A defence of that which hath bin written in the questions of the ignorant ministerie and the communicating with them By IOHN PENRI THere bee two thinges M. D. Some wherein you by oppugning that trueth which out of the worde of God I had sette downe concerning the two former questions haue beene wanting both vnto your selfe and to the cause the defence whereof you vndertook The former want of the 2. appeareth by your spare dealing in a matter of such great waight wherein you haue dealt with so illiberall a hande that what hath bin written by you might seem to proceed rather from any then frō a man whose giftes and learning seemed to promise the affordinge of greater and more waightie matters then any set downe in that treatise The nomber of my resons were many you onely haue touched 2. of thē the rest are not dealt with And therfore the cause as yet remaineth whol For be it you had aunswered these 2. as you haue not yet had you not satisfied the doutful cōscience of those that know not in these points which way to turn them as long as any one of my reasons remained vnanswered In this point there is also another want which I would had bin redressed And that is of two sorts First a manifest going from the controuersie For the question being whether ignorant men not ordained of God for the gatheringe together of the Saints be ministers or no you leaue that and prooue the Sacraments administred by them viz. by popishe priests and our dumbe ministers in the daies of blindnes and ignorance to be sacraments which is no part of the matter in controuersie but another point to be discussed if men will be gotten at all to enter therevnto when the former is determined and decided Secondly your reasons are so few so commonly knowen vnto all that for their nomber a small deate of paper might containe an answere vnto them for their noueltie they coulde not put a man that had accordinge vnto knowledge but once allowed of the cause to anye great labour in answering them As being things so commonly obiected by all learned or vnlearned that holde our readers to be ministers and thinke it lawfull to cōmunicate with them as by cours of spech they fal vnto that discourse wher al men may easily see that there was a great ouersight committed by M. SOME in deeming that the oppugning of a cause countenanced by most of the godly learned would be taken in hand by any who could not answere the reasons which he might be sure would be obiected by al. And who could be ignorant that the odious controuersie cōcerning the profanation of baptisme both by popish priests our dumb ministers would offer it selfe in the forefront to withstand the trueth that the ciuill magistracie the ministerie of the dumbe Leuites the corrupt outward calling of our readers woulde require an answere which are the reasons and the onely reasons vsed by you The last want I finde in you is contained in the insufficiency of your resons which euidently shew the insufficiencie of the cōclusion that would be inferred by them Your resons are all of them faultie eyther because they desire that for granted which is the question or make those things of like nature wherin there is a gret dissimilitude Frō the first of the 2. falts it commeth to passe that you take for granted that the writings of reuerende and godly men as of Augustine M. Beza c. will prooue that which the word of the eternall God doth not warrant Hence you take it graunted that popish priests were ministers that the outwarde approbation of the Churche maketh a minister that whensoeuer the word of institution is pronounced with the outward element ther must presently be a Sacrament that I take an euill minister for no minister that there was a nullity both of Caiphas his ministerie because he came in by briberye and of the litigious ministers in the Church of Philippi c. How soeuer you take those things as granted principles 1. Phil. 1.15 yet they are the points in controuersie and so far from beeing yelded vnto by me that I haue shewed euery one of them to be manifestly false The dissimilitude is in the reasons drawn from the Leuitical priesthood and the ciui magistracie with whom if you compare the ministery of the new couenaunt you shall finde firste that you bring in a similitude to shew that whiche is not prooued and secondly that you make those to bee twinnes which all men must needes graunt to be as vnlike as crooked straight lines are vnmatchable And thus much I thought needfull generally to set downe concerninge your manner of dealing Not that I wold any way disgrace you whō I reuerence for that is no part of mine intent the Lorde is my witnes Nay I would be loth to let that syllable escape me that might giue you or any els the least occasion in the world to thinke that I carrye any other heart towards you then I ought to beare towards a reuerend learned man fearing God And howsoeuer vnles you alter your iudgment I can neuer agre with you in these pointes because I am assured you swarue frō the truth yet this disagreement shal be so farre from making a breach of that bonde of loue wherewith in the Lord I am tyed vnto you that I doubt not but we shal be at one in that day when al of vs shall be at vnitie in him that remayneth one and the selfe-same for euer Now I am to come to your booke from the 20. page whereof vnto the 28. laying the foundation of the reasons you vse against mee to prooue the lawfulnes of communicatinge with dum ministers you handle two neadles points First that they which were baptized by popish priests haue receiued true baptim as touching the substance Secondly that they are the sacramentes of baptisme and the holy supper of the Lorde which are deliuered in the Church of England by vnpreching ministers In these two pointes M. Some you haue prooued nothing that my writinges haue denied but you haue quickened a dead controuersie not vnlikely to giue the wrangling spirits of this age cause to breed greater sturres in the Church I see no other effect which the handling of these questions can bringe foorth but this And it is to be feared that the slendernes of the reasons vsed in your booke to prooue that which you haue vndertaken to shew will geeue occasion vnto mannie whoe of them-selues are too too readie to iangle to doubt of that wherof before they made no question So that by seeking to stay the course of a needful cōtrouersie you haue both giuen it a larger passage and opened the doore vnto a question very fruitlesse in our time you know I deale in neither of these pointes If you cannot be stayed from entring into controuersies that are very odious and more impertinent vnto the matter in hand it were
countrimen I haue enforced by manye strong and as I am assured inuincible reasons drawne out of the infallible trueth of Gods worde I woulde intreate yon M. Some when you haue answered the reasons I haue nowe set downe to answere also the 1.2.3 and 25. reason that I haue there vsed For you shall but striue in vayne against the conclusion as long as the premises whereby it is inferred remaine firme If the reader woulde be further satisfied in this poynte concerning the dumbe ministery he is to be referred vnto that which in the aforesaid treatise I haue set downē Nowe to the conclusion If vnpreaching ministers be no ministers and if I cannot be assured to receiue a sacrament but onely at the hands of a minister both which you see M. Some to be prooued by me then cannot I assure my selfe that an vnpreaching minister can deliuer a sacrament vnto me and therefore it is vnlawfull for me or any christian to go vnto an vnpreaching minister for the sacraments if vnlawfull then a sinne if a sin thē the godly are polluted which goe vnto them for the sacramentes you know M. Some what I meane by an vnpreaching minister namely euery one learned or vnlearned that cannot shewe him-selfe by the good trial of his gifts to haue that fitnes to teach whereof we read 2. tim 2.2.1 tim 3.3 which ability the Lord doth not ordinarily bestowe vpon any in these our dayes without the knowledge of the artes especially the two handmaydes of all learninge Rhethoricke and Logick and the two originall tongues wherein the worde was written And therefore I am as farre from accounting the vnskilfull preachers which speake hand ouer-head they care not what againste whom your complaint is very iust 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 haue written and that very often so fit to the purpose of edification as the reason from the corner to the staffe is soundly concluded In these three sortes of supposed ministers and there could be a fourth added vnto them consisteth the woe of our Church The rest of your booke is nowe to be examined Your conclusion page 22. that they which were baptized by vnpreching ministers are rightly baptized as touching the substaunce of baptisme I do not gainsay Your reasons are weake For how coulde wee proue your conclusion if men should denie popish baptism to be true baptism as I do not you know he shuld do me great iniurie which would lay that to my charge Were it sufficient for vs to say they were Katabaptistes which denie popishe baptisme How could this be proued and this should not prooue the matter doubted off Shall wee saye that they sinne in not presenting themselues to be baptized To whome shoulde they present themselues who would baptize thē Admit they sinned in receauing the Lords Supper before they were baptized should they therefore bee bereaued of the comfort of baptisme to affirme that this weare a goinge backward is no reason because they were perswaded that they had baptisme otherwise they would not haue beene so farr on their iourney vntill they had beene accompanied therewith But they omitted baptisme of ignorance and not of contemt therfore they denie the receiuing of the Lordes supper to haue bene a sinne anye more then it woulde be a sinne in them nowe to receiue the Lordes supper if they coulde not haue baptisme Baptisme they woulde haue if they coulde orderlye come by the same Because men will bee so iniurious vnto them as to denie them the comfort of baptisme which they cannot haue should they denie to themselues the comfort of the Lords supper which they may haue Ye but no vncircumcised might eate the pascall lambe Exod. 12.48 True But what shall we say vnto those that were vncircumcised in the wildernesse fortie yeres almost Iosh 5.5 Did they neuer eate the passeouer all that time If they did the place of Exodus will be quickly answered It is plaine that the passeouer was celebrated in the wildernes once at the least Nom. 9.1 If euery yeare why should the godly of the family be excluded from the family be excluded from the action the cause why they were vncircumcised not being in them None vncircumcised might minister before the altar True but did non of the Leuits that were borne in the wildernesse teach Iaacob the law or offer the incense of his God in all those fourtye yeares Thus many thinges you see might be obiected against your reasons I take the obiections to bee of some waight It had bin well you had considered of them before you had published your booke And the baptisme by vnpreaching ministers must haue better prooffes then anye you haue brought as yet or else I feare me our posterities will not be satisfied therwith Your next reason page 23. is slender Readers pronounce the wordes of institution with the deliuerie of the element therfore saye you they deliuer a sacrament you haue once already alledged this to prooue popish baptisme page 20. I haue answered it page 29. 30. 31. And the place of Matth. 28.29 brought in by you page 23. proueth your consequent to bee false For it sheweth that he who is to baptise must bee also able to teache which abilitie is wanting in our readers Go sayth our Sauiour and teach all nations baptizing c. Therefore if he that deliuereth the element bee not able to teach we cannot be assured that it is a sacrament Because the commandement is not generally to all that could pronounce the wordes of institution beeing thereunto permitted by the corruptiō of the time but perticularly limited vnto them that can teache vnlesse you will saye that the Lorde biddeth thē go teach who cannot teach whiche were not once to be concerned of his maiestie The corruptiō in the Church of England that the deliuery of the element shold be seuered from the preaching of the word is a breach of Gods ordinance you cannot deny Matth. 28 19. act 20.7 and therefore vngodly and intollerable Whether it mak the action frustrate or no that is not the question Your 3. reason pag. 24. is this Vnpreaching ministers do ad an edifying word vnto the element therfore it is a sacramente This reason is the same with the former which sheweth the great nakednes and pouerty of the cause that one reason must be thrise periured to proue the goodnes of it which notwithstanding it cānot shew I deny the antecedent consequent Your reason of the antecedent that the recitall of the sum of Christs Sermon that is the wordes of institution is an edifying worde is false and maintaineth charming For do you thinke that the worde of institution being as you say the summ of Christes Sermon is then an edifying word whensoeuer it is recited by a profane person euen in the profanation of Gods ordinance Looke 2. tim 4.3 and you
shal appear that they saw many things but kept them not I pray you confer the places and it can neuer be prooued that any of them were so blinde as they could not declare by preachinge the generall vse of the sacrifices and ceremonies Their wants might be many but not like the insufficiency of our readers Beit they were as insufficient yet their ministery might be allowable For Vnfitnes to teach made not a nullitie of the Leuiticall priests office Because 1 it was sufficient to make him a lawfull though not a good priest Nom. 3.10 Leuit. 8. Exo. 29. for him to be of the line of Aron 2 there was no commandemēt concerning the tryall of his fitnes to teach 3 It is not mentioned that any were put from the pristhood for want of this ability wheras the dout whether they were the sonnes of Aaron Ezra 2.63 and their idolatry 2. Chron. bereaued them thereof Act. 21.26 4 the example of Paule confirmeth this who communicated since his conuersion with those prists that wer as vnlearned as euer anye whiche he woulde not haue done if inability to teach had made them no priests Nowe therefore M. Some to make your argument from the Leuiticall priesthood to bee forcible For your vnpreching ministers you must proue that either our readers ministery is a Leuiticall ministery that the continuance therof is vnder the new couenāt or shew that the corrupt aprobation for so I name the best outwarde calling they can haue of the Churche is as forcible to make thē ministers as was the ordinaunce of God to make the sons of Aaron sacrificing at Ierusalem to be priests Now That the corrupt allovvance of the Church cannot make our readers to be substanciall ministers For so all men and wemen without or within the Church might be capable of the ministery because all may be capable of this outward alowāce 2 and perticularly a man not furnished with naturall capacity 3 a man that could not read though he wanted also the gift of interpretation for suche a one might recite the liturgie without the booke 4 the Churche might make a man minister against his will though he should neuer consent thervnto And this is the willingnes that I meane when I say that the inward caling is contained in the sufficiency of gifts willingnes to practize which willingnes I gather vpon the wordes Epith mei and oregetai vsed of the A postle Your reason therfore from the malicious Philippian ministers toucheth not the question 1. Tim. 3.1 Thus Caiphas with his crue of vnworthye and monstrous priests who within a fewe pages in your booke haue impudently so often troubled the reader is answered And I thinke it a great iudgment of God that the ornaments of our English and welch ministery for the most part consisteth in the deformitie of suche lothsome spots M.D. Some page 32. They of whose magistracie there is a nullitye before God though they haue an outwarde calling ought not to bee accounted magystrates I.P. You demand what I thinke of this proposition Surely my iudgement is that it is altogether without sence and ouerthroweth it self For it is as if you said he of whose fayth there is a nullitye before God though he be assured of his saluation is not to be accounted a faythful mā Why to be assured of saluation to haue a nullitie of fayth before God cannot stand together No more can the outward calling of the magistracy stand with the nullity thereof For the outwarde calling maketh a substantiall magistrate There be three essentiall differences betvveene an euill magistrate and a reading minister 1 The outwarde calling of an euill magistrate maketh him a substantial magistrate so cannot the outward alowance of readers make them to be ministers 2 The magistracie of an euill magistrate may be allowable before God so cannot the ministery of readers 3 Men may bee assured to receiue that accordinge to the ordinaunce of God substantially at the handes of an euill magistrate which concerneth them to haue from him so can they not of a bare reader For there is no man that can assure himselfe to be pertaker of a substantiall sacrament at the hands of such and preache they cannot I haue handled this poynte of the magistracie in my former booke from page 47. to 51. But M. Some where is that reason which you could presse so far is this it they of whose magistracie there is a nullity before God ought not to be accounted magistrates I say your proposition is true assume what you wil you know what maner of nullity I meane My reason concluding the vnlawfulnes of communicatinge with readers hauing but an outward calling because it is a sinne to communicate with them whiche onely want the same hauing fitnes to teache is such as I can not but maruell that you would thinke it could bee answered by a desiring of the question which is a fault in reasoninge wherein be like you seeme to take delight you say againe that readers deliuer a sacrament How can we be sure thereof why may not I say as well that a man indued with giftes to teach doth deliuer a sacrament though he haue no outwarde calling whiche assertion would be false By an extraordinarye sacrament I meane baptisme or the Lords supper administred either priuatly by a minister or any way by on that is no minister I neuer affirmed the elements deliuered by readers to be sacraments It is one thing not to deny them another thing to affirme them to be sacraments the former I haue written the latter I neuer did they doe my writinges great iniurie that report the contrary Thus M. Some I haue run through the pointes in your booke that concerned me I haue beene driuen to deale briefly therein I had determined and I am inforced to ende and to omit that which page 9. line 11. I promised to handle in the latter end with diuers other I haue not the like libertie for printing that you M. Some doe inioy Let me but haue the fauor to bee iudicially heard according to the word and I will personally vpon the perill of my life defend these two points against all men I am sory that you whom I reuerence should be the instrument to oppugne a trueth The Lord respect the cause of his owne glorie and pardon our sinne Amen ERRATA Page 1. line 20. 23. for 2. read 3. pag 47. line 14. blot out family be excluded from the
Idolators Therefore they are no ministers The proposition appeareth in that a minister can be made by none but by such as vnto whom the Lord hath giuen leaue to deale in that action otherwise the action is frustrate As if a company of women though religious and godly shoulde goe about to make a minister the action is nothing Of the assumption that popish priests are made by Idolators I make no question And when did god giue Idolators leaue to make ministers Seing therefore that popish priests are no ministers I see no shew of probabilitie wherevpon my fayth or the faith of any can be assured to receiue true baptisme at their hands vnlesse it can be shewed by you M. Some that eyther there may bee fayth where there is no promise or that there is a promise to receaue a sacrament where there is no minister which no man of any christian modestie wil affirme Hence also it followeth that neyther the obstinate crue of recusants in this land who offer their children to be profaned by trayterous runnagate Iesuits nor any els within the body of the Romish Babylon can assure themselues that their children receiue the substaunce of baptisme My reasons besides that they are no ministers are these And I desire that they may be examined by you good M. Some where you must remember that I speake not of that which hath bene done yesterday but of the assurance that may be had of that which to morow is to be done Where there is no true christ whervnto men can bee engraffed by baptisme There true baptisme as touching the substaunce cannot be gotten Rom. 6.3 gal 3.27 for what baptisme is that which is not an ingraffinge into the true Christ But in popery there is no true christ wherevnto men may be ingraffed because he is not the true Christe who cyther will not Rom. 5.15.19 or cannot satisfie the wrath of God for the sinnes of the elect without their merits Heb. 5.25 and such is the Christ professed in popery and no other Therefore men can not be assured to haue the substance of baptisme in the popish Church No man can assure himself to haue the substance of baptisme out of the Churche and that by those that are without the Church for then a sacramēt might be had out of the Church which were very impious and absurd to be affirmed But popery is out of the Churche and so are all popish priests Therefore no man can assure himselt to haue the substance of baptism in popery by any popish priest That there is no Churche at all in popery and that al popish priests are out or the Church besids the former reasons this one doth further shewe If there be a Churche in popery or if all popishe priestes be not out of the Churche then those magistrates that haue separated themselues and their subiectes and all others that made this seperation from the Romish religion as from that synagogue where saluation is not to be had and consequently where there is no Churche are schismatikes to speake the least Because it is a schisme to make this separation from the Churche detest the corruptions thereof we may but make suche a separation from the Churche wee ought not vnlesse wee would be accounted schismatiks But those magistrates and their people that made this separation are not schismatickes because in popery the foundation is ouerthrowen You say in your booke M Some page 33. that you could presse the argument of the magistracie against me very far whether you may or no that shall be considered when I deale with the point but this I am assured off that in this point you shal be driuen either to defend the absurditye that baptisme is to bee had out of the Churche in a companye estraunged from Christe which I thinke you will not doe or vrged so farre as to the plaine breach of a statute which far be it from me euen in the cause of treason Will yee say that baptisme may be had out of the Church 13. Eliza. A strange Church that hath not Christ for the foundation the assertion is absurd or wil you hold that there is a church in popery the assertiō is dangerous and I haue prooued it false It is dangerous because it affirmeth our magistrates to be schismatiks My meaning is onely to shew the danger not to presse the fame inasmuch as they haue seperated thēselues frō the Church I hope rather then you will fall in to eyther of these pointes that you will grant me the cause Lastly if men might be assured that they could haue the true substance of baptisme in popery then they ought not to keep their children from popish baptisme if there were no other baptisme in the world to be had For men might come to their baptisme and detest their corruptions if it bee Gods baptisme as you M. Some affirmed it to be page 20. And they can ad an edifying worde vnto the sacrament if the recitall of the wordes of institution be an edifying worde and that be sufficient to make a sacramēt both whiche you haue written page 23.24 But men ought rather to keep their children vnbaptized then to offer them to be profaned by popish baptisme both for the former reasons and because wee ought to haue no more felowship with papists in the seruice of God then with pagan Idolaters M. Caluin hath written otherwise in this point L. Zo. ' Epist 10.4 therefore againe I appeale to the word Seing therefore in popery there is no Church no ministery no Christe seeing we ought in no case to be ioyned with papists in their religion but to bee separated from them as from those that are out of the church and such as are become a very filthy cage and nest of vncleane and sacriledgious Idolators therefore also it necessarily followeth that neither our popish recusants nor any else offring their children to bee baptized in the popish synagogue by those polluted and vncleane priests may assure thēselues that they can bee there pertakers of true baptisme as touchinge the substance of baptisme Nowe to the examination of your reason brought to prooue that they which were baptized in popery haue rece iued true baptisme Your conclusion you must remember I do not deny though your reason prooueth not the same which is thus framed Whosoeuer deliuer Gods baptism they deliuer true baptisme but popish priestes deliuer Gods baptisme therefore true baptisme You haue changed the conclusion from that which was done vnto that whiche is done but this ouersight I omit the assumption you thus proue Whosoeuer baptise in the name not of Pope or Idols but of the holy Trinitie they deliuer Gods baptism but popishe priests do baptize in the name of the holy trinitie therefore they deliuer Gods baptisme Your proposition in this last syllogisme is most false and such as vpon the grant whereof not onely the cōmunicating with vnpreaching ministers might