Defense of Writings on the Ignorant Ministry

A defense of that which hath been written in the questions of the ignorant ministry, and the communicating with them. By JOHN PENRI.

THere be two things (M. D. Some ) wherein you by oppugning that truth which out of the word of God I had set down, concerning the two former questions, have been wanting both unto yourself and to the cause; the defense whereof you undertook. The former want of the 2. appeareth by your spare dealing in a matter of such great weight; wherein you have dealt with so illiberal a hand, that what hath been written by you, might seem to proceed rather from any, then frō a man whose gifts and learning seemed to promise the affordinge, of greater and more weighty matters, then any set down in that treatise.

The number of my resons were many, you only have touched 2. of thē, the rest are not dealt with. And therefore the cause as yet remaineth whole. For be it you had answered these 2. as you have not, yet had you not satisfied the doutful conscience of those that know not in these points which way to turn them, as long as any one of my reasons remained unanswered.

In this point there is also another want, which I would had been redressed. And that is of two sorts. First, a manifest going from the controversy; For the question being, whether ignorant men, not ordained of God for the gathering together of the Saints, be ministers or no; you leave that, and prove the Sacraments administered by them, viz. by popish priests, and our dumb ministers in the days of blindness and ignorance to be sacraments, which is no part of the matter in controversy, but another point to be discussed (if men will be gotten at all to enter thereunto) when the former is determined and decided.

Secondly, your reasons are so few, & so commonly known unto all, that for their number, a small deate of paper might contain an answer unto them, for their novelty, they could not put a man that had according unto knowledge, but once allowed of the cause, to any great labor in answering them. As being things so commonly objected by all, learned or unlearned, that hold our readers to be ministers, and think it lawful to communicate with them, as by cours of speech they fall unto that discourse, where all men may easily see, that there was a great oversight committed by M. SOME, in deeming that the oppugning of a cause countenanced by most of the godly learned, would be taken in hand by any, who could not answer the reasons which he might be sure would be objected by all. And who could be ignorant, that the odious controversy, concerning the profanation of baptism, both by popish priests & our dumb ministers, would offer it self in the forefront to withstand the truth? that the civil magistracy, the ministry of the dumb Levites, the corrupt outward calling of our readers would require an answer, which are the reasons, and the only reasons used by you.

The last want I find in you, is contained in the insufficiency of your resons, which evidently show the insufficiency of the conclusion, that would be inferred by them. Your resons are all of them faulty, either because they desire that for granted which is the question, or make those things of like nature, wherein there is a gret dissimilitude. Frō the first of the 2. falts it cometh to pass, that you take for granted, that the writings of reverend and godly men, as of Augustine, M. Beza, &c. will prove that, which the word of the eternal 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 whensoever the word of institution is pronounced with the outward element, there must presently be a Sacrament, that I take an evil minister for no minister; that there was a nullity both of Caiaphas his ministry, because he came in by briberye, and of the litigious ministers in the Church of Philippi, &c. How soever you take those things as granted principles, yet they are the points in controversy, and so far from being yielded unto by me, that I have shown everyone of them to be manifestly false.

The dissimilitude is in the reasons drawn from the Levitical priesthood, and the ciui magistracy, with whom if you compare the ministry of the new covenant, you shall find, first that you bring in a similitude to show that which is not proved; and secondly that you make those to be twins, which all men must needs grant to be as unlike, as crooked & straight lines are unmatchable.

And thus much I thought needful generally to set down concerning your manner of dealing: Not that I would any way disgrace, you whō I reverence, for that is no part of mine intent, the Lord is my witness. Nay, I would be loath to let that syllable escape me, that might give you or any else the least occasion in the world, to think that I carrye any other heart towards you, then I ought to bear towards a reverend learned man fearing God. And howsoever, unless you alter your judgment, I can never agre with you in these pointes; because I am assured you swerve frō the truth: yet this disagreement shall be so far from making a breach of that bond of love, wherewith in the Lord I am tied unto you, that I doubt not, but we shall be at one in that day, when all of us shall be at unity in him that remaineth one and the self-same forever.

Now I am to come to your book, from the 20. page whereof, unto the 28. laying the foundation of the reasons you use against me, to prove the lawfulness of communicatinge with dum ministers, you handle two neadles points. First that they which were baptized by popish priests, have received true baptism as touching the substance. Secondly that they are the sacraments of baptism and the holy supper of the Lord, which are delivered in the Church of England by vnpreching ministers. In these two pointes M. Some, you have proved nothing that my writings have denied; but you have quickened a dead controversy, not unlikely to give the wrangling spirits of this age, cause to breed greater sturres in the Church. I see no other effect, which the handling of these questions can bring forth but this. And it is to be feared that the slendernes of the reasons used in your book, to prove that which you have undertaken to show; will geeue occasion unto mannie, who of them-selves 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 needful controversy, you have both given it a larger passage, and opened the door unto a question very fruitless in our time. you know I deal in neither of these pointes. If you cannot be stayed from entering into controversies, that are very odious, and more impertinent unto the matter in hand: it were good that the church were further and more soundly satissied by you in these 2. pointes, which you alone in our Church have publicly called in question. And for mine own parte, when you have done, I know not who will be your adversary, I see no reason why I should deal in controversies of so small gain. Of this I am assured, that neither popish priests, nor any other ignorant guides are ministers. whether the element administered by thē, be a sacrament or no, look you to that, which have in your treatise debated that, which my writings never called into question. If you will needs prove readers to be ministers, because you cannot get me to deny that which hath been administered to be a sacrament, you shall but press that which will prove nothing. Your reason is, as if you should say, that either all they which supply the places of ministers are ministers, or else an inconvenience is likely to follow. A strange manner of demonstration, God's ordinance must needs be thrust out of the doors because an inconvenience would be likely to ensue the admittinge of it. The cause will not be thus answered at your hands; and I am sorry that a man so reverend in mine eyes, hath dealt so vnsubstantially in a matter belonging to the service of the everliving God: the slenderness of the reason is apparent. In the latter ende of the book I have farther shown the same; thither I am to refer you and the reader.

Now I could well overpass these two pointes, because of them-selves they contain nothing that I have withstood: But in as much as you have not only grounded them vpō false principles, and such as in no wise can be warraunted by the canon of the word, but also infer upon their grant, that our readers are ministers, and consequently, that it is no sin to communicate with them. I am first to set down the state of the question, which in deed is and ought to be decided between you and me concerning the elemente administered, both by popish priests, and other unpreaching ministers: and secondly to examine the grounds whereby you prove the element already delivered by them to be a sacrament, which you know I do not deny to be so.

The question therefore is not whether the one or the other of them have delivered a sacrament in respect of the action done; but whether a Christian going unto them for those holy seals, may be assured, that he can receive the same at their hands. I affirm that we cannot; M. Some taketh it granted that we may; my warrant is out of the word, because there is no promise made to us therein, that the action celebrated by such men, is a sacramental action, and where there is no promise, there can be no assurance, because our assurance ariseth only of faith, which must be grounded upon the promises set down in the word; we have no promise that they can deliver us a sacrament, because they are no ministers. For they only are enjoined by our Savior Christ to deliver a sacrament, neither do we know what he can deliver which is no minister.

So that the question is now grown to this issue, whether popish priests and our vnpreachinge ministers, be ministers or no; whom if I can prove to be none, then the matter is clear, that no man going unto them for the sacrament, can assure himself there to have the same. And this shall be a general reason, equally belonging unto both the pointes handled by you, the particulars whereof shall follow in their places.

That no popish priest therefore is a minister.
• 1 Every minister must be at the least by profession, a member of the true Church. No popish prist is by profession a member of the true Church. Therefore no popish priest is a minister.
• 2 Every minister hath an office with in the body of the Church. No popish priest hath an office within the body of the Church. Therefore no popish priest is a minister.

The propositions or first part of both these reasons are set down evidently and plainly by the wisdom of God, in these words. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not one office; so we being many, are one body in Christ, and everyone an others members, seeing then that we have gifts that are diverse. &c.

The place showeth clearly, that whosoever is not a member, is not of the body, if not of the body, then no minister. A gain, whosoever is no member, he hath no office in the body; if no office, no minister. He that should object that in this place is mente a member of the body, by election in the secret counsel of God, and not in the acknowledgemente of the Church by profession, would not deserve the answering, Because it is vocation and not election, that maketh such a member in the church as may have an office therein; of which sort the Apostle speaketh in this place. by vocation, I mean that whereof the holy ghost speaketh, where it is said, Many are called, but few are chosen: neither can any man deny him to be a member of the Church, which by outward profession submitteth himself unto true religion, and such are the members, whereof the Apostle speaketh: namely such as are menbers in the judgment of the Church, Judas was a member in the judgment of the Church, though not belonging to election. A further proof of the propositions you shall find. 1. cor. 12.26.28. He was no priest in the old testament, that was not a Jew by profession; yea, and of the line of Aaron to: and shall he be accounted a minister among us, that is a stranger from the profession of the truth, & a professed Idolater? Ishmael & Esau, were circumcized, and the sons of those fathers unto whom the covenant was made; Even I will be thy God, & the God of thy seed. They & their posterities fell from true religion: well admit that the profanatiō of circumcisiō 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, and would brag never so often, that he worshipped after his Idolatrous manner, no other God but the God of his father Abraham, & sware only by the fear of his father Isaac. The reason hereof, is, because that every priest under the law, must be an Israelite by professiō, that is a member of the true Church, neither could any of the godly assure them-selves, that an Edomitishe priest administered true circumcision according to the substance. Now I rekō of a popish prist no otherwise thē I would have done of an Ismaelitishe or Edomitish circumcisiser; the profanation of that seal of the covenant, still continuing in mount Seir.

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 would not deny this unto Mohammedanism, or that there are not left in popery certain rubishes and steps of true religion, for this difference I make between thē and other Infidels, though the Jews also may claim this unto themselves. But I mean that the popish religion is such a religion as whosoever liveth and dieth in the profession thereof: he liveth & dieth out of the Church, where salvation is not possibly to be had, for anything that is made known unto man. Whence it necessarily followeth, that in popery there is no Church. If it be objected that the papists are within the covenant, inasmuch as long since they professed the truth. Mine answer will be, that popery was never the truth as yet, that no papist in that he was a papist, ever professed the truth, and that God made no covenant with professed Idolaters, as all papists are.

Antichrist I grant should sit as God in the temple of God, but it was never the temple of God, since he planted his pestilent chair therein. Popery in deed hath invaded the seats and possessions of true religion, and began first where the truth was professed. For the mystery of iniquity first appeared within the Church, & not else-where, where true religion flowrished, and not among the heathen: neither could he be that adversary, whose beginning should be in Paganism. But although popery took root in the soil where the true Church was planted; yet it so grew there, that it still continued to be the synagogue of Satan, & could never as yet be the Church of God; howsoever it hath ouergrowen the possession thereof. And what though their fathers, who now are papists, were within the covenant, as professing true religion; shall it therefore follow that their Idolatrous sons should be so to: If they return the Lord hath mercy in store for them I deny not. But what is there in this point said for the papists, which the Jews cannot with far more show of reason pretend for themselves? The profaning of baptism among the papists can make them no more to be within the Church, then the continuance of the profanation of circumcision among the Ishmaelits & Edomits could keep them under the covenant. And why should •• opish baptism anymore tie the ••• des covenant to an Idolatrous race, then an Ishmaelitish or Edomitish cutting off of the foreskin, link him to be the God of those adulterous generations. Oh, but the Lord himself hath said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, and Jacob have I loved, and hated Esau; why the same Lord in respect of his revealed will, for with his secret election men must not meddle, hath said, the professors of true religion do I love, but the Idolatrous papists my soul abhorreth; It will be here demanded, whether I make no more account of popish baptism, then of 〈…〉 Edomitish circumcision, I see no reason why I should. For a circumcised Edomite being received, to be a true worshipper at Jerusalem, should as well content himself with that circumcision (circumcision being not a thing invented by man, or don in respect of man, but ordained by the Lord, and done in regard of the covenant made unto Abraham) as we do with popish baptism, which is not called in question.

And yet that which is spoken concerning the profession of the truth, by the forefathers, is not altogether true in poperye; for there be many large regions now professing popery, where not so much as the name of Christ was heard, until they were become grossly popish. So that their first step was out of paganism unto poperye. And this is the estate of all those poor oppressed vassals the west Indians, who now in great numbers profess Romish Idolatry. For at such time as the Spaniard invading their land, brought upon them the most miserable slavery of body and soul, that are upon any people under heaven, they had not so much as heard whether there was any Christ, but were most hethnish, & senceles Idolaters, as may appear by the popish hystoriographers them-selves, who wrote the stories of those times. And therefore (to omit, whose posterities many of the nations within Europe are, that have refused the light of the Gospel) though it were granted, that the rest of the popish rabble were with in the covenant; yet these miserable hethē papists, can be said to be under no covenant, but that which is made unto popery and paganism, I hope M Some, howsoever you may be persuaded, that other popish shavelings can deliver a sacrament, yet that you will doubt, whether any man could be assured to receive those holy seals at the hands of the heathen massemongers remaining in Cuba, hispaniola, Mexico, or any other the Eastern partes.

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

I might in the 3. place use against you M. Some, a reason of your own thus concluded. No ministry is sacrilege, because every ministry is an ordinance of God, which cannot be turned unto sacrileage. The popish pristhood is sacrilege, as you have set down, page 21. Therefore the popish priesthood is no ministry, and consequently popish priests are no ministers. You may see that you have overthrown your own cause. But this manner of reasoninge, although it should be of force against yourself, inasmuch as your own words are brought to express your own meaning, yet I account insufficient, my third reason therefore is this.

3 They are no ministers whose very ministry overthroweth directly the priesthood of our savior christ But the very ministry of popish priests, directly overthroweth the priesthood of Christ: therefore they are no ministers.

I know not what can be pretended against the proposition, unless men would dream of a ministry, with whom the priesthood of the Lord Jesus cannot stand. The latter part of the reason is true, if it be true that Christ is the only sacrifice for sin, that he is no more to be offered, that by once offering himself, he hath made full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, and that the popish priests daily sacrifice to apease God's wrath, for the sins of the quick and the dead.

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

The proposition appeareth in that a minister can be made by none, but by such as unto whom the Lord hath given leave to deal 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 priests are made by Idolaters, I make no question. And when did god give Idolaters leave to make ministers.

Seeing therefore that popish priests are no ministers, I see no show of probability whereupon my faith, or the faith of any can be assured to receive true baptism at their hands: unless it can be shown by you, M. Some, that either there may be faith where there is no promise, or that there is a promise to receive a sacrament where there is no minister, which no man of any Christian modesty will affirm. Hence also it followeth, that neither the obstinate crew of recusants in this land, who offer their children to be profaned by traiterous & runagate Jesuits, nor any else within the body of the Romish Babylon, can assure themselves that their children receive the substance of baptism. 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 speak not of that which hath been done yesterday, but of the assurance that may be had of that which tomorrow is to be done.

Where there is no true christ whereunto men can be engraffed by baptism: There true baptism as touching the substance cannot be gotten; for what baptism is that, which is not an ingraffinge into the true Christ.

But in popery there is no true christ, whereunto men may be engraffed, because he is not the true Christ, who cyther will not, or cannot satisfy the wrath of God for the sins of the elect, without their merits, and such is the Christ professed in popery and no other.

Therefore men cannot be assured to have the substance of baptism in the popish Church.

No man can assure himself to have the substance of baptism 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.

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

That there is no Church at all in popery, and that all popish priests are out or the Church, besides the former reasons, this one doth further show, If there be a Church in popery, or if all popish priests be not out of the Church, then those magistrates that have separated themselves and their subjects (and all others that made this separation) from the Romish religion, as from that synagogue where salvation is not to be had, and consequently, where there is no Church, are schismatics, to speak the least. Because it is a schism to make this separation from the Church, detest the corruptions thereof we may, but make such a separation from the Church, we ought not unless we would be accounted schismatiks. But those magistrates and their people, that made this separation, are not schismatics, because in popery the foundation is overthrown, You say in your book (M, Some ) page 33. that you could press the argument of the magistracy against me very far; whether you may or no, that shall be considered when I deal with the point, but this I am assured off, that in this point, you shall be driven either to defend the absurditye, that baptism is to be had out of the Church in a company estranged from Christ, which I think you will not do, or urged so far, as to the plain breach of a statute (which far be it from me) even in the cause of treason. Will ye say that baptism may be had out of the Church: the assertion is absurd; or will you hold that there is a church in popery? the assertiō is dangerous, and I have proved it false. It is dangerous because it affirmeth our magistrates to be schismatiks, inasmuch as they have separated thenselves frō the Church: I hope rather then you will fall in to either of these pointes, that you will grant me the cause.

Lastly, if men might be assured that they could have the true substance of baptism in popery, then they ought not to keep their children from popish baptism, if there were no other baptism in the world to be had. For men might come to their baptism and detest their corruptions, if it be God's baptism, as you M. Some affirmed it to be, page 20. And they can ad an edifying word unto the sacrament: if the recital of the words of institution be an edifying word, and that be sufficient to make a sacrament, both which you have written, page 23.24. But men ought rather to keep their children unbaptized, then to offer them to be profaned by popish baptism, both for the former reasons, and because we ought to have no more fellowship with papists in the service of God, then with pagan Idolaters. M. Calvin hath written otherwise in this point, therefore again I appeal to the word.

Seeing therefore in popery there is no Church, no ministry, no Christ; seeing we ought in no case to be joined with papists 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 unclean and sacriledgious Idolaters: therefore also it necessarily followeth, that neither our popish recusants, nor any else, offering their children to be baptized in the popish synagogue, by those polluted and unclean priests; may assure thenselves that they can be there partakers of true baptism, as touching the substance of baptism.

Now to the examination of your reason brought to prove that they which were baptized in popery, have rece iued true baptism. Your conclusion you must remember, I do not deny, though your reason proveth not the same, which is thus framed.

Whosoever deliver God's baptism, they deliver true baptism; but popish priests deliver God's baptism: therefore true baptism.

You have changed the conclusion from that which was done, unto that which is done, but this oversight I omit the assumption you thus prove.

Whosoever baptize in the name, not of Pope or Idols, but of the holy Trinity, they deliver God's baptism; but popish priests do baptize in the name of the holy trinity: therefore they deliver God's baptism.

Your proposition in this last syllogism, is most false, and such as upon the grant whereof, not only the communicating with unpreaching ministers, might be aduouched, but also God's whole ordinance in the institution of his holy sacraments quite overthrown. For if it were true that there were no more required to make substantial baptism (as you here require no more) but to baptize in the name of the trinity; then these impious absurdities would follow thereof.

1 That an Amalekite might deliver true circumcision, as touching the substance. 2 That true baptism might be administered unto a substance not capable of baptism, but this odious instance I will not urge. 3 That a woman, 4 That any man not being a minister, as a child of five years old, a Turk or Jew might deliver true baptism as touching the substance. For these pronouncing the words of institution, might retain by your reason, the essential form of Christ's baptism, and so to use your own words; they baptizing not in the name of Pope or of Idols, but of the holy trinity, should deliver God's baptism and not man's? if God's baptism, then true baptism I am sure, in like manner, by this reason they should be Catabaptistes, which deny men to be rightly baptized by Turks or women. I would be full sorry that the errors of the Katabaptists or Anabaptists, could not be confuted by you withe sounder reasons then this you have brought; and I would be also sorry that you should defend such absurd cōsequents as I will drive you whether you will or no, unless you revoke (as I hope you will) that which you have writ̄. pardon me I pray you. I deal as reverently as I may with you, retaining the majesty of the cause I defend; and I deal not against you, but against an erroneous assertion, which I now leave; desiring you very earnestly, that you would consider how unreverantly the ordinance of God in the holy sacraments is dealt with when the same is made to depend upon the pronouncing of a few syllables, without any consideration either of the person who is to administer, or of the substantial form of consecration contained in the exposition of the holy institution of baptism, and the invocation of the name of God, all which are necessarily required in the administration of baptism, and could not possibly be in Egypt, where all was and covered under the darkness of a strange tongue. Your distinction that popish priests have a calling, though a faltie, is a begging of the question. For as I have shown, popish priests have no calling at all in the Church, and therefore how can they sit in the chair of the ministry? Is there a ministry out of the Church, Caiaphas his priesthood cometh afterward to be considered of. The seconde point is to be handled next.

That unpreaching ministers are no ministers.

They are affirmed to be no ministers, not because they are evil ministers, but because their ministry is an evil and profane mininistery: So that in this pointe the fault is not found with the evil minister, but with the evil ministry. Their ministry is profane and evil, because there is no mention made of it in the word. And a ministry not mentioned in the word is no ministry but a profane constitution. For the Lord hath expressly set down every ministry of the new testament, that should be in the Church unto the worlds ende; whereas he hath not once mentioned the ministry of our readers, because it is not a preaching ministry. The sum of this whole controversy is contained in these three axioms.

1 Every ministry is expressly set down in the word.

2 Every ministry of the new testament is a preaching ministry.

8 The ministry of our unpreaching ministers, is not a preaching ministry.

If you can show either of these 3. points to be false, I am overthrown, if neither, you must yield. The truth of all three, I have shown out of the word, in the last edition of my book. The two former are confirmed by the places quoted on the margent, the latter I will briefly prove by these reasons.

1 If the ministry of unpreaching ministers be a preaching ministry, or if their function be a pastoral or doctorall function, then there had been a preaching ministry, a pastoral and doctorall function known in the Church, though there never had been any preacher therein. Otherwise, howe can their ministry be a preaching ministry, or their function be a pastoral function, whereas the same may be in the Church, no preaching ministry or pastoral function being known there? But no Church, much less a ministry had there been known, if there never had been any that could have preached; because God ordained the saints and so a Church, only to be gathered together by preaching ordinarily, but not by the ministry of readers, because it might have been in the world, and yet no saint gathered thereby; which thing experience in our Church proveth to be to true.

My 2. and 3▪ reasons are drawn out of these words of Paul, Rom. 13.6.7.8. Seeing then that we have gifts that are diverse, according to the grace that is given unto us; whether we have prophesy, let us prophesy, according to the proportion of faith; or an office, let us wait on the office; or he that teacheth on teaching, or he that exhorteth on exhorting, &c. the 2. reason is thus concluded.

Whosoever hath received a ministry, and so a pastoral or doctorall function, he hath received prophesy spoken of in this place, verse 6. Because every pastoral or doctorall function, mentioned in the 7. & 8. verse, under these words: he that teacheth, he that exhorteth; are contained under the word prophesy. verse 6. Insomuch as he that hath not received that prophesy there set down, whereby is meant the interpretation of the word; he hath not received the pastoral or doctoral function set down verse. 7.8. But unpreaching ministers have not received the prophesy spoken of in this place, which is expressly set down, verse 6. to be one of the diverse gifts bestowed for the gouermēt of the body, which is the church. Therefore also, they have received neither a pastoral nor a doctorall function, and so no preaching ministry.

3 No ministry is separated from a gift, because prophesy spoken of in this 6. verse, under which as we see, every pastoral and doctorall ministry is contained, cannot be severed from a gift: but the ministry of our readers is severed in them from a gift: therefore in them it is no ministry.

It is no ministry in them I say, although that ministry, the general name whereof they have, is not severed from a gift in preaching ministers: but what is that to them? what is the ministry of other men unto them? they are not ministers, by the ministry wherewith other men are endued, but by their own, which being severed from a gift, is no ministry. Paul had been no Apostle, and had received no Apostleslip, unless he could have said, I am a minister according unto the grace given unto me, Ephe. 3.7. and not according to the grace given unto other Apostles: the general name of whose Apostleship I am entitled with. A ridiculous speech it were, to say mine apostleshipp hath received grace, but I that am the apostle have received none.

How then may our readers claim a preaching ministry unto themselves, seeing the ministry which they challenge is altogether in them without a gift, though it be not so in others?

4 Every unpreaching minister sinneth in executing the works of a pastoral function, as the sacraments. &c therefore he hath no ministry; and so nyether a pastoral nor doctorall function. He hath no ministry, because, his calling is not the calling of the ministry, his calling is not the calling of the ministry, because he sinneth in intermedlinge withe the works thereof. And this is an infallible truth, that no man sinneth because he dealeth with the works of his calling. For this is the duty that God requireth at the hands of every man. Manye sin in deed because they walk corruptly in their callings, & have no care to glorify God therein. Col. 3.17. But leave thy corruption and thou sinnest not, in keeping thee to the works of thy calling. The hypocrites in the days of Isaiah. 1.13 sinned not because they offered sacrifice, but because they did the same through hypocrisy. Their hypocrisy they ought to have left, but not his service in sacrificing according to his commandment; but our readers though they should with as little corruption, and as great zeal to God's glory and the good of his Church as any men, deal in the works of a pastoral ministry, yet they should still do that which the Lord had forbidden them to do, whence it appeareth, that the works of the ministry are not the works of their calling. For God forbiddeth no man to deal therewith, & not the being works of their calling, they are no ministers, and have neither pastoral nor doctorall function.

5 This is farther shown, forasmuch as the Lord doeth not commit unto bare reders the charge of those souls, over whom they are, which he doth unto everyone that hath a pastoral function, Acts. 20.16.28. 1, thes. 5.12 Heb. 13.17. For to what ende else, should he commit a ministry unto any, who have souls under their charge? The Church indeed may commit the souls of men unto reders, but certainly the Lord committeth none unto them. And he is no minister, unto whom the Lord doth not cōmite this charge, as the places before quoted do show. For the Lord hath in his word, ordained not only offices, the executors whereof should have the oversight of souls, but also the persons who were to execute those functions. 1. Cor. 12.28. 1. Pet. 4.10. rom 12.6.7.8. Ephes. 4.7.11. Now unpreaching ministers are non of those persons, because the Lord knoweth thē not to be able to feed souls. And let not men be so injurious unto the Lord, as to affirm, that he according unto his revealed ordinance (for thereof I speak as of a ministry, & not of his secret judgments) bequeathed the souls of men to be starved and kept from salvation, As he must needs be convinced to do if he bequeathed them unto those men, the dispensation of whose ministry is able to beget none, feed none, save none. you must understand again, that I speak of the ministry whereby readers are ministers, that is of their own, and not of the ministry whereby preaching ministers are ministers, wherewith readers have nothing to do.

Moreover howe can the Lord be said to commit the charge of souls according to his own revealed ordinance, unto those who may truly object unto him, that he dealeth injuriously with thē, by exacting those things to be performed at their hands and in their own persons, as necessary duties of their callings, unto the performaunce whereof, they have received no ability from him. Is man to be aunswerable unto the Lord of that which he never received? doth the Lord require the use of that tallent which he never bestowed? doth he lay that upon any, whereof he may have just cause to complain? when did he impose a charge upon any, unto whom he gave not gifts to discharge the same? now the charge of souls which he committeth unto any, he requireth at their hands unto whom he hath committed it, which he could not do, if he had not given ability to the discharge thereof.

What then? shall ignorant ministers be free from the blood of souls, in as much as the lord never committed any soul unto their charge. It were well with thē poor men, if the case so stood. But alas it is not so. And yet the cause of their destruction proceedeth not from their unfaithfulness in the discharge of that vocation which he hath allotted unto them, but it cometh justly upon them, in that they have desperately thrust thenseiues contrary unto God's revealed will, upon those men with the oversight of whose souls God never trusted such as they are. The Lord saith unto them, intrude your seiues and you will, unto the places of pastors, and so enforce me to bring heavy & swift damnation upon you: but surely I will bequeath no soul unto your custody. They on the other side in their practice say, Lord whether thou committest unto us any charge of any soul or no, we care not, but rather then we should not have the means to live in this life, (for this is their only scope in continuinge in the ministry) require the blood of souls, and what thou wilt at our hands. And so senseless men, they sell them-selves, body and soul unto everlasting woe and destruction.

The pretence that the Lord committeth the chardge of souls unto their ministry, and not unto them, is first a desiring of that in question; (for they are denied to have any ministry) and otherwise many ways insufficient. 1 Because the Lord committeth not the charge of souls there, where the punishment of their destruction cannot take hold, as it cannot upon the ministry: 2 the ministry is but a dead thing of itself; most beautiful in deed, as being an ordinance of the Lord, but able to save none, unless it be committed unto a person, who in the execution thereof, is able to show himself to be appointed of God for that glorious work. This is taught Ephes. 4. where the Apostle verses 6 and 7. having spoken of the gifts bestowed upon men for this ministerial work, ascribeth verse. 11.12▪ the gathering together of the saints, not unto the gifts or functions, but unto men endued with the said gifts. For he doth not say that the Lord hath appointed for the gathering together of the saints, an apostleshipp , a pastoral 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 have no ministry, no pastoral or doctorall function, and so are no ministers: which conclusiō also in the last edition of mine Exhortation unto my countrymen, I have enforced by many strong and as I am assured invincible reasons, drawn out of the infallible truth of God's word. I would entreat yon M. Some, when you have answered the reasons I have now set down to answer also, the 1.2.3. and 25. reason that I have there used. For you shall but strive in vain against the conclusion, as long as the premises whereby it is inferred remain firm. If the reader would be further satisfied in this point concerning the dumb ministry, he is to be referred unto that which in the aforesaid treatise I have set down̄.

Now to the conclusion, If unpreaching ministers be no ministers, and if I cannot be assured to receive a sacrament, but only at the hands of a minister; both which you see M. Some to be proved by me, then cannot I assure myself, that an unpreaching minister can deliver a sacrament unto me: and therefore it is unlawful for me or any Christian to go unto an unpreaching minister for the sacraments; if unlawful, then a sin, if a sin, thē the godly are polluted which go unto them for the sacraments: you know (M. Some ) what I mean by an unpreaching minister; namely, everyone learned or unlearned, that cannot show him-self by the good trial of his gifts, to have that fitness to teach, whereof we read. 2. tim. 2.2.1. tim. 3.3. which ability the Lord doth not ordinarily bestow upon any in these our days, without the knowledge of the arts, especially the two handmaydes of all learning, Rhethoricke and Logic, and the two original tongues wherein the word was written. And therefore I am as far from accounting the unskillful preachers, which speak hand ouerhead, they care not what; against whom your complaint is very just to be ministers, as I am from acknowledging many of our absurd doctors to be apt to teach, who can bring nothing into the pulpit, but that which other men have written, and that very often, so fit to the purpose, of edification, as the reason from the corner to the staff, is soundly concluded. In these three sortes of supposed ministers (and there could be a fourth added unto them) consisteth the woe of our Church.

The rest of your book is now to be examined. Your conclusion, page 22. that they which were baptized by vnpreching ministers, are rightly baptized as touching the substance of baptism; I do not gainsay. Your reasons are weak. For how could we prove your conclusion, if men should deny popish baptism to be true baptism, as I do not you know & he should do me great injury, which would lay that to my charge. Were it sufficient for us to say they were Katabaptistes which deny popish baptism? How could this be proved? and this should not prove the matter doubted off. Shall we say that they sin, in not presenting themselves to be baptized. To whom should they present themselves? who would baptize thē? Admit they sinned in receiving the Lord's Supper before they were baptized, should they therefore be bereaved of the comfort of baptism? to affirm that this wear a going backward, is no reason, because they were persuaded that they had baptism, otherwise they would not have been so far on their journey, until they had been accompanied therewith. But they omitted baptism of ignorance and not of contempt: therefore they deny the receiving of the Lord's supper to have been a sin, any more then it would be a sin in them now to receive the Lord's supper, if they could not have baptism. Baptism they would have, if they could orderlye come by the same. Because men will be so injurious unto them, as to deny them the comfort of baptism which they cannot have, should they deny to themselves the comfort of the Lord's supper which they may have? Ye, but no uncircumcised might eat the pascall lamb. Exod. 12.48. True; But what shall we say unto those that were uncircumcised in the wilderness forty years almost. Josh. 5.5. Did they never eat the passover all that time? If they did, the place of Exodus will be quickly answered. It is plain that the passover was celebrated in the wilderness once at the least. Nom. 9.1, If every year, why should the godly of the family be excluded from the family be excluded from the action, the cause why they were uncircumcised not being in them. None uncircumcised might minister before the altar. True, but did non of the Levites that were borne in the wilderness teach Jacob the law, or offer the incense of his God in all those fourtye years?

Thus many things you see might be objected against your reasons, & I take the objections to be of some weight, It had been well you had considered of them before you had published your book. And the baptism by unpreaching ministers, must have better prooffes then any you have brought as yet, or else I fear me, our posterities will not be satisfied therewith.

Your next reason, page 23. is slender. Readers pronounce the words of institution with the delivery of the element, therefore say you they deliver a sacrament: you have once already alleged this to prove popish baptism, page 20. I have answered it page 29. 30. 31. And the place of Matth. 28.29. brought in by you page 23. proveth your consequent to be false. For it showeth that he who is to baptize, must be also able to teache, which ability is wanting in our readers. Go saith our Savior, and teach all nations, baptizing, &c. Therefore if he that delivereth the element be not able to teach, we cannot be assured that it is a sacrament. Because the commandment is not generally to all that could pronounce the words of institution, being thereunto permitted by the corruptiō of the time, but particularly limited unto them that can teache, unless you will say, that the Lord biddeth thē go teach, who cannot teach which were not once to be concerned of his majesty. The corruptiō in the Church of England, that the delivery of the element should be severed from the preaching of the word, is a breach of God's ordinance, you cannot deny, Matth. 28 19. act. 20.7. and therefore ungodly and intolerable. Whether it mak the action frustrate or no, that is not the question.

Your 3. reason pag. 24. is this.

Vnpreaching ministers do ad an edifying word unto the element, therefore it is a sacrament. This reason is the same with the former, which showeth the great nakedness and poverty of the cause, that one reason must be thrice perjured to prove the goodness of it, which notwithstanding it cannot show. I deny the antecedent, & consequent. Your reason of the antecedent, that the recital of the sum of Christ's Sermon that is, the words of institution is an edifying word is false, and maintaineth charming. For do you think that the word of institution, being as you say, the sum of Christ's Sermon, is then an edifying word, whensoever it is recited by a profane person, even in the profanation of God's ordinance? Look 2. tim. 4.3. and you shall find that the word barely read, and to no other purpose then to edify by reading, is not wholesome doctrine. The popish priest either without or, within the book, pronounceth in his dark Latin, the sum of Christ's Sermon, is that an edifying word, which he profanely breatheth. The word of God uttered, is not an edifying word, unless it be uttered according to the ordinance, both in regard of the persons that utter the same, and the end wherefore it is uttered. No learned man will deny the Lord's prayer rightly said to be an edifying word. And yet by your leave, no learned man unless he fauoreth charming or popery, will say that the Lord's prayer pronounced by an ignorant man, in a strange tongue , or profaned by a witch, is an edifying word.

Concerning your consequent, do you think that everyone that can ad an edifying word unto the element, may minister a sacrament? it is not so. For Paul requireth the words of every Christian (women & all) to be edifying words, Eph. 4.29. even in common talk. Shall therefore the element administered by every Christian be a sacrament? God forbid. And yet every Christian can ad the sum of Christ's sermon unto 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 read might deliver a sacrament.

The reason concluding unpreaching ministers to be non, because they are not apt to teache, you have twice repeated within one twelve lines, pag 24.25. and made two several objections thereof. That was an oversight: The sufficiency of the argument, I have shown to be such, as Caiaphas his ministry, and Herod's magistracy brought in by you, pag. 25. 26. will never answer the same. Both of them with the reason from the outward calling of readers, pag. 25. I refer to your next chapter, where they are repeated: thither now I am come, where the contradictory of the question shall be set down and proved briefly; because the nullity of the unpreaching ministry, may be in steed of a 1000. reasons to prove the same. By pollution, doubt not, you mean sin.

The godly do sin, which do communicate with unpreaching ministers.

Because 1. they communicate with those who are no ministers. 2. they cannot be assured to receive a sacrament at their hands. 3 they do not examine them-selves aright, and so are not worthy receivers, 1. Cor. 11.28. inasmuch as they do not acknowledge it a sin to communicate where there is no minister. 4. because they either make the element to be a sacrament naturally in it self, and not by the ordinance of God, or else think the ordinance of God in the institution of the sacrament only to consist in the recital of the words; I baptize thee, &c. or rake eat, &c, whereas a minister is a most principal part of the ordinance. 5 Because they make the sacraments to be marks no more estentiall unto the Church, then to other idolatrous synagogues. For the element may be delivered out of the Church by a public person, even as substantially, as by our mere readers. 6 They approve the sin of the unpreaching ministry. Lastly, because they are persuaded, that Christ doth deliver unto them the seals or their salvation, by the hands of those that are not ministers; to wit, by unpreaching readers. In all which points, the godly sin, and therefore are polluted in communicating with unpreaching ministers. Now let us see howe you have proved the contrary.

Where the reader must again be put in mind, that I you have proved nothing unless the question be granted unto you: and 2 that your reasons are repeated too often.

The ministers ignorance say you, page 28. cannot pervert God's ordinance: and again, page 29. the sacraments are not the worse for the ignorance of the minister, &c. All this I grant, but bare readers are not ministers, and the doubt is, whether the action performed by them be the ordinance of God, whether it be a sacrament. These be the questions which you ought to have proved, and not have taken thē as principles, though you do this: the 3 and 4 time, pag 28. line 6. and 24.

M.D. Some, pag. 28. the worthy partaker receives a blessing, if a blessing no pollution.

John Penri; first it is doubted whether we may be assured that it is a sacrament; 2 he is no worthy receiver that receiveth of an Idol ministers: 3 there may be a blessing received, & yet pollution in the receiver: Look 2. Chronic. 30.17.18.19. Nom. 9.7. The objection concerning the giver & the receiver, in your 31. pa. was never mine: I could turn it against you, but I must be brief.

Concerning the nullity of our readers ministry, we are to know that there is a nullity of a ministry before God; either because the action proceedeth from a corrupt minister, as psalm. 50.16. whom God would not have to deal with his ordinances, or from a corrupt and evil ministry, which is none of God's ordinance. The action of the former is substantial in regard of us, of the latter we know no substance it can have. Of the former there is a nullity only in the sight of God; of the latter, both in respect of the Lord and also of us. The nullity of our readers ministry is of this latter sort, namely such as we ought in no wise to account a ministry. Whereas therefore you grant that there is a nullity of our readers ministry before God, and yet affirm them to be ministers, you swerve frō the point, and so your answer, page 31. Is nothing to the purpose, but a desiring of the question after your usual manner. As Caiaphas then, and the rest of the sleepye dogs against whom the prophet crieth out, were wicked men, God would not have such to be his ministers: hither refer Isa. 1.13. but as they had the ministry which God allowed of, they were ministers unto the people. This ministry, our readers want, therefore they can be ministers, neither in respect of the Lord, nor of the Church. Shemaiah was a wicked man, and a false prophet, so were the rest of his stamp. The Lord detested both thē & their ministry. Zephania & Caiaphas hie priests with their company, were as wicked as any of the false prophets, the Lord abhorred the mē, but their ministry was his ordinance.

Hence M. Some, it followeth, that neither the bribery of your Caiaphas, nor the blindness of your ignorant Levites, can make such a nullity of their priesthood, as they should be no priests unto the people. And therefore great reason why the parents of our savior, & the rest of the godly whereof you speak. page 28, 19. should not leave the service of God for the pollution of the priests. Isai speaketh against blind watchmen, 56 10, but chap. 42.19.20. It shall appear that they saw many things, but kept them not, I pray you confer the places and it can never be proved that any of them were so blind, as they could not declare by preaching the general use of the sacrifices and ceremonies. Their wants might be many but not like the insufficiency of our readers. Beit they were as insufficient yet their ministry might be allowable. For

Vnfitnes to teach, made not a nullity of the Levitical priests office.

Because 1 it was sufficient to make him a lawful, though not a good priest, for him to be of the line of Aaron: 2 there was no commandment concerning the trial of his fitness to teach: 3 It is not mentioned that any were put from the pristhood for want of this ability, whereas the dout whether they were the sons of Aaron. Ezra. 2.63. and their idolatry, 2. Chron. bereaved them thereof; 4 the example of Paul confirmeth this, who communicated since his conversion with those prists that wer as unlearned as ever any; which he would not have done if inability to teach, had made them no priests.

Now therefore M. Some to make your argument from the Levitical priesthood to be forcible. For your vnpreching ministers, you must prove that either our readers ministry is a Levitical ministry, that the continuance thereof is under the new covenant or show that the corrupt aprobation, for so I name the best outward calling they can have of the Church, is as forcible to make thē ministers, as was the ordinance of God to make the sons of Aaron sacrificing at Jerusalem to be priests. Now,

That the corrupt allowance of the Church cannot make our readers to be substantial ministers

For so all men and women, without or within the Church might be capable of the ministry, because all may be capable of this outward alowāce; 2 and particularly a man, not furnished with natural capacity; 3 a man that could not read, though he wanted also the gift of interpretation; for such a one might recite the liturgy without the book; 4 the Church might make a man minister against his will, though he should never consent thereunto. And this is the willingness that I mean, when I say that the inward calling is contained in the sufficiency of gifts, & willingness to practice, which willingness I gather upon the words, Epith mei and oregetai, used of the A postle. Your reason therefore from the malicious Philippian ministers, toucheth not the question. Thus Caiaphas with his crew of unworthy and monstrous priests (who within a few pages, in your book have impudently so often troubled the reader) is answered. And I think it a great judgment of God that the ornaments of our English and welch ministry, for the most part consisteth in the deformity of such loathsome spots.

M.D. Some page 32. They of whose magistracy there is a nullitye before God, though they have an outward calling, ought not to be accounted magystrates. I.P. You demand what I think of this proposition. Surely my judgment is, that it is altogether without sense, and overthroweth itself. For it is as if you said, he of whose faith there is a nullitye before God, though he be assured of his salvation is not to be accounted a faithful mā. Why? to be assured of salvation, & to have a nullity of faith before God, cannot stand together. No more can the outward calling of the magistracy stand with the nullity thereof. For the outward calling maketh a substantial magistrate.

There be three essential differences between an evil magistrate and a reading minister

1 The outward calling of an evil magistrate, maketh him a substantial magistrate, so cannot the outward allowance of readers make them to be ministers. 2 The magistracy of an evil magistrate, may be allowable before God, so cannot the ministry of readers. 3 Men may be assured to receive that according to the ordinance of God substantially at the hands of an evil magistrate, which concerneth them to have from him, so can they not of a bare reader; For there is no man that can assure himself to be partaker of a substantial sacrament, at the hands of such, and preach they cannot. I have handled this point of the magistracy in my former book, from page 47. to 51.

But M. Some, where is that reason which you could press so far? is this it? they of whose magistracy there is a nullity before God, ought not to be accounted magistrates. I say your proposition is true, assume what you will, you know what manner of nullity I mean.

My reason concluding the unlawfulness of communicatinge with readers having but an outward calling: because it is a sin to communicate with them, which only want the same having fitness to teache, is such as I cannot but marvel that you would think it could be answered by a desiring of the question, which is a fault in reasoninge, wherein be like you seem to take delight; you say again, that readers deliver a sacrament. How can we be sure thereof, & why may not I say as well, that a man endued with gifts to teach, doth deliver a sacrament, though he have no outward calling, which assertion would be false. By an extraordinarye sacrament, I mean baptism or the Lord's supper, administered either privately by a minister, or any way by on that is no minister. I never affirmed, the elements delivered by readers to be sacraments. It is one thing not to deny them, another thing to affirm them to be sacraments; the former I have written, the latter I never did; & they do my writings great injury, that report the contrary.

Thus M. Some I have run through the pointes in your book that concerned me, I have been driven to deal briefly therein. I had determined, and I am enforced to ende, and to omit that, which page 9. line 11. I promised to handle in the latter end, with diverse other I have not the like liberty for printing that you M. Some do enjoy. Let me but have the favor to be judicially heard according to the word, and I will personally upon the peril of my life, defend these two points against all men. I am sory that you whom I reverence, should be the instrument to oppugn a truth. The Lord respect the cause of his own glory, and pardon our sin. Amen.

ERRATA.

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