 [Page 58]any 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. 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 haue 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 vnder the new couenāt or shew that the corrupt aprobation, for so I name the best outwarde cal­ling they can haue 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

For 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 vpon 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. Thus Caiphas with his crue of vn­worthye and monstrous priests (who within a fewe pages, in your booke haue impudently so often troubled the reader) is answered. And I thinke it a great iudgment of God that the [Page 60]ornaments 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 haue 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 haue 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 [Page 61]magistrate, 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 haue 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 haue 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 [Page 62]hauing but an outward calling: because it is a sinne to communicate with them, whiche onely 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 haue 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 haue written, the latter I neuer did; & they doe my writinges great iniurie, that report the contrary.

Thus M. Some I haue run through the pointes in your booke that con­cerned me, I haue 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 haue not the like libertie for printing that you M. Some doe inioy. Let me but haue the fauor to bee iudicially heard according to the word, and I will personally vpon 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.