CHAP. 1. A DEFENCE OF SVCH points in R. SOMES last trea­tise, as M. Penry hath dealt against.

Before that I answere M. Penryes booke, I am to desire the godly Reader to consider weightily of this litle which followeth. My two first propositions which M. Penry dealeth against, are.

1. They which were baptized in the Popish Church by Popish Priestes, receiued true Baptisme, touching the substance of Baptisme.

2. They are the Sacraments of Baptisme and the holy Supper, which are deliuered in the Church of England by vnpreaching ministers.

YOu handle two needelesse pointes. First, that They which were baptized by Popish Priests &c. Secondly, that They are the Sacraments of Bap­tisme, &c. In these two pointes M. Some, you haue proued nothing that my writings haue denied.

I doe see as yet no difference betwene vs. If M. Penry denieth them not to be Sacraments which are administred by Popish priests & vnpreaching Ministers, hee can not deny Popish priests and vnpreaching Ministers to haue a calling, &c. For it is a rule in Diuinitie: Sa­cramentum [Page 54]nullum sine ministro, that is, No Sacra­ment without a minister. My thirde proposition which M. Penry censureth, is.

3 The godly are not polluted which receiue the Sa­crament at the handes of an vnpreaching Minister.

Paul communicated since his conuersion with those Priests that were as vnlearned as euer any. Which he would not haue done if inabilitie to teach had made them no Priestes.

Then in M. Penryes iudgement, the holy Apostle was not polluted by communicating with vnprea­ching Ministers. Can any man (if he haue but halfe an eye) suspect that M. Penry dissenteth from me in iudgement? What then may I thinke, against whom he hath written? Well, I must be content with the measure he offereth me. My comfort is, that he shall gaine, and I lose nothing by it. Yea, I assure my selfe by Gods grace that Gods Church shal gaine by this difference. Hee pretendeth great desire of a learned Ministerie: but his eagre defence of ignorāt Leuiti­call priests, bewrayeth him. If I had written so much for ignorant Ministers, the great bell had bene rung out before this. I should haue had it on both sides of mine eares. I haue dealt very earnestly and humbly by writings and speache for a learned Ministerie. I haue receiued very comfortable answere of very great and honourable personages: who haue alrea­die (thankes be to God) employed some, and will, I doubt not, employ more in the Churches seruice. The Lord increase that blessing for his Christs sake. [Page 55]The marke, I feare, which M. Penry leauels at, is, sim­ply to condemne the outwarde calling of the Mini­sters in our Church: and so to shake hands with the Anabaptisticall Recusants. Though he hit not that white, hee will hardly misse that Butte. If hee bee throughly searched, it is not vnlike to fall out so. Some part of his writings looke shrewdly that way.

CHAP. 2. ALMIGHTIE GOD NEVER called any to the holy ministerie, either in the olde or newe Testament, but he furnished them with giftes fitte for that holy function.

THE Israelites liued in slauerie and drudgerie in Egypt. They were as rude & grosse as might be. When the Lord would make his Taberna­cle, he furnished Bezaleel & Aholiab of the tribes of Iuda & Dan, for that excellent worke. He gaue them skill in working all kind of broiderie, Exo. 31. & 36. chap. When Salomons Temple should be built, Almightie God furnished Hiram of Tyrus for that stately worke, 1. Kin. 7. If Al­mightie God; for the framing and building of the Tabernacle and Temple, which were figures of the Church, did so excellently beautifie Bezaleel, Aholi­ab and Hiram: it is great wickednesse to thinke, that his Maiestie did euer send any vnfurnished to build his spirituall Tabernacle and Temple, which is his spouse, bodie, Citie, &c.

When the Lord commaunded Aaron, Eleazar, [Page 56]&c. to be consecrated his Priests, and consequently to teach, to pray for the Israelites, and to offer sacri­fices, (in which three branches, the Priests office consisted) he furnished them with excellent furni­ture for that honourable seruice. The words of God himselfe are cleare for this: My couenant was with Le­ui of life and peace, and I gaue him feare, and he feared me, and was afraide before my Name. The Lawe of trueth was in his mouth, and there was no iniquitie found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equitie, and did turne ma­ny away from iniquitie. Mal. 2.

It is a positiue law of Almightie God: The Priests lips shall keepe knowledge, &c. Mal. 2. It is a Canon of the Apostle: A minister must be apt to teach, 1. Tim. 3. If Almightie God had by any warrant of his, com­mended the Israelites heretofore to the charge of ignorant Leuites, or his Church since to ignorant ministers, he had broken a statute lawe and Canon of his owne, and had bin greatly touched in honor.

Those Leuiticall priests were sent of God, and pa­stors according to his heart, which were able to feede Gods people with knowledge and vnder­standing, Iere. 3.

Those Leuitical priests which were vnfit to teach, were neuer of Gods sending, though they were of the line of Aaron. Almightie God disclaimes them in these wordes: My people are destroyed for lacke of knowledge: because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me, Hose. 4.

Esay was a famous man for birth and eloquence. Before that hee was sent to denounce and deliuer Gods iudgements and mercies to Ierusalem and Iu­da &c, the Lorde did singularly furnish him with [Page 57]knowledge, speach, courage &c. Esa. 6. and 50. Chap.

Ieremy was an excellent Prophet. When the Lord would vse his seruice, he touched his mouth, furni­shed his heart, &c. Iere. 1. In like sort dealt Almigh­tie God with Micheas: he made him a complete man, Mich. 3.

Elizeus attended on the plough, 1. Kin. 19. Amos on the herde, Amos 1. and 7. Chap. The Lorde did not vse the ministerie of Elizeus and Amos, vntil he had furnished them with skill, wisedome, courage, &c.

Our Sauiour Christ did not send any vniuersitie men at the first to preach the Gospel, least the con­uersion of men should be attributed to learning and eloquence. He called rude and base men from their occupatiōs to be his Apostles. Before he sent them to be his trumpets, & to deliuer his message, he cast them (as it were) into a newe molde, he gaue them speciall furniture, Iohn 20. Act. 2. If the Lorde Iesus had not dealt thus with them, how could they haue acquited themselues in preaching and disputation as they did? for they attended before, on fishing and other trades.

Saint Paul setting out in orient colours, the lar­gesse and bountie of our Sauiour Christ to his Church after his Ascension, hath these wordes: He gaue some to bee Apostles, and some Prophets, and some E­uangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, for the gathe­ring together of the Saints, for the worke of the ministerie, and for the edification of the body of Christ, Eph. 4. If these here mentioned had bin vnfurnished: First, Christs gift had beene no benefite, but a burthen. Second­ly, how shoulde the Saints haue bene gathered, his body built, his sheepe fed, his spouse garnished?

Those Princes and Captaines which send vnskil­full Ambassadours & vntrained souldiers on ambas­sade and warfare, doe greatly stayne and dishonour themselues. Almightie God, which is the greatest Prince and most valiant Captaine, did neuer fault in this. If he had, hee had giuen his glory and the Church a grieuous blowe. I confesse, God giues not to all his seruants, like furniture. Some haue ten, some, fiue: some, two: some, one talent, which talēts must neither be buried in the earth, nor wrap­ped in a napkin. If they be vsed, they will multiplie as the loaues in the Gospel. They which cannot feede with manchet, must feede with barlie bread. Rammes skinnes & goates haire were amongst the holy offrings, as well as gold, siluer, brasse, pur­ple, &c. Exod. 25.

If none are called by almightie God to the holy ministerie, but such as he hath furnished with giftes in some measure: it is the duety of the ciuill and ec­clesiasticall magistrates to prouide, that ignorant men which are not acquainted with Gods booke, be kept and thrust out of the holy ministerie, vnlesse they will be partakers of great sinnes, and conse­quently of great plagues. A sufficient teacher is a rare blessing: for he setteth the Lords plough for­ward, and is Gods hand to deliuer heauenly trea­sures. If good care shall be had by our Prince, our Bishops, our Patrons, to goe on in aduancing and making choise of such both gouernors and pastors: Gods religion, Church, Vniuersities, will flourish more notably, and consequently Gods glory: our gracious Prince shall be more soundly honoured: the people of the land shall be singularly encoura­ged [Page 59]to serue God, to fight for the religion, for their Prince, for their countrey, against any, either for­raine or home enemie: and Gods fauour and bles­sings shall be multiplied vpon our Queene, vpon vs, and vpon our posteritie. Almightie God will ac­cept this at our hands for great thankfulnes for his late mercy in preseruing the English both fleet and nation, and amazing & dispersing the popish fleet, by his mighty hand. This gracious and notable fa­uour of God hath danted Gods & our enemies in al popish kingdomes and churches: and hath put life into Gods seruants, in all nations & Churches that professe the religion. The Lord for his Christes sake graunt, that we may be reuerently mindfull of, and humbly thankfull to his maiestie for this deliue­rance. And, that as in the time of danger, we vsed the 83. and 68. psalmes, to entreate Gods fauour: so we may euer sing the 124. and 46. psalmes, to publish Gods mercie, and to testifie our thankfulnes for this gracious conquest.

CHAP. 3. ALMIGHTIE GOD NEVER called any to Magistracie, but hee furnished them accordingly.

THe Egyptians were harde masters to the Israelites. They kept them very short in Egypt. When almighty God would blesse the Israelites w ^t freedom and gouernment, he furnished Moses notably for that excellent seruice. He gaue him sin­guler [Page 60]wisedome, courage, &c. If he had not, Moses had bene vtterly vnfit for such a famous match.

Moses complained vnto the Lorde, that hee alone was not able to gouerne the Israelites. Almightie God, for the ease of Moses appointed 70. Elders of Israel to help in that gouernment. That those Anci­ents might cary thēselues profitably in that charge, the Lord did garnish them accordingly. Num. 11.

Moses before his death, desired the Lorde to ap­point one to succeede him in the gouernment, that the Israelites might not be as sheepe without a shep­heard, Num. 27. Gods pleasure was that Iosua should be the man, Deut. 34. He did so assist and furnish him with the feare of God, with the spirit of wisedome, courage, &c. that he became very famous, in peace, in warre, at, and after his dying day.

The Church & common wealth of the Israelites, decayed greatly, & were at a low ebbe in king Sauls time. That both Church and cōmon wealth might be reuiued, the Lord aduanced his seruant Dauid to the kingdome. He did beautifie him with extraordi­nary graces, as with precious Diamonds. Dauid was very religious, very wise, very valiant: very religi­ous, for hee brought home the Lordes Arke: very wise, for his royal throne was a seate of Iustice: very valiant, for he vanquished many enemies.

Salomō succeeded his father Dauid in the gouern­ment of the Israelites. That he might cary himselfe accordingly in that great charge, he desired and ob­tained at Gods hands, a wise and vnderstanding heart. 1. King 3.

Shebna was a great officer in Ezechias Court. His course was cunning and dangerous to the common [Page 61]wealth of Iuda. Almightie God coulde not beare him, therefore sent a notable vengeance vpon him. In his steade, Eliakim was appointed vnder the King of Iuda: A man singularly furnished by the Lord, for he was a father of the inhabitants of Ierusalem, and of the house of Iuda. Esay 22.

Ioseph was aduanced in Egypt: Nehemias in Persia: Daniel in Chaldea. They dealt excellently in their gouernment: for, almightie God did notable fur­nish them.

Gedeon was a very meane man: he attended on the flaile. In his time the Madianites were heauie to the Israelites. 7. yeeres. That the Lord might deliuer his people from the tyrannie of the Madianites, he fur­nished Gedeon for that seruice in extraordinary sort. Iudg. 6. and 7. chap. There were in Gedeon which ought to be in euery Captaine both by sea and land, Scien­tia rei militaris, virtus, authoritas, faelicitas. Cic. pro lege Manil. That is, skil in warlike affaires, vertue, autho­ritie, felicitie.

They which are inwardly called to the Magistra­cie, are such as are furnished by the Lord with good parts for that weighty function. They are not bram­bles, as Abimelech was, nor sots, as Maximinus was, nor fooles, as Candaules was. They are vine, figge, oliue trees, as Dauid, Ezechias, Iosaphat, Constantinus were. These are such Magistrates in whom God de­lighteth, and which are best welcome to Gods peo­ple: for, they are rare ornaments both of Church and common wealth. God increase the number of such in this lande, that both Church and common wealth, may shine continually as starres at home, abroade, &c. to the glory of God, the honour of the [Page 62]Prince, the terrour of the enemie, and the comfort of the English nation.

CHAP. 4. THE READING OF THE holy Scripture doth edifie.

MOses commaunded the Priests in this sort, &c. When all Israel shall come to ap­peare before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall chuse, thou shalt reade this lawe before all Israel, that they may heare it. Gather the people together: men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may heare, and that they may learne, and feare the Lord your God, and keepe, and obserue all the wordes of this law. And that their children which haue not knowen it, may heare it, and learne to feare the Lord your God, &c. Deut. 31. I gather my argument out of this place thus. By reading of the lawe of God, the Is­raelites did learne and feare God: therefore they were edified. If you reply that all the Israelites did not profite by this reading, I answere, no more did all profit by the preaching of the Prophets, of Christ and the Apostles. The fault was not in the seed, but in the ground. Vnlesse Gods spirit touch our hearts, as the worde doeth pearce our eares, Gods truth ei­ther read or preached is a shut booke, and as a sealed letter vnto vs.

When hee shall sit vpon the throne of his kingdome, then shall he write him this lawe repeated in a booke, by the Priests of the Leuites. And it shall be with him, and he shall [Page 63]reade therein all dayes of his life, that hee may learne to feare the Lorde his God, and to keepe all the woordes of this lawe, and these ordinances, for to doe them: That his heart be not lifted vp aboue his brethren, and that hee turne not from the commandement, to the right hand or to the left, but that he may prolong his dayes in his kingdome, hee, and his sonnes in the middes of Israel. Deut. 17. I frame my argument thus. The king is commaunded to reade the lawe of God, that hee may learne to feare God, and decline pride: therefore the reading of the law of God doth edifie.

In king Iosias time, the booke of the lawe was found by Hilkiah the Priest. This booke was read in the Lordes house. The king was present: so were all the men of Iuda, & the inhabitants of Ierusalem, and the Priests, and the Leuites, and all the people from the greatest to the smallest, &c. 2. Chron. 34. I make my argument thus. The booke of the lawe was not read in vaine in the Lordes house, &c. 2. Kings 22. therefore it did edifie.

All the wordes of my mouth are righteous, there is no lewdnesse, nor frowardnesse in them. They are all plaine to him that will vnderstande, and streight to them that would find knowledge. Prou. 8. Therefore the holy Scriptures both read and preached, doe edifie. His salubriter, praua corriguntur, paruanutriuntur, magna oblectantur ingenia. Aug. Epist. 3. The holy Scripture hath in it, milke for babes, and stronger meate for them that are of age. Heb. 5. The holy Scripture, is a shallowe water, where in the lambe may wade, and a great sea, wherein the Elephant may swimme.

The Lawe and the Prophets were read in the Churches of Antiochia, and Ierusalem. Act. 13. and in [Page 64] Nazareth. Luke 4. If the reading of the holy Scrip­tures doe not edifie, why were the law and Prophets read in the Temple and Synagogues?

The Apostle writeth thus to the pastours and people of Colosse: Let the worde of Christ dwell in you plenteously, &c. Coloss. 3. Therefore Gods people are not to be barred from the reading of the holy Scrip­ture. If it doeth not edifie, they were iustly barred by the Popish Cleargie.

Victorinus was an Oratour in Rome. By reading the Scriptures he became a Christian: Mirante Ro­ma, gaudente ecclesia: that is, Rome marueyled at Vic­torinus conuersion: Gods Church was glad of it. Aug. Confess. lib. 8. cap. 2.

Gods speach vnto vs, I am sure, doth edifie: when the Scriptures are read, God speaketh vnto vs. The holy Scriptures are Dei Epistola. &c. that is, Gods E­pistle vnto vs.

By reading the Scriptures, Gods people do more easily receiue Gods holy truth, and espie Popish ab­surdities and Anabaptisticall fancies.

They which mislike the reading of the scriptures, are Zwingfildians, that is, absurde heretikes. What then is master Penry, which writeth that the worde barely read, and to no other purpose then to edifie by reading, is not wholesome doctrine?

If any shall gather of this I haue set downe, that I am an enemie to the preaching of the word, hee de­serueth no answere. My iudgement is: If the rea­ding of the holy scriptures doeth edifie, that sounde preaching doeth edifie much more. By sound prea­ching, I vnderstand the giuing of the true sense of the scripture, and applying it to the profite of the [Page 65]auditours. Thus did Ezra, Christ, the Apostles, preach. This course, I am sure, doeth highly please God, and bringeth many sheepe into the Lordes folde. The Lorde increase the number of such tea­chers, that Gods religion may flourish as Aarons rod did, and that Popish and Anabaptisticall errours may be deuoured as the roddes of the Egyptian sor­cerers were.

CHAP. 5. A DEFENCE OF THAT which hath bene written in the questions of the ignorant ministe­rie and the communicating with them:

By IOHN PENRY.

THere be two things (M. D. SOME) wherein you by oppugning that trueth, which out of the worde of God I had set downe, concerning the two former questions, haue bene wanting both vnto your selfe and to the cause: the defence whereof you vnder­tooke. The former want of the two, appeareth by your spare dealing in a matter of such great weight: wherin you haue dealt with so illiberal a hand, that what hath bene writ­ten by you, might seeme to proceede rather from any then from a man whose gifts and learning seemed to promise the affording of greater and more weightie matters, then any set downe in that treatise.

Your beginning is full of courage. I do not won­der at it. He that runneth alone, is alwayes formost. You accuse me to withstande Gods trueth. A sore charge. If true, I must reuerse my iudgement: if vn­true, [Page 66]true, you haue dealt iniuriously with me. When Ioas was aduanced to the Imperiall Crowne of Iuda, A­thalia cried, Treason, Treason. 2. Chron. 23. A hard speach against king Ioas, Iehoiada, &c. But Athalia her selfe was the Traitour. You shall apply this. I haue dealt, you say, verie sparingly in a matter of great importance. If I haue so, your aduantage is greater. If the seede sowen in my booke, were like yours, I might be iustly thought to bee verie prodigall. My treatise, I perceiue, is not for your tooth: it is simple in your eye. Aquila non capit muscas. It hath pleased many, I thanke God, of excellent learning and wise­dome to like of it: That is my comfort. Instar mille, Platonis calculus. I make very meane account, as yet, of your iudgement. You are not read, you are to seeke in the principles of diuinitie, you haue bro­ched grosse errours, you know not your ignorance. For that knowledge which Almightie God hath gi­uen me, I thanke his Maiestie verie humbly. It is more, I confesse, then I am worthie of. God giue me grace to vse it to his glorie.

The number of my reasons were many: you onely haue touched two of them, the rest are not dealt with. And therefore the cause as yet remai­neth whole. For, be it you had answered these two as you haue not, yet had you not satisfied the doubtfull conscience of those, that know not in these points which way to turne them, as long as any one of my reasons remayned vnanswered.

Your reasons, I confesse, haue number: but they want weight. I haue confuted three of them. The first of the three, is accompted by you a pillar of marble. But I haue not, you say, dealt with the rest. Content yourselfe: I haue made no fault. I answered [Page 67]such and so many, as were deliuered to me by some of your faction. When I had finished my treatise, your booke was brought me: before, I knew not that you were the father of them. You denie that I haue answered any of your reasons. It is easie to say so, and you might worst haue sayde it. A partie is vnfit to be a Iudge. Your reasons are all of one stampe: therefore the ouerthrow of the principall, is the o­uerthrow of all. Your followers vvhich knowe not which way to turne them, may thanke both you and themselues: you, for sowing: themselues, for reaping such giddie fancies. It is an easie thing to leade and fall into an Anabaptisticall maze. They will not bee satisfied, you say, before euery one of your reasons bee answered. A peremptorie resolu­tion. They are pinned be like on your sleeue. I hope wee shall not haue a Pythagoras of you. Woulde you haue your boisterous speech go for an Oracle, and cary all as a violent streame before it? God forbid. It were a hard case. I trust you desire it not. If you doe, you are not like to haue it.

In this point there is also another want, which I would had beene re­dressed. And that is of two sortes. First, a manifest going from the con­trouersie: for the question being, whether ignorant men, not ordeyned of God for the gathering together of the Saintes, bee ministers or no: you leaue that, and proue the Sacraments administred by them, viz. by popish priests, & our dumbe ministers, in the dayes of blindnes and ignorance, to be sacraments, which is no part of the matter in controuersie, but an o­ther point to be discussed (if men will be gotten at all to enter thereunto) when the former is determined and decided.

Your speeches are very idle. I swarue not one iot from the cause I dealt in. For proofe of this, consi­der what I write. Certaine in London gaue out in my [Page 68]hearing: first, that such as were baptized by Popish Priests in the Popish Church, and by vnpreaching ministers in our Church, receiued no baptisme: Se­condly, that the Godly were polluted, which recey­ued any Sacrament at the hands of vnpreaching mi­nisters. To heale these sores, I was desired to pro­uide a plaister. I did so, and God hath giuen a good blessing vnto it. All this time your booke was as great a stranger to me, as it is nowe to the Duke of Medina. What say you M. Penry? Haue I faulted as you imagine? Had you any the least cause so rough­ly to seaze vpon me, and to charge me with going from the point? Bee iudge your selfe: yea, I refuse not the iudgement of your disciples, if they haue a­ny dramme of equitie in them.

Secondly, your reasons are so fewe, and so commonly knowen vnto al, that for their number a small deale of paper might conteyne an answere vnto them: for their noueltie, they could not put a man that had accor­ding vnto knowledge, but once allowed of the cause, to any great labour in answering them. As being things so commonly obiected by al, learned or vnlearned, that hold our readers to be ministers, and thinke it lawfull to communicate with them, as by course of speech they fall vnto that dis­course, where all 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 bee taken in hand by any, who could not answere the reasons which he might be sure would be ob­iected by all. And who could bee ignorant, that the odious controuersie, concerning the profanation of baptisme, both by Popish Priestes, and our dumbe Ministers, would offer it selfe in the forefront to withstande the trueth? that the ciuill Magistracie, the ministerie of the dumbe Le­uites, the corrupt outwarde calling of our readers woulde require an an­swere, which are the reasons, and the onely reasons vsed by you.

If my arguments be fewe, I haue done you plea­sure: for they are sooner answered. They haue, you say, no noueltie: I like them the better: for they are [Page 69]as I desired. If they bee not for your diet, I doe not passe: my thought is taken. If nothing were good or bad, but that which you like or mislike, precious pearles should go for tile sherdes, and pebble stones for Diamonds. Tichonius a Donatist said of himselfe and his fellowes: Quod volumus, sanctum est. Your musicke, I hope, is not like his. If it bee, you are too imperiall: You will not be abidden. What, and how weake my reasons are, must bee decided hereafter: for, your wordes are no arguments. If my reasons were sutable to your answeres, they were very wo­full. Your odious speech that I withstand the trueth, is vsed often: it is a speciall flowre in your booke. This course hurts you and not me. It hurts you: for it bewrayes your humour. It hurts not me: for your tongue cannot disgrace me.

The last want I finde in you, is conteyned in the insufficiencie of your reasons, which euidently shewe the insufficiencie of the conclusion, that would be inferred by them. Your reasons are all of them faultie, either be­cause they desire that for graunted which is the question, or make those things of like nature, wherein there is a great dissimilitude. From the first of the two faults it commeth to passe, that you take for graunted, that the writings of reuerend and godly men, as of Augustine, M. Beza, &c. will proue that which the worde of the eternall God doth not warrant. Hence you take it granted, that Popish Priests were ministers: that the outward approbation of the Church, maketh a Minister: that, whensoeuer the word of institution is pronounced with the outwarde element, there must pre­sently be a Sacrament: that, I take an euill Minister for no Minister: that, there was a nullitie both of Caiphas ministerie, because he came in by bri­berie, and of the litigious Ministers in the Church of Philippi, &c. Howso­euer you take those things as graunted principles, yet they are the poynts in controuersie, and so farre from being yeelded vnto by me, that I haue shewed euery one of them to be manifestly false.

You finde many faults. You are a hard man: you couer none. Moates with you are beames, and mol­hils [Page 70]mountaines: yea, no moates and no molhils are beames and mountaines, if they appeare at your barre. It pleaseth you to giue out that all my reasons are faultie. If you meane in your eye, I doe easily graūt it: If you meane in the eye of the learned, you mistake the matter. But what are the faultes which you pursue so hotly? Forsooth, I take that, you say, for graunted, which is the question: viz. that Popish priests were ministers: that whensoeuer the word of institution is added to the element, there is a Sacra­ment: and that such a thing is thus and so, because Augustine and Beza write so. Your tongue is no slan­der. Did I euer say or write that Popish priestes had a lawfull calling? I haue written (I confesse) that Po­pish priests haue a calling, though a faultie one. Of this iudgemēt are Beza, Caluin, the reformed Chur­ches: But all these are wide of the Butte: onely you do hit the white: you wil teach them. Sus Mineruam. It becōmeth not the house. Did I euer say or write, that whensoeuer the worde of Institution is added to the elemēt, there must presently be a Sacrament? There is no sillable in my treatise, that lookes that way. You imagine I say so: and of this absurd con­ceite, you conclude that priuate men, children, wo­men, idiots (in my iudgemēt) may administer a Sa­cramēt. You pretend great sinceritie: but your dea­ling with me in this and some other points, is nei­ther honest nor scholerlike. It shall appeare so by Gods grace in this booke. These particulars, & that of Caiphas priesthood, and of the contentious mini­sters of Philippi, shall be handled in their seuerall places.

[Page 71]

The dissimilitude is in the reasons drawen from the Leuiticall priest­hood, and the ciuill magistracie: with whom if you compare the ministe­rie of the new couenant, you shall finde, first, that you bring in a similitude to shewe that which is not proued: and secondly, that you make those to be twinnes, which all men must needes graunt to be as vnlike, as crooked and straight lines are vnmatchable.

My second fault is, as you say, in drawing an Ar­gument from the Leuiticall priesthood to the mini­sterie of the newe Testament. Is this a fault? no, no: the fault is in your eye, not in my pen: but, why may I not drawe an argument, as I did from the Leuiti­tical priesthood, to the ministerie of the new Testa­ment? Your reason is: the Leuiticall priesthood and the ministerie of the new Testament are not twins, are vnmatchable, they cānot stand together: there­fore a reason cannot be drawen from the one to the other. You take this, I am sure, to be an inuincible argument: but it is as strong as a rope of sand. I de­nie your argument. My reasons are: first, Aaron did not take the priesthood vpō him before he was cal­led: therefore none in our time, may enter into the ministerie, vnlesse he be called. This argument is grounded vpon these words of the Apostle: No man taketh this honour vnto himselfe, but hee that is called of God as Aaron. Heb. 5. Secondly, the Leuiticall priests ought to be furnished with knowledge, therefore the ministers of the new Testament &c. The ground of this reason is set downe by the Prophet Malachi in this sort: The priests lippes shal preserue knowledge, and they shall seeke the Lawe at his mouth: for he is the messen­ger of the Lord of Hostes. Mal. 2. You see nowe, I hope, that an argument may be framed from the Leuiti­call [Page 72]priesthood to the ministerie of the newe Testa­ment: if you doe not, you are starke blind: if you do, confesse your ignorance. Thirdly, the ministerie of death and condemnation, and the ministerie of the spirite and righteousnesse: that which should be a­bolished, and that which remaineth, are things ve­ry farre and greatly different: yet an argument may be drawē from the one to the other in this sort. The lawe which was the ministerie of death, of condem­nation, and which should be abolished, was glori­ous: therefore the Gospel which is the ministerie of the spirite and righteousnes, and which remaineth, is more glorious. This argument is, as the Logici­ans call it, à comparatis: and is soundly gathered out of these wordes of the holy Apostle: If the ministra­tion of death was glorious, how shall not the ministration of the spirit be more glorious? If the ministerie of condemna­tion was glorious, much more doth the ministration of righteousnes exceede in glory: if that which should be abo­lished was glorious, much more shall that which remaineth be glorious. 2. Cor. 3. What say you nowe master Pen­ry? doe you not perceiue by this I haue set downe, that an argument may be drawen very aptly from one thing to another, wherein there is great dissimi­litude: which are not twinnes, which are vnmatche­able? if you doe, be wiser hereafter in the name of God. Whether an argument may be drawen from the ciuill magistracie, shall appeare in an other place.

And thus much I thought needefull generally to set downe concerning your maner of dealing: not that I woulde any way disgrace you, whom I reuerence: for that is no part of mine intent, the Lord is my witnesse. Nay I would be loth to let that fillable escape mee, that might giue you, or any [Page 73]the least occasiō in the world, to thinke that I cary any other heart to­wards you, then I ought to beare towards a reuerent learned man fearing God. And howsoeuer, vnlesse you alter your iudgement, I can neuer a­gree with you in these points, because I am assured, you swarue from the trueth: Yet this disagreement shall be so farre from making a breach of that bond of loue, wherewith in the Lord I am tyed vnto you, that I doubt not, but wee shall be at one in that day, when all of vs shall be at vnitie in him that remaineth one and the selfe same for euer.

It is gently done of you: when you haue broken my head, you giue me a plaister: but I refuse your surge­rie. You wil not, you say, disgrace me: You reuerēce me: Good words. A foule hooke vnder a faire bait. If you reuerēce your friends on this fashion, what shal your enemies looke for? Philippides cudgelled his owne father. A mōstrous sonne. Being asked why he did so, his answer was: he did it for loue: strāge loue. I will accompt somewhat better of your reuerence. If I swarue from the trueth, as you assure your selfe, you haue great reason to dissent from me: Gods trueth must be preferred: It is more excellent then any creature: but if I haue any learning, you doe toto coelo errare. You are strangely wide: for, you haue set downe absurd errours for cleare trueths, and haue condemned sure points of diuinitie for grosse errours. I see litle hope of agreement betweene you and me in these particulars. I am resolute in my iudgement: if you be so in yours, I am sory for you. God giue you an other minde.

CHAP. 6.

NOwe I am to come to your booke: from the 20. page whereof vnto the 28. laying the foundation of the reasons you vse against me, to proue the lawfulnesse of communicating with dumbe ministers, you han­dle two needelesse points. First, that they which were baptized by popish priests, haue receiued true baptis­me as touching the substance. Secondly, that they are the Sacraments of baptisme, and the holy Supper of the Lord, which are deliuered in the Church of England by vnpreaching ministers. In these two points, M. Some, you haue proued nothing that my writings haue denied: but you haue quickened a dead controuersie, not vnlikely to giue the wrangling spirits of this age, cause to breede greater sturres in the Church. I see no other effect, which the handling of these questions can bring foorth but this. And it is to be feared that the slendernes of the rea­sons vsed in your booke, to proue that which you haue vndertaken to shew, will giue occasion vnto many, who of themselues are too too ready to iangle, to doubt of that whereof before they made no question. So that by seeking to stay the course of a needeful controuersie, you haue both giuen it a larger passage, and opened the doore vnto a question very fruitlesse in our time. You knowe I deale in neither of these pointes. If you cannot be stayed from entring into controuersies that are very odious, and more im­pertinent vnto the matter in hande: it were good that the Church were further and more soundly satisfied by you in these two points, which you alone in our Church haue publiquely called in question. And for mine owne part, when you haue done, I knowe not who will be your aduersarie. I see no reason why I shoulde deale in controuersies of so small gaine. Of this I am assured, that neither Popish priestes, nor any other ignorant guides are Ministers. Whether the Element administred by them, be a Sa­cramēt or no, looke you to that, which haue in your Treatise debated that, which my writings neuer called into question. If you will needes proue readers to be Ministers, because you cannot get mee to denie that which hath bene administred to be a Sacrament, you shall but presse that which will proue nothing. Your reason is, as if you should say, that either all they which supplie the places of ministers are ministers, or els an inconueni­ence is likely to followe. A strange maner of demonstration: Gods ordi­nance must needes be thrust out of the doores, because an inconuenience would be likely to ensue the admitting of it. The cause will not be thus an­swered at your hands, and I am sory that a man so reuerend 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 end of the booke I haue further shewed the same: thither I am to referre you and the reader.

[Page 75]

You are come at the last to my treatise. In Gods name. You giue out that I dealt in two needelesse points. Not so, by your leaue: for some in London and other places, being seduced by vnskilfull tea­chers, denied them both. You do not so, your words are as cleare as the day, and are these: In these two poyntes M. Some &c. you haue proued nothing that my writings haue denied. I thanke you for this. You are nowe in a very good moode: but you will not be so long. Virtutes latere nō possunt. Ful vessels wil burst, if they haue not a vent. If you deny not that true bap­tisme was deliuered by popish priestes and vnprea­ching ministers, you cannot deny popish priestes and vnpreaching ministers to haue a calling. My reason is: Nullum Sacramentum sine ministro: that is, No Sacrament without a minister. The wrangling spirits you write of, are the more because of your ab­surde writings: but they are not so many, thankes be to God, as you imagine. They which are so for­warde in iangling of these points, are either of your humour, which is very bad, or Anabaptisticall recu­sants, which is somewhat worse. You adde these words, A strange manner of demonstration &c. They do proclaime your ignorance: they doe not answere my reason. I perceiue an argument ab absurdo, is a pille that will not downe with you. The slendernes of my reasons is repeated by you euery handwhile. It is like the Cuckoes song. It pleaseth you againe to reuerence me. You are at more cost then I would haue you. This reuerence is either a burden or a be­nefit. If a burden, lade some other with it: If a bene­fit, beneficium non datur inuito, I will none of it.

[Page 76]

Nowe I coulde well ouerpasse these two pointes, because of themselues they contayne nothing that I haue withstoode: but in as much as you haue not onely grounded them vpon false principles, and such as in no wise can be warranted by the Canon of the worde, but also inferre vpon their graunt, 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, which in deede is and ought to bee decided betweene you and me concerning the Element administred both by popish priestes, and o­ther vnpreaching ministers: and secondly to examine the grounds where­by you prooue the Element already deliuered by them to be a sacrament, which you knowe I doe not deny to be so.

Because I haue an ill memory, you tell me againe and againe, that you deny not the sixth and seuenth proposition of my treatise. It is well done of you. I would you woulde keepe you there. Onely you mislike the foundatiō I built on, and some conse­quents. I am sory for your heauinesse. My grounds, you say, shalbe examined. Spare them not. Arraigne them if you will. But what shall I reason of, or looke for at your hands? To be acquited? no hope of that. To be condemned? It is certaine: for, it hath plea­sed you to giue sentence before examination. Harde dealing: but I must abide it.

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 hands. I affirme that wee cannot: M. Some taketh it graunted that we may. My warrant is out of the worde, because there is no promise made to vs therein, that the action celebrated by such men, is a Sacramentall action: and where there is no promise, there can be no assurance, because our assurance ariseth onely of faith, which must be grounded vpon the promises sette downe in the worde. We haue 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, neither doe we knowe what he can deliuer which is no mi­nister.

[Page 77]

No maruaile though you dissent from me. Conue­niet nulli, qui secum &c. You are at warre with your selfe. Your wordes agree like harpe and harrowe. One while, you denie not that popish priestes and vnpreaching ministers haue deliuered a sacrament: An other while you knowe not what they can deli­uer: for, they are, as you say, no ministers. To that ende you depraue Christs speech in S. Matthew &c. What dealing is this? Sacrament, and no Sacra­ment, and all with one breath? What? can such as are no ministers, deliuer a Sacrament? If you say, No: then popish Priestes & vnpreaching ministers, neither haue nor can deliuer a Sacrament: for they are, as you say, no ministers, that is, they haue no calling at all. Your disciples are fit vessels to receiue any liquor of yours: but men of learning and wise­dome, are otherwise affected. They see clearely, that your dealing is absurde and dangerous. Absurde: for it is voyde of trueth. Dangerous: for it woulde breede confusion. The magistrates, thankes bee to God, neither doe nor will suffer this bad course of yours. If they should, fancies woulde (as weedes) growe too too fast, and this noble land shoulde re­ceiue more hurt then your head is worth. I doubt not of their godly wisdome. The miserable estate of Germanie heretofore, by reason of Sectaries, may and will awake them. If you be restrained for your grosse errours, as some other are very iustly: you may not cry, persecution, persecution: your note must be poena perfidiae, that is, that you are iustly met with. Otherwise you sing out of tune.

[Page 78]

So that the question is now growen to this issue, Whether Popish priests and our vnpreaching Ministers, be Ministers or no: whom if I can proue to bee 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 belonging vnto both the pointes handled by you, the particulers whereof shall follow in their places.

If you can proue that, I will commende and pre­ferre you before Martyr, Bucer, Caluine, Beza, and o­ther very famous men and Churches. Yea, I will de­nie her Maiestie and a great number of her excel­lent subiects to bee baptized, which I am sure are baptized. The marke you leuell at, is (as I take it) ei­ther to send many thousands to the Font againe, or to make them guiltie of contempt of Baptisme. One of these two must needes fall out, if Popish priestes, and vnpreaching Ministers (without any calling) did administer a Sacrament. You may leuell and le­uell againe at this marke: but you shall neuer hit it. The Bowe you shoote in, is too strong: and your armes are very weake. Besides, you would faine haue me confesse that either Popish priests and ignorant Ministers, are lawfull and good Ministers of God: or that no Sacrament was or is deliuered by them. I will graunt you neither. Not the first, for I abhorre that defence: Not the second, for I detest your Ana­baptisticall fancies. The next thing you deale in, is, that neither Popish priestes nor vnpreaching Mini­sters are ministers. In which Treatise you bewray in­tollerable both pride and ignorance. What I like or mislike in that discourse, appeareth in the end of this booke. Thither I referre you. I will now set downe that part of my Treatise which you fight against.

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

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

Nowe to the examination of your reason brought to prooue that they which were baptized in Poperie, haue receiued true baptisme. Your con­clusion, you must remember, I doe not denie, though your reason proueth not the same, which is thus framed. Whosoeuer deliuer Gods baptisme, they deliuer true baptisme: But Popish priestes deliuer Gods baptisme, therefore true baptisme. You haue changed the conclusion from that which was done, vnto that which is done: But this ouersight I omit. The assumption you proue thus: Whosoeuer baptize in the name not of Pope or Idols, but of the holy Trinitie, they deliuer Gods baptisme: but Popish priestes doe baptize in the name of the holy Trinitie, therefore they de­liuer Gods baptisme. Your proposition in this last Sillogisme is most false, and such as vpon the grant whereof, not onely the communicating with vnpreaching ministers might be aduouched, but also Gods whole ordinance in the institution of his holy Sacraments quite ouerthrowen. For if it were true, that there were no more required to make substantiall baptisme (as you here require no more) but to baptize in the name of the Trinitie: then these impious absurdities would followe thereof. 1 That an Amalekite might deliuer true circumcision, as touching the substance. 2 That true baptisme might be administred vnto a substance not capable of baptisme: But this odious instance I will not vrge. 3. That a woman, 4. That any man not being a Minister, as a childe of fiue yeeres olde, a Turke, or Iewe, might deliuer true baptisme as touching the substance. For [Page 80]these pronouncing the words of Institution, might retaine, by your reason the essentiall forme of Christs baptisme, and so to vse your owne wordes, they baptizing not in the name of Pope or of Idols, but of the holy Trini­tie, should deliuer Gods baptisme and not mans? If Gods baptisme, then true baptisme I am sure: in like maner, by this reason they should be Ca­tabaptists, which denie men to be rightly baptized by Turkes or women.

You denie not my conclusion. I must you say re­member it. You haue sung this song very often. It needed not. A worde had bene ynough if it had so pleased you. You tell me, You wil omit an ouersight of mine. You deserue no thankes for this courtesie: therefore I will giue you none. But what I beseeche you is my ouersight? Forsooth, I doe accompt it as true baptisme, which is administred now as hereto­fore in the Popish Church. Call you this an ouer­sight? Was it true baptisme yesterday and is it none to day? A marueilous case: This is like those absurde fellowes, of whome Tertullian writeth in an other case: Hodie presbyter, quicras laicus. De prescr. aduersus Haer. That is, to day a Minister, but to morow none. You are one of the strāgest Diuines that euer I hard of. Very ignorant: very bould: very absurde. You are such a one as the Apostle mentioneth, 1. Tim. 1.7. To proceede: my reason you say prooueth not my proposition. In the iudgement of any learned man it doeth: if not in yours, the matter is not great: for your iudgement is not worth a rush. The argumēt I made is in deede M. Caluines, & a very sure one. It is allowed of all Churches, that I can heare of. It plea­seth you to set downe my reason thus: Whosoeuer deliuer Gods baptisme, they deliuer true baptisme: But Popish priests deliuer Gods baptisme, therfore true baptisme. You say I proue my Minor thus: [Page 81]Whosoeuer baptize in the name not of Pope or i­dols, but of the holy Trinity, they deliuer Gods bap­tisme: But Popish priestes &c. Your answere is that my Maior propositiō is most false, & that vpon the grant of it, many absurdities would folow, &c. Your dealing with mee is most absurde. It shall appeare thus. My Minor proposition set downe by you, was: Popish priests deliuer Gods baptisme. You say I proue it thus: Whosoeuer baptize in the name not of Pope or idols, but of the holy Trinitie, they deli­uer Gods baptisme. Vpō this you inferre many cōse­sequēts at your pleasure: viz. that Turkes, Iewes, wo­men, priuate men, children, might deliuer true bap­tisme touching the substance. You pretende great sinceritie. Answere mee directly. I appeale to your conscience, if you haue any. Did I euer deliuer such a Maior proposition? If I haue, quote the page, set downe the words. If I haue not, (which I am wel as­sured of) you haue grosly abused me. You may as ea­sily fetch oyle out of a flint, as any such consequents out of my writings. The godly reader may see by this litle, howe neere you are driuen, when you vse such beggerly shifts to bumbast your Treatise. Honest Matrones vse no painting: but harlots doe. Simple trueth needes no lies to welt and gard it: grosse er­rours haue neede of such Vermilion. They which haue either heard my Sermōs, or read my writings, doe knowe very well, that I allowe none whatsoeuer without a calling, to administer a Sacrament or preach the word, therefore neither woman nor pri­uate man. Yea, mine owne wordes in this present chapter are as cleare as the sunne: viz. Popish priests doe retaine the essentiall forme of Christes bap­tisme, [Page 82]&c. which Popish priests haue a calling thogh a faultie one. It is very strāge that you could not see this. I perceiue, the vaile of malice did hinder your sight. The odious instance you mention, doeth best become your Spirit. It is sutable to the rest of your writings, that is, most absurd and childish.

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

You pretend great sorrow for me. I do not thanke you for it. Be sorie for your owne absurdities, which are many & grosse. The absurde consequents which you will driue me perforce vnto, vnlesse I reuerse my writings, are easily numbred. They are not one, thankes be to God. Your lusty speech can not daunt me. It is but a visour. I haue bene long acquainted with the boysterous speeches of such ignorant and bolde companions as you are. Touching the argu­ment nowe in hand betweene vs, spare me not: I de­sire no fauour: I will not reuoke any iot I haue set downe. You desire pardon of me. If you recant your Anabaptisticall errours, you shall haue an easie suit: [Page 83]Otherwise, I do and wil account verie basely of you. Hath the cause you deale for, Maiestie in it? You might haue spared the name of Maiestie verie well. It is too costly a garment for such a leprous body, as your Treatise is. But I must beare with you. It is the maner of Sectaries to vse maiesticall & loftie words, that their ignorant followers may commend them aboue the skies. The reuerend dealing you talke of, is idle speech. I haue and doe refuse it. The erroni­ous assertion which you fight against, is not mine: I did neuer so much as once thinke of it. It is yours: vse it as you list. You may be bolde with it. You giue out, that I make the Sacrament to depend vpon the pronouncing of a fewe sillables, without conside­ration of the person who is to administer it. My answere is, that you are a wicked slaunderer. You re­quire three things necessarily in the administration of baptisme. First, one which hath calling to admi­nister it. I agree with you in this. Secondly, the sub­stantiall forme of consecration conteined in the ex­position of the holy institution of Baptisme. I dissent from you in this, and yet doe like sound preaching as well as you. Lastly, the inuocation of the name of God. I say Amen to this. Then you adde this Mi­nor: but these could not possibly be in Egypt, that is, in the Popish Church, &c. Will you stand to the se­cond branch of the three? If you doe, I may iustly conclude, first that you account Consecration, not Christs words in baptisme, as you ought, but some glosse vpon Christes wordes, which you ought not: Secondly, that you denie any Sacrament to be deli­uered by Popish Priests, & vnpreaching Ministers; &c. And yet you haue said often, and haue desired [Page 84]mee to remember that you denie it not. I doe not wring your wordes, and pull them out of ioynt, as you doe mine. Such dealing is an argument of a vile nature and wrangling spirit. It is verie farre, I thanke God, from me: I doe detest it. If I were of your hu­mour, I could chase and pursue you hotly, for your inconstancie & errour: Inconstancie, for affirming and denying one and the selfe same particular: Er­rour, for giuing out that the worde preached is ne­cessarily required to the Essence of the Sacrament. If a sermon were necessarily required to the Essence of a Sacrament, these absurdities woulde followe: First, the Sacraments are dead Sacraments, that is, seales without writing, and plaine blankes, if there vvant a sermon: Secondly, if Baptisme be no sacra­ment vvithout a sermon, then can it not regenerate or bee effectuall to any vvhich either haue bene, or are baptized vvithout a sermon.

Obiection of the fantasticall crew.

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

The Argument followes not. I confesse that Po­pish priests haue no lawfull calling: yet they haue a calling, though a faultie one. They which are not lawfully called vnto the ministery, are to be accoun­ted in another place then they which haue no cal­ling. Caiphas was not in deed the lawfull high Priest: for he entred by money, and the Priesthood in his time was rent in pieces: yet because hee sate in the high Priestes chaire, hee was accounted the high Priest. A faultie vocation may hurt him that v­surpes an office, but it doeth not defile those thinges which are done by that partie. This is M. Bezaes [Page 85]iudgement in his 142. question.

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

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

The distinction vvhich you say is mine, is in deed M. Bezaes. It is tearmed by you a begging of the question. Nay rather, your answere to M. Beza is beggerly, and none at all. If Popish priests (as you write) haue no calling at all: first, Luther, which had imposition of handes in the Popish Church, had no externall calling at all: Secondly, in your iudge­ment, either no Baptisme was deliuered by Popish Priests in the Popish Church: or, Baptisme, if any were in the Popish Church, was administred by pri­uate men: for they which haue no calling at all, are priuate men. I neede not driue you to absurde con­sequents: you cast your selfe headlong into them, as into a dangerous quauemire. Your Treatises where­in you haue sowen grosse errours thicke and three­folde, are witnesses ynough of this. Are not your dis­ciples most vnhappie, which depende on you as on another Pope? You aske whether there is a ministe­ry out of the Church. What my iudgemēt is, appea­reth hereafter. In the meane time, you deny not, that there is true baptisme (therefore consequently a mi­nistery) [Page 86]in the Popish Church which (you say) is no Church. Caiphas Priesthoode hath both searched and founde you out. It bewrayeth your grosse ig­norance.

CHAP. 8. THEY ARE THE SACRA­ments of Baptisme and the holy Supper, which are deliuered in the Church of England, by vn­preaching Ministers.

YOu knowe M. Some, what I meane by an vnpreaching Minister, namely euery one, learned or vnlearned, that cannot shewe himselfe by the good triall of his giftes, to haue that fitnesse to reach, whereof we read 2. Tim. 2. 1. Tim. 3. Which abilitie the Lord doeth not ordinarily bestow vpon any in these our dayes, with­out the knowledge of the Artes, especially the two handmaides of all learning, Rhetoricke, and Logique, and the two origi­nall tongues wherein the worde was written.

If none are to be accounted ministers ordinarily, which are not furnished, as you prescribe and re­quire: many in the primitiue Church after Christes Ascension were no ordinarie ministers: Valerius a godly man, whom Augustine succeeded at Hippo in Afrique, was no ordinarie minister. Possid. in vita Aug. cap. 5. Samsucius, a godly Bishop, was no ordi­narie minister. Aug. epist. 168. Augustine, which was a famous man, was no ordinarie minister. Many profitable pastours in this age, are no ordinarie mi­nisters. Yea, M. Penryes ignorant Leuiticall priestes, whome hee alloweth and defendeth to bee lawfull Priests, were no ordinarie ministers.

[Page 87]

If such as were baptized in the popish Church, receiued true baptisme, I trust they are rightly bap­tized in the Church of England, which are bapti­zed by vnpreaching ministers.

The rest of your booke is now to be examined. Your conclusion, pag. 22. that they which were baptized by vnpreaching ministers, are rightly bap­tized as touching the substance of baptisme, I doe not gainesay. Your rea­sons are weake: for howe could we proue your conclusion, if men shoulde denie popish baptisme, to be true baptisme, as I doe not, you knowe, and he should doe me great iniurie, which would lay that to my charge. Were it sufficient for vs to say they were Catabaptists which denie popish baptis­me? howe coulde this be proued? and this shoulde not proue the matter doubted of.

Do you answere of this fashion? this is as farre off, as Yorke from London. The summe of your answere is, that my reasons are weake, & that you denie not my conclusion. Are my reasons weake, because you say so? If they were like your senseles answeres, they were strange stuffe. If you deny not thē, which were baptized by vnpreaching ministers, to be rightly baptized: it is a necessarie consequent, euen in your owne iudgement: first, that either vnpreaching mi­nisters are ministers, or that priuate men may deli­uer a Sacrament: secondly, that it was and is a Sa­crament, which is administred without a Sermon. They which denie that such as were baptized in the popish Church, receiued true baptisme, touching the substance of baptisme, are Catabaptists in the iudgement of all learned writers and reformed Churches. I rest in their iudgement.

If such as were baptized by popish priests in the [Page 88]popish Church, and by vnpreaching ministers in the Church of England, receiued no Sacrament, many grosse absurdities would followe. First, very many are vnbaptized: and if they be vnbaptized, they sinne grieuously, in not presenting themselues to the holy Sacrament.

Shall we say that they sinne, in not presenting themselues to be bapti­zed? To whom should they present themselues? who would baptize them?

What meane scholer in either of the Vniuersi­ties? yea, what Russet coate in the Countrey would shape such an answere? In steade of answering my reasons, you aske me two questions: I must be con­tent to answere, there is no remedie. Your first que­stion is: Shall we say that they sinne in not presen­ting themselues to be baptized? My answere is: they doe sinne: no learned and godly man doubtes of it: my reasons are: First, Baptisme is externus character, that is, the outward marke and badge of a Christi­an. so writeth that famous man M. Foxe, Cap. 14. in Apocal. Secondly, the contempt of circumcision was grieuously punished, Gen. 17. Yea, the Angel would haue killed Moses, because his sonne was not circum­cised, Exod. 4. Thirdly, they in the primitiue Church which had excellent graces, presented themselues to baptisme: which baptisme before, they had not. So did many in Ierusalem after Peters sermon, Act. 2. many in Samaria after Philips sermons, Act. 8. ma­ny in Corinth after Pauls sermons, Act. 18. Your se­cond question is: to whom should they presēt them selues: who would baptize them? my answere is: after a publique profession of their faith in the chri­stian [Page 89]assembly, they must present themselues to be baptized of the minister. So did Cornelius in Caesarea, Act. 10. Lidia in Philippi, Acts. 16. Crispus and Gaius in Corinth. Act. 18.1. Cor. 1. and a Iewe of late yeeres in London. I speake nowe of such as be of yeres, and are vnbaptized. I hope you wil not gather of this, that I shut our infants from the holy Sacrament of Bap­tisme: if you should, you deserue rather to be cen­sured by the Magistrate, then to be confuted by ar­gument.

If such as were baptized by popish priests in the popish Church, and by vnpreaching ministers in the Church of England receiued no Sacrament, a great number haue sinned grosly in partaking the holy Supper. My reason is: none vncircumcised might eate the Passeouer, Exo. 12.48. therefore none vnbaptized, may receiue the holy Supper.

Admit they sinned in receiuing the Lords Supper, before they were baptized, should they therefore be bereaued of the comfort of baptisme? to affirme that this were a going backward, is no reason, because they were perswaded that they had baptisme, otherwise they would not haue bene so farre on their iourney, vntill they had bene accompanied therewith: But they omitted baptisme of ignorance, and not of contempt: theref [...]e they denie the receiuing of the Lords Supper, to haue bene a sinne any more, then it would be a sinne in them nowe to receiue the Lords Supper, if they could not haue Baptisme. Baptisme they would haue, if they could orderly come by the same. Because men will be so iniurious vnto them, as to de­ny them the comfort of baptisme, which they cannot haue, shoulde they denie to themselues the comfort of the Lordes Supper which they may haue? Yea, but no vncircumcised might eate the pascal lambe. Exod. 12.48 True: But what shall we say vnto those that were vncircumcised in the wil­dernesse fortie yeeres almost? Ios. 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 wildernesse once at the least. Nom. 9.1. If euery yeere, why should the godly of the familie bee excluded from the action, the cause why they were vncircumcised not being in them?

[Page 90]

You answere very strangely. Your wittes, I thinke, were a wooll gathering. If they sinned in partaking the Lordes supper before they were baptized, there is great reason they shoulde abstaine from the holy table, vntill they bee baptized: which Baptisme (if the case so required) might orderly and easily bee come by. But they omitted baptisme, you say, of ig­noraunce, not of contempt: therefore they sinned not, which being vnbaptized did partake the holy Supper. I denie your argument: My reason is: Ig­norātia excusat non à toto, sed à tanto: that is, Ignorance maketh the fault lesse, it doth not make it none. M. Penry at the length toucheth one part of my reason: but by his leaue I will first set downe my whole rea­son, and then his answere. My reason is this: None vncircumcised might eat the passeouer. Exod. 12.48. therefore, none vnbaptized may receiue the holy Supper. M. Penryes answere is conteined in these wordes: True, But what shall we say vnto those that were vncircumcised in the wildernesse fortie yeeres almost. Iosua. 5.5. Did they neuer eate the Passeouer all that time? If they did, the place of Exodus will be quickely answered. It is plaine that the Passeouer was celebrated in the wildernesse once at the least. Nombers 9.1. If euery yeere, why shoulde the godly of the familie bee excluded from the action, the cause why they were vncircumcised not being in them? Call you this answering? There was neuer any such I am sure in Cambridge or Oxford. It came I thinke out of Barbarie. I hope you are ashamed of it by this time. You aske mee whether they which were vncircumcised in the wildernesse almost fortie [Page 91]yeeres, did all that time neuer eate the Passeouer? My answere is, that no such thing appeareth in the text: and where the holy Ghost stayeth his penne, it becommeth vs to stay our tongues. Yea, it is cleare in Iosue, that the Israelites, after they were circum­cised, did keepe the feast of the Passeouer. Ios. 5.8.10. You adde, If the Israelites being vncircumcised, did partake the Passeouer, that the place in Exodus will be quickely answered. You say true. If the skie fall, you shall catch Larkes. When you proue this (if) of yours, I wil accept your answere. Till then, you shal pardon me. You proceed in this sort, It is plaine you say that the Passeouer was celebrated in the wilder­nesse, once at the least, Numb. 9. Will you conclude of this: therefore they which were vncircumcised did eate the Passeouer? If you doe, I denie your ar­gument: My reason is: If they had admitted any vn­circumcised to the Passeouer, they had prophaned the holy Sacrament. The wordes in the text are ma­nifest: If a stranger dwell with thee, and will obserue the Passeouer of the Lord, let him circumcise all the males, that belong vnto him, and then let him come and obserue it, and he shall bee as one that is borne in the lande: for, no vncir­cumcised person shall eate thereof. One lawe shall bee to him that is borne in the land, and to the stranger that dwelleth among you. Exod. 12. An other reason of yours is: the cause why the Israelites were vncircumcised, was not in them: therefore the godly vncircumcised of the family might not be barred from the Passeouer. I answere: your argument is naught, and verie saw­cie: for, you comptroll Almightie God by whome they were barred. This is no pride, M. Penry. I might say to you as the Apostle in another case: O man, who [Page 92]art thou that pleadest against God? hath not the potter power of the Clay, &c. Rom. 9. I confesse that the Israe­lites ceased from circumcision in the wildernes: and yet were not faultie in omitting and deferring cir­cumcision: for, they had Gods speciall dispensation to do so, because they were in cōtinuall trauaile: and people being newly circumcised, could abide no la­bour. For the surer proofe of this point: vidz. that none which are knowen to bee vnbaptized, may ei­ther present themselues, or be admitted to the holy Supper, I offer these reasons to the godly Reader. First, Baptisme is an entrāce into the visible church: the holy Supper is a confirmation of this entrance. Secondly, they which were of yeeres in the primi­tiue Church were first baptized, and afterwarde re­ceiued the holy Supper. This is manifest in these wordes of S. Luke: Then they that gladly receyued his worde, were baptized: and the same day, there were added to the Church about three thousand soules. And they con­tinued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and brea­king of bread and prayers, &c. Act. 2. By breaking of bread, is vnderstanded the partaking of the Lords Supper. Thirdly, None may present themselues to the holy table, before due examination of themselues, 1. Cor. 11. This examination consisteth of faith and re­pentance: which faith and repentance are not in them, which either wittingly omit, or wilfully con­temne the holy Sacrament of baptisme: which bap­tisme is the Sacrament of repentance. Matth. 3. Calu. Inst. lib. 4. cap. 19. sect. 17. Lastly, all famous men and Churches are of my side. If maister Penry dissent, it is no great matter. His writings are not as the lawes of the Medes and Persians, &c.

[Page 93]

If such as vvere baptized by popish Priests in the popish Church, and by vnpreaching ministers in the Church of England, receiued no Sacrament, many excellent men haue vsurped the preachers office. My reason is: It is vnlawful for any man to be a pub­lique teacher in the visible Church, which is not by baptisme graft into, and so become a member of the visible Church. Our Sauiour Christ was baptized of Iohn in Iordane before he preached. Mat. 3. and 4. Chap. The Apostle Paule was baptized of Ananias in Damascus, before he preached. Act. 9.

None vncircumcised might minister before the altar. True: but did none of the Leuites that were borne in the wildernes, teach Iacob the law, or offer the incense of his God in all those forty yeeres?

The truth I perceiue, is mightie. It maketh the enemie many times to confesse it: so doth it you in this place. Your wordes are cleare for me, and flat against your selfe. You grant that none vncircum­cised might minister before the altar. I thanke you for it. Of this I conclude: therefore none vnbapti­zed may be a publique teacher in the visible church. Thus, you see by the way, which may not be forgot­ten, that an argument may bee drawen from the Leuiticall priesthood to the ministerie of the newe testament: which priesthood and ministerie are not twinnes, are vnmatcheable and cannot stand toge­ther. I confesse my selfe greatly bound vnto you: you deale very liberally with me: for you reach me arguments (as weapons) to smite your selfe withall. M. Penry a little after in steede of answering my rea­son, asketh a question after his vsuall manner. Did [Page 94](saith he) none of the vncircumcised Leuites teach Iacob the lawe, or offer incense, &c. I answere: First, that no such thing appeareth in the text: Secondly, that it is against the practise of the Leuiticall priefts in the olde Testament. Did euer any student deale so childishly, as M. Penry doth? is not he a very fit man to censure famous men & Churches? Caluine, Mar­tyr, Beza, Augustine, &c. are no body with him. I did neuer see him that I knowe of: but, ex vnguibus leo­nem: I see by his answeres what a deepe clarke he is.

Thus many things, you see, might be obiected against your reasons, and I take the obiections to be of some waight. It had bene well, you had con­sidered of them, before you had published your booke. And the Baptisme by vnpreaching ministers, must haue better proofes, then any you haue brought as yet, or els I feare me, our posterities will not be satisfied there­with.

Your wayghtie obiections are inuincible in your eye. Suum cuique pulchrum. But they haue neither Suczum nor Sanguinem: they haue no pith in them: they are lighter then any feather, and bewray your ignorance. You wish I had considered before hand of your obiections: Satis pro imperio. You are by your leaue a litle too lordly: had I nothing to thinke of but of your absurde fancies? you imagine very basely of me. My arguments for baptisme by vn­preaching ministers are such, as you are vnable to stirre: for proofe of this, I referre the reader to your vnscholerlike answeres. Your feare that the poste­ritie will not rest in my reasons, is a vaine feare, &c.

[Page 95]

The vnpreaching ministers doe adde the worde vnto the Element in the administration of Baptis­me: therefore it is the Sacrament of Baptisme which is deliuered by them. Accedit verbum ad Elementum, & fit Sacramentum. August. Tract. 80. in Iohan. that is, The worde is added to the Element, and it becomes a Sacrament. By (worde) in Bap­tisme is vnderstanded the worde of Institution, which is, to baptize in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, &c. Of this iudgement are Beza confess. Cap. 4. Art. 47. and Musculus de sig. Sacram. Art. 4.

Your next reason, page 23. is slender. Readers pronounce the wordes of Institution with the deliuerie of the Element, therefore (say 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. 28.19. brought in by you page 23. prooueth your conse­quent to bee false. For it sheweth, that hee, who is to baptize, must bee also able to teache, which abilitie is wanting in our Readers. Goe, sayth our Sauiour, and teache all nations, baptizing &c. Therefore if hee, that deliuereth the Element, be not able to teache, we cannot be assured, that it is a Sacrament: Because the commaundement is not generally to all that coulde pronounce the wordes of Institution, being thereunto per­mitted by the corruption of the time, but particularly limitted vnto them that can teache, vnlesse you will say that the Lorde biddeth them goe teache, who cannot teache: which were not once to bee conceiued of his Maiestie.

Whatsoeuer passeth from me is slender in your opinion. All that you deliuer, is ex tripode, an oracle [Page 96]at the least. You answered before wisely & like your selfe. So you doe in this place: semper idem: you are no changeling. You deny my consequent, and doe adde for your reason an obiection set downe by me a litle after. My answere to that obiection is extant and very direct. I rest in it: I did neuer say or thinke that Almightie God did either command or allow any to be a priest in the old, or a minister in the new Testament, which had not gifts in some measure. It pleaseth you to write in your treatise, that vnfitnes to teach made not a nullitie of the Leuiticall priests office. If you meane, that it made not a nullitie be­fore God, you conceiue very basely of Almightie God: for, you make him to allowe ignorant men to be his priests in the olde Testament: which absurde course would haue brought great dishonour to his Maiestie, and great hurt to the Church of the Israe­lites. I doe nowe but touch this grosse and blasphe­mous paradoxe of yours: and (with the dog of E­gypt) doe, as it were, sippe and away: but I will exa­mine it more surely hereafter, that the reader may see clearely, as in a Christall glasse, what base ware you commend vnto vs for excellent diuinitie.

The corruption in the Church of Englande, that the deliuerie of the Element shoulde be seuered from the preaching of the worde, is a breach of Gods ordinance, you cannot deny, Matth. 28.19. Actes 20.7. and there­fore vngodly and intollerable. Whether it make the action frustrate or no, that is not the question.

You meane, as I take it, by the worde added to the Element, the worde preached: but you doe not say [Page 97]flatly here (though you haue a little before) that the want of a Sermon maketh the action frustrate, that is, the sacrament to be no sacrament. I confesse that Paul preached at Troas in the administration of the holy Supper, Act. 20.7. and that the Apostles did teach the Gentiles before they baptized them, Mat. 28.19. But no learned man will conclude of this, that a Sermon is simplie necessarie to the Essence of a Sacrament. If you will know, what I thinke of sound preaching before the administration of the holy sa­cramēt, my answer is, that I do greatly both like and commend it. Yea, I doe wish with all my heart, that all the Churches in Englande had able teachers to performe that dutie. This minde was I euer of, since I knewe what Gods religion and good diuinitie meant. Of this minde are all godly and learned men in the Church of England.

An obiection of the fantasticall sort.

Christ sayde to his Apostles, Goe and teach all nations, baptizing &c. Matt. 28.19. Therefore, if the worde preached, bee not added to the Ele­ment, it is no sacrament of Baptisme.

Answere.

The Argument is verie weake. I confesse, that Christ cōmanded his Apostles, first to teach such as were of yeres and alients from his religion, and then to baptize them. If the Gentiles had not bene first taught, they woulde not haue offered themselues, nor the Apostles admitted them to the holy sacra­ment of Baptisme. If any will conclude of this place in saint Matthewe, that none whatsoeuer may be ad­mitted to baptisme, before they be taught: they shut our infants from the holy sacrament, and therefore are Catabaptists.

[Page 98]

Master Penry answeres nothing to this. So am I eased of some labour.

The vnpreaching Ministers do adde (verbum aedi­ficans) that is, an edifying word, to the Elements, in the administratiō of the holy Supper: therefore, &c.

Vnpreaching Ministers doe adde an edifying worde vnto the Element, therfore it is a Sacrament. This reason is the same with the former. Which sheweth the great nakednes & pouertie of the cause, that one reason must be thrise periured to proue the goodnes of it, which notwithstanding it can not shew. I denie the antecedent, and consequent.

Your eyes are not matches. If they were, you might haue seene very easily, that no reason of mine is per­iured once, much lesse, thrise. I am perswaded that if you be not well coniured by the Magistrate, you wil proue a strange body. You are farre gone alreadie. Strange fancies haue almost cōsumed you. The Ma­gistrates discipline is the fittest medicine for you. If that will not recouer you, your disease is desperate. You denie both my antecedent, & consequent. My antecedēt was that vnpreaching Ministers do adde an edifying word to the Element. That there is ver­bum aedificans, I proue it thus. The summe of Christes Sermon in the Institution & administration of the holy Supper by himselfe is the worde of Institu­tion in the administration of the holy Supper in the Church of England: therefore, vnlesse we wil denie the summe of Christes Sermon, to bee an edifying worde, (which no learned man will denie) we must confesse, that wee haue verbum aedificans, that is, an edifying worde, in the administration of the holy Supper with vs.

Your reason of the antecedent, that the recital of the summe of Christs Sermon, that is, the words of Institution, is an edifying worde, is falfe, and [Page 99]maintaineth charming. For doe you thinke, that the worde of institution, being, as you say, the summe of Christs Sermon, is then an edifying worde, whensoeuer it is recited by a prophane person, euen in the prophanation of Gods ordinance? Looke 2. Tim. 4.3. and you shall finde that the worde barely read, and to no other purpose, then to edifie by reading, is not holsome doctrine. The popish priest either without or within the booke, pronounceth in his darke Latine, the summe of Christs sermon: Is that an edifying word, which he prophanely breatheth? The word of God vtte­red, is not an edifying worde, vnlesse it bee vtered according to the ordi­nance, both in regard of the persons that vtter the same, and the ende wherefore it is vttered. No learned man wil denie the Lords prayer right­ly sayd, to be an edifying worde. And yet, by your leaue, no learned man, vnlesse he fauoureth charming or poperie, will say that the Lords prayer pronounced by an ignorant man in a strange tongue, or prophaned by a witch, is an edifying word.

M. Penry is now in his Ruffe. His pride and igno­rance appeare in their colours. They are proclai­med euen by himselfe. He denieth that the recitall of the summe of Christs Sermō, by an vnpreaching minister, is an edifying word: he saieth, it maintai­neth charming. Can we thinke, that this man is gui­ded by Gods spirit, whose heart conceiued, and pen broght forth such blasphemie? That the reader may be assured, that the summe of Christs Sermon, is an edifying word, I will first set downe the word of In­stitution, which is the summe of Christs Sermon, and then proue the point. The word of institution in the holy Supper, is: The Lord Iesus the same night that he was betrayed, tooke bread: and when he had giuen thanks, he brake it, and saide, Take, eate: this is my body, which is broken for you: this doe ye in remembrance of me. After the same maner also he tooke the cuppe, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new Testamēt in my blood: this do as oft as ye drinke it, in remembrance of me. 1. Cor. 11. That this word of Institution doth edifie, it is mani­fest: for it teacheth vs, first, who did institute the ho­ly [Page 100]Supper: The Lord Iesus. Secondly, at vvhat time: The same night that he was betrayed. Thirdly, vvhat the Elements are in the holy Supper: Bread and wine. Fourthly, what our Sauiour Christ did: Hee gaue thankes, he brake the bread, &c. Fifthly, what the Lorde Iesus saide when hee deliuered the Elements: Take, eate, &c. Doeth this maintaine charming? Is there not edifying in this? If you be not voyde of grace, be ashamed and sorie for your blasphemous levvdnes. An other particuler vvhich you reache vnto vs, is a bird of the same feather: viz. that the vvorde barely read, and to no other purpose then to edifie by rea­ding, is not holsome doctrine. For proofe of this grosse and blasphemous errour, you vse three rea­sons. The first is out of S. Paul to Timothee: The time will come, when they will not suffer holsome doctrine: but hauing their eares itching, shall after their owne lustes get them an heape of teachers, 2. Tim. 4.3. Therefore the vvord barely read, and to no other purpose then to edifie by reading, is no holsome doctrine. This rea­son cleaues together like a broken potsheard. I de­nie your argument: The Apostle in that Chapter commaundeth Timothee to attende carefully vpon preaching, &c. His reason is: Many will loath and hate holsome doctrine: they will chuse such teachers as wil tickle their eares and feede their humours. 2. Tim. 4.3. Such gracelesse people were in the time of Esay and Mi­cheas. Esa. 30. Mich. 2. Such were they of Anathoth in Ieremies time Ier. 11. Such a one was Amaziah of Ie­roboams Court in Amos time. Am. 7. Such were in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia in S. Pauls time. Such are they of the fantasticall crewe in our time, vvhich pike out teachers as rot out of an apple. &c. [Page 101]Doe you not perceiue M. Penry, howe fitly saint Paul to Timothee doeth serue your turne? you haue bene verie bold with him. You haue vsed the holy Apo­stle as Cacus did Hercules oxen: therefore I may not thinke much that my writings are depraued by you. Your second reason is this: the summe of Christes sermon, pronounced by a Popish priest, either with­out or within the booke in his darke Latin, is not an edifying worde: therefore the word barely read, and to no other purpose then to edifie by reading, is not holsome doctrine. Your Antecedent might haue bene kept in: No man denieth it. It is confessed by all of the religion, that the scriptures deliuered in an vnknowen tongue doe not edifie. The Apostle pro­ueth this notably. 1. Cor. 14. In linguis quas non intelli­gimus surdi sumus, Cic. in Tusc. that is, when vve heare a strange language vve are as deafe men. But I denie your Argument: it is as strange as the Popish priests latine is darke. Euery childe may see the weakenes of it. But I must be content and put it vp. It is such ware as you haue. He that wāteth wood, must burne turfe. Your third reason is: No learned man vnlesse he fa­uoureth charming or Popery, wil say that the Lords prayer pronounced by an ignorant man in a strange tongue, or prophaned by a witche, is an edifying word: therefore the word barely read & to no other purpose then to edifie by reading, is not holsome doctrine. My answere is, I denie your Argument. It is as weake as a staffe of reede. This last reason is in deede the same with the former. I might tell you if I listed, that your cause is poore and naked, when one reason must be twise periured, &c. verbum sapienti. You know the rest: It came out of your wardroabe. [Page 102]Did any student euer broche such stuffe as this? You neede not studie for these arguments. You may deli­uer them ex tempore, and powre them out by the do­sens. Many Carre-men in London can make better arguments then these. I may say to you as Archida­mus said to his sonne, which was more aduenturous then became him: Either adde more strength or be lesse confident. You haue heard M. Penryes inuincible rea­sons. Consider now these wordes of his: No learned man (saith hee) will denie the Lordes prayer rightly saide, to be an edifying worde. I thanke you for this, and doe conclude thus against you: Therefore the Scripture barely read, and to no other purpose then to edifie by reading, is holsome doctrine: for, the Lords prayer is a part of the holy Scripture. Thus at vnwares, he hath ouerthrowen his former fancie. I see now of what force the trueth is. It cannot be hid­den long. It will breake out at the last, as the Sunne thorow a blacke cloude. It hath pleased M. Penry to deliuer an other strange point of diuinitie in these wordes: viz. The word of God vttered, is not an edi­fying word, vnlesse it be vttered according to the or­dinance, both in regard of the persons that vtter the same, & the ende wherefore it is vttered. Is not this (M Penry) to make the person to giue credit to the holy word of God? which positiō is very grosse and blasphemous. It is a certaine truth in diuinitie: Scrip­tura est, [...], that is, the Scripture is of credit in it selfe: it needeth not to borowe credite of any man whatsoeuer. The reason is: the Scripture is, [...], that is, inspired, not of man, but of God. 2. Tim. 3.16. 2. pet. 1.21. For the cleare proofe of this point, viz. that the rea­ding of the holy Scriptures doeth edifie, I haue set downe [Page 103]sounde reasons in the former part of this Treatise. Thither I referre the godly Reader. M. Penry besides my Antecedent, denied my consequent: viz. that it is not therefore a Sacrament, because vnpreaching Ministers do adde an edifying worde vnto the Ele­ment. His reason, such as it is, is contained in his owne words which follow.

Concerning your consequent, doe you thinke, that euery one, that can adde an edifying word vnto the Element, may minister a Sacrament? it is not so: for Paul requireth the wordes of euery Christian (women and all) to be edifying wordes, Ephes. 4.29. euen in common talke. Shall therefore the Element administred by euery Christian, be a Sacrament? God forbid. And yet euery Christian can adde the summe of Christs Sermon vnto the Element, in the administration of the Supper, which if it were sufficient, as by your reason it is, then women, children, &c. Idiots that could not reade might deliuer a Sacrament.

You want matter to vvorke on. That is the cause, vvhy you shoote so much at rouers in your Treatise. If the common speach of euery Christiā must bring edification and grace, that is, godly profite to the hearers, Ephe. 4: What shal we thinke of you, vvhose writings haue neither grace nor salt, that is, are nei­ther profitable nor sauory, as the Apostle requireth, Colos. 4. You would beare the vvorld in hand, that, in my iudgement, euery one vvhich can adde an edify­ing vvord to the Elemēt, may deliuer a Sacrament: and so consequently, vvomen, children, idiots. I am very farre, I thanke God, from this fancie. If you had any sparke of good nature or common sense in you, you would not father that on me cōtinually, where­of, not so much as the least print appeareth in my writings. I perceiue the blacke More cannot change his skinne, nor the Leopard his spots. Your absurde [Page 104]collections are euidences of your spirit. They shall neuer trouble mee: I will not doe you that pleasure. Fructus laedentis in dolore laesi. Tertul. de pat. that is, the pleasure which an enemie taketh, is in the griefe of him that is hurt.

If any vvill conclude of this, that I mislike prea­ching before the administration of the Sacrament, he doeth me great wrong.

M. Penry saith nothing to this.

An obiection of the fantasticall sort.

Vnpreaching Ministers are not apt to teach: therefore they are no Sa­craments which are deliuered by them.

The Argument folowes not. My reason is, Many Iewish priestes were both ignorant and dissolute in Esay and Christs time. Esay 28.7. Matt. 9.36. But the sa­crifices offred, & the Sacraments reached by them, vvere both Sacrifices and Sacraments. Othervvise, the Prophetes vvhich vvere at Ierusalem, vvhen the Ievvish Church vvas full of corruption, vvould not haue bene present at, and partakers of the Sacrifices in Salomons Temple. Calu. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 1. sect. 18, 19.

An obiection of the fantasticall sort.

Ignorant Ministers are not apt to teach: therefore no Ministers, and consequently, they are no Sacraments which are deliuered by them.

The Argument folovves not. I graunt that it is of the substance of a lavvful and good Minister of God to be apt to teach: but it is not of the essence of a Mi­nister simply: for which it is sufficient to haue the Churches calling. This appeareth clearely in the Magistrate. The holy Ghost requireth that none shoulde be chosen a Magistrate, vnlesse hee were a [Page 105]man of courage, fearing God, dealing truely, and hating couetousnes. Exod. 18.21. When such are ad­uanced as defile their handes, either with filthie bribes, as Felix did, or with barbarous crueltie, as A­bimelech and Herode did, shall we say that they are no Magistrates? I confesse, they are not singled out by the electors according to Almightie Gods directi­on in his holy Bible: but they are Magistrates not­withstanding, and we are commanded by the Lorde to performe all duetie vnto them, saluo officio, that is, our duetie being reserued to the highest Magistrate, which is God himselfe.

The reason concluding vnpreaching ministers to bee none, because they are not apt to teach, you haue twise repeated within one twelue liues, and made two seuerall obiections thereof. That was an ouersight: the sufficiencie of the argument, I haue shewed to be such, as Caiphas ministe­ry and Herods magistracie brought in by you, will neuer answere the same. Both of them, with the reason from the outward calling of readers, I re­ferre to your next chapter, where they are repeated: thither nowe I am come, where the contradictory of the question shalbe set downe and pro­ued briefely: because the nullitie of the vnpreaching ministery may be in steade of a thousand reasons to proue the same.

My obiections are seuerall, whatsoeuer you say. Any one that hath but halfe an eye, may easily see it by my seuerall answeres. I haue set downe the obie­ctions as they were deliuered to me. The confutati­on of my answeres, if it be any, is foorth comming, you say, in an other place. I haue sought for it, but I cannot finde it, It is shrunke, I feare, in the wetting.

If any shall gather of this I haue set downe, that I vndertake the defence of ignorant ministers: my an­swere is, that my writings and Sermons, are not A­iax shielde to couer them, but the Lords sworde to [Page 106]cutte them. I confesse freely, that I am very farre from opening either the Church doore to ignorant ministers, or the pulpit doore to vnskilfull prea­chers: which vnskilfull preachers giue Gods religi­on a greater blowe then the ignorant ministers: for in stead of diuiding the word of trueth aright, they speake at all aduentures, yet very boldely: and as vn­skilfull Apothecaries, deliuer quid pro quo, chaffe for wheate, and strange fancies for Gods holy trueth. By such absurde fellowes, many Churches and ex­cellent men in this land, haue bene greatly disquie­ted, and the good course of religiō hath bene great­ly hindered. The cause of this sore, is intollerable pride, and grosse ignorance in these bad compani­ons, and want of care in the Magistrates.

I am as farre from accounting the vnskilfull preachers which speake hand ouer head they care not what, (against whome your complaint is very iust) to be ministers: as I am from acknowledging many of our ab­sucde doctors to be apt to teach, who can bring nothing into y ^e 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 coulde be a fourth added vnto them) confisteth the woe of our Church.

Is my complaint iust against vnskilful preachers? Doe you, M. Penry, wipe them out of the rolle of ministers? Will you shut the pulpit doore against them? Take heede what you doe. You bidde your selfe losse. Your kingdome will then fall to the ground: for vnskilfull preachers are your Bulwarks and Blockhouses to support your fancies. The ab­surde Doctors you mention, shall haue no defence of mee. If they preach as you write, for that duetie and loue I owe and beare to the Church and Vni­uersities, [Page 107]I woulde both they & you were disgraded: and they kept out of the Pulpit, and your writings out of the Presse. I hope some good will growe by your writings. First, that the Vniuersities will take better heed, vpon vvhom they bestow their degrees: Secondly, that the Magistrates vvill looke better to the Printing houses. By the fourth sort of supposed Ministers vvhich you vvrite of, I knovve not vvhom you meane. I could ghesse shrevvdly, but I vvil not, because I vvill not misconstrue you. If they or any o­ther be the murraine of our Church, I vvoulde they vvere either reformed or remooued.

If any shall aske me what the true causes are, why so many vnfit men are the Churches ministers: I an­swere, either great want of iudgement, or great cor­ruption in such, which doe ordeine and preferre them. The sinne of these men is very great: for they dishonour Almightie God, and doe grosly abuse the people of the land. This disease will be healed, when the Churches maintenance is not disposed of by them which haue the golden dropsie, but is free­ly giuen to worthie and painefull students, which will neither fish with the siluer hooke, nor open the Church doore with a siluer key.

M. Penry sayeth nothing to this.

CHAP. 9. THE GODLY ARE NOT polluted which receiue the Sacrament at the hands of an vnpreaching Minister.

BY pollution I doubt not you meane sinne.

I doe so.

The Sacraments are Gods ordi­nance: the ministers ignorance can not peruert the nature of Gods ordinance.

The Ministers ignorance, say you, page 28. cannot peruert Gods ordi­nance: and againe page 29. the Sacraments are not the worse for the ig­norance of the minister, &c. All this I graunt, but bare readers are not ministers, and the doubt is, whether the action performed by them be the ordinance of God, whether it bee a Sacrament. These be the questions which you ought to haue proued, and not haue taken them as principles, though you doe this the third and fourth time.

Your writings are like the winde, not long in one corner. Before you denied it not to be a Sacrament, which was deliuered by vnpreaching ministers: here you doubt of it. You erred either then, or now. Were he not a wise man, that would followe your humour? The rocke he should builde on, should be nothing but sand: his building should be as the wall in Ezechiel, dawbed with vntempered morter. If vn­preaching ministers haue administred a Sacrament in your iudgement, I am sure you cannot deny them to haue a calling: for you will not accompt it a Sa­crament, which is deliuered by priuate men. But let vs see what you write in an other place of this ar­gument.

[Page 109]

If vnpreaching ministers be no ministers, and if I cannot be assured to receiue a Sacrament, but onely at the hands of a minister: then cannot I assure my selfe, that an vnpreaching minister can deliuer a Sacrament vnto me: and therefore it is vnlawfull for me, or any Christian, to goe vn­to an vnpreaching minister for the Sacraments: if vnlawfull, then a sinne: if a sinne, then the godly are polluted, which goe vnto them for the Sacra­ments.

If vnpreaching ministers were no ministers (as you affirme and I denie) then I would confesse that a Sacrament might as easily be had of them, as wa­ter of a drie ditch. But, what if some did minister the Sacrament in the Apostles times, which were not preachers? very famous men are of that iudgement. Caluine vpon these wordes of the Apostle, Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, 1. Cor. 1.17. writeth thus: There were fewe to whom the office of preaching was committed: but the administra­tion of Baptisme was committed to many. Martyr writeth thus vpon the same place of the Apostle: Munus tingendi, &c. that is, the administration of Baptisme may bee committed to euery one in the Church, but not the office of preaching. Chrisostome vpon that place of S. Paul hath these vvordes: Euan­gelizare perpaucorum est, &c. that is, fewe are able to preach, but euery one may baptize, that hath a cal­ling. Of this iudgement are Ambrose, Hemingius, &c. Augustine hath these wordes: Perfectè baptiza­re minùs docti possunt: perfecte euangelizare, multò diffi­cilioris & rarioris est operis. Ideo doctor gentium, plurimis excellentior, Euangelizare missus est, non baptizare: quo­niam, hoc per multos fieri poterat, illud per paucos, inter quos eminebat. August. contra lit. Petil. Don. lib. 3. cap. 56. I haue not set downe this as either sword or shield for [Page 110]ignorant Ministers. My iudgement is, that none ought to enter into, or continue in the holy Ministe­rie, vnlesse they haue giftes in some measure. The Plough man may returne to his share: the Artificer to his shop: Other to their seuerall trades. Almigh­tie God will not be offended if they doe thus: Yea, his Maiestie wil be highly pleased. Zach. 13. Ruff. lib. 1. cap. 6. Melius de media via recurrere, quàm semper curre­re malè. It is not safe to continue in a wicked course.

A Sacrament can neuer be without promise of saluation: therefore, the worthie partaker of the Sa­cramēt receiues a blessing: if a blessing, then no pol­lution. That he receiues a blessing, the Apostle tea­cheth vs: Wee are buried with Christ (saith. S. Paul) by baptisme into his death, &c. Rom. 6.4. The cuppe of blessing which wee blesse, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we breake, is it not the communi­on of the body of Christ? 1. Cor. 11.16.

M. Some saith: the worthy partaker receiues a blessing: if a blessing, no pollution, &c. First, it is doubted whether we may be assured that it is a Sa­crament. Secondly, he is no worthy receiuer that receiueth of an idole Mi­nister. Thirdly, there may be a blessing receiued, & yet pollution in the re­ceiuer. Looke 2. Chro. 30.17.18, 19. Nom. 9.7.

Nodum in scirpo quaeris. You stumble in the plaine way. My answere is: First, if the vnpreaching Mini­ster haue a calling, (which no learned man in this land doubteth of) it cannot be denied to be a Sacra­ment. It pleaseth you, inter sacrum & saxum haerere, to doubt of it. Secondly, whosoeuer bringeth faith and repentance with him to the holy Table, is a worthy receiuer, though the Minister be an idole. The vn­worthines [Page 111]worthines of the Minister hurtes himselfe, but not the godly communicant. Otherwise the holy Pro­phets were vnworthie receiuers, which communi­cated with idole priestes. Thirdly, you adde that a blessing may be receiued, and yet pollution in the re­ceiuer, 2. Chr. 30. Nomb. 9. This is, [...], iust from the corner to the staffe, that I may vse your owne phrase. Do you confute on this fashion? You should haue proued that the worthy partaker of the Sacra­ment receiuing a blessing, receiued pollution, (that is sinne,) by partaking the Sacrament. Because this passeth your skill, you fight with your shadowe, and tell me, that a blessing may be receiued, and yet pol­lution in the receiuer: That is to say, that pollution is brought of the Communicant to the holy table, not receiued from or by the holy Sacrament. This makes nothing against that which I haue written. Onely it bewrayeth your ignorance. All godly men confesse, that pollution, that is sinne, is in the holiest Communicants: I meane, peccatum habitans non reg­nans, That is, sinne dwelleth in Gods seruants, but hath not dominion ouer them. The Patriarks, Naza­rites, Prophets, Apostles, had this pollution. They could not shake it off in this life: the best of them had their wants. Only our Sauiour Christ was cleare of sinne. You and I agree, I am sure, in this particuler. If I should aske you, how you proue pollution, that is, sinne, to bee in the receiuer of the holy Sacrament, you woulde referre mee to your quotations in the booke of Chronicles and Numbers. Giue me leaue to examine your quotations a litle. Your first place is in the Chronicles. The words of the text are these: Be­cause there were many in the Congregation that were not [Page 112]sanctified, therfore the Leuites had the charge of the killing of the Passeouer, for all that were not cleane, to sanctifie it to the Lord. For a multitude of the people, euen a multitude of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselues, yet did cate the Passeouer, but not as it was written: Wherefore Hezekiah prayed for them, say­ing, The good Lord be mercifull toward him, that prepareth his whole heart to seeke the Lord God, the God of his fathers, though hee be not cleansed, according to the purification of the Sanctuarie. 2. Chr. 30.17, 18, 19. All that you can proue by this place, is, that they of Ephraim, Manas­seh, Issachar, &c. were vncleane according to the pu­rification of the Sanctuarie, that is, touching some ceremonie of Moses law: for which vncleannes they were dispensed with. Your seconde place is in the booke of Numbers. The wordes of the text are these: And certaine men were defiled by a dead man that they might not keepe the Passeouer the same day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron the same day. And those men said vnto him, we are defiled by a dead man: wherefore are wee kept backe that wee may not offer an offering vnto the Lord, in the time thereunto appointed, among the chil­dren of Israel? Then Moses said vnto them, stand stil, and I wil heare what the Lord will cōmande concerning you. And the Lord spake vnto Moses, saying, Speake vnto the childrē of Israel, & say, if any among you, or of your posteritie, shall he vncleane by the reason of a corps, or bee in a long iourney, he shall keepe the Passeouer vnto the Lord. Nu. 9. ver. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. All that you can gather of this place, is, that these mē which were defiled by reason of a dead mā, did not celebrate the passeouer before the Lordes pleasure vvas knowen. You cannot conclude either of this place in the booke of Numbers, or of the for­mer [Page 113]place in the Chronicles, that sinne was in these, which offered themselues to the Passeouer. I doubt not but that these men had pollution, that is, sinne, in them: But I am sure these places neither doe nor can prooue it: for you may not reason thus: They of Ephraim &c. were vncleane touching some cere­monie of Moses lawe, therefore they were sinners. If you do, I deny your argument. It is a certaine truth in diuinitie, that not euery legall pollution was ioy­ned with sinne: My reason is, the touching of a dead body, was a legall vncleannesse. If it were a sinne, then the buriall of the dead, which is a Christian duetie, and a worke of mercy, should be sinne. Thus, you haue taken paines, but to litle purpose. You haue shotte, I confesse: but, nec coelum nec terram at­tingis, you are many scores wide.

The parents of Christ went to Ierusalem euery yere at the feast of the passeouer, Luk. 2.41. Their go­ing to Ierusalē, was to testifie their religion, & to be partakers of the Sacrifices. There were at that time in Solomons Temple manifold corruptions: the high priesthood was solde for money, many of the Iewish priestes were ignorant, yet Ioseph and the virgine Mary were not polluted. Calu. Luc. 2.41.

The blindnesse of the ignorant Leuites cannot make such a nullitie of their priesthood, as they should be no priests vnto the people. And there­fore great reason why the parents of our Sauiour, and the rest of the godly should not leaue the seruice of God, for the pollution of the priestes.

The ignorant Leuites are deepe in your bookes. They find grace with you. You allowe them to be priestes vnto the Israelites, whom Almightie God [Page 114]neuer approoued: yea, whom his maiestie hath dis­claymed. Hos. 6. You must of force be as beneficiall to ignorant ministers, vnlesse you doe simply con­demne the externall calling of the ministers in the Church of England, to be none at all. If you doe so, then in your iudgement, wee haue no ministerie, no sacraments, no visible Church in England.

The godly which receiue the holy Supper of an vnpreaching Minister, are not partakers of the Mi­nisters vnworthinesse, but of the holy Sacrament, which is a pillar of our faith: therefore the vnwor­thinesse of the minister doth not defile the Commu­nicant. Alterius, siue Pastoris, siue priuati indignitate, non laediturpia conscientia. &c. Calu. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 1. sect. 19. that is, A godly conscience is not hurt by the vnworthinesse of another, either Pastour or priuate man: neither are the mysteries lesse pure and health­full to a holy man, because they are then handled of such as be impure. Ille qui accipit, si homo bonus ab ho­mine malo, si fidelis à perfido, si pius ab impio: perniciosum erit danti, non accipienti. Illud quippe sanctum malè v­tentem iudicat, bene accipientem sanctificat. Aug. contra Cres. gram. lib. 2. cap. 28. that is, He which receiueth, if a good of an euill man, if a faithfull of a faithlesse man, if a godly of a wicked man, it wil bee hurtful to the giuer, not to the receiuer: for that holy thing (he meaneth the Sacrament) doth iudge him which v­seth it ill, but doth sanctifie him which receiueth it well.

M. Penry answeres nothing to this.

Circumcision was one of the Lords Sacraments in [Page 115]the Iewish Church. The Iewes which were circum­cised of impure priests, and apostates, receiued no hurt: therefore no pollution. Calu. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 15. sect. 16. The Sacraments neither are, nor can be the vvorse for the ignorance or vnworthinesse, or better for the learning or worthinesse of any man whatsoeuer. Whosoeuer thinketh otherwise, is a Donatist.

The Sacraments are not the worse for the ignorance of the minister: All this I graunt &c.

The first part of my reason is passed ouer with si­lence: A breefe kind of answering. In this M. Penry resembles yong children. Where they cannot read they skippe ouer.

Touching this point of the Sacramēt, I rest wholy in Augustines iudgemēt: his words are these. Ego dico, melius per bonū ministrum quàm per malum dispensari Sa­cramenta diuina: verùm hoc propter ipsum ministrum melius est, vt eis rebus quas ministrat, vita & moribus cō ­gruat, non propter illum, qui etiam si incurrerit in mini­strum malum dispensantem veritatem, securitatem accipit à domino suo monente ac dicente: Quae dicunt facite, quae autem faciunt, nolite facere: dicunt enim, & non faciunt. Addo etiam ad hoc esse melius, vt ille cui ministratur, ministri boni probitatem ac sanctitatem diligendo faci­lius imitetur: Sed non ideo veriora & sanctiora sunt quae ministrantur, quia per meliorem ministrantur. Illa namque per seipsa vera & sancta sunt, propter Deum verum & sanctum cuius sunt, & ideo fieri potest vt acce­dens adsoctetatem populi Dei, alium inueniat à quo facilè baptizetut, alium eligat quem salubriter imitetur. Certus [Page 116]est enim sanctume esse sacramentum Christi, etiamsiper mi­nus sanctum, vel non sanctum hominem ministratum est, se autem eiusdem ipsius sacramenti sanctitate puniri, si in­dignè acciperit; si malè vsus fuerit, si ei non conuenienter & congruè vixerit. August. contra Cres. Gram. lib: 4. Chap. 20. The summe of Augustines vvords is, that the Sacrament is administred better by a good, then by a bad minister: yet that the Sacraments of them­selues are true and holy, &c. by vvhat minister soe­uer they be deliuered, &c. If any shall aske me, whe­ther it be lavvfull to omitte the partaking of the ho­ly Sacrament in such Churches, ouer which ig­norant ministers are set, and to present our selues and our infantes to the holy Sacrament in o­ther Churches: my answere is, that I referre them to the Magistrate and gouernours of our Chur­ches, &c.

Nothing is answered to this.

An obiection of a fantasticall body.

By whom a thing ought not to be deliuered, by another it ought not to be receiued: but ignorant ministers ought nor to deliuer the Sacra­ments, therefore &c.

The maior is false. My reason is. An euill man ought not to deliuer the word of God, but we ought to receiue it. An euill man ought not to giue almes, but a poore man may receiue it. An absurde mi­nister ought not to deliuer the Sacrament, but they are not polluted which receiue it.

The obiection concerning the giuer and the receiuer, was neuer mine: I could turne it against you, but I must be briefe.

It was not yours, I confesse. I doe not charge you [Page 117]with it. It was an other mans. You must giue some other men leaue to make fond arguments as well as your selfe. You could turne it, you say, against me. You are one of the strangest turners that euer I knewe. You haue turned out such a deale of grosse diuinity vpon me and other, that we are wearie, and you may be ashamed of it.

CHAP. 10. I. Penry. THE GODLY DOE SINNE, which doe communicate with vnpreaching ministers.

Reasons.

Because they communicate with those, who are no Ministers.

YOu haue bene liberall in charging me to begge the question. It is your fault in this place. You affirme that vnprea­ching Ministers are no Ministers: I denie it. It is very strange to mee that you will accompt ignorant Leuitical priests lawfull priestes, and denie vnpreaching Ministers to haue any calling. If you were indifferent, you would serue them both alike.

They cannot be assured to receiue a sacrament at their handes.

Your selfe denies not that they are the Sacramēts which are deliuered by vnpreaching Ministers. If they be the Sacraments which are administred, I am sure, first, that they are the Sacraments which are re­ceiued: [Page 118]secondly, that they haue a calling which do administer them. Besides, the ignorance of the Mi­nister cannot pollute the godly receiuer.

They do not examine themselues aright, & so are not worthy receiuers, 1. Cor. 11.28. in as much as they do not acknowledge it a sinne to commu­nicate where there is no Minister.

This reason is all one with your first: therefore it is alreadie answered. They which offer themselues to the holy Table, without due examinatiō of them­selues, are vnworthy receiuers. This examination consists of faith and repentance.

Because they either make the element to bee a Sacrament naturally in it selfe, and not by the ordinance of God, or els thinke the ordinance of God in the institution of the Sacrament, onely to consist in the recitall of the words: I baptise thee, &c. or take, eate, &c. whereas a Minister is a most principall part of the ordinance.

You are an vnpleasant Musician: You harpe still on one string: viz. that vnpreaching Ministērs haue no calling. Vnlesse that be graunted, you are at a full point. No godly man that I knowe maketh the ele­ment to be a Sacrament naturally in it selfe: or once thinketh that it is a Sacrament, when the wordes of institution I baptize thee, &c. or take, eate, &c. are ad­ded to the elemēts, by one that hath no calling. On­ly M. Penry is of that iudgement, which denieth not that they are Sacraments, which are administred by vnpreaching Ministers: and yet these Sacraments are but bare elemēts, if vnpreaching Ministers haue no calling, as M. Pen. affirmeth. You make the Mini­ster a most principal part of the Sacrament. I graunt the Minister is an instrument to deliuer it, but the [Page 119]most principal part & life of the Sacramēts, depen­deth vpō Gods promises expressed in his holy word

Because they make the Sacraments to be markes no more essential vn­to the Church, then to other idolatrous Synagogues: for, the element may be deliuered out of the Church, by a publique person, euen as substātially, as by our meere readers.

This reason must needs by a sure one, it is so hand­somely trussed together. The godly communicants confesse the Sacraments to be essential marks of the Church, & that idolatrous Synagogues are vnwor­thie of such precious iewels. I graunt that water, which is the outward element in Baptisme, may be deliuered by any either womā or priuate man with­out the Church: but, it shall not be a Sacrament, as that is, which is deliuered by vnpreaching Mini­sters. If I should tel you, that a Sacrament hath bene deliuered out of the Church, you would accompt it a strange paradoxe. What I thinke of it, doeth ap­peare in an other place of this treatise. But, what if M. Penry denieth not, that baptisme hath bene and is deliuered out of the Church? That hee doeth not, deny it, it is manifest: His owne words are these: Wil you hold that there is a Church in Popery? the asser­tion is dāgerous, &c. pag. 25. And a litle after he hath these words: In Popery there is no Church, pag. 27. M. Penry in other places of his booke, denieth not that such as were baptized in Poperie receiued true baptisme: therfore he denieth not, that a Sacrament is deliuered out of the Church, &c. euen by Popish priestes which (as hee saith) haue no calling at all in the Church.

They approue the finne of the vnpreaching Ministerie.

[Page 120]

The Apostles receiued the Lordes Supper with Iudas: but they did not approue the theft & treason of Iudas. The godly which desire executiō of iustice at the hands of a heathen or corrupt Magistrate, can not be said to approue either Paganisme or corrup­tion in the Magistrate: for then the Apostle sinned grosly in appealing vnto Caesar, Acts. 25. The godly communicants do not approue any sinne of the ig­norant Ministerie: for they condemne it and pray against it.

Because they are perswaded, that Christ doeth deliuer vnto them the seales of their saluation, by the handes of those that are not Ministers: to wit, by vnpreaching readers. In all which points, the godly sinne, & there­fore are polluted in communicating with vnpreaching Ministers.

Not one learned man in this land that I can heare of, is so perswaded. They al do confesse that vnprea­ching Ministers haue a calling: and that the godly receiuing the Sacrament at their handes, are para­kers of the seales of their saluation. If you and your crewe be otherwise affected, God sende you other mindes.

Iohn Penry. In his addition Page 65.

And I dare arrest and attaint of high treason, against the Maiestie of the highest, all those both men and Angels, who either defende the com­municating with them lawful, communicate with them, or tollerate them as ministers vnder their gouernement.

You lay on loade: but it is fulmen sine tonitru: blacke cloudes, but no raine. When your single arguments will not serue the turne, you play the of­ficer, and doe arrest for traitours against God, all the Magistrates and learned men of this lande. [Page 121]The best is, Almighty God hath not put his mace in­to your hands. It is a note of a false prophet to kill the soules of them that die not. Ezech. 13. That they are not polluted which receiue the Sacraments at the hands of vnpreaching Ministers, is sufficiently prooued. Such Bishops and Patrons, as haue either ordeined or presented vnfit men to the holly mini­stery and clergie liuings, haue much to answere for. I doe not defend or excuse such Bishops, Patrons, or ministers. I know they haue highly offended the maiestie of God: and I pray God with all my heart, that this sore may be healed.

They of whose ministery there is a Nullitie before God, although they haue an outward calling, ought not to be accoumpted ministers: therefore not to be communicated with.

I deny your Antecedent: My reasons are: first, there was a nullitie before God of Caiphas priest­hood: for he entred by money, and the priesthood was diuided betweene him and Annas, against the Lords order. Calu. Luc. 3. yet Caiphas is called the high Priest by the Euangelists. Matth. 26. Iohn 18. Secondly, there was a nullitie before God, of the ministery of some in Philippi, which preached Christ of contention, and to adde more affliction to Paules bandes. Philip. Chap. 1.15, 16. But these are ac­compted ministers by the Apostle verse 15.18. If a­ny shall deny, that there was a nullitie before God of their ministerie, I proue it thus: they had not an inward calling. M. Penry saieth, that an inward cal­ling is contained in the sufficiencie of gifts and wil­lingnesse to practise them. Pag. 45. If M. Penry meane the practise of gifts to Gods glory, I say, Amen, vnto [Page 122]it. I confesse that they of Philippi had gifts in some measure, but they had not willingnesse to practise those gifts to Gods glory: which willingnesse &c. is one of the necessary branches of an inwarde cal­ling. That they of Philippi had not this willing­nes &c. it is manifest: for they sought themselues, & practised their gifts wholy to encrease the Apostles afflictions.

Concerning the Nullitie of our readers ministery, we are to know, that there is a nullitie of a ministery before God, eyther because the action proceedeth from a corrupt minister, as Psalm. 50.16. whome God woulde not haue to deale with his ordinances, or from a corrupt and euill mi­nisterie, which is none of Gods ordinance. The action of the former is substantiall in regard of vs: of the latter wee knowe 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 ministerie is of this latter sort, namely such as we ought in no wise to account a ministery. Whereas therefore you grant that there is a nul­litie of our readers ministery before God, and yet affirme them to be mi­nisters, you swarue from the point, and so your answere is nothing to the purpose, but a desiring of the question, after your vsuall manner. As Cai­phas then, and the rest of the sleepy dogges, against whome the prophet cryeth out, were wicked men, God would not haue such to bee his mini­sters: hither referre Esay 1.13. But as they had the ministery which God allowed of, they were ministers vnto the people. This ministery, our rea­ders want, therefore they can be no ministers, neyther in respect of the Lorde, nor of the Church. Shemaiah was a wicked man, and a false pro­phet, so were the rest of his stampe. The Lord detested both them and their ministerie. Zephaniah and Caiphas high priests with their company, were as wicked as any of the false prophets, the Lorde abhorred the men, but their ministery was his ordinance. Hence. M Some, it followeth, that neither the briberie of your Caiphas, nor the blindnesse of your ignorant Leuites, can make such a nullitie of their prietshood, as they should bee no priestes vnto the people. And therefore great reason why the parents of our sauiour, and the rest of the godly wherof you speake, Page 28. 29. should not leaue the seruice of God for the pollution of the priests. Esay speaketh against blind watchmen, Chap. 56.10. but chap. 42.19, 20. it shall appeare, that they sawe many things, but kept them not. I pray you conferre the places, and it can neuer be prooued, that any of them were so blinde, as they could not declare by preaching the generall vse of the sacrifices and ceremonies. Their wants might be many, but not like the insufficiency of our readers. Be it they were as insufficient, yet their ministerie might be allowable.

[Page 123]

Your answere consisteth of seuerall branches. I will handle the chiefest of them so briefly as I can. Your first branch is, that the ministery of the igno­rant Leuiticall priests is allowed of God: but that the outward calling of our vnpreaching ministers, is not allowed of God. Of this you conclude, that the Leuitical priests were ministers vnto the people (and consequently that Ioseph and the virgine Mary were not polluted by their Sacrifices) but that our vnpreaching ministers are not so to vs. If the action of ignorant ministers be, as you write, not substanti­all in regard of vs: then you must deny (which be­fore you did not) that any Sacrament either was or is deliuered by them. I would fayne know why the ministery of the ignorant Leuites should be allow­ed, and not the ministerie of ignorant ministers. I confesse freely, that I take their cases to be like, how­soeuer you mince & shift the matter. But Ismel your meaning: Latet anguis in herba, there is a padde in the strawe. To proceede, you stand very much vpon the outward calling of the ministers in our Church. If you repell the vnpreaching minister for his igno­rance, you can not allowe the ignorant Leuiticall priests. If you repell the vnpreaching minister, be­cause of his outward calling, you may by the like reason discharge the worthiest ministers in this land of the holy ministerie: for all haue one and the same externall calling in the Church of England. If you be so affected, the next newes we shall heare of you, will be that you shake hands with our Anabaptisti­call recusants, Vno absurdo dato, multa consequuntur. that is, Euery absurditie hath many attendantes. [Page 124]The second branch of your answere, is, a compa­ring, or rather preferring the ignorant Leuiticall priests before our ignorant ministers. Nobile par: neither barrell better herring. I must a little while examine this second braunch of yours. You tell vs that the wants of the Leuiticall priestes might bee many, but not like the insufficiencie of our readers. For proofe of this, you quote two textes in the Pro­phet Esay. The first is contained in these wordes: Their watchmen are all blind: they haue no knowledge: they are all dumbe dogges: they cannot barke: they lie and sleepe, and delight in sleeping. Esa. 56. Will you gather of these vvordes, that the ignorant Leuiticall priests were more learned and better furnished then the ignorant ministers? The prophet Esay saieth that these Leuitical priests had neither rem nor spem, that is, that they were woe begone. If you woulde study seuen yeeres, you could not deuise to speake worse of the most ignorant ministers in our Church. The second place of the Prophet hath these words: Who is blinde but my seruant? or deafe as my messenger that I sent? who is blinde as the perfit, and blind as the Lords ser­uants? Seeing many thinges but thou keepest them not? opening the eares, but hee heareth not? Esay 42. Esay in these verses calleth the Leuiticall priests blinde and deafe, not in body, but in heart, because they did see and heare Gods iudgements with their bo­dilie eyes and eares, and did not obserue them with the eyes and eares of their hearts. You can not conclude of this place, that the ignorant Leui­ticall priests were deeper clerkes then the ignorant ministers in the Church of England. The thirde branch of your answere is, that the ministery of Cai­phas [Page 125]was the Lords ordinance. I deny it, and do dis­sent from you in this. My reason is: Caiphas had not the high prieshood alone, therefore his high priest­hood was not the Lords ordinance. The Antece­dent is manifest, for Annas and Caiphas were high priests together, Luk. 3. The argument followes: for the Lords ordinance was that onely one should be the high priest. Calu: Luk. 3.2. You say nothing here of the contentious ministers of Philippi. You take and leaue at your pleasure. It pleaseth you to cal Cai­phas, my Caiphas, and the blinde Leuites, my igno­rant Leuites. I should bee spedde, I perceiue, if I would receiue al that you cast vpon me. Before, you did lade me with reuerence: now, you throwe Cai­phas and the ignorant Leuites, as cobble stones, at me. You are very liberall: but I refuse your ghests: I disclaime them, and returne them to your selfe. You are much fitter to entertaine them, then I: for, you haue magnified Caiphas ministery, & are a hot plea­der for the ignorant Leuiticall priests. That appea­reth in your wordes which follow.

CHAP. 11. I. Penry. VNFITNES TO TEACH, made not a nullitie of the Leuiticall Priests office.

Reasons.

Because it was sufficient, to make him a lawfull, though not a good Priest, for him to be of the line of Aaron.

YOu haue examined and censured my reasons at your pleasure. I hope, I may with your good leaue looke a litle vp­on yours. My answere is: first, If your first reason be good, then they which [Page 126]receiued the Sacraments at their handes, were not polluted. If they were not polluted, what say you to these arguments? viz. The Sacrament may not be receiued at his handes, which wanteth outward cal­ling: therefore not at his hands which is destitute of the inwarde graces. I. Pen. Againe, we haue no war­rant to receiue an extraordinarie Sacrament: But that which is administred by ignorant Ministers is an extraordinarie Sacrament, if it be any: therefore we haue no warrant to receiue it. You know, I am sure, the father of these two arguments. They came out of your owne Mint. Secondly, if your first rea­son be good, then a corrupt externall approbation made them lawful Priests, which had not an inward calling, that is, sufficiencie of gifts, &c. If you denie the externall approbation of the ignorant Leuites, to be a corrupt approbation, I proue it thus. It was a breach of Gods owne order, therefore it was a cor­rupt approbation. The antecedēt is manifest in these words: The Priests lips shall keepe knowledge, and they shall seeke the Law at his mouth, &c. Mal. 2. Therefore the ex­ternall approbation of ignorant Leuites was a cor­rupt approbation.

There was no commaundement concerning the triall of his fitnesse to teache: therefore vnfitnesse to teach made not a nullitie of the Leuiticall Priestes office.

You proue your antecedent thus: Almightie God said to Moses: Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sonnes to execute the Priests office, &c. Num. 3.10. My answere is: No trial of giftes in Aaron & his sonnes was needfull at the first: for Almightie God did furnish thē accor­dingly. My reason is cōteined in these words of God [Page 127]himselfe: My couenant was with him of life and peace and I gaue him feare, and he feared me, and was afraide before my Name. The Lawe of trueth was in his mouth and there was no iniquitie found in his lippes: he walked with me in peace and equitie, and did turne many away from iniquitie. Mal. 2.5, 6. God did neuer call any to the holy Mini­sterie, but he gaue them giftes fit for that function. I haue proued this point in the beginning of this trea­tise. To thinke otherwise of his Maiestie, is great wickednes. I hope, you will not reason thus: There was no commandement cōcerning the trial of gifts in Aaron and his sonnes at the first: therefore there was neuer any triall afterward of giftes in Aarons po­steritie. If you reason thus, I denie your Argument. My reason is, If euery one of Aarons posteritie, how vnfit so euer, might enter into the Priestes office by the Lords warrant, Almightie God might be iustly charged to haue had very little care, either of his owne honor, or of the Church of the Israelites. Yea, his Maiestie had flatly broken one of his owne posi­tiue Lawes conteined in these wordes: The Priestes lips shall keepe knowledge: they shall seeke the Lawe at his mouth. Mal. 2.

It is not mentioned that any were put from the Priesthoode for want of this abilitie, whereas the doubt whether they were the sonnes of Aaron, Es­ra. 2. and their idolatrie, 2. Chro. bereaued them thereof: therefore vnfitnes to teach made not a nullitie of the Leuiticall Priestes office.

Your reason is very weake: It is not mentioned &c. therefore none were. I deny your argument: for it is, à non scripto ad nō factum, which is not sure in this case. If no ignorant Leuiticall Priests were remoued frō the priesthood, for their vnfitnes to teach: Gods [Page 128]Church had, & the gouernours did, greater wrong. I am sure, they shoulde haue bene remoued: for Al­mightie Gods resolution is flat in these wordes: Be­cause thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee, that thou shalt bee no priest to mee, &c. Hos. 4. The wise Prince will displace an absurde Ambassadour. The valiant captaine will remooue a cowardly souldier. The husbande man will not suffer that drudge to at­tend on his trough, which cannot feede his hogs. If such as were not founde within the compasse of Aa­rons genealogie, were remoued frō the Priesthoode, they had no wrong: for, this was a Law of God him­selfe: Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sonnes to execute the priests office: and, the strāger that commeth neere, shall be slaine. Numb. 3.10. If such as committed idolatrie, were discharged of the Priesthood, they were iustly dealt with. Ezech. 44.

The example of Paul, Acts. 21.26. confirmeth this, who communicated since his conuersion with those priests that were as vnlearned as euer any: which hee would not haue done, if inabilitie to teache, had made them no priestes. Now therefore M. Some, to make your Argument from the Le­uitical priesthood to be forcible for your vnpreaching Ministers, you must prooue, that either our Readers Ministerie is a Leuiticall Ministerie, that the continuance thereof is vnder the new Couenant, or shew that the cor­rupt approbation, (for so I name the best outwarde calling they can haue of the Church) is as forcible to make them Ministers, as was the ordinance of God to make the sonnes of Aaron sacrificing at Ierusalem, to be priests.

How learned or vnlearned the priests at that time were in Ierusalem, appeareth not in that place of the Actes. The meaning of S. Luke is this: The Apostle Paul was accompted by the Iewes an enemie of Mo­ses Lawe. To cleare himselfe of this, hee entred into Salomons Temple by the aduise of the Apostle Iames, and of the brethren in Ierusalem, and was purified. [Page 129] Acts. 21.26. Your last reason serues very fitly for my purpose: therefore I will vse it as a sworde to cut in pieces some of your fancies. Paul, you say, commu­nicated after his conuersion with those priests, that were as vnlearned as euer any, & was not polluted. Of this I conclude: therefore they which receiue the Sacraments at the hands of vnpreaching Ministers, are not polluted. My reason is: The ignorant Leuites and ignorant Ministers agree in eodem tertio, that is, in ignorance. But M. Penry replies that an argument from the Leuiticall priesthoode, is not forcible for vnpreaching Ministers. To proue this, he vseth two reasons. The first is: our readers Ministerie is not a Leuiticall Ministerie, therefore an Argument from the Leuitical Priesthood, is not forcible for vnprea­ching Ministers. My answere is: I graunt that no mi­nisterie in these dayes is a Leuiticall ministerie: for, the date of that ministerie is out long ago. But I de­nie your Argument. My reason is: An argument is and may be forcibly drawen from one thing to an­other, which are vnmatchable. All Logicians con­fesse that similitudes are of things which differ. Eue­ry meane Sophister in the Vniuersitie knoweth it. It is very like that you haue forgottē it. Such trifles are too base for your great spirits. Your second reason is: The corrupt approbation of vnpreaching Mini­sters (so you name the best outward calling they can haue of the Church) is not so forcible to make them Ministers, as was the ordinance of God to make the sonnes of Aaron sacrificing at Ierusalē, to be priestes: therefore an Argument from the Leuiticall priest­hood is not forcible for vnpreaching Ministers. My answer is: I deny your antecedent, and do adde this: [Page 130]first, that it is as lawfull (that is to say, vtterly vnlaw­full) to make vnfit Ministers now, as it was before to make vnfit priestes. Secondly, that it was not Gods pleasure, that all the posteritie of Aaron without ex­ception, that is, tagge and ragge, shoulde be admit­ted to the holy priesthood. For neither you, nor any man aliue, may reason thus: The Leuiticall priest­hoode must rest in the tribe of Leui: therefore euery one of that tribe (though vnfit for that holy functiō) was to be admitted to the priesthoode. You might very soundly haue disputed thus: The Leuiticall priesthood must be kept within the compasse of the tribe of Leui, by Gods expresse commaundement, Num. 3. therefore no stranger might come neere the Lords altar. You call the best outward calling in the Church of England, a corrupt approbation. If you meane it is corrupt in admitting ignorant men to the holy Ministerie, so was the ordeyning of ignorāt Leuites at Ierusalem. If you meane that the best out­ward calling in the Church of Englād, is simply cor­rupt, that is, none at al, though sufficient men be ad­mitted, I detest your Anabaptistical fancie: for then the worthiest Diuines in this land, are no Ministers. Besides, it is confessed of all famous & learned men, that Gods Church is not necessarily tied in all pla­ces and times, to one forme in the externall calling of the ministers.

CHAP. 12. I. Penry. THE CORRVPT ALLOW­ance of the Church cannot make our readers to be substantiall Ministers.

FOr so all men & women without or within the Church, might be capable of the Ministerie, because all may be capable of this outward allowance. Secondly and par­ticularly, a man not furnished with naturall capacitie: thirdly, a man that could not reade, though he wanted also the gift of interpretation: for, such a one might re­cite the liturgie without the booke: fourthly y ^e Church might make a man Minister against his will, though he should neuer con­sent thereunto. And this is the willingnes that I meane, when I say, that the inward calling is conteined in the sufficiencie of giftes, and willingnes to practise: which willingnes, I gather vpon the wordes, [...], and [...], vsed of the Apostle, 1. Tim. 3.1. Your reason therefore from the malicious Philippian Ministers, toucheth not the question. Thus Caiphas with his crew of vnworthy and monstrous priestes (who within a few pages, in your booke haue impudently so often troubled the Reader) is answered. And I thinke it a great iudgement of God, that the ornaments of our English and Welch Ministery, for the most part, consisteth in the deformitie of such lothsome spots.

If by substantial Ministers, you meane such as are furnished with giftes in good measure, it is the pecu­liar office of God to make such, either miraculously, as hee did the Prophets and many in the Primitiue Church: or by blessing mens godly studies, as in la­ter and our times. It passeth the Churches reach, by any externall calling to make men furnished mini­sters, which before the external allowance, were not furnished by God himselfe: therefore to bee of the line of Aaron, did make the ignorant Leuites no more to be substantiall priestes, then the externall calling nowe, doeth make ignorant men to be substantiall Ministers. The summe of your reasons may be shut [Page 132]vp briefly in this argument: All may be capable, as you say, of the outward allowance: therefore the out­ward calling of the Church makes not a Minister to vs, vnlesse he haue the inward. Your antecedent is a speciall one. If you were not strangely caried, some branches of it might haue bene kept in. I trust you do not condemne a prescript liturgie in the Church of God. If you do, all the reformed Churches dissent from you, and their practise doeth apparantly con­fute you. But I leaue that, and denie your argument. My reasons are: first, the ignorant Leuites had an out­ward calling, but not an inward: yet they were law­ful priests by your owne confession. Secondly, Iudas was called outwardly, but not inwardly: yet he was an Apostle. Lastly, the Apostle chargeth Timothee not to lay handes rashly on any, 1. Tim. 5. therefore the outwarde allowance is more then you accompt of. My reason from the cōtentious Ministers of Phi­lippi, &c. was a very sure one, & did ouerthrow your fancie. Because you cannot answere it, you tell me, it toucheth not the question. A briefe kinde of answe­ring. Caiphas and the Leuiticall priests haue bene al­ledged no otherwise by mee, then by those worthy men Caluine, Beza, &c. before mee. The mention of them hath not troubled the godly Reader at al, there­fore not impudently, as you giue out very sawcily. I perceiue they haue distempered you: for in steade of answering my argument, you exclaime vpon them. Your gift in answering, is very rare. You make wash­way of the weightiest argumēts. Vnto the lothsome spots in the English and Welch Ministery, God graunt either soueraigne medicine to cure them, or sounde expulsion to remoue them.

[Page 133]

Lastly, if your antecedent be true, viz. that they of whose ministerie there is a nullitie before God, although they haue an outward calling, ought not to be accōpted ministers: what say you to this pro­position? They of whose magistracie there is a nul­litie before God, though they haue an outward cal­ling, ought not to be accompted magistrates. Doe you not thinke this proposition to bee very dange­rous? I could presse and follow this very farre, but I abstaine of purpose.

You demaund what I thinke of this proposition. Surely my iudgement is, that it is altogether without sense, and ouerthroweth it selfe: for, it is as if you sayd, he of whose faith there is a nullitie before God, though he be assured of his saluation, is not to be accompted a faithfull man. Why? to be assured of saluation, and to haue a nullitie of faith before God, can not stand together. No more can the outward calling of the magistracy, stand with the nullitie thereof. For the outward calling maketh a substan­tiall magistrate. But, M. Some, where is that reason which you could presse so farre? is this it? they of whose magistracy there is a nullity before God, ought not to be accompted magistrates. I say, your proposition is true: assume what you will, you know what maner of nullitie I meane.

My proposition in your iudgement is without sense. You are very peremptory. A word, I perceiue, and a blowe. I may say truely that your answere is without sense. I grant, that the outward calling ma­keth a wicked man a substantiall magistrate in that towne or Citie, ouer which he is set: But I am very sure, that because he wāteth the inward calling, &c. that almightie God doth not allow that magistrate. My proofe is contained in these words of God him­selfe: They haue set vp a king, but not by mee: they haue made Princes, and I knewe it not. Hos. 8. that is, I did not consent vnto it and allow it. The reason is: Almigh­tie [Page 134]God had appointed the posteritie of Dauid, to sit in the seat of that kingdome, vntil the comming of christ. The Israelites did set vp Ieroboā &c. It pleased you to write, that they of whose ministerie there is a nullitie before God, that is, that they whō God hath not furnished with gifts, are not to bee accompted ministers of vs. I doe see no reason, why in your iudgement, (I say yours, not mine) there should not be the like sense of this propositiō, viz. they of whose magistracy there is a nullitie before God, that is, that they whome the Lord hath not furnished with giftes &c. are not to bee accompted magistrates of vs. I grant, that both ministery and magistracie are Gods ordinance: but euery minister and magi­strate is not so. If they were, wee coulde not distin­guish as we may betweene rem & personam, that is, betweene the man and the function.

CHAP. 13. I. Penry. THERE BE THREE ESSEN­tiall differences betweene an euill magistrate and a reading minister.

1.

THe outward calling of an euill Magistrate, maketh him a substantiall Magistrate: so cannot the outward alow­ance of Readers, make them to be Ministers.

I graunt, that there are and may be many more essentiall differences be­twene Magistrates & Ministers, then you set downe. Yet this simile shall be good for matter and maner in this sort: viz. Vnfit Magistrates outwardly called are [Page 135]Magistrates to vs, therfore vnfit Ministers outward­ly called are Ministers to vs. My reason is: the aboue named Magistrates and Ministers agree in vnfitnes and outwarde allowance. I confesse, that vnfit men ought not to be aduanced, either to Magistracie or Ministerie: yet the actiōs of vnfit both Ministers and Magistrates, are substantiall to vs, vntill they be re­moued. That an argument may very fitly be drawen from the magistracie to the ministerie, appeareth by this litle which I haue deliuered. To proceede, I doe not see, why the outward allowance of the Church, doeth not distinguish vnpreaching Ministers from priuate men, as well as outwarde baptisme doeth di­stinguish such as are baptized, from Paganes.

2 The Magistracie of an euill Magistrate, may be allowable before God: so cannot the Ministerie of Readers.

In your seconde difference, the Magistracie and Ministerie are strangely sorted. You should haue set it downe thus: the Magistracie of an euil Magistrate may be allowable before God, so cannot the mini­sterie of euill Ministers. If you had matched them so, I woulde haue answered, that both Magistracie and Ministerie is of God, whatsoeuer the Magistrate or Minister is. If you will not deliuer your second diffe­rence otherwise then you haue, I answere first, that the Magistracie of Pilate, Licinius, &c. was of God, though his Maiestie detested such Magistrates: Se­condly, that though ignorant men are not allovved by Almighty God for good and sufficient ministers, yet the outvvarde calling doeth distinguish them to vs, from priuate men: othervvise it vvere vvide vvith your ignorant Leuites.

[Page 136]

3. Men may be assured, to receiue that according to the ordinance 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 partaker of a substantiall Sacrament, at the handes of such: and preach they cannot. I haue handled this point of the Magistracie in my former booke, from page 47. to 51.

There is some good thing, I cōfesse, in the vvorst gouernment: therefore the Philosophers resolution is, that it is better to liue vnder a tyrant, then vnder no gouernour. In this last difference of yours, you giue me some aduātage: for the corrupt Magistrate hath and may peruert iustice, that is, sell the righte­ous for siluer and the poore for shooes: but the ig­norant minister cannot peruert the Sacramēt which is Gods ordinance: and you haue giuen out often in your Treatise, that you denie them not to be the Sa­craments of Baptisme and the holy Supper, vvhich are deliuered by vnpreaching Ministers. You con­fesse in this place, that Magistracie is the ordinance of God. You say very truely: but, in your Addition whither you referre me, you haue hādled that point vvith very foule and bepitched handes. In your Ad­dition you vse these vvords, viz. Magistracie is an hu­maine ordinance, that is, as you expounde it, not an Ecclesiasticall constitution prescribed in the word. This is a very grosse and Anabaptisticall errour. Al­mightie God saith thus: By mee Kings reigne. Prou. 8. Our Sauiour Christ a litle before his condemnation, ansvvereth Pilate which was gouernour of Iudea vn­der the Romanes, in this sort: Thou couldest haue no pow­er at all against mee, except it were giuen thee from aboue. Iohn. 19. The Apostle Paul writeth thus: There is no power but of God: and the powers that bee, are ordeined of [Page 137]God: whosoeuer therefore resisteth the power, re­sisteth the ordinance of God Rom. 13. The Greeke Poet can teach you this Lesson: [...]. Euery lear­ned man knoweth, first, that the ciuill gouerne­ment before, in, and after the time of Nimrod, and after the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt, vn­till their entrance into the land of Chanaan, and in Chanaan vntill and after the captiuity in Babylon, was the Lords ordinance, & appeareth in Gods booke. Secondly, that the disposing of the foure famous Monarchies, viz. the first of the Chaldeans, the second of the Medes and Persians, the third of the Macedoni­ans, the fourth of the Romanes, was Gods ordinance, and set downe in his holy booke. Lastly, the reue­rēce of the Magistrates which is printed by almigh­tie God in the hearts of subiects & inferiours, doth cry aloude against you, that magistracy is not a de­uise of man, but an Ecclesiasticall constitution and ordinance of almighty God, prescribed in his holy worde. If you tell me, that the Apostle Peter calleth magistracie an humaine ordinance, 1. Pet. 2: I grant he doth so: but his meaning is not, that magistracy was ordeined and deuised by man, but by almighty God, for the benefit of man. No man, vnlesse he bee an Anabaptist, expounds the Apostle Peters words as you doe: so that, not the Apostles wordes, but the sense which you giue them, is Anabaptisticall. Non scriptura, sed sensus scripturae, est haeresis. that is, Not the scripture, but the sense of the scripture, is heresie.

CHAP. 14. I. Penry. WHETHER THE GODLY doe sinne, which receiue the holy Sacrament at the hands of an vnpreaching Minister.

THe Sacrament may not be receiued at his handes, which wanteth outward calling: therefore not at his hands, who is destitute of the inward graces.

Your Antecedent is true, and ma­keth against the Anabaptists. I deny your argument. My reason is: Omnia Sacramenta cum obsint indignè tractantibus, prosunt tamen per eos dig­nè sumentibus. Aug. contra epist. Parmen. lib. 2. ca 10. that is, all Sacraments, though they hurt such as doe handle them vnworthily, yet they profit such, as doe worthily receiue them at their handes.

My reason concluding the vnlawfulnesse of communicating with rea­ders, hauing but an outward calling, because it is a sinne to communicate with them, which only want the same hauing fitnesse to teach, is such, as I cannot but maruaile, that you would thinke it could be answered by a de­siting of the question, which is a fault in reasoning, wherein belike you seeme to take delight. You say againe, that readers deliuer a Sacrament. How can we be sure thereof? and why may not I say as well, that a man in­dued with gifts to teach, doth deliuer a Sacrament, though he haue no outward calling? which assertion would be false.

You are the strangest answerer that euer I met with. I must be content & answere you. If they sinne which receiue the Sacraments of him which hath an outward calling and wants the inward: then ma­ny godly Israelites were polluted which receiued the Sacraments of the ignorant Leuiticall priestes, which had an outward but not the inward calling. [Page 139]You denie the latter, therefore you cannot affirme the former, vnlesse you be voyde of common sense. Petitio principij, begging of the question is a speciall pearle in your booke. You charge me to delight in it. I vse it not: there is neither pleasure nor profit in it. You are a priuiledged man: you may say what you list. The best is, I can receiue no disgrace by any speeches of such as you are.

We haue no warrant to reeiue an extraordinarie Sacrament: But that, which is administred by ignorant ministers, is an extraordinary Sacra­ment if it be any: Therefore, we haue no warrant to receiue it.

I deny your Minor, and doe adde this: first, that it is a Sacrament by your own confession, pag. 50.51. which is administred by ignorant ministers. Se­condly, that it is no extraordinarie Sacrament, which is deliuered by them, vnlesse you will call Baptisme and the holy Supper, extraordinarie Sa­craments.

By an extraordinary Sacrament, I meane Baptisme or the Lords Sup­per, administred eyther priuately by a minister, or any way by one that is no minister. I neuer affirmed, the Elements deliuered by readers to bee Sacraments. It is one thing not to deny them, an other thing to affirme them to be Sacraments: The former I haue written, the latter I neuer did: and they doe my writings great iniurie, that report the contrary.

In the shutting vp of your Treatise, you haue bro­ched two errours, the one is, that it is an extraordi­narie Sacr [...]ent, which is deliuered any way by one that is no minister. Of this I gather, that you holde, that one which is no minister, may deliuer a Sacrament: for, an extraordinarie Sacrament is a Sacramēt. If I would enter into your vaine, I might set downe these consequents: viz. that bargemen, [Page 140]children, women, Idiots &c. in your iudgement, may administer an extraordinary Sacrament. Your other errour is, that the holy Supper &c. is an ex­traordinary Sacrament, when it is deliuered pri­uately by a minister. I am not of your iudgement in this: I am of M. Caluines: therefore I set downe this proposition: viz. that it is lawfull to administer the holy Supper in a particuler house, if some cautions and circumstances be obserued. The reasons do ap­peare a litle after. It pleaseth you to say, that as you neuer denied, so you neuer affirmed it to be a Sacra­ment which is deliuered by an vnpreaching mini­ster. A worthy resolution. If you denie not that it is a Sacrament, &c. you doe affirme it. For, not to de­ny is to affirme. Euery child can teach you that les­son. I doe lesse meruaile that you are so short and wide in excellent pointes of diuinitie, when you faile in a common point of Grammer. Thus, I see how complete a man you are.

If any will conclude of these my answeres, that I mislike M. Penries desire of a learned ministerie in Wales, hee takes vp that, which I neuer let fall: for I desire with al my heart, and the Lord for his Christs sake grant it, that not onely Wales may be furnished with worthy gouernours and pastours, but all other parts of her Maiesties Dominions, that Gods gra­ces may be more and more multiplied vpon vs and our posteritie, and his holy hand watch ouer vs.

M. Penry sayeth nothing to this.

CHAP. 15. R. Some. IT IS LAWFVL TO ADMI­nister the holy Supper in a priuate house, if some cautions be obserued.

The cautions which must be obserued, are:

M. Caluines reasons. Epist. 363.

IT is forcible for the confirmation of faith, to receiue a pledge, as it were, of Christes hand, whereby wee may bee more assured, that wee are of his body, and that we are fed with Christes flesh and blood, vnto hope of eternall life.

The receiuing of the holy Supper, doeth arme vs in our spirituall batraile: therefore the godly sicke man, is not to be barred of that singuler comfort. An eripiendum est singulare adiumētum, quo fretus ad luctam alacriùs descendat, & victoriam obtineat?

The holy Supper is a signe of holy vnitie amongst Gods children: therefore the godly sicke man, whe­ther hee haue a languishing sicknes, or be at deathes doore, is not to be barred from professing his vnitie and consent with Gods Church.

If any shall reply that the holy Supper, is not a priuate action of any housholde, but meere Eccle­siasticall: [Page 142] 1. Cor. 11. M. Caluines answere is, that the holy Supper deliuered to a godly sicke man, is part of the publique action. Partem vel appendicem esse con­stat publicae actionis. M. Caluine addeth these words: Neque verò Paulus, dum Corinthios admonet, domum cu­ique suam esse in qua comedat & bibat, Coenam excludit à priuatis aedibus. Tunc neque fidelibus patebant templa, ne­que vnquam permissum esset noua extruere. Sed tantùm à communibus epulis discernit spirituale mysterium, ne cum illis misceatur. That is, Paul when he doeth admonish the Corinthians that they haue priuate houses to eate and drinke in, doeth not shut the holy Supper from priuate houses: For then, the faithful neither had vse of any Churches, nor were suffred to build new. On­ly he distinguisheth the spirituall mysterie frō com­mon banquets, lest it should be mingled with them.

The same M. Caluine a litle after, hath these words: Coeterum diligenter cauendum esse fateor, ne qua obrepat superstitio, ne spes salutis externo Symbolo affigatur, &c. That is, diligent care must be had, that no superstiti­on creepe in, and that no hope of saluation be tied to the externall signe, &c. Epist. 363.

Of this iudgement is Peter Martyr in his Com­mentarie vpon the 10. chap. ad Cor. Fol. 143.

Chemnicius writeth that it is an absurde thing to tie the holy Supper to peculiar places: Ad substan­tiam Sacramenti, sicut non pertinet circumstantia tempo­ris, ita nec circumstantia loci, tanquā necessaria requiritur. Chemn. in 2. parte exam. con. Trid. That is, as the cir­cumstance of the time, is not necessarily required to the substance of a Sacrament, so neither the circum­stance of place.

I rest in the iudgement of these excellent men. If [Page 143]you dissent from mee, I pray you condemne these learned writers: but, not before you haue confuted their reasons.

CHAP. 16.

THus M. Some, I haue runne therowe those pointes in your booke that concerned me. I haue bene driuen to deale brieflyer therin, then I had determined. But I am enforced to ende, & to omit that, which page 9. I promised to handle in the latter ende, with diuers other things. I haue not the like libertie for Printing that you, M. Some, doe enioy. Procure me but the fa­uour to be iudicially heard according to the word, and I will personally vp­on the perill of my life, by the Lords assistance, defend these two points a­gainst all gainesayers. I am sory, that you whom I reuerence, should be the instrument to oppugne a trueth. The Lorde respect the cause of his owne glory, and pardon our sinne. Amen.

You haue runne your selfe out of breath. You had dealt more wisely, if you had gone with lesse haste and better speede. Sat citò, si sat bene. The breuitie which you giue out you are driuen to, is, dignum pa­tella operculum, a fit garment to couer your absurde writings. You haue not, you say, such libertie of prin­ting, as I. No reason you should. You broche and print grosse errours and Anabaptistical fancies: so do not I. You refuse to offer & submit your writings to the view and allowance of the Magistrates: so do not I. You would haue me procure you Iudicial hea­ring, &c. Your request is not equall. Nec te noui, nec vbi sis. Speake for your selfe in Gods Name: so will I, if you will reuoke your errours and heresies. Other­wise, I will not open my lippe for you, or any such as you are. After leaue obteined, you will appeare (you say) though it cost you your life, and deale in Argu­ment, [Page 144]&c. Oh noble Goliath! Doe you challenge all gainesayers? so did the Donatists in Augustines time. Aug. contra Don. post Coll. so did Photinus a grosse here­tike in Basils time. Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 6. so did Popish Campian in our time. Alas, good M. Penry, you are vt­terly vnfit for such a match. This heate of yours, is like a blaze of thornes. It will last but a while. Your cause is naught: your armour is not of proofe. Your Diuinitie is at a low ebbe. Your Arguments are pi­tifull: your answeres are silly. There is no hope of preuailing. The Donatists, Photinus and Campian pre­sumed of a glorious victorie: but they were learned­ly confuted. The Donatists by Augustine: Photinus by Basill of Ancyra: Campian by some of our learned men. Besides, their garland was poena perfidiae, non corona fi­dei. I would be sory, your garland shoulde be of such floures. The best conquest that you can haue, is, to ouercome your pride by humilitie, and your igno­rance by godly studie. [...]. Eurip. in Hippol. Excellēt men haue their second thoughts, wiser then their first. Non vincimur, quum meliora no­bis offerūtur, sed instruimur. Cipr. ad Qu. fratrem. It is no disgrace to yeeld to better things. You are sory, that I, whom you reuerence, should be an instrument to oppugne a trueth. Be sory for your selfe. Detest your fancies. Your reuerēce I make very meane accompt of. You are the first that euer charged me in writing to oppugne Gods trueth. I am very farre, I thanke God, from that great sinne. Gods trueth, I trust, is as deare to me as to you. I hope it hath had, and shall haue more defence by me, then by you: there is some reason it should. You misliked my last Treatise: if this booke finde the like grace at your hands, I must and [Page 145]will beare it. To your prayer, that the Lord would respect the cause of his owne glory, and pardon our sinnes, I say withall my heart, Amen. I haue now, thanks be to God, passed thorow your booke. I haue not runne, but walked a foote pace thorowe it. Your absurdities, I confesse, are brambles, but they haue not pricked me. I would some others tooke no more hurt by them. If my Treatise shall doe either you, or any of your followers good, I will be glad: If not, I say with the holy Apostle, If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 1. Cor. 14.38.

CHAP. 17.

IT hath pleased M. Penry to take some paines in prouing that Popish Priestes are no lawfull and good ministers of God, that is, that they haue no lawfull calling. In this hee fighteth with his shadow: for he hath not any of the religi­on his aduersarie. I mislike the Popish priesthoode and sacrifice, as much as he: and if occasion require, vvill set dovvne sure reasons to shake them both in pieces. That vvhich I holde in this controuersie, is, that Popish priestes haue a calling though a faultie one. If M. Penry wil improue that, he must take penne in hand and begin a fresh: for, as yet he hath not en­countred with that particuler. If he can preuaile in that, the famous writings of Caluine, Beza, &c. and the resolution of all the reformed Churches, in which I rest for this point, shal be condemned, and M. Penry shall haue the garland. Because I purpose to passe, so brief­ly as I can, thorow his Treatise of the Popish priests, I will handle first certaine propositions which are incident to that discourse.

The Popish Church is a Church though not a sound Church.

1. The Pope is Antichrist, therefore the Church of Rome is a Church.

No Protestant doubteth of the antecedent, &c. I proue my argument thus: Antichrist shall sit in the [Page 148]Temple of God. 2. Thess. 2.4. Per Templum Dei, Ecclesia: per sessionem, regnum intelligitur. Musc. 2. Thess. 2.4. that is, by the Temple of God, the Church: by sitting, a kingdome is vnderstanded.

Viretus a man of excellent learning, writeth thus of the popish Church: Non dum eò vs (que) degenerauit, & prolapsa est, vt eadem prorsus à nobis iudicari debeat, & eo haberi in loco, quo aut Mahumetana, aut Iudaica, quae Chri­stum penitus repudiant, & ab eius legibus & institutis ab­horrent. Nam, sinulla omnino extarent in ea, veteris Eccle­siae vestigia, Daniel non praedixisset, futuram abominatio­nem in loco sancto, nequè Paulus, perditum illum filium, in Templo Dei sessurum. Quomodo enim sederet Antichri­stus in Templo Dei, si nullae amplius superessent illius Tem­pli saltem reliquiae, & aliqua ruinarum vestigia? aut, quo­modo occupare abominatio lucū sanctum, si totus adeò esset profanatus, vt ne vllus quidem vel exiguus angulus pristi­nae sanctitati relictus esset? Nam, etsi praeualet, ac latiùs do­minari videtur, hominum iudicio, impietatis regnum: Et Christi Ecclesia vsqué eò oppressa, ac pene suffocata, vt vix spiritum ampliùs trahere possit, nondū tamen penitus ani­mam exhalait. Viret. Tract. de Commun. fid. cum Pap. cer. pag. 66. 67. The summe of his wordes is, first, that the popish Church may not be accompted of as the Ma­homet & Iewish Churches, which refuse Christ alto­gether: Secondly, that if no prints of Gods Church remayned in the popish Church, Daniel and Paul would not haue foretold: the one, that abomination should be in the Holy place: the other, that Anti­christ should sit in the temple of God: Lastly, that the Church of God amōgst the Papists, though it be al­most smothered, hath not as yet giuen vp the ghost.

Daneus writeth, that the Popish Church is the [Page 149]Church and Temple of God, not simply, but secun­dum quid, that is, after a sort: His reason is, because the popish Church retaineth some printe of the markes and badges of Gods Church. Tract. de Ant. cap. 17.

M. Foxe hath these words: Ne (que) enim Romam ita to­tam &c. In Apoc. cap. 13. pag. 235. that is, we doe not so seuer Rome frō al felowship of the church, that it shal haue no coniunction at all, with the body of Christ.

If M. Penry mislike my first reason, let him con­fute it, &c.

2 Ieroboam did set vp Calues at Bethel and Dan. In his time, the seruice of God was strangely corrup­ted: yet, certaine prerogatiues belonging to the Church, remained then amongst the Iewes. Circum­cision, which was the Lordes Sacrament, could not be so defiled by the vncleane hands of the Iewes, but that it was alwayes a signe and Sacrament of Gods couenant: therefore God called the infants of that people, his children, &c. In the Popish Church, God hath preserued Baptisme, &c. Besides, there remaine amōgst them other remnants, vidz, the Lords pray­er, the Articles of the faith, the Commandements, &c. least the Church should vtterly perish, &c. Last­ly, Almightie God hath miraculously preserued a­mongst them the remnants of his people, though poorely and thinly scattered, &c. Of this M. Caluine concludeth, that the popish Churches, are Chur­ches. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 2. sect. 11.12.

If my second reason, taken out of M. Caluine please you not, confute that part of M. Caluines Insti­tutions.

3 If there be no Church at all in Poperie, the in­fants [Page 150]of Papists, are not to bee baptized in any refor­med Church, though some of the religiō, doe answere for, & vndertake the good educatiō of them. Which I take to be a great errour.

Master Caluine, and the rest of the learned men in Geneua, being required of M. Knoxe to set downe their iudgement, touching this question, vidz. whe­ther the infants of Idolaters and excōmunicate per­sons might be admitted to baptisme, &c. deliuer this answere: Promissio, non sobolem tantum cuius (que) fidelium in primo gradu comprehendit, sed in mille generationes ex­tēditur. Vnde etiam factum est, vt pietatis interruptio, quae grassata est in papatu, &c. Calu. Epist. 285. The summe of their words is, that Gods promise, doth not onely comprehend the posterity of the faithfull in the first degree, but reacheth vnto a thousand generations: and that those children which descended of such an­cestours as were godly many yeeres ago, do belong to the body of the Church, though their parents and grandfathers were Apostates, &c. M. Beza writeth thus of this argument: Iniquū esset Papistas, &c. Epist. 10. The summe of his wordes is, that Papists are o­therwise to bee accompted of then Turkes: because Popery is an aberratiō of the Christian Church. Be­sides, because Gods goodnes extendeth it selfe to a thousande generations, that it were a hard case, to iudge by the profession of the later parents, whether the infants pertaine to Gods couenant, &c. Thus farre M. Beza.

If any shall reply, that Gods couenant hath no place at all amongst the Papists, and therefore that their infants are at no hande to bee baptized in our Churches, howsoeuer some of the religion offer [Page 151]them in the assemblie to the holy Sacrament: M. Caluines answere is: Certum est, adhuc illic manere resi­duum faedus Dei exparte: quia quamuis, &c. Cal. Ezec. 16.20. That is, It is certaine that the couenant is there on Gods behalfe, and therfore that Popish baptisme needeth not to be renued: besides, that Satan, albe­it he raigned of late in the Popish Church, could not altogether extinguish the grace of God: imò, illic est ecclesia. Alioqui, falsum esset Pauli vaticinium, vbi di­cit, antichristum sedere in Dei templo. 2. Thes. 2.4. That is, A Church is there: otherwise Paules prophecie, that Antichrist should sit in the temple of God, were false, &c. If it shall please the learned reader to reade M. Caluines Commentarie vpon chap. 16. and vers. 20. of Ezech. It will be worth his labour.

A Popish obiection of the absurde Papists, and of Master Penry.

If the Church of Rome be a Church, those Magistrates which haue se­parated themselues and their subiects from the Popish Church, are Schis­matikes, &c.

Answere.

Our Magistrates, people, &c. haue seuered them­selues, not from the Church, but from Idolatry: not from the common wealth, but from tyranny oppres­sing the common wealth: not from the Citie, but from the plague which pestereth the Citie, &c. that is, separation is not frō any trueth remaining in the Popish Church, nor from the poore Church, that is there holden vnder captiuitie, but from the cor­ruptions of the Popish Church, and from the tyran­nie of Antichrist, which is more grieuous then the yoke either of Egypt or Chaldaea: therfore godly prin­ces, & people, cannot iustly be called Schismatikes. Thrasibulus withdrewe himselfe to Phile, during the [Page 152]time that thirtie tyrants did teare in peeces the com­mon wealth in Athens. Camillus withdrew himselfe to Veies, during the time that the Gaules wasted the Citie of Rome. If any shal conclude of this, that Thra­sibulus and Camillus, separated themselues from the common wealths of Rome and Athens, and not from the tyrannie vnder which the Atheniens and Romanes then were, hee reasoneth most absurdly, &c. The summe of my answere is conteyned in the writings of that French Gentleman, Philip of Mornay. Tract. de eccle. cap. 10. The name of Schismatike, is much fit­ter for proud Penry and his fantastical disciples, then for godly Magistrates and people, who are most saw­cily dealt with, by the Anabaptisticall crew.

Question.

Whether all our ancestours, which liued & died in the Popish Church, are damned?

Answere.

Philip of Morney, doeth answere thus: As our ad­uersaries make a difference betweene the Church and the people, snatching the name of the Church onely to the Prelates, which should bee common to all Christians: so, wee likewise doe well put a diffe­rence, betweene the people cleauing to the Church of Rome, and the faction of Antichrist: betweene them who liue vnder the Popedome, and the vphol­ders and mainteiners of the Pope: betweene the in­chaunters, and those that are inchaunted: betweene the Pharisees, whom Christ calleth a generation of vipers, and the poore sicke woman, whom he called the very daughter of Abraham. We say, that among the poore people, which was so long time deceiued vnder the darkenesse of Antichrist, there was a part of the body of the visible Church: But that the Pope [Page 153]and his mainteiners, are the botch of the plague in it, which stifleth & choketh it as much as it can, &c. And a little after, &c. We knowe that the most part of the people, were ignorant of those pestilent doc­trines which the Schoolemen left in writing, that is to say, of the principall blasphemies of the Papacie: also, that the more part did neuer beleeue, that they could merite euerlasting life by their owne workes, whatsoeuer men preached thereof. Againe, albeit that through custome and ignorance they went to Saints and Images, and frequented Masses and Pil­grimages: yet notwithstanding in their conflicts of death, they alwayes principally claue to the crosse of Iesus Christ. We haue an example of S. Barnard himselfe, and we haue seene many more in our time. Saint Barnard in certaine places sauoureth of the contagion of his time, as it was hard hee should doe otherwise. But see his refuge when hee was tempted of the deuill, in his last dayes: I confesse (saith he) that I am not worthie of it. I knowe that I can not by mine owne workes obteine the kingdome of heauen. But my Lord hath obteyned it by a double right: by inheritance from the fa­ther, and by the merite of his passion. Nowe he is contented with the one, and giueth me the other. And when I attri­bute it to my selfe, by the gift which he hath made vnto me thereof, I cannot be confounded. And in another place: My merite is the mercie of the Lord. And I am not poore in merites, because hee is rich in his mercies: I haue greatly sinned, but I will comfort my selfe in the stripes of my Lord. Euen so likewise, we assure our selues in the mercy of God, that a great number helde the foūdation in Ie­sus Christ, whereof the Apostle speaketh, albeit An­tichrist shooke it, & as it were, endeuoured to ouer­turne [Page 154]it in them, all that he might. Phil. Mor. Tract. de Eccle. cap. 9. Of this iudgement, is that famous man, Peter Martyr, in his Commentarie vpon the Epistle to the Corinthians, cap. 15. vers. 18. I rest in their iudge­ment.

CHAP. 18. THAT POPISH PRIESTS haue a calling, though a faultie one.

IF popish priests haue no calling at all, Baptisme was deliuered in the Popish Church by priuate men, which is a grosse absurditie.

2 Many Popish Priests after de­testation of their popish errours, were allowed mi­nisters in the reformed Churches, without imposi­tion of hands &c. therefore in the iudgement of the best Churches, they had before a calling though a faultie one.

Those execellent fathers and Martyrs, Cranmer, Rydley, Hooper, Latymer &c. which were sometimes Popish priests, were allowed Ministers of the Gos­pel without imposition of hands &c. Caluine writing of Popish priests hath these wordes: Si verò quis isti­usmodi &c. and a litle after: Si obijcitur Pauli Canon il­le, quo, traditur eligendum Episcopum irreprehensibilem esse oportere respondeo, non hîc agi, meo quidem iudicio, de simplici vel absoluta electione, sed de approbatione vel re­stitutione ad certum munus, propter interuenientem cor­ruptionem. And a litle after: Duo sunt in illo statu sum­ma vitia. Vnum, quod non recta ratione instituti sunt ad munus Eeclesiasticum &c. The summe of M. Caluines [Page 155]words is, that such Popish priests as detested pope­ry, and were fit to bee employed in the ministerie, might be allowed, or rather restored to the Ecclesi­asticall function: first, because they were not before rightly instituted. Secondly, ad corrigendum praece­dentem defectum, that is, to correct the former de­fect &c. Calu. Epist. 373. By which wordes it is mani­fest that Popish priests euen in the popish Church, had, and haue in M. Caluines iudgement a calling, though a faultie one. The same M. Caluine in an o­ther place, hath these vvordes: Cogimur fateri penes illos esse ordinarium ministerium. that is, We are com­pelled to confesse that papists haue an ordinarie mi­nistery. Calu. Ezech: cap. 13. v. 9. If M. Penry will take exception against M. Caluines writings & the iudge­ment of all Gods Churches, let him confute them very soundly. If he can doe that, he shal be accōpted the rarest man aliue. If he can not (which I am very sure of) he shall not be Magnus Apollo, that is, goe for a Patriarch, (as his ignorant followers do accompt him) but he shalbe dubbed (as he is in deede) an o­ther Neuius, that is, a loude and clamorous compa­nion. If either M. Penry or any of his fantasticall crewe shall thinke much of my speech, I doe not passe. I confesse freely that sharpe wordes are not sufficient plaisters for such proude sores. I hope, the Magistrates will consider further of him and such as he is. Duro nodo, durus cuneus, &c. that is, A wedge of yron, is fittest for knottie vvood.

CHAP. 19.20. THEY WHICH ARE ONCE baptized, must not be baptized againe.

THe couenant of grace and peace, which is made and sealed vp in bap­tisme, is perpetuall: for, Almightie God remaineth euer faithfull in his couenant: therefore, &c.

2 If Baptisme should be iterated, Gods fidelity (which cannot be made voyde by our infidelitie) should be called into question: which were a hay­nous sinne.

3 Circumcision was neuer iterated, therefore Baptisme may not. Baptisme is to vs, as circumcisi­on was to the Israelites.

4 As the carnall generation is one, so the spi­rituall generation is one. Semel nascimur, semel renas­cimur.

5 It appeareth not in Gods booke, that any which receiued baptismum fluminis, were rebaptized baptizmo fluminis.

6 Agrippinus the Bishop of Carthage, was au­thor of iterating baptisme &c. Vinc. Lir. Cap. 9.

CHAP. 20. THERE IS TRVE BAP­tisme in the Popish Church.

SVch as were and are baptized in the popish Church, were and are engraf­fed by baptisme into a true Christ: therefore they receiued true Bap­tisme.

The argument followeth: for baptisme is an en­graffing into the true Christ. Rom. chap. 6.3. The An­tecedent is manifest in M. Penries iudgement: for he will not haue them to offer themselues againe to baptisme: therefore he is either a Catabaptist, or els there was and is (euen in his iudgement) true baptisme in the popish Church.

2 They which were circumcised in the time of Ieroboam and Caiphas, were accompted true circum­cised persons, although at that time the state of the Church was almost altogether peruerted and corrupted: therefore such as were and are baptized in the popish Church &c. This argument is vsed of the greatest learned men of the religion, and is al­lowed of all the reformed Churches.

3 Caluine and Beza are resolute for this. Calu. Ion: chap: 1. v. 16. Ezech: 16. v. 20. Epist: 103. and 104. Beza Confess. chap. 4. Art: 49. and chap: 7. Art: 11. E­pist. 10. and 81.

Viretus hath these words: Baptismum qui à sacerdoti­bus Papisticis collatus est, &c. that is, we do allow popish Baptisme, albeit we condemne the vaine and super­stitious ceremonies, which are vsed in it. Tract de cō ­mun. fid. cum Papist. cer. pag. 64.

Of this iudgement are all learned men, and all re­formed Churches. None dissent, but Catabaptists, Anabaptists, M. Penry, and the rest of the fantasti­call order.

CHAP. 21 THERE HATH BENE AND may be true Baptisme out of the Church.

THe Donatists thought otherwise in Au­gustines time: but they are notably cō ­futed by Augustine in his bookes, de baptis. contra Don.

2 True Circumcision was amongst the Edomites.

3 They which were baptized out of the Church by heretikes, neither were nor might be rebaptized: therefore they receiued true baptisme.

The Antecedent is manifest, for it is a rule in Di­uinitie, and receiued of all learned men: Baptizati ab haereticis, non sunt rebaptizandi, that is, they which are baptized of heretickes, are not to be rebaptized.

The reasons are.

Where the essentiall forme of baptisme is obser­ued, non haereticus, sed haeretici manu Christus baptizat. that is, not the hereticke but Christ doth baptize by the hand of the hereticke. Aug. passim. de bapt. cōt. Don.

It is not the baptisme of hereticks or schismaticks, but of God & the Church, wheresoeuer it be found, and whithersoeuer translated. Aug. de bapt. contra Don. lib. 1. cap. 14.

The heresie is theirs: the errour is theirs, &c. but baptisme which is Christes, must not be accompted theirs. Aug. de baptis. contra Don. lib. 3. cap. 11.

Ciprian was of an other iudgemēt in the Church of Carthage: but hee was condemned for that errour by the best Churches in that age.

4. The Arke of the testament which was taken of the Philistims, lost not the vertue of Sanctification, [Page 159] 1. Sam. 4. Dagon can teach vs that.

5 Si foris nemo potest, &c. that is, if no mā can haue any thing which is Christs out of the Church, nei­ther can any man haue any thing which is the deuils within the Church. Aug. de bapt. contr. Don. lib. 4. cap. 7.

6 Non ita (que) ideo, non sunt sacramenta Christi & Ec­clesiae, &c. that is, they are not therefore, not the Sa­craments of Christ and the Church, because here­tikes and wicked men do vnlawfully vse them. They, that is, the heretikes, &c. are to be amended or puni­shed: but the Sacraments are to bee acknowledged and reuerently esteemed of, &c.

Question.

How doe heretikes possesse baptisme?

Answere.

Baptismum legitimum habent: sed non legitimè habent: that is, heretikes haue lawful baptisme, but they haue it not lawfully. Aug. de Bapt. cont. Don. lib. 5. cap. 7. Ne (que) licitè foris habetur, & tamē habetur: sic, illicitè for is datur, sed tamen datur: that is, Baptisme is not had lawfully out of the Church: notwithstanding, it is had: In like sort, it is giuē out of the church vnlawfully: notwith­standing, it is giuen. Aug. de Bap. contra Don. lib. 6. ca. 15. If any shall aske whether it be lawfull to offer our in­fants to baptisme out of the Church, &c. because all learned men (except the Donatists, &c. in Augustines time, and M. Penry and his worthie disciples in our time) haue and doe affirme, that true baptisme hath bene and may be out of the Church: My answere is negatiue, as Augustines was. I referre the learned reader to his writings contra Cresc. gram. lib. 1. cap. 23. and de Bapt. contra. Don. lib. 1. cap. 4.

CHAP. 22. I. Penry. THAT NO POPISH Priest is a Minister.

EVerie Minister must bee at the least by profession, a member of the true Church. No Popish Priest is by profession a member of the true Church. Therefore no Popish Priest is a minister.

Euery minister hath an office within the body of the Church. No popish priest hath an office within the bo­dy of y ^e Church. Therfore no popish priest is a minister.

The propositions or first part of both these reasons are set down euident­ly and plainly by the wisdome of God, in these words. For as we haue many members in one body, and all members haue not one office: so we being many, are one body in Christ, and euery one anothers members, seeing then that we haue gifts that are diuers. &c.

The place sheweth cleerely, that whosoeuer is not a member, is not of the bodie, if not of the bodie, then no minister. Againe, whosoeuer is no member, he hath no office in the bodie: if no office, no minister. He that should obiect that in this place is ment a member of the bodie, by election in the secrete counsell of God, and not in the acknowledgement of the Church by profession, would not deserue the answering. Because it is voca­tion and not election, that maketh such a member in the Church as may haue an office therein: of which sort the Apostle speaketh in this place. By vocation, I meane that whereof the holy Ghost speaketh, where it is sayde, Many are called, but fewe are chosen: neither can any man denie him to be a member of the Church, which by outward profession submitteth himselfe vnto true religion, and such are the members, whereof the Apostle spea­keth: namely such as are members in the iudgement of the Church. Iu­das was a member in the iudgement of the Church, though not belong­ing to election. A further proofe of the propositions you shall find 1. Cor. 12.26.28. Hee was no priest in the olde Testament, that was not a Iewe by profession: yea, and of the line of Aaron too: and shall he be accounted a minister among vs, that is a strāger from the profession of the trueth, and a professed Idolater? Ishmael and Esau were circumcised, and the sonnes of those fathers vnto whome the couenant was made: Euen I will bee thy God, and the God of thy seed. They and their posterities fell from true re­ligion: well, admit that the profanation of circumcision had still continued in their houses: yet a man supplying the place of a priest among them, was no priest in deed, though he ten thousand times profaned circumcision, & would brag neuer so often, that he worshipped after his Idolatrous maner, no other God, but the God of his father Abraham, and sware onely by the feare of his father Isaac. The reason hereof is, because that euery priest vn­der [Page 161]the law, must be an Israelite by profession, that is, a member of the true Church, neither could any of the godly assure themselues, that an Edomi­tish priest admistred true circumcision according to the substance. Now I reckon of a popish priest no otherwise thē I would haue done of an Ismae­litish or Edomitish circumciser: the profanation of that seale of the coue­nant, still continuing in mount Seir.

Your Maior propositions in your two first argu­ments are. viz. Euery Minister must bee at the least by profession a member of the true Church. And, euery Minister hath an office within the body of the Church. My answere is, that your Maior proposi­tions, and the proofe of them out of the 12. to the Rom. are true, if you giue them this sense, viz. that euery lawfull and good Minister of God is by pro­session a member and hath an office within the bo­dy of the sound Church. If you vnderstand your Maior propositions otherwise, I deny them: my rea­son is: Excommunicated heretiques which admi­nister true baptisme out of the Church, had a cal­ling though a faultie one: and yet these heretiques, neither were mēbers, nor had any office in the true Church. That Iudas was a vessel of wrath, and yet an Apostle and a member of the Church in the iudge­ment of the Church, I make no question. The case of many hypocrites, hath & may be such for repro­bation and ministerie, though not for Apostleship. That which I like of in this Treatise of yours, I will either alow by some short speach, or else passe ouer with silence. Cauiling and wrangling, become not such as professe and loue the Religion. If none may be a Minister in Gods Church by Gods order, but such as are members, that is, engraffed into Gods Church: it is a good consequent that none in the [Page 162]time of the Law, might be a Leuiticall Priest which was vncircumcised. Which point you dealt very strāgly in before. It is true that none might be a Le­uiticall priest, which was not a Iewe by profession, and of the line of Aaron: but yet not euery one of Aa­rons line (if he were vnfit for that holy functiō) might be admitted to the Leuiticall priesthood, as you gaue out before very absurdly. No popish Priest (as hee is a popish Priest) is accompted a Minister in our Church. If you thinke otherwise, you thinke amisse: for I can assure you, that none which haue bene po­pish Priestes, either did or doe administer in our Church without the allowance of our Church. I confesse, they receiue not imposition of handes a­gaine either in our Church or in other reformed Churches. If Circumcision was amongst the Isma­elites and Edomites (as you write and I affirme) then a Sacrament was amongst them. I pray you remem­ber this. The Priestes of Idumea, I graunt, were not Priestes in deede, that is, they were not lawfull and good Ministers of God: for they had no lawfull cal­ling: yet they had a calling though a faultie one: Otherwise Circumcision administred by them had bene no Sacrament. That which decemeth you, is, that you do not distinguish betweene a lawfull and good Minister of God, and a Minister: betweene a lawfull calling, and a calling, &c.

Whereas in the assumption or second part of both the reasons, I deny popish Priests to be members of the Church: my meaning is not that there are none of the elect, within the body of Popery, whom the Lord may cal in his good time: For I woulde not deny this vnto Mahometisme, or that there are not left in Popery certaine rubishes & steps of true Religion, for this difference I make betwene them and other Infidels, though the Iewes [Page 163]also may claime this vnto themselues. But I meane that the Popish religi­on is such a religion as whosoeuer liueth & dieth in the profession there­of: he liueth and 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 foloweth, that in Popery there is no Church. If it be obiected that the Papists are within the Couenant, inasmuch as long since they profes­sed the trueth: Mine answere will be, that Popery was neuer the trueth as yet, that no Papist in that hee was a Papist, euer professed the trueth, and that God made no Couenant with professed Idolaters, as all Papists are.

Your Minor propositions in your two first argu­ments are, viz. No popish priest is by profession a mēber of the church: And, No popish priest hath an office within the bodie of the Church. My answer is: If by (church) in your Minor propositiōs you meane a sound Church: I grant that no popish priest (as he is a popish priest and a professed papist) is either a member by profession, or hath an office within the bodie of the Church. If by (Church) you meane an vnsound Church: My answer is, that a popish priest is a member & hath an office within the body of the church. My reason is: the popish church is a church, though an vnsound church. For proofe of this I haue vsed diuerse reasons in this Treatise. I referre you to them. If they wil not downe with you, you must con­fute the seuerall writings of Caluine in his Instituti­ons, Commentaries and Epistles, & of other famous men, and condemne the iudgement of all the refor­med churches. If your stomacke serue you, you haue matter inough to work on, & more thē you were wel aware of. That steps of true Religion remaine in the Popish Church, it is manifest: for God preserued in that Church verbum suum & baptismum, That is, his Word and Baptisme: Beza in Annot. Matt. 23.2. Yea, we of the Religion haue receiued many good things [Page 164]from the papists, as the Israelites did the Arke frō the Philistines. I graunt that the Iewes haue many good things amōgst them: yet there is great difference be­twene Iewes & papists. The papist receiueth the new Testamēt: so doth not the Iew. The papist doth not vse circūcision, because the date of it is out, but bap­tisme which is an engraffing into Christ. The Iewe retaineth circumcision & doth not admit baptisme. That the papists are not altogether aliens frō Gods couenant, I haue shewed before, and doe rest in M. Caluines iudgement, for that point. You write that poperie was neuer the trueth as yet. If you meane that all poperie was neuer the trueth as yet, I agree with you. If you meane that no part in poperie was euer the trueth as yet, you erre grossely, and are refuted by your owne words, which are, that there are certaine steppes of true religion in poperie. You giue out that no papist (in that he was a papist) euer professed the trueth. My answere is, that they did and doe erre in very many things, but yet they did and doe professe some trueth: and I doubt not, but that many which liued and died in the time of po­pish darkenesse, died Gods seruants. If you thinke that a man being wide in many things, is wide in all things: then because you, M. Penry, haue deliuered manie blasphemous, Anabaptisticall, and other er­rours, I might iustly conclude that you hold no­thing soundly: but I wil not offer you such measure. If I did, I should deale absurdly with you. Howe professed papists are Idolaters, appeareth in my se­cond proposition, which is newly added to my for­mer treatise. Thither I referre you.

Antichrist I grant should sit as God in the temple of God, but it was ne­uer [Page 165]the temple of God, since he planted his pestilent chaire therein. Pope­rie in deed hath inuaded the seates and possessions of true religion, and be­gan first where the trueth was professed. For the mysterie of iniquitie first appeared within the Church, and not else-where, where true religion flou­rished, and not among the heathen: neither could he bee that aduersarie, whose beginning shoulde bee in Paganisme. But although Poperie tooke roote in the soyle where the true Churche was planted: yet it so grewe there, that it still continued to be the synagogue of Satan, and could neuer as yet be the Church of God: howsoeuer it hath ouergrowen the posses­sion thereof. And what though their fathers, who now are Papists, were within the couenant, as professing true religion: shall it therefore followe that their Idolatrous sonnes should be so too? If they returne the Lord hath mercie in store for them I denie not. But what is there in this poynt saide for the Papists, which the Iewes cannot with farre more shewe of reason pretend for themselues? The profaning of Baptisme among the Papistes can make them no more be within the Church, then the continuance of the profanation of Circumcision among the Ishmaelites and Edomites could keepe them vnder the couenant. And why should popish Baptisme any more tye the Lords couenant to an Idolatrous race, then an Ishmaeli­tish or Edomitish cutting off of the foreskinne, linke him to be the God of those adulterous generations? Oh but the Lord himselfe hath said, in Isaak shall thy seede be called, and Iaacob haue I loued, and hated Esau. Why the same Lorde in respect of his reuealed will, for with his secrete election men must not meddle, hath sayd, the professours of true religion do I loue, but the Idolatrous papists my soule abhorreth: It will be here demaunded whether I make no more account of popish baptisme, then of an Edomi­tish circumcision, I see no reason why I should. For a circumcised Edomite being receiued, to be a true worshipper at Ierusalem, should as well content himselfe with that circumcision (circumcision being not a thing inuented by man, or done in respect of man, but ordeyned by the Lord, and done in regard of the couenant made vnto Abraham) as we doe with popish bap­tisme, which is not called in question.

And yet that which is spoken concerning the profession of the trueth, by the forefathers, is not altogether true in popery: for there bee many large regions nowe professing poperie, where not so much as the name of Christ was heard, vntill they were become grossely popish. So that their first step was out of paganisme vnto poperie. And this is the estate of all those poore oppressed vassals the west Indians, who now in great numbers professe Romish Idolatrie. For at such time as the Spanyard inuading their land brought vpon them the most miserable slauerie of the body & soule, that are vpon any people vnder heauen, they had not so much as hearde whether there was any Christ, but were most heathnish, and sencelesse Ido­laters, as may appeare by the popish hystoriographers themselues, who wrote the stories of those tymes: And therefore (to omit, whose posterities many of the nations within Europe are, that haue refused the light of the Gospel) though it were granted, that the rest of the popish rable were with­in [Page 166]in the couenant: yet these miserable heathen papists, can be said to be vn­der no couenant, but that which is made vnto popery and paganisme. I hope M. Some, howsoeuer you may be perswaded, that other popish shaue­lings can deliuer a sacrament, yet that you will doubt, whether any man could be assured to receyue those holy seales at the hands of the heathen massemongers remayning in Cuba, Hyspaniola, Mexico, or any other the Easterne parts.

And thus much concerning the assumption. I am not ignorant that fa­mous and worthie men, haue otherwise written concerning the popish Church, and therefore I am not to be pressed with their authoritie.

If your writings were as sounde as they are ab­surde, they would giue many times great aduantage to the Papist, Anabaptist, &c. If the popish church was neuer the temple of God, since Antichrist plan­ted his pestilent chaire there, then in your iudge­ment, the Pope is not Antichrist: for Antichrist doth and must sit in the Temple of God, that is, in the Church of God. I haue handled this argument be­fore. I rest in that I haue written there. You say that a circumcised Edomite being receiued into the Church of Ierusalem, should content himselfe with his circumcision in Idumea, because circumcision was the Lords ordinance &c. I agree with you in this. If the Edomitish circumcision was the Lords ordinance, then it was a seale of Gods couenant to the Idumeans, and consequently the Edomites in your iudgement were not Aliens from Gods coue­nant: for, the seale of the couenant, doth import and presuppose a couenant. Besides, if the Edomitish circumcision was true circumcision, and the Edo­mitish Church no Church: then a Sacrament was out of the Church &c. How like you this, M. Penry? You knowe my meaning. You adde, that you call not popish baptisme in question. Here, I grant, you doe not: but a little after, you vse these wordes: viz. [Page 167]where there is no true Christ wherunto men can be engraffed by baptisme, there true baptisme as tou­ching the substance cannot be gotten &c. But in po­pery there is no true Christ &c. mendacem oportet esse memorē. Your memory is very short. You would ne­uer, I thinke, haue vēted such motley stuffe as this, if you had thought it would haue bin looked on. I can assure you, that besides me, whom you haue put to a litle paines, your treatise hath beene viewed and re­uiewed by very many learned men, who condemne it for a foolish and fantasticall bable. If the west Indians after profession of their beliefe in the holy trinitie, were baptized, as you say, by popish shaue­lings, I assure my selfe that they receiued true bap­tisme, & were therfore engraffed into Christ. We in the Church of England neede not saile (thanks be to God) to the massemōgers in Cuba, Hispaniola, Mexi­co, or any other part of the Indians, we haue Gods holy seales amongst vs. If you cal such of the Indians as are baptized, heathen, you do them great wrong: for baptisme is the externall badge of a Christian. I doe not maruaile though you bee bolde with the Indians, which are so farre off, when you are so saucy with the principal of the religion in this noble land: I meane our Magistrates and learned men, which are singuler ornaments of our Church & common­wealth. The question you mooue, shall receiue my answere, when I vnderstand that either you or some other of your fantasticall disciples, are on shippe­boarde, & vnder saile for Mexico in India. You con­fesse that famous men haue written otherwise of the popish Church then you thinke. To that ende you quote M. Caluines 103. Epistle. I rest in his iudge­ment: [Page 168]because you doe not so, I pray you confute him. I must needes tell you plainely that I make more accompt of one Caluine then of a thousand Penries. Caluine was a man of singuler learning, an enemie to papists, Anabaptists, Catabaptists, &c. a notable light and ornament in Gods Church. What you are, I will not say. I would be loth to doe you wrong: therefore, I will not match you with so famous a man as M. Caluine was.

I might in the third place vse against you M. Some, a reason of your owne thus concluded. No ministerie is sacriledge, because euery ministerie is an ordinance of God, which cannot bee turned vnto sacriledge. The popish priesthood is sacriledge, as you haue set downe 21. Therefore the popish priesthoode is no ministery, and consequently popish priests are no mini­sters. You may see that you haue ouerthrowen your owne cause. But this maner of reasoning, although it should be of force agaynst your selfe, inas­much as your owne wordes are brought to expresse your owne meaning, yet I account insufficient.

I haue written, I confesse, that the Popish priest­hood is sacriledge. Of this you cōclude, that the po­pish Priesthood is no Ministerie, that is, no calling at all: and that I haue ouerthrowen mine owne cause. Stay your selfe a while good Sir. This victory deser­ueth not so much as an oaten straw for the trumpet. I denie your argument: for it is a fallace à secundum quid ad simpliciter. I graūt that that part of the Popish priesthood which is occupied in sacrificing, is sacri­ledge: But that part of the Popish priesthood which is occupied in the administration of baptisme is not sacriledge. For this point I allow Chemnicius iudge­ment. His words are these: Verum quidem est, quia prin­cipalis pars ministerij est doctrina: quod ideo quando vera doctrina deprauatur, & prauae opiniones stabiliuntur, ipsum ministerium mutatur, & quod illorū ministerium, qui do­ctrinam [Page 169]corrumpunt, ideo reliquendum sit, quia scriptum est: Cauete à pseudoprophetis: Item, vocem alienorum non audiunt, sed fugiunt ab ea. Simul tamen & hoc verum est, partem ministerij, vt sacramenti alicuius administratio­nem, aliquando possideri etiam ab his, qui in alijs materijs graues errores amplectūtur: imò saepe habent, administrant, & dant vera sacramenta illi etiam, qui ipsis sacramentis as­suunt falsas aliquas opiniones, modò substantialia, quae ad materiam & formam iuxta institutionem pertinent, ser­uent: sicut exemplum de circumcisione Caiphae, Scribarum & Pharisaeorum manifestè testatur. Nullo modo autem se­quitur, quia vera fuit circumcisio, quae à Pharisaeis dabatur, ideo etiam veras fuisse omnes opiniones, quas praeter & con­tra verbum Dei, non tātum alijs articulis doctrinae, verum ipsi etiā circumcisioni, traditionibus suis assuebant. Chemn. in 2. par. exam. decret. Conc. Trident: Canon. 5. The summe of his wordes is, that though true doctrine which is the principall part of the Ministerie be de­praued, yet that a part of the ministerie, viz. the ad­ministration of a Sacrament, is possessed sometimes of them which in other matters hold grosse errours. Yea, they haue and do often administer a Sacrament (though they do annexe to the Sacramēt some false opinions) if they reteine such things according to the Institution, which bee essentiall for matter and forme. Circumcision vsed in the time of Caiphas and the Pharises, is witnesses ynough of this, &c. Thus you see how trimly my wordes do serue your turne. Thrasilaus was a frāticke man amongst the Athenians. He counted all the ships which sailed towardes. A­thens, to be his: but he was fouly deceiued: so are you in accompting my speaches your arguments.

They are no ministers whose very ministerie ouerthroweth directly the [Page 170]Priesthood of our sauour Christ: But the verie ministery of popish priests, directly ouerthroweth the Priesthoode of Christ: therefore they are no ministers.

I knowe not what can be pretended agaynst the proposition, vnlesse men would dreame of a ministery, with whom the Priesthood of the Lorde Ie­sus cānot stand. The latter part of the reason is true, if it be true that Christ is the only sacrifice for sinne, that he is no more to be offered, that by once offering himselfe, he hath made ful satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole world, and that the popish priests dayly sacrifice to appease Gods wrath, for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead.

Before that I answere this Argument, I must tell you first, that euery one of the Religion is perswaded (as well as you) that Christ is the onely sacrifice for sinne. Secondly, I must tell you, that this argument of yours is very neare of kinne to that which you wil needes borow of me: for it is al one with the last. But I must beare with you: you haue a speciall gift in va­rying a phrase. For that, you shall beare the Bell, and cary the clapper too, if you wil. Is any part, I beseech you, of the Popish priesthoode, called sacriledge by any learned Protestāt, but because it is occupied (as the Papistes say most absurdly) in sacrificing Christ? Nowe I come to your worthy reason. I denie your Minor. My reason is as before. I rest in my answer to your former argument, which is the same with this. Nowe Sir, if I were disposed as you are, I could giue out, that you are neere driuen, when one Argument appeareth (I wil not say as you did, is periured) twise: and that you are like to them which woulde make men beleeue, there are seuerall meates, because one kinde of meate is serued in seuerall dishes.

Lastly, they are no Ministers who are made, that is, called, elected and ordeined by Idolaters. Popish priests are called, chosen and ordayned by Idolaters: Therefore they are no ministers.

[Page 171]

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 the action is frustrate. As if a company of women, though religi­ous and godly, should go about to make a minister, the action is nothing. Of the assumption that popish priestes are made by Idolaters, I make no question. And when did God giue Idolaters leaue to make ministers?

Seeing therefore that popish priests are no ministers, I see no shewe of probabilitie whereupon my faith, or the faith of any can be assured to re­ceyue true baptisme at their hands: vnlesse it can bee shewed by you, M. Some, that eyther there may bee fayth where there is no promise, or that there is a promise to receiue a sacrament where there is no minister, which no man of any christian modestie will affirme. Hence also it followeth, that neither the obstinate crew of recusants in this land, who offer their chil­dren to bee profaned by trayterous and runnagate Iesuites, nor any else within the body of the Romish Babylon, can assure themselues that their children receyue the substance of baptisme.

If by ministers in your Maior proposition, you meane lawfull and good ministers of God, I agree with you. If you meane otherwise, I dissent. If by ido­laters in your Maior propositiō, you vnderstand not Pagane but popish idolaters: my answere is, that such as were called, elected and ordained by them, had a calling though a faultie one. Otherwise Lu­ether, Ridley, Cranmer, Hooper, &c. had no calling at all. For this point, I referre you to that I haue set downe before, chap. 18. of this Treatise. You aske this questi­on, viz. When did God giue idolaters leaue to make ministers? I answere: euen then when he gaue the Is­raelites leaue to make your ignorant Leuites priests: and when hee gaue foolish electours of Magistrates leaue to chuse such Magistrates as your foele Can­daules was that is, Almightie God gaue no leaue at all. And yet you are resolute, that the ignorant Le­uitical priests, which might be wel begged for idiots were lawfull priestes, though not good priestes: and that such as are chosen Magistrates euen against the [Page 172]wooll, haue both the life and birth of Magistrates. It pleaseth you to say, that because Popish priests are no ministers in your iudgement, that you cannot be assured to receiue baptisme at their hands. Then be­like, if you were perswaded (as all learned men are) that Popish priests haue a calling, you would be con­tent that infants should be presented to baptisme in the Popish Church: vvhich Popish Church in your iudgement, is no church at all. What I thinke of that particuler, I vvill not presently vvrite: but this I tell you, that this Argument doeth not necessarily fol­low: viz. True circumcision was giuen in Idumea, and true baptisme hath bene & may be giuen of excom­municated heretiques: therefore, they of Ierusalem in the former times, might require circumcision a­mongst the Edomites, or they of Hippo or Carthage in latter times, might require baptisme amongst the Donatists.

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 thē assu­rance that may be had of that which to morow is to be done.

Sir, you desire me to examine your reasons. You shall haue an easie suite of this: for I am very for­vvarde to doe you that pleasure. You graunt it to be baptisme vvhich vvas administred yesterday in the Popish church: but, you doubt of that vvhich is de­liuered to morow. Then yesterday a Sacrament, and to morovv none. You dare not for your eares, say in flat termes, that it vvas no baptisme vvhich vvas de­liuered heretofore in the Popish church: for then, many thousandes vvhose Christendome you call in [Page 173]question, would condemne you for a Catabaptist. But it hath pleased you to set dovvne this marginal note in an other place, viz. As I doe not deny that which hath bene done to be a Sacramēt: so, if any can proue it to be none, I will not withstande him. In your Exhort. to the gouer­nours &c. of Wales, pag. 31. If I vvere not vvell acquain­ted vvith your absurd vvritings, I should vvonder at you more then I doe. Your reasons, such as they are, do follovv.

Where there is no true Christ whereunto men can be engraffed by bap­tisme, there true baptisme as touching the substance cannot bee gotten: for what baptisme is that, which is not an ingraffing into the true Christ?

But in popery there is no true Christ, whereunto men may be ingraffed, because he is not the true Christ, who either will not, or cannot satisfie the wrath of God for the sinnes of the elect, without their merits, and such is the Christ professed in popery, and no other.

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

I denie your Minor proposition: for such as were baptized in the Popish church, were engraffed by baptisme into a true Christ. The essentiall forme of baptisme was and is retained by the Popish priestes: viz. To baptize in the Name of the holy Trinitie. If your Minor proposition were true as it is very false: then very many in this and other landes which were bap­tized by Popish priests in the Popish church, are vn­baptized: for baptisme is an engraffing into the true Christ: and you write that no such engraffing is in the Popish church, because no true Christ is profes­sed in poperie. If you tell me that you speake not of that which was done yesterday, but of that which is to morowe, it is a blinde and beggerly shift: for the Christ professed in poperie, was a deuided Christ, [Page 174]when her Maiestie was baptized, as euen nowe he is in the Popish church. That case and profession is all one. To proceede, because I will answere your rea­son thorowly, I wil set it down in this sort: The Christ professed in Poperie is a deuided Christ, and cōsequently not a true Christ: therefore none in the Popish church are en­graffed by baptisme into the true Christ. This is your rea­son M. Penry. My answere is, your Antecedēt is true: I denie your argument. My reason is: the false pro­fession of any man whatsoeuer, cānot separat Christ from his owne institution, Rom. 3: therefore, seeing Christs institution is in Popish baptisme, the true Christ is there, that is, in that baptisme. I doe set downe my wordes more warily then I needed: be­cause I finde you to be a meere wrangler, and to take vp that which I neuer let fall. Besides, circumcision in Idumea, as you write, was true circumcision and a seale of Gods couenant: yet, the Edomites, which you cannot denie, failed in the true worship of Almigh­tie God. I hope you see by this time that your Argu­ments are scopae dissolutae, very loose ware and slender­ly trussed together. I am sure you esteemed them mountaines: but they are not worthie the name of mollhils. I deale plainely with you. If my answeres please you not, confute them directly, and not with ifs, ands, and whies: in which kinde of answering (if I may call it answering) you haue a speciall grace.

No man can assure himselfe to haue the substaunce of baptisme out of the Church, and that by those that are without the Church: for then a sa­crament might be had out of the Church, which were very impious and absurd to be affirmed.

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

Therfore no man can assure himselfe to haue the substance of baptisme in poperie by any popish priest.

[Page 175]

Before that I deny any part of your reason, I must tell you that I haue proued alreadie that true bap­tisme hath bene and may be out of the Church. Ci­prian thought otherwise, and therefore would haue such as were baptized by excōmunicated hereticks, to be rebaptized. But he was and is condemned for that errour by ancient & later writers. You giue out very peremptorily, that it is very impious and ab­surde to affirme that baptisme either hath bene or may be out of the Church. So did the Donatists in Augustines time. It is no great matter what you say. Your bolt is soone shot. Your water is very shallow. Many points vvhich you condemne in your Consi­storie for grosse absurdities, are manifest trueths in the sound iudgement of all reformed Churches. So is this present particuler. Touching your argument, I denie your Minor. My reason is: the Popish church is a church though an vnsound Church: and Popish priestes haue a calling though a faultie one. For proofe of this I referre you to that vvhich I haue vvritten before in this Treatise. If you like not my reasons, confute them.

That there is no Church at all in poperie, and that all popish priests are out of the Church, besides the former reasons, this one doth further shew. If there be a Church in poperie, or if all popish priests bee not out of the Church, then those magistrates that haue separated themselues and their subiects (and all others that made this separation) from the Romish re­ligion, as from that synagogue where saluation is not to be had, and con­sequently, where there is no Church, are schismatikes, to speake the least. Because it is a schisme to make this separation from the Church, detest the corruptions thereof we may, but make such a separation from the Church, we ought not vnlesse we would be accounted schismatiks. But those Magi­strates and their people, that made this separation, are not schismatickes, because in Poperie the foundation is ouerthrowen. You say in your booke [Page 176] (M. Some) page 33. that you could presse the Argument of the Magistracie against me very farre. Whether you may or no, that shal be cōsidered when I deale with the point: but this I am assured of, that in this point, you shall be driuen either to defend the absurditie, that baptisme is to be had out of the Church in a companie estranged from Christ, which I thinke you will not do, or vrged so farre, as to the plaine breach of a Statute (which farre be it from me) euen in the cause of treason. Will ye say that baptisme may be had out of the Church? the assertion is absurd: Or will you hold that there is a Church in Poperie? the assertion is dangerous, and I haue prooued it false. It is dangerous, because it affirmeth our Magistrates to be schisma­tiks, inasmuch as they haue separated themselues from the Church: I hope rather then you will fall into either of these points, that you will graunt me the cause.

I will answere your seuerall pointes very briefly. The reason which you vse to prooue there is no Church at all in popery, is this, viz. If there bee a Church at al in popery, the Magistrates and people which are of the religion are schismaticks at the least. My answere is, that this is a popish argument. I haue answered it before, and doe rest in that an­swere. If either you or any of the popish sort mislike my answere, you may confute it. Besides, if there be no Church at all in popery, as you affirme, why should the Churches of England, Germany, Dēmarke, (which were sometimes popish) be called reformed Churches? The very name of reformed Churches doth manifestly import, that the Churches of Eng­land, Germanie, Denmarke, &c. (though popish and vnsound) were Churches in some sort, before the reformation. If you thinke that all the popish sorte which died in the popish Church ore damned, you thinke absurdly: for you dissent from the iudgement of all the learned protestants, and doe presume to sit in Gods chaire, which is intollerable sawcinesse. To say, or write, that true baptisme hath beene, and may bee out of the Church, is a true proposition [Page 177]in diuinitie. Augustine did maintaine it against the Donatists. The most famous mē & Churches in our time, are of that iudgement. I rest in that with all my heart. You account it an absurde proposition. The best is, you are not master of the sentences, as Peter Lumbard was. If you were (which God defend) the sounde diuinity which is taught in Cambridge and Oxford, should bee cryed downe, and your strange fancies should be ruled cases. The argument of the magistracy is touched before. I perceiue it hath mooued you a litle: for you drawe out a statute of Treasō, &c. What, I beseech you good Sir? No lesse then Treason? you are a charitable man. I haue, do, and will perfourme all dutie, by Gods grace, to the religion and my gracious Prince, so long as I liue: therefore treason statutes can take no hold of mee. Yea, the refutation of your blasphemous, Anabap­tisticall, popish, and proude errours by me, is, I am sure, a performance of a speciall duetie to Almigh­tie God, my Prince, and this Church. And, I doubt not, but that blessing which God hath giuen alrea­dy to my last treatise, and which his Maiestie will giue to this, will marre your market. Great wordes shal not fray me, &c. If your ignorāt disciples wil stil magnifie you, it shal not be strāge to me: they do but their kind. Such as bee learned & wise, haue, & do find you out. Cognoscitur quis sit, vt vt laudetur Coruus. The most famous orators that euer were in Rome and Athens, could not make the rauen to be no rauen. Tertullus commended Felix, Act. 24. but Felix was an absurde body, and stripped of his office by Claudius Caesar. The Samaritans commended Simon Magus. Act. 8: Libanius the Sophister commended Iulian [Page 178]the Apostate. Socr. lib. 3. cap. 22. Eunomius cōmended Aetius, which was a pestilent heretike. Theodor. lib. 2. cap. 29. You haue protested many times in your treatise that you reuerence me: but here you offer me this choise, either to defende that which is in your iudgemēt an absurditie (but in deede is none) or to incurre the danger of treason &c. Doe you thinke that I haue any the least cause to beleeue your glorious protestations? Ioab pretended ex­traordinarie good will to Abner, and Amasa: but he killed them. 2. Sam. 3. and 20. chap. Ismael preten­ded extraordinarie good wil to them of Sichem, Silo, Samaria: the beast shedde teares, but they were Cro­codiles teares: for of 80. godly men hee killed 70. of them. Ier. cap. 41. Iudas kissed Christ, but he betrayed him. Matth. 26. You vse goodly wordes sometimes, but proud malice will appeare: it cannot bee hid­den. Marcus Cicero in his time had many hollow friendes. After his returne from banishment, he was reuenged of them Nihil credendo, omnia cauendo, that is, in crediting them in nothing, and bewaring of them in euery thing. If I serue you so, I can not bee iustly blamed. You pretende great sinceritie and in­nocencie: but your hereticall absurdities in your treatise, and your shamelesse dealing with our Ma­gistrates and learned men, doe crie aloude that you are in deede very litle acquainted with sincerity and innocencie. I tell you plainely, that I like better Hu­mile peccatum quàm superbā innocentiam, that is, hum­ble sinne then proud innocēcie. The humble Publi­can was more accounted of then the proude Phari­see. Luk. 18. I pray God with all my heart to keepe me and all such as loue the religion and detest your [Page 179]Anabaptisticall fancies, from such as you and the fantasticall sort are. You and they are strange cattel. Your hope that I will graunt you the cause you de­fend, is a vaine hope: for I thinke great scorne to be one of ignorāt Penries disciples, that is, a proud and ignorant Anabaptist. If you will haue any thing at my hands in diuinitie matters, you must gaine it by force of argument. If you thinke that I will come off otherwise, you are in a wrong boxe: for I intend not to be at your whistle. Yea, I require and charge you in the name of God (if you be not voyde of grace) to confesse your ignorance, to detest your errours, to yeeld vnto Gods truth, that Gods blessing may rest vpon you. If you refuse to doe this, take heede that Gods vengeance seaze not vpon you.

Lastly, if men might be assured that they could haue the true substance of baptisme in Popery, then they ought not to keepe their children from Popish baptisme, if there were no other baptisme in the worlde to be had. For men might come to their baptisme & detest their corruptions, if it be Gods baptisme, as you M. Some affirmed it to be, pag. 20. And they can adde an edifying worde vnto the Sacrament: if the recitall of the wordes of in­stitution be an edifying word, and that be sufficient to make a Sacrament, both which you haue written, page 23. 24. But men ought rather to keepe their children vnbaptized, then to offer them to bee prophaned by Popish baptisme, both for the former reasons, and because wee ought to haue no more fellowship with Papists in the seruice of God, then with Pagane ido­laters. M. Caluine hath written otherwise in this point, therefore againe I appeale to the word.

I vvill ansvvere this section of yours both briefly and roundly by the grace of God. That baptisme de­liuered in the Popish church, was and is Gods bap­tisme, I make no question. For proofe of this point, I haue set downe waightie reasons in my former trea­tise: One of M. Caluines, an other ab Absurdo. Your an­sweres to them are very foolish, and are so accoun­ted [Page 180]of by the learned sort. I haue examined them a li­tle in this Treatise. It is the iudgement of all the re­formed Churches, that there was & is true baptisme in the Popish church. Before, you denied it not: but now, the case is altered: you accompt it an errour to affirme it. What mutabilitie is this? Hee that would saile after your compasse for Diuinitie matters, should proue as giddie as a goose. I pray God with all my heart to blesse his people in England & Wales, and to keepe them from such blinde guides as the ig­norant sort are, and from such blinde guides as the ig­norant sort are, and from such shamelesse and fanta­sticall guides as you, M. Penry, are. Concerning this question, viz. whether men ought to offer their chil­dren to Popish baptisme, if there were no other bap­tisme in the world to be had: M. Penry saith one while that they ought, if Popish baptisme be Gods Bap­tisme: which before he denied not. An other while, he is peremptory that mē ought rather to kepe their childrē vnbaptized. His reason is: because we ought to haue no more fellowship with papists in Gods scruice, then with pagane Idolaters. The issue there­fore nowe is: first, whether infants ought rather to be kept vnbaptized, then to bee presented to popish baptisme. Secondly, whether no more fellowship is to be had with papists in Gods seruice, then with heathen Idolaters. Concerning the first question, M. Caluines resolution is affirmatiue, if the parents (which they cannot do without peril of life) do pub­likely detest the popish corruptions. M. Caluines rea­son is: the omitting of baptisme is contempt of Christianitie. Cal. Epist. 104. Of this iudgement are Melanchthon and Peter Martyr. Cal. Epist. 103. & Vire­tus Tract: de commun: fid. cum papist. Cer. pag. 61, 62, 70. [Page 181]I confesse freely, that this is a very waightie questi­on (but in this our time a needelesse question) and that men of great excellēcie for learning, haue their seueral iudgements. I would be loath to stirre coales in this argument. Touching the other question, M. Penry saith that no more fellowship is to be had in re­ligion matters with papists then with pagane Idola­ters. I dissent from him in this. My reasons are: first, the papists professe the holy Trinitie: so doe not the pagane Idolaters. Secondly, the papists are not alto­gether aliens from Gods external couenant: but the heathen Idolaters as yet are. Lastly, M. Caluine is ve­ry flat against you in this point. Epist. 104. In steed of answering his reasons in that Epistle, you appeale to the word. A strange kind of appealing, whē M. Cal­uines arguments are drawen out of the holy word. If you wil deale plainly as you ought, neuer piddle any longer: goe through stitch withall: seeing you are ouer shoes, aduenture ouer bootes too: confute Cal­uines 104. Epistle, and that which he hath written ve­ry excellently vpon the 20. verse of the 16. chap. of Ezechiel. If you giue the vnset, and fayle (whereof I make no question) you shall lose no credite of lear­ning: for you neuer had any as yet. Qui semel vere­cundiae limites &c. you knowe the rest.

Seeing therfore in Popery there is no Church, no Ministery, no Christ: Seeing we ought in no case to be ioyned with Papistes in their religion, but to be 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 sacrilegi­ous idolaters: therefore also it necessarily followeth, that neither our Po­pish recusants, nor any else, offring their children to be baptized in the Po­pish synagogue, by those polluted and vncleane Priestes, may assure them­selues that they can bee there partakers of true baptisme, as touching the substance of baptisme.

[Page 182]

Seeing therefore in the iudgement of all learned men and all reformed Churches, there is in popery, a Church, a Ministery, a true Christ into whom ve­ry many haue bene and are engraffed by Baptisme: it is a sure consequent, first that you haue keptstrāge coyles in comptrolling all the Churches of God, and in setting downe arguments as cleare as mid­night: Secondly, that your conclusion (viz. that there is in popery, no Church, no ministery, no Christ) is nothing else but an Anabaptisticall flou­rish, which will melt as waxe before the fire, and va­nish as smoke before the wind.

CHAP. 24.

BEfore that I set downe M. Penries pro­position & reasons touching vnprea­ching Ministers, I must tell the godly reader, first, that my iudgement is, that Almighty God neuer called any to the holy ministerie, either in the old or new Testament, but he gaue them gifts fit for that holy function: Secondly, that by vnpreaching Ministers, I vnderstand such as haue gifts in no mea­sure, for the discharge of that holy function. Such are M. Penries ignorant Leuiticall priests, whom he warranteth (notwithstanding their extreeme igno­rance) to be lawfull priests, though not good priests. Such are some in our dayes, which are fitter for the belfray, then for the bodie of the Church. That such as these are, and they which admitted them, sinned grossely, I make no question. That such ignorant [Page 183]men ought to bee thrust out of the holy ministerie, and sent to some occupation, is a cleare and ruled case in Gods booke. I haue handled this argument before: I rest in that which I haue written there.

That vnpreaching ministers are no ministers.

They are affirmed to bee no Ministers, not because they are euill mini­sters, but because their Ministerie is an euil and profane ministerie: So that in this point the fault is not found with the euill minister, but with the euill ministerie. Their ministerie is prophane and euill, because there is no mention made of it in the worde. And a ministery not mentioned in the worde is no ministery, but a prophane constitution. For the Lord hath ex­presly set downe euery ministery of the newe Testament, that should be in the Church vnto the worlds ende: Whereas he hath not once mentioned the Ministerie of our Readers, because it is not a preaching Ministery. The summe of this whole controuersie is conteined in these three axiomes.

1 Euery ministery is expresly set downe in the word.

2 Euery ministery of the newe Testament is a preaching ministery.

3 The ministery of our vnpreaching ministers, is not a preaching Mi­nistery.

If you can shewe either of these 3. points to be false, I am ouerthrowen: if neither, you must yeelde. The trueth of all three, I haue shewed out of the Worde, in the last edition of my booke. The two former are confirmed by the places quoted on the margent.

My answere shall be so briefe as may be. Where­in I dissent, I will giue my reasons. If the ministerie (as you say) of vnpreaching ministers be an euil and profane ministerie, it is a good consequent, that vn­preaching ministers, are euill and profane ministers. The argument foloweth à coniugatis. To proceede: you write, that the ministerie of ignorant ministers, is not mentioned in the word▪ therefore it is no mi­nisterie (in your iudgement) but a profane constitu­tion. I am sure you thinke this argument to be a sure [Page 184]one, but you are fowly deceyued. I deny your ante­cedent. My reason is: By Ministerie in your antece­dent, I vnderstand the reading of the holy Scriptures, the deliuering of the publikee prayers, the administration of the Sacraments: all which are the cōstitution of Almigh­tie God, therefore no profane constitution, as you verie profanely doe imagine. He that misliketh the reading of the holy Scriptures, is a Zwing fildian he­retike. He that misliketh the administration of the Sacraments, is a Messalian heretike. He that misly­keth the inuocation of our gracious God, is a filthie Atheist, that is, of no religion. If you tell me, that you thinke excellently of the administration of the Sacraments, publique prayers, &c. But that your meaning is, that it is not Gods pleasure, that igno­rant men shoulde administer such precious iewels, I assent vnto you: but, I must adde this, that as you and I doe mislike the entrance of vnfit men into, and the continuance of them in the holy ministerie, so neither of vs can iustly mislike their ministerie, that is, the reading of the holy Scriptures, &c. Nowe I come to your propositions, which you call Axiomes. The first is this: viz. Euery ministerie is expressely set downe in the worde. I graunt that the substance of eue­ry ministerie is expresly set downe in the holy word. By Ministerie, I vnderstand not onely the ministerie of the word & Sacraments (as you doe in this place) but that ministerie which concerneth the reliefe of the poore, and the ciuill gouernement. For the Ma­gistrate is the minister of God. Rom. 13. If Magistracie is Gods ministerie, and the substance of it expresse­ly set downe in Gods booke, it is a good consequent that Magistracie is not a deuice of man, but an eccle­siasticall [Page 185]constitution, prescribed in the worde. Your second Axiome is this: viz. Euerie ministerie of the newe Testament is a preaching ministerie. If you meane (as I thinke you doe) euery ministerie of the worde in the new Testament, I dissent not from you. Nowe sir, to come a litle neerer you, I must tell you that which either you knowe not, or dissemble, viz. that the lawes of this lande doe barre ignorant men from entring into the holy ministerie: they are flat against it. I offer you a branch of an Act of Parliamēt to be considered of. The wordes of the Act are these: viz. That none shall be made minister or admitted to preach or minister the Sacraments, being vnder the age of 24. yeeres, nor vnlesse he first bring to the Bishop of that Dio­cesse from men knowen to the Bishop to be of sound religion, a testimoniall both of his honest life, and of his professing the doctrine expressed in the said Articles: nor, vnlesse he bee able to answere and render to the Ordinarie an accompt of his faith in Latine, according to the said Articles: or, haue speciall gift and habilitie to bee a preacher: nor shall bee ad­mitted to the order of Deacon or ministerie, vnlesse he shall first subscribe to the said Articles. Anno. 13. Reg. Elizab. cap. 12. You see by this, that the lawe of the lande re­quireth in him which is to be admitted to the holy ministerie, soundnesse in religion, gifts in some mea­sure, and honestie of life. They must to together. Learning without godlinesse, is as a gold ring vpon a swines snoute. Godlinesse in a minister, without learning, is, as a faire colour without light to shew it by, and as a goodly bell without a clapper. Your third Axoime is this: viz. The ministerie of our vnprea­ching ministers, is not a preaching ministerie. No man doubteth of this, vnlesse he bee voyde of common [Page 186]sense. Thus you haue my resolution briefly for these poynts: and yet you are no conquerour, as Caesar was, nor I ouerthrowen, as Pompey was. If your arguments were as tidie, as your speeches are confident, there were no dealing with you. I perceiue the greatest barkers are not the sorest biters. Answere me I pray you directly to these questions. Doe you thinke, be­cause our vnpreaching ministers are not preaching ministers, that no sacraments either were or are ad­ministred by them? Before, you denie it not. If you should, neither sacrifices nor sacraments were offe­red or administred by your ignorāt Leuitical priests: for they were vnpreaching ministers. Do you thinke that al such are polluted, which receiue a Sacrament at the handes of vnpreaching ministers? If you doe, then was Saint Paul polluted which communi­cated with your ignorant Leuites: for they were vn­preaching ministers. Thus you see, to what streights you are driuen.

CHAP. 25. I. Penry. THE MINISTERIE OF OVR vnpreaching ministers, is not a preaching mi­nisterie.

IF the ministerie of vnpreaching ministers be a prea­ching ministerie, or if their function be a pastorall or doctoral function, then there had bene a preaching ministery, a pastorall and doctorall function knowen in the Church, though there neuer had bene any preacher therein. Otherwise, howe can their mini­stery be a preaching ministery, or their function be a pastorall function, whereas the same may be in the Church, no preaching [Page 187]ministery or pastorall function being knowen there? But no Church, much lesse a ministery had there bene knowen, if there neuer had bene any that could haue preached: Because God ordeined the Saints and so a Church, onely to be gathered together by preaching ordinarily, but not by the mi­nistery of readers, because it might haue bene in the worlde, & yet no saint gathered thereby: which thing experience in our Church prooueth to be too true.

You would thinke him strangely occupied, that should set downe argumēts to proue that midnight is not high noone. Your labour is such in this parti­cular: and you sweate & moyle in it very busily. The gaine you are like to reape, is your labour for your trauaile. You write, that if no preaching had bene, no Church had bene. If you meane that no Church had ordinarily bene without preaching, that is, that preaching is the ordinarie means for the beginning and growth of the Church, I assent vnto you: but I adde this, that it hath and doeth please God, by the reading of the holy Scriptures and the working of his Spirit, to renue the hearts of many. If you shall answere that this course is not so ordinarie as the o­ther, I will accept your answere, and withall confesse that in this point, no difference is betweene vs.

My 2. and 3. reasons are drawen out of these wordes of Paul, Rom. 12.6 7.8. Seeing then that we haue giftes that are diuers, according to the grace that is giuen vnto vs: whether we haue prophecie, let vs prophecie, accor­ding to the proportion of faith: or an office, let vs waite on the office: or he that teacheth on teaching, or he that exhorteth on exhorting, &c. The 2. reason is thus concluded.

Whosoeuer hath receiued a ministery, and so a pastorall or doctorall function, hee hath receiued prophecie spoken of in this place, verse 6. Be­cause euery pastoral or doctorall function, mentioned in the 7. and 8. verse, vnder these words, he that teacheth, hee that exhorteth: are conteined vn­der the word prophecie, vers. 6. Insomuch as he that hath not receiued that prophecie there set downe, wherby is ment the interpretation of the word: [Page 188]he hath not receiued the pastorall or doctoral function set downe vers. 7.8 But vnpreaching ministers haue not receiued the prophecie spoken of in this place, which is expresly set downe, verse 6. to be one of the diuers gifts bestowed for the gouernment of the body, which is the Church. Therefore also, they haue receiued neither a pastoral nor a doctorall function, and so no preaching ministery.

Your drifte is as before, to proue that our ignorant ministers are vnfurnished, therefore no preachers. You say true. Will you conclude of this, that they haue no ministerie at all, & that the actions of their ministery, viz. the administration of the sacraments, the reading of the holy scriptures, &c. are not profi­table in any sort to the godly assēbly? If you dispute thus, I deny your argument, and do giue this reason. An absurde Magistrate is not furnished by almigh­tie God, and therefore vtterly vnfit to be Gods lieu­tenant: but we may not inferre of this, that the actes done by him in his magistracie are not the actes of a Magistrate. If you tell me that the arguments for vnfit magistrates & ministers are of seuerall stamps, I graunt you say so. So did, when time was, an other grosse Anabaptist: but all learned men agree with me, and dissent from you.

3 No ministery is separated from a gift, because prophecie spoken of in this 6. verse, vnder which as we see, euery pastorall and doctorall ministery is conteined, cannot bee seuered from a gift: but the ministery of our rea­ders is seuered in them from a gift: therefore in them it is no ministery.

It is no ministery in them I say, although that ministery, the generall name whereof they haue, is not seuered from a gift in preaching ministers: But what is that to them? what is the ministery of other men vnto them? they are not ministers, by the ministery wherewith other men are endued, but by their owne, which being seuered from a gift, is no ministery. Paul had bin no Apostle, & had receiued no Apostleship, vnlesse he could haue sayd, I am a minister according vnto the grace giuen vnto mee, Ephe. 3.7. and not according to the grace giuen vnto other Apostles, the generall name of whose Apostleship I am entituled with. A ridiculous speache it [Page 189]were to say, mine apostleship hath receiued grace, but I that am the apostle haue receiued none.

Howe then may our readers claime a preaching ministery vnto them­selues, seeing the ministery which they challenge, is altogether in them without a gift, though it be not so in others?

I graunt that no lawfull and good Minister of God wants furniture of gifts. If you will conclude of this, that the approbation of the Church is no­thing if sufficiēt parts be wanting in them which are admitted to the ministerie, I denie your argument, and doe offer you for my reason a floure of your owne garden: euen that which you haue written be­fore in these wordes, viz. that vnfitnesse to teach made not a nullitie of the Leuitical priests office. If you answere that extreeme ignorance in the Leuiticall priestes, did neither barre them from, nor strippe them of the Leuiticall priesthood: I replie that this is a positiue and perpetual law of almightie God for the priestes then, & for the Ministers now, viz. The priests lips shall keepe knowledge. Mal. 2. yea, M. Caluine a famous lear­ned man writeth vpon that place of Malachie, that Sa­cerdos & doctor sunt termini conuertibiles, that is, that Gods priest & a teacher are so neere of kinne, that they are like to Hippocrates twinnes, which laughed together and wept together, which liued together and died together. You adde that the ministerie in preaching ministers is not seuered from a gift: but that the vnpreaching minister is not enriched by the furniture of another mans gifts. A deepe matter forsooth. It is as cleare as the Sunne, that learned ministers haue furniture of gifts, & that ignorant men are not learned because the other are so. Blind Bartimeus could haue espied this. Do you thinke that [Page 190]any man of any accompt for learning will rea­son thus? Diuers learned men haue written excel­lently, therefore M. Penry hath so, which hath bro­ched many palpable errours. If any should dispute thus, he should reason absurdly: and yet it is a wise a speech as that which was deliuered euen nowe by your selfe. You write that it were a ridiculous speach to say, Mine Apostleship hath receiued grace, but I that am the Apostle, haue receiued none. I confesse that Gods graces are not tied to any chaire. To thinke otherwise, is a popish fancie. But I dare tell you this, which I am sure is good diuinitie, that some actions of ignorant & euill ministers may haue good grace at Gods hands, when the parties themselues find none. I prooue it thus. First, the sacrifices of ig­norant Leuiticall priestes were profitable to many godly men in that time, but not to those priests. Se­condly, publique prayers deliuered by absurd mini­sters in the name of the godly assembly, are pro­fitable to the assembly, but not to them: for the prayers are accepted by almightie God, Non proper­uersitate praepositorum, sed pro deuotione populorum, that is, Not for the peruersenesse of the ministers, but for the deuotion of the people. Augu. contra epist. Parm. libr. 2. cap. 8.

Euery vnpreaching minister sinneth in executing the workes of a pasto­rall function, as the Sacraments, &c. therefore he hath no ministery, and so neither a pastorall nor doctorall function. He hath no ministery, because his calling is not the calling of the ministery. His calling is not the calling of the ministery, because he sinneth in intermedling with the works there­of. And this is an infallible trueth, that no man sinneth because he dealeth with the workes of his calling. For this is the duetie that God requireth at the hands of euery man. Many sinne in deede because they walke corrupt­ly in their callings, and haue no care to glorifie God therein, Col. 3.17. But leaue thy corruption and thou sinnest not, in keeping thee to the workes of [Page 191]thy calling. The hypocrites in the dayes of Isaiah 1.13. sinned not because they offered sacrifice, but because they did the same through hypocrisie. Their hypocrisie they ought to haue left, but not his seruice in sacrificing according to his commandement: but our readers though they should with as litle corruption, and as great zeale to Gods glory and the good of his Church as any men, deale in the workes of a pastorall ministery, yet they should still doe that which the Lord had forbidden them to doe, whence it appeareth, that the workes of the ministery are not the workes of their cal­ling. For God forbiddeth no man to deale therewith, and not being the workes of their calling, they are no ministers, and haue neyther pastorall nor doctorall function.

You would fayne prooue that vnpreaching mini­sters haue no ministerie at all: but it will not be. You haue euill lucke. you cannot hitte that marke. Your reason is this: Euerie vnpreaching minister sinneth in executing the workes of a pastorall function, as the Sacra­ments &c. therefore he hath no ministerie &c. Mine an­swere is, that I deny your argument. My reason is: The sonnes of Heli sinned in the execution of their ministery, 1. Sam. 2. yet they were ministers. The con­tentious ministers of Philippi sinned in the executi­on of their ministerie, Philippi. 1. yet they were mini­sters. You go on M. Penry in this sort: The Lord, you say, hath forbidden ignorant men to deale with the workes of the ministerie, therefore ignorant mini­sters haue no ministerie at all. Your Antecedent is true: for the holy ministerie is too high a calling for such base companions. Your argument is very false. My reason is: your ignorant Leuites were forbid­den by almightie God to enter into the priesthood: yet they were lawfull priests in your iudgement, because they were of the line of Aaron &c.

This is further shewed, forasmuch as the Lord doeth not commit vnto bare readers the charge of those soules, ouer whom they are, which he doeth vnto euery one that hath a pastorall function, Acts. 20.26.28. 1. thes. [Page 192]5.12. Heb. 13.17. For to what ende else, should he commit a ministerie vn­to any, who haue soules vnder their charge? The Church in deede may commit the soules of men vnto readers, but certainely the Lord commit­teth none vnto them. And he is no minister, vnto whom the Lord doeth not commit this charge, as the places before quoted doe shewe. For the Lord hath in his word, ordeined not onely offices, the executours where­of should 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. Nowe vnpreaching ministers are none of those persons, because the Lord knoweth them not to be able to feede soules. And let not men be so iniurious vnto the Lord, as to affirme, that he according vnto his reuea­led ordinance (for thereof I speake as of a ministerie, and not of his secret iudgements) bequeathed the soules of men to be starued and kept from saluation. As he must needs be conuinced, to do if he bequeathed thē vnto those men, the dispensatiō of whose ministerie is able to beget none, feede none, saue none. You must vnderstand againe, that I speake of the ministe­rie whereby readers are ministers, that is, of their owne, and not of the ministerie whereby preaching ministers are ministers, wherewith readers haue nothing to doe.

That almightie God neuer committed charge of soules to ignorant men (vnlesse it were to punish them, as he did the rebellious Israelites by ignorant Leuiticall priestes) is a cleare trueth in diuinitie: I a­gree with you in that. You say that the dispensati­on of our readers ministerie doth feede none. In that you erre grossely. My reason is: The Sacraments ad­ministred by them doe comfort and feede the soules of the godly communicants: for the vertue of the Sacrament dependeth not of any minister whatsoe­uer &c. The scriptures read by vnpreaching mini­sters do edifie the assemblie which is reuerētly attē ­tiue. If you answer that the word soundly preached doth edifie more, I assent. If you deny that the scrip­tures read by vnpreaching ministers do edifie in any sort, you speake blasphemously, & I haue refuted that absurditie, Chap. 4. of this treatise. There is great dif­ference betweene the Minister and ministerie: but either you cannot or will not see it.

[Page 193]

Moreouer, howe can the Lord be sayd 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 them, by exacting those things to be perfourmed at their hands and in their owne persons, as ne­cessary duties of their callings, vnto the performance whereof, they haue receiued no abilitie from him? Is man to be answerable vnto the Lord of that which he neuer receiued? doeth the Lord require the vse of that ta­lent which he neuer bestowed? doth he lay that vpon any, whereof he may haue iust cause to complaine? When did he impose a charge vpon any, vnto whom he gaue not gifts to discharge the same? nowe the charge of soules which he committeth vnto any, he requireth at their hands vnto whom he hath committed it, which he could not doe, if he had not giuen abilitie to the discharge thereof.

I haue proued before, Chap. 2. that almightie God furnished such as he called to the holy ministerie in the old and newe Testament. I rest in that. If his Ma­iestie (which is farre from him) either had or did commit the charge of soules to such as haue no met­tall in them, hee might be iustly conuinced of, and chalēged for iniuirious dealing with them. No good Captaine will send his souldier naked into the fielde against an armed enemie. You write that God dea­leth iniuriously with men, by exacting those things to bee performed at their handes and in their owne persons as necessary dueties of their callings, vnto the performance whereof, they haue receiued no a­bilitie from him, &c. You referre this speach, I am sure, to the Ministers. To take you otherwise, were to wring your words, and to misconstrue you. I wil not offer you such measure: therefore I leaue you a litle while, and to tel the godly Reader that the Pelagians in Augustines time, and the Papists in our time, rea­son in this sort: Almightie God requireth nothing at our hands, vnto the performance whereof he hath not giuen abilitie: therefore the regenerate are able [Page 194]to fulfill the Law of God in this life. This argument was and is accompted of the Pelagians and Papists an inuincible reason: but it is a very simple one. I denie the Antecedent, &c. The reason is: God requireth of vs the fulfilling of the Lawe: but, the regenerate are not able to fulfill it. That this point may bee better vnderstanded, I will set downe my propositi­on and reasons, in the ende of this booke.

What then? shall ignorant ministers be free from the blood of soules, in asmuch as the Lorde neuer committed any soule vnto their charge? It were well with them poore men, if the case so stood. But alas it is not so. And yet the cause of their destruction proceedeth not from their vnfaith­fulnes in the discharge of that vocation which he hath allotted vnto thē, but it commeth iustly vpon them, in that they haue desperatly thrust them selues contrary vnto Gods reuealed will, vpon those men, with the ouer­sight of whose soules God neuer trusted such as they are. The Lorde sayth vnto them, intrude your selues and you will, vnto the places of pastors, and so enforce me to bring heauy and swift damnation vpon you: but sure­ly I will bequeath no soule vnto your custodie. They on the other side in their practise say, Lord whether thou committest vnto vs any charge of a­ny soule or no, we care not, but rather then we should not haue y ^e meanes to liue in this life, (for this is their onely scope in continuing in the mini­sterie) require the blood of soules, and what thou wilt at our hands. And so senseles men, they sell themselues, body and soule vnto euerlasting wo and destruction.

I am so farre from being a defence to ignorant, ei­ther Leuits before, or Ministers now, that I confesse freely that their entrance into the priesthoode and ministerie, and continuance in it most absurdly, was and is a greeuous sinne. If the Lord hath or shall pu­nish them seuerely for their instrusion into so high a calling, they cannot plead not guiltie. If they doe, it is in vaine: for, at Gods barre they shall not be acqui­ted. You write that the ignorant ministers, whome you call senselesse men, doe sell themselues bodie [Page 195]and soule to euerlasting destruction. Your speech is true: Illi viderint: Let them, if they be not gracelesse and shamelesse, looke vnto it. All that I say vnto it, is: the Lord for his Christs sake heale that sore. It is not so grieuous, thankes be to God, as it was: I as­sure my selfe, it will bee lesse: I woulde to God it were none.

The pretence that the Lord committeth the charge of soules vnto their ministerie, and not vnto them, is first a desiring of that in question: (for they are denied to haue any ministerie) and otherwise many wayes vnsuf­ficient. 1 Because the Lord committeth not the charge of soules there, where the punishment of their destruction cannot take holde, as it can not vpon the ministerie: 2 the ministerie is but a dead thing of it selfe, most beautifull in deede, as being an ordinance of the Lorde, but able to saue none, vnlesse it be committed vnto a person, who in the execution thereof, is able to shewe himselfe 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 worke, ascri­beth vers. 11.12. the gathering together of the Saints, not vnto the giftes or functions, but vnto men endued with the said gifts. For he doth not say that the Lord hath appointed for the gathering together of the Saints, an apostleship, a pastorall or doctorall function, &c. but that he ordained a­postles, pastors, &c. for that end and purpose: whereunto because our rea­ders were not appointed, it forcibly ensueth, that they haue no ministe­rie, no pastorall or doctorall function, and so are no ministers: which con­clusion also in the last edition of mine exhortation vnto my countrey­men, I haue enforced by many strong, and as I am assured inuincible rea­sons, drawen out of the infallible trueth of Gods worde.

What other men doe or will pretende, I cannot tell. I am fully perswaded, that Almightie God did neuer commit his sheepe, souldiers, citie, to foolish shepheards, vnskilfull captaines, blinde watchmen. Such shepheards, captaines, watchmen, were your ignorant Leuiticall Priests, whose entrance and con­tinuance in the priesthoode, are condemned by the written worde. The line of Aaron was not strong y­nough to breake the cords of Almightie God. Such [Page 196]shepheards, captaines, watchmen, are our ignorant ministers. Let the ignorant Leuites and ministers be matched together, good M. Penry. They must needes saile in one shippe, fight vnder one banner, and bee condemned at one barre: and yet I graunt, that your ignorant Leuites which were neuer called of God, but of the Iewish Church, did offer and deliuer the Legal Sacrifices and Sacraments: and that the god­ly Communicants were not polluted by their igno­rance. You must of force graunt me thus much for vnpreaching ministers: for you haue not before de­nied it. So shall some questions betweene you and me be decided, and you shall agree with all the lear­ned Protestants and reformed Churches. You write that the Apostle doth not say that the Lord hath ap­pointed for the gathering together of the Saintes, an Apostleship, a pastorall or doctorall function, but that he ordeined apostles, pastors, &c. You write strangely in my iudgement. If God appointed Apo­stles, he appointed the Apostleship: if pastors, he ap­pointed a pastorall function: for they cannot be sin­gled. Euery meane Logician, yea euery sensible man conceiueth this.

I woulde intreate you, 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 vaine against the conclusion, as long as the premisses, whereby it is inferred, remaine firme. If the Reader would be further satisfied in this point concerning the dumbe Ministerie, he is to be referred vnto that which in the aforesaid Treatise I haue set downe.

I haue now answered your whole booke. I haue and doe submit my labour to the iudgement of the learned, therefore not of you or your ignorant dis­ciples. Because you will haue mee haue a little more [Page 197]worke, you in treate mee to answere foure reasons in your Addition. If you had not bene very lordly, you would haue set downe the reasons you selfe: but, whatsoeuer you doe, becommeth you. You may commaund, comptroll, and deale with others, as Strato did, which was a king ouer beasts. At the least, you thinke so, whatsoeuer other men doe. Well, I am content to satisfie your desire: for, as good happe is, I haue your booke by me: and it is a fault in extre­mo actu deficere, that is, to resemble the slouthful poet in the winding vp of the clewe. Your first reason is conteined in these wordes: viz. Euery one that hath the life of a minister good or bad (or that is a mini­ster in deede) is ordayned of God for the gathering together of the Saints: For, there is no other mini­ster spoken of in the worde. No bare reader is ordei­ned of God for this ende: Therefore no bare reader is a minister in deede, or hath the life of a minister, good or bad. In Add. pag. 52. I answere briefly, that some parts of your Maior proposition are without sense. You write that euery one which hath the life of a bad minister is ordained of God for the gathe­ring together of the Saints. In this short speech of yours, there are grosse errors. The first errour is, that bad ministers are ordeined of God for the gathering together of the Saints. It is a certaine truth in Gods booke, that such as are called by the Lord to this ex­cellent worke, are not bad ministers, as you verie basely do imagine, but choise men for gifts and life, &c. 1. Tim. 3. Your second errour, is this: viz. That furniture of gifts is one part of the life of a bad mini­ster. This is strange diuinitie. My reason is: furniture of gifts is one part of the life of a good minister: ther­fore [Page 198]want of giftes is one branch of the life of a bad minister. The Antecedent is manifest: the argu­ment is strong: secundùm legem oppositionis, as the Lo­gicians tearme it. I haue told you often, that furni­ture of giftes is of the essence of a lawfull and good minister of God, but not of the essence of a minister simply. This I rest in: so must you whether you will or no, vnlesse you will crie downe your ignorant Le­uites, and holde this for a principle, that no Sacra­ment, either was or is administred by vnpreaching ministers. Your three other reasons, are all one, and may be shut vp in this short argument: viz. Vnprea­ching ministers are not able to feede the elect with the food of knowledge and vnderstanding: therefore they haue no calling at all, howsoeuer they haue the Churches approbati­on, &c. In Add. pag. 55.57. I denie your argument, and haue set downe reasons for it before, in this Trea­tise. It is time now to take manum de tabula, that is, to cease this course. My comfort is, that I haue the consent of all the learned, and that Almightie God wil blesse this labour.

CHAP. 26. The regenerate are not able to fulfill the Lawe of God.

¶ My reasons are.

THe Law is a yoke, which neither the holy Fathers, nor the Apostles, &c. were able to beare. So saith the Apo­stle Peter in that famous Councill holden at Ierusa­lem: his words are these, Why tempt ye God, to lay a yoke on the disciples neckes, which neither our Fathers, nor wee were able to beare, &c. Acts. chap. 15. verse 10.11. S. Peter speaketh expresly of such as were regenerate.

2 It was impossible to the Lawe (to take away sinne and death) in as much as it was weake because of the flesh. So writeth S. Paul Rom. 8. there­fore the weakenesse of flesh is such euen in the regenerate, that they are not able to fulfill the Lawe. Iex iubet, non iuuat: ostendit peccatum, non tollit: that is, the Lawe doth commaund, but not helpe: the Lawe doth shewe sinne, but it doth not take away sinne.

3 The regenerate are guiltie of the breach of some one commaunde­ment: therefore they doe not fulfill the Lawe.

The antecedent is manifest, for the regenerate doe sinne, 1. Iohn 1.8. Matth. 6.12. Non peccare, Dei iustitia: that is, not to sinne is Gods righte­ousnesse &c. and sinne is a transgression of the Lawe, 1. Iohn 3 I proue my argument thus: He that faileth in one (commaundement) is guiltie of all. Iames 2.10. The reason of that is, First, because he hath violated the maiestie of the Lawgiuer which is one and the same: Secondly, because the body of Gods Lawe is indiuiduum, that is, cannot be parted.

4 The workes of the regenerate, are vnperfite. Aaron which was the high Priest, in the time of the Lawe, and a figure of Christ, was appointed by Almightie God, to beare the iniquitie of the holy offrings, Exod. Chap. 28. verse 38. S. Paul after his conuersion, was farre from perfection, Phil. Chap. 3. The same Apostle writeth thus of himselfe: I knowe nothing by my selfe, yet am I not thereby iustified. 1. Cor. Chap. 4. verse 4. Ad eius examen vita nostra ducitur, sub quo & virtutes nostrae trepidant: that is, our life is exami­ned by him (that is, Almightie God) before whom our vertues tremble: So writeth Anselmus, which was sometimes Archbishop of Canterburie, in his Commentarie vpon 1. Corinth. Chap. 4.

5 The regenerate cannot loue God & their neighbour perfectly, as the Lawe of God requireth: for they offend God and their neighbour, either in worde, deede, or concupiscence, therefore, &c. The Law is spirituall, Rom. Chap. 7. that is, bindeth our hearts as well as our bodies to obedience. Who can say (truely) my heart is cleane? Pro. Chap. 20. Who can tell how oft he offen­deth? Psal. 19. In quibusdam iustos suos quoniam ad huc extolli possunt, non ad­iuuat ad perficiendamiustit iam, vt dum non iustificatur in conspectu eius omnis viuens, actionem gratiarum semper indulgentiae ipsius debeamus: & sic ab illa prima causa omniū vitiorū, id est à tumore superoiae, sancta humilitate sanemur. August de peccas. mer. & remiss. contra. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 13. The summe of Au­gustines [Page 200]wordes is, that because iust men may growe proude, Almightie God doth not assist them in some particulers to perfite righteousnes, that they may be thankfull for his mercie, and decline pride, &c.

6 The Scripture doth conclude all vnder sinne, that the promise, that is, euer­lasting inheritance, by the faith of Iesus Christ, shoulde be giuen to them that be­leeue, Galath. Chap. 3. verse 22.

Question.

If we cannot fulfill the lawe of God, what vse haue we of the lawe?

Answere.

By the lawe we vnderstand Gods pleasure more certainely. Psal. 19. by the lawe, wee vnderstand our nakednesse, as we doe our debts by an obli­gation, and our spots by the looking glasse. The lawe is a schoolemaster to bring vs to Christ. Galath. chap. 3. verse 24. which Christ is a surgeon and phi­sician to the wounded and diseased.

Question.

Howe are we iust in Gods sight?

Answere.

By Christs righteousnesse: which is ours by imputation, as our sinnes were Christs by imputation. The Apostle writeth that Christ is our righ­teousnesse. 1. Corinth. chap. 1.

It is confessed both by protestants and papists, that wee are iustified by Grace. The difference betweene vs is in this. The protestants by this word (Grace) vnderstand Gods fauour, whereby our sinnes are pardoned: by which meere and onely Grace and mercy of God in Christ, we are iustifi­ed in Gods sight. The papists by this word (Grace) vnderstand a quality powred into our hearts by Almightie God: by reason of which qualitie we liue holily and are iustified (as they say) in Gods sight. This is the Inherent righteousnesse which the papists doe write and speake so much of. Wee which are the protestants, do confesse, that that righteousnesse, which is an effect of Gods sanctifying spirit, and the fruite of our iustification before God, is inherent in vs: likewise the first fruits of our glorification, that is, peace of conscience & ioy in the holy Ghost. That righteousnesse wherby we are accompted iust, or are iustified, or are made iust before God, is not inherent in vs, my reason is: we are made righteous by Christs obedience. Rom. chap. 5. vers. 19. which obedience of Christ, is not within, but without vs: and yet this obedience of Christ, is apprehended by a iustifying faith, as almes is by the hand of a poore man. Perfite righteousnes should be in­herent in vs, if we could keepe all Gods commaundements as exactly, as Almightie God requireth. The best men were and are short in that. One­ly our Lord and sauiour Iesus Christ, which was free from sinne, did fulfill the lawe as God requireth.

Iustitia nostra potiùs constat remissione peccatorum, quàm perfectione virtutum: that is, our righteousnesse doth consist rather in for­giuenesse of sinnes, then in perfection of vertues. August. de ci­uit: dei. lib. 19. cap. 27.