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 Master Penry answeres nothing to this So am I eased of some labour R. Some The vnpreaching Ministers do adde verbum aedificans that is an edifying word to the Elements in the administratiō of the holy Supper therefore c. I. Penry 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 R. Some 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. I. Penry 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 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 R. Some 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 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. 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
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 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. R. Some 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 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. I. Penry 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 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 R. Some 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 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
of Christ Alexander the bishop of Alexandria both misliked condemned his filthy heresie Socrat. lib. 1. ca. 6. There was hotte stirre in the church of Alexandria The Lordes arke and the Philistines Dagon the Ephesians Diana and Pauls preaching Poperie and the Gospell cannot stand together Asa was a religious Prince he suppressed idolatrie and planted Gods religion The kingdome was quiet before him and hee vanquished the Ethiopians 2. Chron. 14. 15. Chap. Iosaphat was a zealous promoter of the Lords religion Almightie God crowned him with this blessing The feare of the Lorde fell vpon all the kingdomes of the lande that were round about Iudah and they fought not against Iosaphat the Philistines brought to Iosaphat giftes and tribute siluer the Arabians brought him flocke both of rammes and goates 2. Chron. 17. Vzziah the King of Iuda prospered so long as hee sought the Lord. Almightie God helped him against the Philistines and Arabians the Ammonites gaue him tribute and his name was famous euen vnto Egypt 2. Chron. 26. Ezechias was a carefull aduancer of Gods religion The land had great quietnesse and was notably deliuered from the Assirians 2. Chron. 32. Queene Elizabeth hath planted the Lords religion Popes Gregory Pius Sixtus haue cursed her Maiestie the Popish enemies haue bene are maliciously bent against her this land as Sennacherib Rabsakeh against Ezechias and Ierusalem but God hath blessed and miraculously preserued her Highnes and Dominions as he did Ezechias Ierusalem the greatest enemies of the English natiō are the sinnes of the English nation but if we desire and obtaine pardon for our sinnes at Gods hands shal serue our God sanctifie his Sabboth more carefully then we haue done the Lord wil goe forth with our armies our captaines and souldiers shall amaze and vanquish our Popish enemies as Gedeon did the Madianites Iephthe the Ammonites and Dauid the Philistines and our gracious God will couer both Prince people with the shield of his Iustice and defend vs with the sworde of his Iudgement Obiection When the Gospell is preached stirres doe grow that appeared in Ierusalem Act. 7. in Iconium Act. 14. in Rome Act. 28. Answere I grant that stirres appeare sometimes when Gods trueth is deliuered the fault is not in the seede but in the ground It was not Elias that troubled Israel but Achab and his fathers house which forsooke the Lords commandements followed Baal 1. King 18. The holy preaching resembles medicine daylight and the heate of the sunne It is not the medicine but euil humors which distemper the body varietie of colours are not made but discerned by the day light The heate of the sunne is not the cause but the descrier of the stinke of a carrion 6. THE CHILDE OF GOD is not polluted though hee bee present at and partaker of the publique prayers Sacraments c. at such time as wicked men are present at and partakers of them IN the Prophets time there were many grosse corruptions at Ierusalem The magistrates Priests and people were greatly disordered The Lordes religion was partly contemned and partly defiled Did the holy Prophets seuer them selues from them of Ierusalem in Salomons temple Did they builde newe either Churches to assemble in or Altars to sacrifice vpon It is certaine they did not and yet they were not polluted Our Sauiour Christ was presented to the Lord in Ierusalem An oblation was giuen Luk. 2.22 Hee was afterwards partaker of the Sacrifices in Salomons temple with the Scribes Pharises vngratious people of Ierusalem My reasons are First Christ was subiect to the law Gal. 4.4 One branch of the Law was to be partaker of the Sacrifices in Salomons temple Secondly Christ in the dialogue with the woman of Samaria speaking of himselfe and the Iewes vseth these wordes We worship that which we knowe Ioh. 4.22 Vnder the worde worship are contained the sacrifices Calu. contra Anabapt The Churches of Corinth and Galatia had many and grosse sores in them Saint Paul I confesse deales very roundly with them yet hee doth not either license or cal vpon Gods seruants in Corinth and Galatia to seuer themselues from the assemblies If to be present in the assemblie had brought pollution the Apostle woulde not haue failed in this Christian dutie Let a man examine himselfe 1. Cor. 11.28 The Apostle doeth not say Let euery man examine the rest of the communicants which no doubt hee would haue giuen in charge if the lewdnesse of others did pollute Gods seruants He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe 1. Cor. 11.29 Saint Paul saith to himselfe not to others The Apostles receiued the Lords supper with Iudas Aug. contra Lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 11. 23. lib. 3. cap. 106. But they were not partakers of Iudas theft Aug. contra Cresc Gram. lib. 4. cap. 26. or Iudas treason Acceditur ad vitium corruptionis vitio consensionis Aug. contra Don. post Coll. lib. That is to consent to vice is to bee corrupted with vice That Iudas was a theefe Saint Iohn reporteth Ioh. 12. vers 6. That the Apostles did knowe before the partaking of the holy supper that Iudas should betray Christ appeareth manifestly in the Euangelist Matthewe Matt. 26. vers 21 23 25. The most famous men before and in our time are of my side Augustine in his writings against Petilian Parmeniā Cresconius the Donatists and Caluin in his treatise against the Anabaptistes are very peremptory in this Argument None can or wil mislike it vnlesse they be alreadie or meane to bee Donatistes or Anabaptistes Obiection The Apostle commaundes vs to withdrawe our selues from euery brother that walketh inordinately 2. Thess 3.6 Answere We must withdrawe our selues Quoad priuatam consuetudinem non quoad publicam communionem that is touching priuate conuersation not touching publike partaking of the worde and Sacraments Caluin is of this Iudgement in his treatise against the Anabaptistes If any shall gather of this I haue set downe that I am content to admit notorious sinners to the holy table he doth me great wrong and is refuted in my treatise of the Sacraments where I vse these wordes It is a great sinne for a knowen wicked man either to minister the Lordes supper or to present himselfe to the holy communion and such lewdnes must bee seuerelie punished by them in whose handes it is to redresse it But if this grosse sinne be practised and no medicine vsed to cure it the godly must content them selues with griefe for these enormities and remember that the Sacrament sealeth vp Gods sweete promises to them which the wicked sort at no hand are partakers of 7. THEY VVHICH VVERE baptized in the Popish Church by Popish Priestes receiued true Baptisme touching the substance of Baptisme THe Popish priestes doe retaine the essential forme of Christs baptisme that is they doe baptise in the name not of Pope or idoles but of the holy Trinitie therefore it
fufficiēcie of gifts and willingnesse to practise them pag. 45. If M. Penry meane the practise of giftes to Gods glory I say Amen vnto it I confesse that they of Philippos had giftes in some measure but they had not willingnesse to practise those giftes to Gods glorie which willingnesse c. is one of the necessarie branches of an inward calling That they of Philippos had not this willingnesse c. it is manifest for they sought themselues and practised their gifts wholy to increase the Apostles affliction Lastly if your Antecedent be true 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 bee accompted Magistrates Doe you not thinke this proposition to bee very dangerous I could presse and followe this very farre but I abstaine of purpose Obiection The Sacrament may not bee receiued at his handes which wanteth outward calling Therefore not at his handes who is destitute of the inward graces I. Penry pag. 46. Answere Your Antecedent is true and maketh against the Anabaptists I denie your Argument My reason is Omnia Sacramenta cùm obsint indignè tractantibus prosunt tamen per eos dignè sumentibus August contra epist Parmen lib. 2. cap. 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 Obiection We haue no warrant to receiue 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. Penry pag. 49. Answere I denie your Minor and doe adde this First that it is a Sacrament by your owne 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 If any will conclude of these my answeres that I mislike M. Penryes desire of a learned Ministerie in Wales he takes vp that which I neuer let fall for I desire with all my heart and the Lorde for his Christs sake grant it that not onely Wales may be furnished with worthy gouernours and pastours but all other partes of her Maiestics Dominions that Gods graces may be more and more multiplied vpon vs and our posteritie and his holy hand watch ouer vs. 10 THE CHVRCH OF England is the visible Church of Christ THE Church of Galatia which erred in a fundamentall point of doctrine is called the Church of God Gal. 1. therefore the Church of England which erreth not in any fundamentall point of doctrine is the Church of Christ That the Church of Galatia erred in a fundamentall point of doctrine it is manifest for they ioyned Circumcision and Christ together If any do thinke that the Church of England doe hold an errour in any fundamentall point of doctrine let him set downe the particular The Church of England hath Christ for her head and foundation for shee receiueth and reuerenceth the Canonicall Scriptures and confesseth Christes righteousnesse to be hers and that saluation is compassed by Christ alone with whose grace nothing may bee matched Christus aut totus aut nullus Gratia Dei aut tota suscipitur aut tota reijcitur Gratia nullo modo esset gratia nisi esset omni modo gratuita That the preaching of the holy worde and administration of the Sacraments are the essentiall markes of the Church of Christ I haue proued in my Treatise of the Church to which booke I referre you but these essentiall markes of the Church are in the Church of England therefore c. Obiection The discipline vsed in the Primitiue Church is not in the Church of Englād therefore the church of England is not the Church of Christ Answere I denie the Argument My reasons are First S. Luke setting out the extraordinary blessing which God gaue to Peters sermō in Ierusalem hath these wordes Then they that gladly receiued 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 Acts. 2.41 42. No man endued with Gods spirit wil denie that this assembly which was baptised continued in the Apostles doctrine c. was the Church of God and yet no Deacons were at that time chosē or Consistories of Seniors erected Secondly they which doe vrge the discipline most earnestly doe confesse that the discipline is not an essentiall part of the Church Their reason is The discipline resembles the wall of a Citie and hedge or ditch of a Vineyarde It is a Citie though the wall bee wanting it is a Vineyarde though hedge or ditch be wanting Lastly I woulde gladly knowe whether it bee either possible or safe to plant that discipline in this lande before that Gods holy Trueth be soundly both taught and receiued and that there be fit Churchmen and people to execute the discipline Obiection The Ministers in England are not chosen by the Parishes ouer which they are set therefore they are no ministers and consequently there is no administration of the worde or Sacraments no worshippe of God nor visible Church in England as some Anabaptists haue giuen out of late Answere I denie the Argument My reason is if this Argument of theirs were good these absurdities would follow First that Gods Church is necessarily tyed in all places and times to one forme in the externall calling of the ministers Secondly that the excellent assemblie in the Primitiue Church Actes 2. verse 41 42. was not the Church of God for at that time the Ministers were not elected by the Presbitery people Thirdly that the worthiest Preachers in this land are no Ministers Lastly that very many parts of England are like to haue no teachers because they are vtterly vnfit to make choise of their Pastours If it be saide that some Bishops in ordeyning and some Patrones in presenting ignorant Ministers haue erred as grosly as any Parish can my answere is that I neither dare nor will defend such either Bishops or Patrons I doe rather exhort them to vnfeyned repentance for this great sinne of theirs hath and doth crie very loude for some notable vengeance Cipri de vnitate Ecclesiae Haereses Diabolus inuenit schismata quibus subuerteret fidem veritatem corrumperet scinderet vnitatem Quos detinere non potest in viae veteris caecitate cirrumscribit decipit noui itineris errore Rapit de ipsa Ecclesia homines dum sibi appropinquasse iam lumini atque euasisse faeculi noctem videntur alias nescientibus tenebras rursus infundit c. A DEFENCE OF SVCH POINTS IN R. SOMES LAST TREATISE AS M. PENRY hath dealt against And a refutation of many Anabaptistical blasphemous and Popish absurdities touching Magistracie Ministerie Church Scripture and Baptisme c. conteined
page 84. They amongst vs which are vnbaptized doe sinne grienously if they doe not present themselues to baptisme Chap. 8. page 88. They which are once baptized must not be baptized againe Chap. 19. page 156. They which were baptized of Popish priestes in the Popish Church receiued true baptisme c. chap 7. page 79. and chap. 8. page 88 89. and chap. 20. page 156. 157. The false profession of Christ in popery doth not proue that the true Christ is not in popish baptisme cap. 23. pa. 174. Whether infants ought rather to be kept vnbaptized then to be presented to popish baptisme chap. 23. page 180. The infāts of papists may be baptized in a reformed church if some of the religion do present them to baptisme do vndertake the godly education of them cha 17. pag. 150. There hath bene may be true baptisme out of the church chap. 21. page 158. Though true baptisme was amōgst the Donatists out of the Church August did not giue leaue to any of the church to presēt their infāts to be baptized there cap. 21. pa. 159. They are the Sacraments of Baptisme and the holy Supper which are administred by vnpreaching ministers in the church of England chap. 8. page 88. 89. 95. 98. None vnbaptized may receiue the holy supper chap. 8. page 90. 91. 92. It is lawful to administer the holy supper in a priuate house if some cautions be obserued chap. 15. page 141. 142. Euery legall vncleannes was not ioyned with sinne chap. 9. page 113. The regenerate cannot fulfil the law of God cha 26. pa. 199 A TABLE OF DIVERS grosse errours and Anabaptisticall fancies conteined in M. Penryes Treatise c. Master Penry saith That the life of the Magistracie is neither prescribed in the worde for so there could be no Magistrates out of the Church nor any in the Church but such as are prescribed in the word which were impious to thinke nor conteined in the gifts of the Magistracie nor yet separated from his outwarde calling For the very outward calling is it that giueth life vnto the Magistracie though the person susteining it want gifts to discharge the same The reason hereof is euident because the Magistracie being an humaine constitution as the holy Ghost saith 1. Pet. 2.13 is appropriated vnto his possession vpō whomsoeuer man bestoweth the same if hee be capable to possesse though vnfit to execute what is a lotted vnto him In his addition page 48. This speach of M. Penryes is very grosse His first reason is this there may be Magistrates out of the Church therefore the life of the Magistracie is not prescribed in the word M. P. Antecedent is true For Pharao Nero Iulian were magistrates out of the Church I deny his argument My reason is the gifts of courage fearing God dealing truly hating couetousnes which are the life of the Magistrate are prescribed in Gods booke Exo. 18.21 Deu. 1.13 If you say they are not the life of the magistracie you dissent from all the learned and therfore must set downe what God requireth of him that should be his Magistrate His second reason is this There are and may be magistrates within the Church which are not garnished with the aboue named gifts therefore the life of the Magistracie is not prescribed in the word My answere is I confesse that absurd Magistrates haue bene and are many times aduanced in the Church I graunt they should not either by the corruption or errour of the electours But I deny your argument My reason is It is great wickednes to thinke because grosse Electours preferre vnfit men and so faile in their duetie that Almightie God hath failed in prescribing what kinde of men he would haue to be his lieutenants M. Penry addeth that the life of the Magistracie is not conteined in the gifts of the magistracie I dissent from him in this If he had said that the birth of the magistracie is not conteined in the gifts of the magistracie he had hit the white M. Penry writeth that the life of the magistracie is not separated from his outward calling for the very outward calling saith he is it that giueth life vnto the magistracie If this were true then the life and birth of the magistrate are idem tempore that is twinnes and consequently whosoeuer hath the outwarde calling which is the birth hath the inwarde calling which is the life of the magistrate So is Gods furniture tyed to the electours voices as to the chaire and the inward outward calling of the magistrate confounded which is a palpable errour If there bee an outward calling to the magistracie without the which no man howsoeuer furnished within may presume to execute the office of the magistrate I am sure there is an inward calling to the magistracie For the outwarde calling doeth import an inward If there be an inward calling which is by God himselfe what I beseech you is it but such furniture and gifts as are prescribed and required in the holy word The foundation whereupon M. Penry hath built his former absurdities is a very rotten post that is a grosse deprauing of a text of Scripture viz. The Magistracie is an humaine ordinance 1. Pet. 2.13 that is a deuise of man and not an Ecclesiasticall constitution prescribed in the worde That the magistracie is not any deuise of man but Gods ordinance for the benefite of man is a cleare trueth in Gods booke None doubt of it vnlesse they be Anabaptists or extremely ignorant M. Penry saith that the word barely read and to no other purpose then to edifie by reading is not holsome doctrine Chap. 8. pag. 99. This is a blasphemous absurditie M. Penryes reasons for it are most absurd and childish I referre you to my answere Chap. 8. pag. 100. 101. and to a proposition which I haue handled Chap. 4. pag. 62. c. M. Penry writeth that it is false to say that the recitall of the summe of Christes Sermon that is the word of institution c. is an edifying word he saith it mainteyneth charming Chap. 8. pag. 88. 89. This is a blasphemous absurditie If euery part of the Canonical Scripture doth edifie I trust the summe of the Lord Iesus Sermon ought to haue singuler allowance If it ought to haue singuler allowance it may not be indited and arraigned for maintenance of charming M. Penry saith that the people cannot sanctifie a Sabboth without a Sermon His words are these They are no ministers whose flocks by their ministery can not sanctifie the Sabboth our Readers are such c. In his addition pag. 60. M. Penry accounteth the publique reading of the holy Scripture and publique prayers no part of the sanctification of the Sabboth If he had said that the Sabboth is not so well sanctified without as with a godly Sermon I woulde haue agreed vnto him M. Penry maketh the person to giue credite to the holy word His wordes are these The word of God vttered is not an
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 I. Penry 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 R. Some 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 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 I. Penry 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 R. Some 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 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 I. Penry 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 R. Some You finde many faults You are a hard man you couer none Moates with you are beames and molhils 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 I. Penry 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 R. Some 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 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 I. Penry 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 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 R. Some 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. Iohn Penry 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
out of tune I. Penry 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 R. Some 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 R. Some 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. I. Penry 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 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 R. Some 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 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
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 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 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 I. Penry 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 R. Some 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 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 R. Some 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 R. Some 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 R. Some 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 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 I. Penry 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
Reasons Because it was sufficient to make him a lawfull though not a good Priest for him to be of the line of Aaron R. Some 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 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 I. Penry 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 R. Some 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 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. I. Penry 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 R. Some 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 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. I. Penry 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 R. Some 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 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
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 R. Some 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 I. Penry 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 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 R. Some 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 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 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
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. Penry 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 R. Some 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 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 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 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 quà m 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. FINIS