A GODLY TREATISE containing and deciding certain questions, moved of late in London and other places, touching the ministery, Sacraments, and Church.  
Whereunto one Proposition more is added.  
After the end of this Book you shall find a defence of such points as M. Penry hath dealt against: And a confutation of many gross errors broached in M. PENRIES' last Treatise.  
Written by Robert Some Doctor of Divinity.  Ephes. 4. verse 15. 
Let us follow the truth in love, and in all things grow up into him, which is the head (that is) Christ, etc.  
Imprinted at London by G. B. Deputy to Christopher Barker, Printer to the Queen's most excellent Majesty. 1588.   

¶ To the Reader.  
TWo sorts of Recusantes are in this land: the one Popish, the other anabaptistical. They give out, that we have no ministry, no Sacraments, no visible Church. These men labour of two diseases: the one is great pride, the other gross ignorance. Their pride appears in their behaviour, which is void of humility: their ignorance in their Arguments, which hang together like a sick man's dream. That her Majesty may and aught to compel these Recusants to frequent our Church assemblies, I make no question. There is an other sort, which either deny or doubt, whether unpreaching ministers do deliver a Sacrament: upon better advise, some of them confess, that ignorant ministers, do administer a Sacrament: but they add this, that such as receive any Sacrament at their hands, do sin grossly and pollute themselves. I will hope well of these men: for they err, only for want of judgement. The holy Sacrament is one thing, the ministers ignorance is an other thing: the lords Sacrament brings singular comfort to the worthy receiver: the ministers ignorance can neither pervert the Sacrament, nor pollute the receiver. The Donatists taught otherwise in the former time, and the anabaptists in our time: but they are notably confuted by two famous men, Augustine and Caluine. What account I make of ignorant ministers, appeareth in this treatise. It pleased God to direct my heart and pen in this holy labour: therefore I assure myself of his gracious blessing.  
London, Maij. 6. 1588. R. S.   

A Table of such points as are conteiin this Treatise.  

1 A Godly Prince may and aught to compel his subjects (if any refuse) to the external Service of God.  
2 A godly Prince may not suffer any Religion, but the true Religion, either publicly or privately in his Dominions.  
3 Able teachers ought to be provided (so much as can be) for the Churches.  
4 The teachers of religion must have maintenance.  
5 Almighty God blesseth those kingdoms with peace, which promote and embrace his Religion.  
6 The child of God is not polluted, though he be present at, and partaker of the public Prayers, Sacraments, etc. at such time as wicked men are present at, and partakers of them.  
7 They which were baptised in the Popish Church by Popish Priests, received true Baptism touching the substance of Baptism.  
8 They are the Sacraments of Baptism and the holy Supper, which are delivered in the Church of England, by unpreaching Ministers.  
9 The godly are not polluted which receive the Sacrament at the hands of an unpreaching Minister.  
10 The Church of England is the visible Church of Christ.    

1. A GODLY PRINCE may and aught to compel his Subjects (if any refuse) to the external Service of God.  
IT is the Prince's duty to provide able men to teach the lords Religion in his dominions. So did josaphat the king of juda. 2. Chro. 17. and Artaxerxes the king of Persia. Ezra 7. therefore, it is the Prince's duty, to provide that his Subjects do hear and learn the Lords religion. Teachers and learners are relatives.  
Great outrages were committed against both the tables of the commandments, as appeareth in the book of judges: for, every man did that which was good in his own eyes: judg. 17. & 19 cha. The reason of these absurdities is set out lively and often in these words: There was no king in Israel. judg. 17.18. & 19 Chap. by which words it is manifest, that if a religious Prince had been in place, Idolatry and wicked behaviour had been suppressed, and the Israelites pressed to serve the Lord. That Princes do not pass their bounds in this, it is clear by that which Augustine reporteth of and commendeth in the King of Babylon. Contra Cresc. gram. lib. 3. cap. 51.  
The Prince is bound to sanctify the Sabbath: so are his subjects: the Lords commandment is flat for this: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy: Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man servant, nor thy maid, nor thy beast, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates, etc. Exo. 20. If none are exempted by almighty God, none can be dispensed with by man, for all are charged to present themselves in the holy assemblies. And, lest any, either prince or subject, should forget this duty, the Lord himself is their remembrancer in these words: Remember, that thou sanctify the Sabbath etc. that is, the sanctification of my Sabbath, is a matter very important, it concerneth my honour, but thy comfort, therefore remember and forget it not. If any refuse, they may and aught to be compelled: for the breach of the Sabbath is a heinous sin. jere. 17. Nehem. 13.  
Faith cometh by hearing of the word, Rom. 10. therefore refusal to hear, hinders both the beginning and growth of faith. The Samaritans heard Philippe in Samaria: they believed. Acts 8. Lydia heard Paul at Philippos: she believed, Act. 16. Augustine was a Manichee nine years: he heard Ambrose the Bishop of Mediolanum, and was converted. August. confess. lib. 4. cap. 1. and lib. 5. cap. 13. and 14. If any shall ask me why all that hear, believe not: I answer, Arcana Deisunt adoranda, non scrutanda: That is, God's secrets are not to be searched, but adored: and, that unless God's spirit touch the heart, as the word doth pierce the ear, God's holy Truth is a dead letter unto us.  
Asa, josias, were famous kings of juda. Asa commanded juda to seek the Lord God of their fathers, and to do according to the law and commandment, 2. Chron. 14. josias compelled his subjects to serve the Lord their God, 2. Chron. 34. So did Manasses after his conversion. 2. Chron. 33. If it were lawful for these Kings of juda, to command and compel their subjects, it is not unlawful for ours to do the like. If it be not lawful to compel recusants, why are Asa, josias, Manasses, commended by the holy Ghost for this excellent course?  
Ezra was a learned Scribe: he was authorized by the King of Persia, to teach them beyond the river Euphrates the Law of God, which did not know it, and to punish such as refused to learn. Artaxerxes warrant is set down in this sort: And thou Ezra (after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand,) set judges and arbiters, which may judge all the people that is beyond the river, even all that know the Law of thy God, and teach ye them that know it not: And whosoever will not do the Law of thy God, and the King's law, let him have judgement without delay, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. Esra. 7. verse 25, 26. And lest any should take exception against Artaxerxes commandment, Ezra cleareth it of all suspicion of unlawfulness, in these words: Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, which hath inclined the King's heart to beautify the House of the Lord that is in jerusalem. Ezra 7. verse 27.  
Augustine the Bishop of Hippo in Africa, was a very famous man: he was sometimes of opinion, that heretics were to be pressed by argument, and not by the Magistrate: his reason then was, Ne fictos Catholicos haberemus, quos apertos hereticos noveramus, That is, lest we should have them counterfeit Catholics, whom we knew to be notorious heretics. But after weighty consideration, he changed his former opinion, and is very resolute, that Recusants may and aught to be compelled by the Magistrate. August. Epist. 48. 204.  
Siterrerentur & non docerentur, improba quasi dominatio videretur: Sed rursus, Si docerentur, & non terrerentur, etc. August. Epist. 48. that is, to punish and not to teach, were tyranny: again, to teach and not to punish, were to harden them in their ancient custom, and to make them slow to enter the path of salvation.  
Exi in vias & sepes, & compelle intrare, Luke 14. Qui compellitur, quò non vult cogitur: sed quùm intraverit, iam volens pascitur: August. Epist. 204. that is, Go out into the high ways, and hedges, and compel them to come in: he that is compelled, is compelled to enter against his will: but when he is entered, he is fed willingly.  
Ad caenam tanti patrisfamilias, si sponte non vultis, intrare compellimus. August. contra. 2. Gaudentij Epist. lib. 2. cap. 28. that is, to the supper of so great an householder, if you will not of your own accord, we compel you to enter.  
Quod autem vobis videtur, invitos ad veritatem non esse cogendos, etc. August. contra 2. Gaudentij Epist. lib. 2. cap. 17. That is, where as ye think, that men are not to be compelled to the Truth against their wills, ye err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of GOD, which maketh those willing, though they be compelled against their wills.  
Qui phreneticum ligat, & lethargicum excitat, ambobus molestus, ambos amat. Aug. Epist. 48. That is, he that bindeth a frantic man, and awaketh him that hath the lethargy, loveth both, though he be grievous to both.   

2. A GODLY PRINCE MAY not suffer any religion but the true religion, either publicly or privately in his Dominions.  
THe exercise of false religion is directly against the sanctification of the Lords Sabbath: Exo. 20. therefore the Prince may not at any hand suffer it. The Moral law, as it teacheth the worship of Almighty God in the first, and honesty of life in the second table of the commandments, is perpetual, and bindeth us unto the worlds end.  
The Israelites being in captivity in Egypt, were required by Pharaoh to sacrifice to Almighty God in Egypt: Moses refused etc. Exod. 8. The Israelites being in captivity in Babylon were required by the Chaldeans to sing one of the songs of Zion. They refused and answered thus: How shall we sing the Lords song in a strange land? Psal. 137. Of these places I gather my argument thus: It was not lawful to sacrifice in Egypt, and to sing the Lords song in Chaldea, which were polluted lands: therefore it is not lawful to suffer Idolatrous & popish service in England, which is a holy land. That professed papists are Idolaters, it is manifest: first, they worship false gods: for they worship Angels and saints deceased which are no gods, Secondly, they worship not the true God aright: for they do not worship him according to his written word.  
Confession & consent in the true religion, is Vinculum ecclesiae, the chain and bond of God's Church: for the Apostle saith, there is but one faith. Ephe. 4.5. therefore dissension and difference in religion is a dissolution of God's Church. But no prince may have any, either hand or little finger in dissoluting God's Church: for Kings and Queens are the nursing fathers and mothers of the Church. isaiah. 4.9.  
It is the Prince's duty to provide for the safety of the bodies, therefore much more for the safety of the souls of his subjects. If for the safety of their souls, than they may not suffer them to poison their souls. True religion is the food of the soul. It is but one. To serve from that, is the bane of the soul. It leadeth to hell. The Shipmaster and shepherd must keep his ship and sheep from rock and wolf. Qui non scruat si potest periturum, occidit.  
The prince is bound to serve the Lord in fear. Psal. 2. therefore he may not suffer almighty God to be dishonoured by any of his subjects. God is notably dishonoured, when false worship is suffered either publicly or privately.  
The Angel of the Church of Pergamus is reproved by Christ for having such in Pergamus as maintained the doctrine of Balaam, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which God hated. The Angel of the Church of Thyatira is reproved by Christ for suffering jezabel etc. to teach and to deceive. Apocal. 2. therefore Princes sin grievously which suffer the exercise of a false religion.  
A godly prince may not suffer a wilful breach of his own laws: therefore not of God's laws. Almighty God is greater than all Princes. His laws do as far pass the princes, as the gold of Ophir the clay in the street. Besides, they which hate God's religion, and consequently sin against the first table, are easily induced to disobey their prince, which is a sin against the second table. It was a famous speech of the Emperor Constantius the father of Constantinus the Emperor: How can they be fast and true to the Emperor, which are Traitors to Almighty God? Euseb. lib. 1. de vita Constant. King Asa deposed Maachah his mother from her regency, because she had made an idol in agrove: Asa broke down her idol, and stamped it, at the brook Kidron. 2. Chron. 15. Ezechias and josias were famous Kings of juda. They destroyed the groves and temples of the idols. They destroyed the groves and temples of the idols. They took a direct course for God's religion. Almighty God may not be dallied with in his service. There must be no parting of stakes. He will either have all or none. Ezech. 20. The lords Altar and Baal's Altar must not stand together. judg. 6.  
Nabuchodonosor the king of Babylon made a decree, that every people, nation and language, which spoke any blasphemy against the God of Sidrach, Misach and Abednago, should be drawn in pieces, and their houses made a jakes, etc. Dan. 3.  
Constantinus the Emperor did not suffer I idolatry in any part of his dominions. Euseb. lib. 4. de vita Const. The emperors Theodosius and Gratianus did not suffer Arianisme etc. Theod. lib. 5. cap. 16. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 12. and 4.  
Edward the sixth, a Prince of famous memory, was dealt with by his honourable counsellors that the Lady Mary which succeeded in the kingdom, might have popish mass etc. Arguments were used to induce his Majesty to like of that course. His answer and resolution was negative. So doth master Fox report in the Acts and monuments in these words: In the days of King Edward the sixth, Carolus the Emperor made request to the said King and his Counsel, to permit Lady Mary (who after succeeded in the crown) to have Mass in her house without prejudice of the Law. And the Counsel on a time sitting upon matters of policy, having that in question, sent Cranmer then Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ridley then Bishop of London, to entreat the king for the same: who coming to his Grace, alleged their reasons and persuasions for the accomplishing thereof. So the King hearing what they could say, replied his answer again out of the scriptures, so groundedly, gravely and fully, that they were enforced to give place to his replication, and grant the same to be true. Then they, after long debating in this manner with his Majesty, laboured politicly in an other sort, and alleged what dangers the denying thereof might bring to his grace, what breach of amity of the emperors part, what troubles, what unkindness, and what occasions sundry ways it would enforce etc. Unto whom the king answered, willing them to content themselves: for he would (he said) spend his life and all he had, rather than to agree and grant to that he knew certainly to be against the truth. The which when the Bishops heard, notwithstanding they urged him still to grant, and would by no means have his nay. Then the good king seeing their importunate suit, that needs they would have his Majesty to consent thereto, in the end his tender heart bursting out in bitter weeping, and sobbing, desired them to be content. Whereat the Bishops themselves, seeing the king's zeal and constancy, wept as fast as he, and so took their leave of his grace: and coming from him, the Archbishop took master Cheek his Schoolmaster by the hand and said: Ah master Cheek, you may be glad all the days of your life, that you have such a scholar, for he hath more divinity in his little finger then all we have in all our bodies etc. Thus far master Fox.   

3. ABLE TEACHERS ought to be provided (so much as can be) for the Churches.  
GOds people are the lords sheep, spouse, city: therefore they must be fed, garnished, watched over, with the Lords food, furniture, weapons. This cannot be done without able teachers.  
The work of the ministery is a famous work. Ephe. 4. It passeth Moses Tabernacle, and salomon's Temple: therefore it is to be committed to skilful and faithful men: by it Dagon, Diana are cast down, and the Lords Ark and religion are set up: by it ignorance, darkness, are removed, and knowledge and light are planted: by it, many wandering sheep are brought to the Lords fold, and many sheaves of corn into the Lord's barn. This appeapeared notably in Samaria, Ephesus, Corinth, etc.  
The Ambassadors of earthly Princes, either are or should be men of choice: otherwise, they dishonour their Princes, and become ridiculous: therefore, the ministers which are the Ambassadors of the highest prince, Mal. 2.2. Cor. 5. must have some metal in them. If they have not, how either can, or shall they deliver the Lords commission?  
A learned teacher is a singular blessing: for he feedeth God's people with knowledge and understanding. jere. 3. Such were Ezra amongst the Israelites, Epaphroditus at Philippos, Epaphras at Colossos', Apollo's at Corinth: such are many (thanks be to God) in this land: therefore an ignorant minister is a grievous plague, for he cannot strengthen the weak, heal the sick, bind together the broken. Ezech. 34.  
The Popish and anabaptistical sort have done great hurt in this land. This is as clear as the sun: the way to heal this sore, is to provide such, as by sovereign plasters and medicine out of the Lords Eden may remove this dangerous infection, and plant in the people's hearts the Lords holy religion.  
Where teaching is not, the people are in a woeful case. Solomon saith, Where prophecy (that is, the expounding of God's word) is not, the people perish. Proverb. 29. Almighty God saith, My people perish for want of knowledge. Hos. 4. Our saviour Christ saith, This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. joh. 17.  
Where sound teachers are placed, these commodities are apparent. First, Almighty God is notably served. Secondly, the prince is dutifully obeyed. Thirdly, the enemy to religion is either won or descried. Where the people are not taught, these absurdities do follow: First, they cannot serve God, for they do not know God. Esay. 19 Prius est Deum scire, consequens colere. Secondly, the prince is not so dutifully obeyed: the rebellion in the North, is a proof of that. Lastly, the enemy to religion cannot be won: for faith cometh by hearing. Rom. 10. nor so easily descried: for the holy word is a searcher. Hebr. 4.  
All which love the religion, have and do desire a greater number of able teachers, that our church may have more beauty, our prince more honour, our people more heavenly comfort. None mislike this, but such as make God's Church either a mark to shoot at, or a carcase to feed upon. The one sort are professed enemies: the other, graceless hypocrites. For they prefer mire before pearls, earth before heaven, and their filthy swine before jesus Christ, as the Gergesens did, Mat. 8.   

4. THE TEACHERS OF Religion, must have maintenance.  
TO show kindness to the lords house, is an excellent work: so did Nehemias a courtier. To provide maintenance for the teachers, is to show kindness to the Lords house, Nehem. 13. verse 14. What then is their kindness, which sell Church livings as judas did Christ? The abominable sale and merchandise of Church livings is cried out against in Court, City, and Universities. Propter abundantiam, as one said of late, nonpotest, & propter impudentiam non vult celari: that is, the polling and sale of Church livings is so common that it cannot, and so shameless that it will not be hid.  
To forsake the house of God, is a heinous sin: not to provide for the teachers, is to forsake the house of God, Nehem. 10. and 13. Chap. How great then is their sin which rob the Church and Churchmen? It is a gross sin to spoil either the soldier or the merchant adventurer, which in their places are a singular defence to their country by sea and land: therefore it is a heinous sin to rob Churchmen, which (as Elias) are the Chariots and horsemen of the common wealth. The weapons of our warfare (saith the Apostle) are not carnal, but mighty through God, to cast down holds, casting down the imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captituitie every thought to the obedience of Christ, and having ready the vengeance against all disobedience. etc. 2. Cor. 10.  
The repairing of Churches is to be performed carefully: So was it in king joas time, therefore much more provision for the teachers: the priests maintenance in joas time, neither was nor might be abridged for repairing of the Churches: the reason of it is contained in these words, The money of the trespass offering, and the money of the Sin offering was not brought into the lords house: for it was the Priests. 2. Kings. 12.  
Skilful teachers do plough the Lords field, and are the Lords, both mouth and hands to deliver his blessings and treasure unto us: therefore they ought to have defence and maintenance, and not to wander as Michas Priest did. judg. 17. Students cannot live of the air as the Chameleon doth. Church pollers shut up the kingdom of heaven before men: for they themselves go not in, neither suffer they them that would enter to come in: therefore the woe denounced by Christ against the Scribes and Pharisees, seizeth upon them. Matth. 23.  
Ezechias the King of juda commanded that the Priests and Levites should have maintenance, and that their wives, children and families should be provided for. 2. Chron. 31. vers. 4, 18. Thus did Hezekiah throughout all judah, and did well and uprightly, and truly before the Lord his God. And in all the works that he began for the service of the house of God, both in the Law and in the Commandments, to seek his God, he did it will all his heart, and prospered. 2. Chron. 31. vers. 20, 21.  
divers famous Princes have had some Churchmen to be of their honourable Council: jehoiada was in King joas Court. 2. Chron. 24. Zadok and Abiathar, in David and salomon's Court, 2. Sam. 20. 1. King. 4. Daniel in Darius Court. Dan. 6.  
It is Queen Elizabeth's pleasure, that the worthiest men should be advanced for the government and service of the Church. That very mean choice hath been made of divers Churchmen, the land sees, feels, and cries out of.  
Question.  
Whether such things as were given for the maintenance of idolatry, may, and aught to be converted to the service of God?  
Answer.  
They may, and aught. My reasons are:  
If men should convert them to their private use, it might be justly thought, that in abolishing superstition, private gain is the mark which is shot at, and not the advancing of God's religion. August. epist. 154.  
When such things are converted, not to private, but common uses, or to the honour of God, that falleth out in them, which in men themselves, when of Church robbers and wicked men, they are converted to true religion. August. epist. 154.  
Eleazar the Priest took the brazen censers, which they that were burnt had offered, and made broad plates of them for a covering of the Altar. Numb. 16.  
The gold, silver, the vessels of brass and Iron in jericho, were brought into the lords treasury. Ios. 6.  
Gedeon did offer unto the Lord, a bullock which had been fed for Baal's service, and did use the wood of the grove a djoining. judg. 6.  
If such things as were given to the maintenance of Popery, may not be converted to the service of God, then pull down Churches and Universities, take away their lands etc. And let Atheism be in stead of God's religion, and Macciavell in the place of the new Testament.   

5. ALMIGHTY GOD blesseth those kingdoms with peace, which promote and embrace his religion.  
THe holy host setteth out in lively colours, the consequents of teaching and embracing the lords religion. They shall break their sword into mattocks, and their spears into siethes: they shall sit every man under his vine, and fig tree without fear of the enemy. Mich. 4. The prophet Esay singeth the same song: The Wolf shall dwell with the Lamb: The leopard shall lie with the kid, the Cow and the Bear shall feed together. Esay. 11. That is, wicked men which in cruel affections resemble the Wolf, the leopard, the Bear, shall cast off the chain of pride, and the garment of cruelty, and shall go hand in hand with the godly, who for their innocency are compared to the Lamb, the Cow, the Kid. The reason is: For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. Esay. 11.  
The Egyptians and Assyrians were deadly enemies: they denied traffic one to an other, and all passages were shut up between Egypt and Assyria. Esay describing a great alteration of minds in them of Egypt and Assyria, saith, that There shall be apath from Egypt to Assur: and Assur shall come into Egypt, and Egypt into Assur. The reason of their agreement, is set down in these words: The Egyptians shall worship (the Lord) with Assur. Esay 19  
Where idolatry is advanced, no peace can be looked for. They chose new gods, saith Deborah, Then was war in the gates. judg. 5. The Israelites for a long time were without the true God, without Priest to teach: In that time, saith the Prophet Azariah, there was no peace: for nation was destroyed of nation, and city of city. 2. Chron. 15. The Reubenites, Gadites, and half tribe of Manasseh, transgressed against the God of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land, whom God had destroyed before them: The God of Israel stirred up the spirit of the kings of Assyria, who carried them away captive, etc. 1. Chron. 5. jehoram the king of juda, did forsake the Lord God of his fathers: the consequents were: Edom, Libnah, rebelled: the Lord stirred up against jehoram, the spirit of the Philistines & Arabians. 2. Chron. 21. King Ahaz was a notable idolater: He sacrificed to the gods of Damascus: the Edomites, and Philistines invaded the cities of juda, and prevailed: Yea, the king of Aslyria, whose help Ahaz desired, and accounted greatly of, did trouble and not strengthen him. 2. Chron. 28. jehoiakim the king of juda, did evil in the sight of the Lord his God: The king of Babel came up against him, and bound him with chains to carry him to Babel. 2. Chron. 36.  
They which descent in religion, cannot be knit fast together. The Samaritans and jews differed in religion: they contended about the Temple. joh. 4. The stir between them was very great. Some in the Apostles times after Christ ascension, urged circumcision as necessary unto salvation: other condemned it as an absurd & gross error. The stir was great in the Churches of Antiochia and Galatia. Arius erred blasphemously about the godhead of Christ: Alexander the bishop of Alexandria, both misliked & condemned his filthy heresy. Socrat. lib. 1. ca 6. There was hot stir in the church of Alexandria. The lords ark, and the Philistines Dagon: the Ephesians Diana, and Paul's preaching: Popery, and the Gospel cannot stand together.  
Asa was a religious Prince: he suppressed idolatry and planted God's religion. The kingdom was quiet before him, and he vanquished the Ethiopians. 2. Chron. 14. & 15. Chap.  
josaphat was a zealous promoter of the Lords religion. Almighty God crowned him with this blessing: The fear of the Lord fell upon all the kingdoms of the land that were round about judah, and they fought not against josaphat: the Philistines brought to josaphat gifts and tribute silver: the Arabians brought him flock, both of rams and goats. 2. Chron. 17.  
Vzziah the King of juda, prospered so long as he sought the Lord. Almighty God helped him against the Philistines and Arabians: the Ammonites gave him tribute, and his name was famous even unto Egypt. 2. Chron. 26.  
Ezechias was a careful advancer of God's religion. The land had great quietness, and was notably delivered from the Assyrians. 2. Chron. 32.  
Queen Elizabeth hath planted the Lord's religion, Popes, Gregory, Pius, Sixtus, have cursed her Majesty: the Popish enemies have been & are maliciously bend against her, & this land, as Sennacherib & Rabsakeh against Ezechias and jerusalem: but God hath blessed, and miraculously preserved her Highness and Dominions, as he did Ezechias & jerusalem: the greatest enemies of the English nation, are the sins of the English nation: but if we desire and obtain pardon for our sins at God's hands, & shall serve our God, & sanctify his Sabbath more carefully than we have done, the Lord will go forth with our armies, our captains and soldiers shall amaze and vanquish our Popish enemies, as Gedeon did the Madianites, jephthe the Ammonites, and David the Philistines: and our gracious God will cover both Prince & people with the shield of his justice, and defend us with the sword of his judgement.  
Objection.  
When the Gospel is preached, stirs do grow: that appeared in jerusalem. Act. 7. in Iconium. Act. 14. in Rome. Act. 28.  
Answer.  
I grant that stirs appear sometimes, when God's truth is delivered: the fault is not in the seed, but in the ground. It was not Elias that troubled Israel, but Achab and his father's house, which forsook the Lords commandments, & followed Baal. 1. King. 18. The holy preaching resembles medicine, daylight, and the heat of the sun. It is not the medicine, but evil humours which distemper the body: variety of colours are not made, but discerned by the day light. The heat of the sun is not the cause, but the descrier of the stink of a carrion.   

6. THE CHILD OF GOD is not polluted, though he be present at, and partaker of the public prayers, Sacraments, etc. at such time, as wicked men are present at, and partakers of them.  
IN the Prophet's time, there were many & gross corruptions at jerusalem. The magistrates, Priests and people were greatly disordered: The lords religion was partly contemned, and partly defiled. Did the holy Prophets sever themselves from them of jerusalem in salomon's temple? Did they build new, either Churches to assemble in, or Altars to sacrifice upon? It is certain, they did not, and yet they were not polluted.  
Our Saviour Christ was presented to the Lord in jerusalem. An oblation was given. Luk. 2.22. He was afterwards partaker of the Sacrifices in salomon's temple, with the Scribes, Pharisees, & ungracious people of jerusalem. My reasons are: First, Christ was subject to the law. Gal. 4.4. One branch of the Law was, to be partaker of the Sacrifices in salomon's temple. Secondly, Christ in the dialogue with the woman of Samaria, speaking of himself, and the jews, useth these words: We worship that which we know. joh. 4.22. Under the word (worship) are contained the sacrifices. Calu. contra Anabapt.  
The Churches of Corinth and Galatia, had many and gross sores in them. Saint Paul, I confess, deals very roundly with them: yet he doth not, either licence, or call upon God's servants in Corinth and Galatia, to sever themselves from the assemblies. If to be present in the assembly had brought pollution, the Apostle would not have failed in this Christian duty.  
Let a man examine himself. 1. Cor. 11.28. The Apostle doth not say, Let every man examine the rest of the communicants: which no doubt he would have given in charge, if the lewdness of others did pollute God's servants.  
He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself. 1. Cor. 11.29. Saint Paul saith (to himself) not to others.  
The Apostles received the Lord's supper with judas. Aug. contra Lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 11. & 23. & lib. 3. cap. 106. But they were not partakers of judas theft. Aug. contra Cresc. Gram. lib. 4. cap. 26. or judas treason. Acceditur ad vitium corruptionis, vitio consensionis. Aug. contra Don. post Coll. lib. That is, to consent to vice, is to be corrupted with vice. That judas was a thief, Saint john reporteth. joh. 12. vers. 6. That the Apostles did know before the partaking of the holy supper, that judas should betray Christ, appeareth manifestly in the Evangelist Matthew. 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, Parmenian, Cresconius, the Donatists: and Calvin in his treatise against the anabaptists, are very peremptory in this Argument. None can, or will mislike it, unless they be already, or mean to be Donatists, or anabaptists.  
Objection.  
The Apostle commands us to withdraw ourselves from every brother that walketh inordinately. 2. Thess. 3.6.  
Answer.  
We must withdraw ourselves, Quoad privatam consuetudinem, non quoad publicam communionem: that is, touching private conversation, not touching public partaking of the word and Sacraments. Calvin is of this judgement, in his treatise against the anabaptists.  
If any shall gather of this I have set down, 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 use these words: It is a great sin for a known wicked man, either to minister the lords supper, or to present himself to the holy communion: and such lewdness must be severely punished, by them in whose hands it is to redress it. But if this gross sin be practised, and no medicine used to cure it, the godly must content themselves with grief for these enormities, and remember that the Sacrament sealeth up God's sweet promises to them, which the wicked sort at no hand are partakers of.   

7. THEY WHICH WERE baptised in the Popish Church by Popish Priests, received true Baptism, touching the substance of Baptism.  
THe Popish priests do retain the essential form of Christ's baptism, that is, they do baptize in the name, not of Pope or idols, but of the holy Trinity: therefore it is not man's, but God's baptism, which is delivered by them. If it be God's baptism, I am sure it is true baptism. Master Calvin calleth them Catabaptistes, which deny that we are rightly baptised in the Popish Church. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 15. Sect. 16.  
Objection.  
The Popish priests have no lawful calling: therefore, it is no true baptism which is delivered by them.  
Answer.  
The Argument follows not. I confess that the Popish priests have no lawful calling: yet, they have a calling, though a faulty one. They which are not lawfully called unto the ministry, and yet sit in the chair of the ministery, are to be accounted in an other place than they which have no calling. Caiphas was not in deed the lawful high priest: for he entered by money, & the priesthood in his time was rend in pieces: yet, because he sat in the high priests chair, he was accounted the high priest. A faulty vocation may hurt him that usurps an office, but it doth not defile those things which are done by that party.  
This is master Bezaes' judgement in his 142. question.  
If any shall gather of this, that I allow the Popish priesthood, he deserves rather a Censor, than Confuter: for I confess that Sacerdotium papisticum est sacrilegium: that is, that the Popish priesthood is Sacrilege.   

8. THEY ARE THE SAcraments of Baptism and the holy Supper, which are delivered in the Church of England, by unpreaching ministers.  
IF such as were baptised in the popish Church, received true baptism, I trust they are rightly baptised in the Church of England, which are baptised by unpreaching ministers.  
If such as were baptised by popish priests in the popish Church, and by unpreaching ministers in the Church of England, received no sacrament, many gross absurdities would follow. First, very many are unbaptized: and if they be unbaptized, they sin grievously, in not presenting themselves to the holy Sacrament. Secondly, a great number have sinned grossly in partaking the holy supper. My reason is: None uncircumcised might eat the passover. Ezodus 12. verse 48. therefore none unbaptized may receive the holy supper. Thirdly, many excellent men have usurped the preachers office. My reason is: It is unlawful for any man to be a public teacher in the visible Church, which is not by baptism grafted into, and so become a member of the visible Church. Our Saviour Christ was baptised of john in jordane, before he preached. Matth. 3. and 4. Chap. The Apostle Paul was baptised of Ananias in Damascus, before he preached. Act. 9  
The unpreaching Ministers do add the word unto the Element in the administration of Baptism: therefore it is the Sacrament of Baptism which is delivered by them. Accedit verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum. Aug. Tract. 80. in johan. that is, The word is added to the Element, and it becomes a Sacrament. By (word) in Baptism, is understanded the word of Institution, which is, to Baptize in the name of the father, the son, and the holy Ghost, etc. Of this judgement are Beza confess. Cap. 4. Art. 47. and Musculus de sig. Sacram. Art. 4.  
Objection.  
Christ said to his Apostles, Go and teach all nations, baptizing etc. Matth. 28. vers. 19 therefore, if the word preached, be not added to the Element, it is no Sacrament of Baptism.  
Answer.  
The argument is very weak. I confess, that Christ commanded his Apostles, first to teach such as were of years and alients from his religion, and then to baptise them. If the Gentiles had not been first taught, they would not have offered themselves, nor the Apostles have admitted them to the holy Sacrament of baptism. If any will conclude of this place in Saint matthew, that none whatsoever may be admitted to baptism before they be taught, they shut our infants from the holy Sacrament, and therefore are Catabaptists.  
The unpreaching ministers do add (verbum adificans) that is, an edifying word, to the Elements in the administration of the holy supper, therefore etc.  
That there is verbum aedificans, I prove it thus.  
The sum of Christ's sermon in the Institution & administration of the holy supper by himself, is the word of Institution in the administration of the holy Supper in the Church of England: therefore, unless we will deny the sum of Christ's Sermon, to be an edifying word, (which no learned man will deny) we must confess, that we have verbum aedificans in the administration of the holy supper with us.  
If any will conclude of this, that I mislike preaching before the administration of the Sacrament, he doth me great wrong.  
Objection.  
Vnpreching ministers are not apt to teach: therefore they are no Sacraments which are delivered by them.  
Answer.  
The argument follows not. My reason is, Many jewish Priests were both ignorant and dissolute in Esay and Christ's time. Esay 28. vers. 7. Matth. 9 vers. 36. But the Sacrifices offered, and the Sacraments reached by them, were both Sacrifices and Sacraments: otherwise, the Prophets which were at jerusalem, when the jewish Church was full of corruption, would not have been present at, and partakers of the Sacrifices in salomon's Temple. Calu. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 1. sect. 18, 19  
Objection.  
Ignorant ministers are not apt to teach: therefore no ministers, and consequently, they are no Sacraments which are delivered by them.  
Answer.  
The argument follows not. I grant that it is of the substance of a lawful & 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 have the Churches calling. This appeareth clearly in the Magistrate. The holy Ghost requireth that none should be chosen a Magistrate, unless he were a man of courage, fearing God, dealing truly, and hating covetousness. Exodus. 18. verse 21. When such are advanced as defile their hands, either with filthy bribes, as Felix did, or with barbarous cruelty, as Abimelech and Herode did, shall we say that they are no Magistrates? I confess, they are not singled out by the electors according to Almighty God's direction in his holy Bible: but they are Magistrates notwithstanding, and we are commanded by the Lord to perform all duty unto them, Saluo officio, that is, our duty being reserved to the highest Magistrate, which is God himself.  
If any shall gather of this I have set down, that I undertake the defence of Ignorant ministers: my answer is, that my writings and sermons, are not Ajax shield to cover them, but the Lords sword to cut them. I confess freely, that I am very far from opening either the Church door to ignorant Ministers, or the Pulpit door to unskilful preachers: which unskilful preachers give God's religion a greater blow than the ignorant Ministers: for in stead of dividing the word of truth aright, they speak at all adventures, yet very boldly: and as unskilful Apothecaries, deliver quid pro quo, chaff for wheat, and strange fancies for Gods holy truth. By such absurd fellows, many Churches and excellent men in this land have been greatly disquieted, and the good course of religion hath been greatly hindered. The cause of this sore, is intolerable pride, and gross ignorance in these bad companions, and want of care in the Magistrates.  
If any shall ask me what the true causes are, why so many unfit men are the Church's Ministers: I answer, either great want of judgement, or great corruption in such, which do ordain and prefer them. The sin of these men is very great: for they dishonour Almighty God, and do grossly abuse the people of the land. This disease will be healed, when the Church's maintenance is not disposed of by them which have the golden dropsy, but is freely given to worthy and painful students, which will neither fish with the silver hook, nor open the Church door with a silver key.   

9 THE GODLY ARE not polluted which receive the Sacrament at the hands of an unpreaching Minister.  
THE Sacraments are God's ordinance: the Ministers ignorance cannot pervert the nature of God's ordinance.  
A Sacrament can never be without promise of salvation: therefore, the worthy partaker of the Sacrament receives a blessing: if a blessing, than no pollution. That he receives a blessing, the Apostle teacheth us: We are buried with Christ (saith S. Paul) by baptism into his death, etc. Rom. 6. verse 4. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 1. Cor. 11. verse 16.  
The parents of Christ went to jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover, Luk. 2. vers. 41. their going to jerusalem, was to testify their religion, & to be partakers of the sacrifices. There were at that time in salomon's Temple manifold corruptions, the high Priesthood was sold for money, many of the jewish Priests were ignorant, yet joseph & the virgin Mary were not polluted. Calu. Luc. 2. vers. 41.  
The godly which receive the holy Supper of an unpreaching Minister, are not partakers of the Ministers unworthiness, but of the holy Sacrament, which is a pillar of our faith: therefore the unworthiness of the Minister doth not defile the Communicant. Alterius, sive Pastoris, sive privati indignitate, non laeditur pia conscientia, etc. Calu. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 1. Sect. 19 that is, A godly conscience is not hurt by the unworthiness of an other, either Pastor, or private man: neither are the mysteries less pure and healthful to a holy man, because they are then handled of such as be impure. Ille qui accipit, si homo bonus ab homine malo, si fidelis à perfido, si pius ab impio: perniciosumerit danti, non accipienti. Illud quip sanctum malè utentem judicat, bene accipientem sanctificat. Aug. contra Cresc. gram. lib. 2. cap. 28. that is, he which receiveth, if a good of an evil man, if a faithful of a faithless man, if a godly of a wicked man, it will be hurtful to the giver, not to the receiver: for that holy thing (he meaneth the sacrament) doth judge him which useth it ill, but doth sanctify him which receiveth it well.  
Circumcision was one of the Lords Sacraments in the jewish Church. The jews which were circumcised of impure priests, and Apostates, received no hurt: therefore no pollution. Calu. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 15. Sect. 16. The Sacraments neither are, nor can be the worse for the ignorance or unworthiness: or better for the learning or worthiness of any man whatsoever. Whosoever thinketh otherwise, is a Donatist.  
Touching this point of the Sacrament, I rest wholly in Augustine's judgement: his words are these. Ego dieo, meliùs per bonum ministrum quàm per malum dispensari sacramenta divina: verùm hoc propter ipsum ministrum melius est, uteis rebus quas ministrat, vita & moribus congruat, non propter illum, qui etiam si incurrerit in ministrum malum dispensantem veritatem, securitatem accipit à domino suo monente ac dicente: Quae dicunt facite, quae autem faciunt, nolite facere: dicunt enim, & non faciunt. Addo etiam ad hoc esse melius, ut ille cui ministratur, ministri boni probitatem ac sanctitatem diligendo faciliùs imitetur: Sed non ideo veriora & sanctiora sunt quae ministrantur, quia per meliorem ministrantur. Illa namque per seipsa vera & sancta sunt, propter Deum verum & sanctum cuius sunt, & ideo fieri potest ut accedens ad societatem populi Dei, alium inveniat à quo facilè baptizetur, alium eligat quem salubriter imitetur. Certus est enim sanctum esse Sacramentum Christi, etiamsi per minùs sanctum, vel non sanctum hominem ministratum est, se autem eiusdem ipsius sacramenti sanctitate puniri, si indignè acceperit, si malè usus fuerit, si ei non convenienter & congruè vixerit. August. contra Cresc. Gram. lib. 4. cap. 20. The sum of Augustine's words is, that the Sacrament is administered better by a good, then by a bad Minister: yet that the Sacraments of themselves are true and holy, etc. by what minister so ever they be delivered, etc. If any shall ask me whether it be lawful to omit the partaking of the holy Sacrament in such Churches over which ignorant ministers are set, and to present ourselves and our infants to the holy Sacrament in other Churches: my answer is, that I refer them to the Magistrate and Governors of our Churches, etc.  
Objection.  
By whom a thing ought not to be delivered, by another it ought not to be received: but ignorant ministers ought not to deliver the Sacraments, therefore, etc.  
Answer.  
The Mayor is false. My reason is: An evil man ought not to deliver the word of God, but we ought to receive it. An evil man ought not to give alms, but a poor man may receive it. An absurd minister ought not to deliver the Sacrament, but they are not polluted which receive it.  
Objection.  
They, of whose ministery there is a Nullity before God, although they have an outward calling, ought not to be accounted ministers: therefore not to be communicated with. I. Penry. pag. 43, 44.  
Answer.  
I deny your Antecedent. My reasons are: First, there was a Nullity before God of Caiphas Priesthood: for he entered by money, and the Priesthood was divided between him and Annas, against the Lord's order. Calu. Luc. 3. yet Caiphas is called the high Priest, by the Evangelists. Mat. 26. joh. 18. Secondly, there was a Nullity before God, of the ministery of some in Philippos, which preached Christ of contention, and to add more affliction to Paul's bands. Philip. Chap. 1. verse 15, 16. But these are accounted ministers by the Apostle. vers. 15, 18. If any shall deny that there was a Nullity before God of their ministery, I prove it thus: They had not an inward calling. M. Penry saith, that an inward calling is contained in the fufficiencie of gifts, and willingness to practise them. pag. 45. If M. Penry mean the practice of gifts to God's glory, I say, Amen, unto it. I confess that they of Philippos had gifts in some measure, but they had not willingness to practise those gifts to God's glory: which willingness etc. is one of the necessary branches of an inward calling. That they of Philippos had not this willingness, etc. it is manifest: for they sought themselves, and practised their gifts wholly to increase the Apostles affliction. Lastly, if your Antecedent be true, what say you to this proposition? They, of whose Magistracy there is a Nullity before God, though they have an outward calling, ought not to be accounted Magistrates. Do you not think this proposition to be very dangerous? I could press and follow this very far, but I abstain of purpose.  
Objection.  
The Sacrament may not be received at his hands which wanteth outward calling: Therefore not at his hands, who is destitute of the inward graces. I. Penry. pag. 46.  
Answer.  
Your Antecedent is true, and maketh against the Anabaptists. I deny 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 do handle them unworthily, yet they profit such as do worthily receive them at their hands.  
Objection.  
We have no warrant to receive an extraordinary Sacrament: But that which is administered by ignorant ministers, is an extraordinary Sacrament, if it be any: Therefore, we have no warrant to receive it. I. Penry. pag. 49.  
Answer.  
I deny your Minor, and do add this: First, that it is a Sacrament by your own confession, pag. 50, 51. which is administered by ignorant ministers. Secondly, that it is no extraordinary Sacrament, which is delivered by them, unless you will call Baptism and the holy Supper, extraordinary Sacraments.  
If any will conclude of these my answers, that I mislike M. Penryes' desire of a learned ministery in Wales, he takes up that which I never let fall: for I desire with all my heart, and the Lord for his Christ's sake grant it, that not only Wales may be furnished with worthy governors and pastors, but all other parts of her majestics Dominions, that God's graces may be more and more multiplied upon us and our posterity, and his holy hand watch over us.   

10 THE CHURCH OF England is the visible Church of Christ.  
THE Church of Galatia which erred in a fundamental point of doctrine, is called the Church of God, Gal. 1. therefore, the Church of England, which erreth not in any fundamental point of doctrine, is the Church of Christ. That the Church of Galatia erred in a fundamental point of doctrine, it is manifest: for they joined Circumcision and Christ together. If any do think that the Church of England do hold an error in any fundamental point of doctrine, let him set down the particular.  
The Church of England hath Christ for her head and foundation: for she receiveth and reverenceth the Canonical Scriptures, and confesseth Christ's righteousness to be hers, and that salvation is compassed by Christ alone, with whose grace nothing may be 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 word and administration of the Sacraments are the essential marks of the Church of Christ, I have proved in my Treatise of the Church, to which book I refer you: but these essential marks of the Church, are in the Church of England: therefore, etc.  
Objection.  
The discipline used in the Primitive Church, is not in the Church of England: therefore the church of England is not the Church of Christ.  
Answer.  
I deny the Argument. My reasons are: First, S. Luke setting out the extraordinary blessing which God gave to Peter's sermon in jerusalem, hath these words: Then they that gladly received his word, were baptised: and the same day, there were added (to the Church) about three thousand souls. And they continued in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers. Acts. 2.41, 42. No man endued with God's spirit, will deny that this assembly which was baptized & continued in the Apostles doctrine, etc. was the Church of God, and yet no Deacons were at that time choose, or Consistories of Seniors erected. Secondly, they which do urge the discipline most earnestly, do confess that the discipline is not an essential part of the Church. Their reason is: The discipline resembles the wall of a City, and hedge or ditch of a vinyeard. It is a City, though the wall be wanting: it is a vinyeard, though hedge or ditch be wanting. Lastly, I would gladly know, whether it be either possible, or safe, to plant that discipline in this land, before that Gods holy Truth be sound both taught and received, and that there be fit Churchmen and people to execute the discipline.  
Objection.  
The Ministers in England are not chosen by the Parishes over which they are set: therefore they are no ministers, and consequently there is no administration of the word or Sacraments, no worship of God, nor visible Church in England, as some Anabaptists have given out of late.  
Answer.  
I deny the Argument. My reason is: if this Argument of theirs were good, these absurdities would follow. First, that God's Church is necessarily tied in all places and times to one form in the external calling of the ministers. Secondly, that the excellent assembly in the Primitive Church, Acts 2. verse 41, 42. was not the Church of God: for at that time, the Ministers were not elected by the Presbytery & people. Thirdly, that the worthiest Preachers in this land, are no Ministers. Lastly, that very many parts of England are like to have no teachers, because they are utterly unfit to make choice of their Pastors. If it be said that some Bishops in ordaining, and some patrons in presenting ignorant Ministers, have erred as grossly as any Parish can: my answer is, that I neither dare, nor will defend such, either Bishops or Patrons: I do rather exhort them to unfeigned repentance: for this great sin of theirs hath, and doth cry very loud for some notable vengeance.  Cipri. de unitate Ecclesiae. 
Haereses (Diabolus) invenit & schismata, quibus subverteret fidem, veritatem corrumperet, scinderet unitatem. Quos detinere non potest in viae veteris caecitate, cirrumscribit & decipit novi itineris errore. Rapit de ipsa Ecclesia homines, & dum sibi appropinquasse iam lumini, atque evasisse faeculi noctem videntur, alias nescientibus tenebras rursus infundit, etc.   

A DEFENCE OF SUCH POINTS IN R. SOMES LAST TREATISE, AS M. PENRY hath dealt against: And a refutation of many Anabaptistical, blasphemous and Popish absurdities, touching Magistracy, ministery, Church, Scripture and Baptism, etc. contained in M. Penryes' treatise, etc.  
By R. SOME Doctor of Divinity.  ROM. chap. 16. vers. 17.18. 
I beseech you brethren, mark them diligently which cause division and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoy de them.  
For they that are such, serve not the Lord jesus Christ, but their own bellies, and with fair speech and flattering deceive the hearts of the simple.  
Imprinted at London by G.B. Deputy to Christopher Barker, Printer to the Queen's most excellent Majesty. 1588.   

TO THE READER.  
I Did publish a short Treatise in May last. It hath pleased one M. Penry to examine part of it, and (as an other Aristarchus) to censure it. His book was sent me. I have viewed it, and do find strange things in it. Advise was given me, not to vouchsafe an answer, because M. Penry is very ignorant, and his Treatise very silly and corrupt stuff. I considered waightely of it, but resolved to take some pains. The reasons which induced me, are: First, S. Paul vouchsafed in God's cause to deal with Demetrius the silver, and Alexander the copper smith. The Prophet Ezechiel in the like cause, did set himself against certain wicked women etc. Ezech. 13. Secondly, many have been misled by his absurd fancies. To cure these, if God will, and to stay other, my labour is not amiss. Lastly, I am personally both charged and challenged by him: therefore it became me to take pen in hand. M. Penries' book is a farthel of gross errors. None account of it, but such as are of the fantastical crew: men extremely both proud and ignorant. He hath as many learned men of his side, as H. N. the prince of the family of Love had of his: that is, never a one: therefore a little Arithmetic will serve to number them. If it had pleased him to have considered of, and rested in the judgement and direction of very famous men and Churches, he had not swerved from God's book, he had sailed by a sure compass, he had not broached such fancies, as God's Church with one voice condemneth. Nestorius' was an absurd heretic: he had some sparkles of eloquence by nature: he was in his own opinion learned, but in deed very ignorant: his pride was such, that he vouchsafed not to read any interpreters. Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 32. I assure myself, that M. Penry is very far from Nestorius' heresy: I would he were as clear ofpride and contempt of writers. Caluine, Beza, etc. men of excellent learning, are cast off by him, even in those weighty causes, wherein they shake hands with all the Churches of God. I do not bely him, I charge him justly: it shall appear so by God's grace in this Treatise. The question between him and me, is not whether ignorant men may either enter into, or continue in the holy ministery: for, my resolution is negative, that is, that they ought not: but the question is, whether such as were and are baptised by Popish priests and ignorant ministers, have and do receive a Sacrament: and whether the godly communicant is polluted by receiving the Sacrament at the hands of unpreaching ministers. The most famous men and Churches, are peremptory for me, and against him. Yea, M. Penry himself joineth with me in many parts of his Treatise: in some other parts, I confess, he sings an other song, absurd for matter, and out of tune for manner. This inconstancy of his proceeds from a vain humour, which as a whirlwind, doth strangely carry and overcarrie him. It is not in my hands to heal him: if it were, I would with all my heart. I will pray unto God to cure him. Cathedram in coelo habet, qui corda docet. All that I desire of the godly Reader, is, that he will read my Treatise before he give sentence. Otherwise, I may justly charge him, to bring not judicium, but praejudicium, that is, to be very partial. Let him, in God's Name, compare my arguments and answers with my adversaries, and weigh them in equal balance: if he doth not see clearly, and feel sensibly his gross errors & anabaptistical fancies, his eyes are dim, his fingers are benumbed. That he may have present and speedy view of the pearls in his book, I have set down in a Table, divers strange particulars. If they seem harsh and rough-hewen, blame M. Penry: for they come out of his forge. Yea, I dare be bold to say, that if the Spider's web be good cloth, and the Cockatrice eggs wholesome meat, than such points as I refute in this Treatise, are very excellent Divinity. I am not alone of this judgement: the worthiest Divines in this land jump with me, and do mislike and condemn his absurdities. It pleased God to assist me graciously in the pains I have taken: I thank his Majesty very humbly for it: I doubt not, but that he will give a blessing unto it. The Lord give us grace to see and know our ignorance, to be truly humble, to grow in godly knowledge, and not in Anabaptistical and blasphemous fancies. London. Septemb. 19 1588.  Necessaria ignoramus, quia non necessaria discimus.  

A TABLE OF SOME Principal particulars, contained in this treatise.  

Almighty God never called any to be Magistrates, but he furnished them accordingly. Chap. 3. pag. 59 60. 61.  
Magistracy is God's ordinance, not a devise of man. Chap. 13. page 136. 137.  
The reading of the holy Scriptures, doth edify. Chap. 4. pag. 62. 63. 64.  
The Scripture is of credit in itself. Chap. 8. page. 102.  
The Popish church is a church, though not a sound Church. Chap. 17. pag. 147. 148. 149. 151. and Chap. 23. pag. 176.  
Whosoever sayeth or writeth that our Queen is a schismatic for separating herself & her subjects from the popish Church, (if the popish Church be a Church in any regard) maketh a gross and Popish collection: and is at the least an undutiful subject. Chap. 17. page 151.  
Whether no more fellowship is to be had with papists in religion matters, then with pagan Idolaters. Cap. 23. pa. 181.  
almighty God never called any to the holy ministry either in the old or new Testament, but he furnished them with gifts fit for that holy function. Chap. 2. pag. 55. 56. etc.  
Such as are in the ministery, and have gifts in no measure, aught to be removed by the Magistrates and governors of the Church. Chap. 9 page. 110.  
None unbaptized may be a public teacher in the visible Church. Chap. 8. page. 93.  
Popish priests have a calling, though a faulty one. Chap. 18. page 154. 155.  
The approbation of the Church, maketh him a minister to us, which is not called by almighty God. Cap. 12. pa. 132.  
They were sacrifices and Sacraments, which were delivered by the ignorant levitical Priests. Chap. 8. pa. 104.  
The godly are not polluted which receive the Sacraments at the hands of unpreaching ministers. Chap. 9 page 108. 110. 113. 114. 115. and Chap. 14. page 138.  
A Sermon is not required necessarily to the essence of a Sacrament. Chap. 7. page 84.  
They amongst us which are unbaptized do sin grienously, if they do not present themselves to baptism. Chap. 8. page 88  
They which are once baptised, must not be baptised again Chap. 19 page 156.  
They which were baptised of Popish priests in the Popish Church, received true baptism etc. 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 prove that the true Christ is not in popish baptism. cap. 23. pa. 174.  
Whether infants ought rather to be kept unbaptized, then to be presented to popish baptism. chap. 23. page 180.  
The infants of papists may be baptised in a reformed church, if some of the religion do present them to baptism, & do undertake the godly education of them. cha. 17. pag. 150.  
There hath been, & may be true baptism out of the church. chap. 21. page 158.  
Though true baptism was amongst the Donatists out of the Church, August. did not give leave to any of the church, to present their infants to be baptised there. cap. 21. pa. 159.  
They are the Sacraments of Baptism, and the holy Supper, which are administered by unpreaching ministers in the church of England. chap. 8. page 88 89. 95. 98.  
None unbaptized, may receive the holy supper. chap. 8. page 90. 91. 92.  
It is lawful to administer the holy supper in a private house, if some cautions be observed. chap. 15. page 141. 142.  
Every legal uncleanness was not joined with sin. chap. 9 page 113.  
The regenerate cannot fulfil the law of God. cha. 26. pa. 199    

A TABLE OF DIVERS gross errors and anabaptistical fancies, contained in M. Penryes' Treatise, etc.  
Master Penry saith, That the life of the Magistracy is neither prescribed in the word (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 think) nor contained in the gifts of the Magistracy, nor yet separated from his outward calling: For the very outward calling, is it that giveth life unto the Magistracy, though the person sustaining it, want gifts to discharge the same. The reason hereof is evident, because the Magistracy being an humane constitution, as the holy Ghost saith 1. Pet. 2.13. is appropriated unto his possession, upon whomsoever man bestoweth the same, if he be capable to possess (though unfit to execute) what is allotted unto him. In his addition page 48.  
This speech of M. Penryes' is very gross. His first reason is this: there may be Magistrates out of the Church, therefore the life of the Magistracy is not prescribed in the word. M. P. Antecedent is true: For Pharaoh, Nero, julian were magistrates out of the Church. I deny his argument: My reason is: the gifts of courage, fearing God, dealing truly, hating covetousness, which are the life of the Magistrate, are prescribed in God's book, Exo. 18.21. Deu. 1.13. If you say they are not the life of the magistracy, you descent from all the learned, and therefore must set down 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 above named gifts: therefore the life of the Magistracy is not prescribed in the word. My answer is, I confess that absurd Magistrates have been and are many times advanced in the Church, (I grant they should not) either by the corruption or error of the electors: But I deny your argument: My reason is: It is great wickedness to think, because gross electors prefer unfit men and so fail in their duty, that Almighty God hath failed in prescribing what kind of men he would have to be his lieutenants.  
M. Penry addeth, that the life of the Magistracy is not contained in the gifts of the magistracy. I descent from him in this. If he had said, that the birth of the magistracy is not contained in the gifts of the magistracy, he had hit the white.  
M. Penry writeth that the life of the magistracy is not separated from his outward calling: for the very outward calling, saith he, is it that giveth life unto the magistracy. If this were true, than the life and birth of the magistrate are idem tempore, that is, twins: and consequently whosoever hath the outward calling which is the birth, hath the inward calling which is the life of the magistrate. So is God's furniture tied to the electors voices, as to the chair, and the inward & outward calling of the magistrate confounded, which is a palpable error. If there be an outward calling to the magistracy, without the which no man (howsoever furnished within) may presume to execute the office of the magistrate, I am sure there is an inward calling to the magistracy: For the outward calling doth import an inward. If there be an inward calling which is by God himself, 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 gross depraving of a text of Scripture, viz. The Magistracy is an humane ordinance, 1. Pet. 2.13. that is, a devise of man, and not an Ecclesiastical constitution prescribed in the word. That the magistracy is not any devise of man, but God's ordinance for the benefit of man, is a clear truth in God's book. None doubt of it, unless they be Anabaptists or extremely ignorant.  
M. Penry saith that the word barely read and to no other purpose then to edify by reading, is not wholesome doctrine. Chap. 8. pag. 99  
This is a blasphemous absurdity. M. Penryes' reasons for it are most absurd and childish. I refer you to my answer. Chap. 8. pag. 100 101. and to a proposition which I have handled. Chap. 4. pag. 62. etc.  
M. Penry writeth that it is false to say that the recital of the sum of Christ's Sermon, that is, the word of institution, etc. is an edifying word: he saith it maintaineth charming. Chap. 8. pag. 88 89.  
This is a blasphemous absurdity. If every part of the Canonical Scripture doth edify, I trust the sum of the Lord jesus Sermon ought to have singular allowance. If it ought to have singular allowance, it may not be indicted and arraigned for maintenance of charming.  
M. Penry saith that the people cannot sanctify a Sabbath without a Sermon. His words are these: They are no ministers, whose flocks by their ministry can not sanctify the Sabbath: our Readers are such, etc. In his addition. pag. 60.  
M. Penry accounteth the public reading of the holy Scripture and public prayers, no part of the sanctification of the Sabbath. If he had said that the Sabbath is not so well sanctified without, as with a godly Sermon, I would have agreed unto him.  
M. Penry maketh the person to give credit to the holy word. His words are these: The word of God uttered, is not an edifying word, unless it be uttered according to the ordinance, both in regard of the persons that utter the same, and the end wherefore it is uttered. Chap. 8. pag. 99  
This is a Popish error: for the Scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, of credit in itself. Read my answer. Chap. 8. pag. 102.  
M. Penry saith that there is no Church at all in Popery. Chap. 23. pag. 175. 176.  
This is a gross error, condemned of very famous men and all reformed Churches. If there be no church at all in Popery, these absurdities will follow: first, the Pope is not Antichrist: Secondly, the infants of Papists may not be baptised in any reformed Church, though some of the Religion do present them to Baptism, and publicly undertake the good education of them. Read that which I have written, Chap. 17. pag. 147. 148. 149. and Chap. 23. pag. 176.  
M. Penry saith that if there be a Church in Popery, our Magistrates, etc. are Schismatics, inasmuch as they have separated themselves from the Church of Rome. Chap. 17. pag. 151.  
This is a gross and Popish collection, and cannot stand with the duty of a subject. Read my answer. Chap. 17. pag. 151. 152.  
M. Penry writeth that men in the Popish Church are not engraffed by Baptism into a true Christ. His words are these: Where there is no true Christ whereunto men can be engraffed by Baptism, there true Baptism as touching the substance cannot be gotten, etc. But in Popery there is no true Christ whereinto men may be engraffed, etc. Chap. 23. pag. 173.  
This is a gross error condemned of all famous writers and Churches. Read that which I have written. Chap. 23. pag. 173. & 174. and cha. 20. pag. 156. 157.  
Master Penry writeth that if baptism administered by unpreaching ministers, were denied to be a Sacrament, he would wish none to offer themselves to that holy Sacrament for six causes.  
First, we are already received into the bosom of the Church, and acknowledged to have the seal of the covenant, in as much as we were once offered and received into the number of the godly by the outward element, though corruptly. To what end then should baptism serve us again? In his exhort. to the governonrs, etc. of Wales. pag. 31.  
If this be true which M. Penry saith, the outward and bare element delivered by him, which in M. Penryes' judgement, is no minister, is the seal of God's covenant: Which is a most absurd heresy.  
Secondly, the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation, by this means might seem to be maintained.  
False: They which require men unbaptized, to offer themselves to Baptism, are persuaded that the contempt of the Sacrament is damnable: they do not think that all which die without Baptism, (if contempt be absent) are damned. Besides, Baptism is necessary in respect of our obedience: but, what obedience is performed, when Baptism is refused?  
Thirdly, lest we should seem to agree with the heretical Catabaptists. If no Baptism was delivered by unpreaching ministers, M. Penry is an heretical Catabaptist, if he dehort any such from holy Baptism, as were baptised by unpreaching ministers.  
Fourthly, other Churches have not publicly decided the cause.  
They needed not. They made no question of it: for, with one voice they condemn your anabaptistical fancies.  
Fiftly, that the practice should not enforce them to be rebaptized, which have been already baptised, by such as had commission from the Lord to deal in those mysteries.  
If they be already baptised, no reason they should desire a second Baptism: for Baptism may not be iterated. I have proved this point in my Treatise of the Sacraments, and in this book. Chap. 19 pag. 156.  
Lastly, they, who (being now in the age of discretion) have been baptised by Idol ministers, are either called or not called to salvation. If called, why should they be rebaptized, seeing already they have been made partakers of the outward element, and accounted in the number of Christians? If not called, neither should they be baptised, until they declared by their works that they were God's children.  
If they received the Sacrament before, they need not. If they received no Sacrament, they cannot abstain from Baptism, without intolerable, both sin, and vengeance. None that are effectually called, either have or will refuse to offer themselves to Baptism: which Baptism, before, they had not. Cornelius' example, doth teach us that, Acts. 10. Yea, I dare be bold to say, that her majesties subjects which are unbaptized, and do not offer themselves to Baptism, are not as yet effectually called, whatsoever either they or you pretend. The reason is, None are effectually called, which are not within the compass of God's covenant. The words of God's covenant are these: I will be thy God and the God of thy seed. Gen. 17. Are they within the compass of this covenant, which either wittingly omit, or wilfully refuse Baptism, which is the seal of God's covenant?  
M. Penry saith, that the preaching of the word is necessarily required in the administration of Baptism. chap. 7 pag. 82.  
If this were true, all such as were baptized without a Sermon, received no Sacrament. I refer you to my answer, Chap. 7. pag. 84.  
M. Penry sayeth that Baptism is not out of the Church. Chap. 23. pag. 176.  
This is a gross error. Read that which I have written. Chap. 21. pag. 158. etc.  
M. Penryes' judgement is, that Queen Elizabeth and many thousands in England are unbaptized.  
That his judgement is such, I prove it by his own words. He writeth thus, etc. In Popery there is no true Christ whereunto men may be engraffed, etc. And a little before: What Baptism is that which is not an engraffing into the true Christ? Chap. 23. pag. 173. A little after he hath these words: There is no Church at all in Popery. chap. 23. pag. 175. 176. And in an other place, etc. that Baptism is not out of the Church. If M. Penry shall answer that it was Baptism in the Popish church yesterday, but it is not so either to day or to morrow, because the Christ professed now in Popery is not a true but a divided Christ, I must needs tell him that Christ in the Popish profession was divided as well when her Majesty, etc. was baptized, as he is divided in the Popish profession in this day. Besides M. Penry writeth that the Popish church was never the Temple of God since Antichrist planted his pestilent chair therein. Chap. 22. pag. 165. To conclude, seeing there is in M. Penryes' judgement no Church, no Baptism, no Ministry in the Popish church, etc. I may be bold to affirm that in M. Penryes' judgement her Majesty and many thousands more are unbaptized.  
M. Penry saith that the holy Supper is an extraordinary Sacrament which is delivered privately by a Minister. Chap. 14. pag. 139.  
This error is condemned by M. Caluine, whose resolution is, that it is lawful to administer the holy Supper privately, if certain cautions be observed. I rest in his judgement. I refer you to chap. 15. page 141. 142.  
M. Penry saith that they which communicate with unpreaching ministers, approve the sin of the unpreaching ministery. Chap. 10. pag. 119.  
This is an anabaptistical fancy: for S. Paul (as M. Penry writeth) communicated after his conversion with those priests which were as unlearned as ever any. chap. 11. pag. 128. I refer you beside to my answer. chap. 10. pag. 119.  
M. Penry is bold to control Almighty God, for barring the uncircumcised Israelites from eating the paschal lamb: His words are these, why should the godly of the family be excluded from the action, the cause why they were uncircumcised not being in them? Chap. 8. pag. 89.  
This is intolerable sauciness: It becometh not dust and ashes to dispute with, and to countermand the Majesty of God. Read my answer, chap. 8. pag. 91. 92.  
M. Penries' judgement is, that the touching of a dead man, which was a legal uncleanness, was sin, Chap. 9 page. 110.  
For proof of this error, he quoteth two texts of Scripture most absurdly. I refer you to my answer. chap. 9 page. 111. 112. 113.  
M. Penry saith, that Caiphas high priesthood was the Lord's ordinance. Chap. 10. page 122.  
This is an error: for the Lord's ordinance was, that only one should be the high priest: and it is manifest in the text, that Annas & Caiphas were high priests together, luke 3.  
M. Penry saith, that he is assured that popish priests are no ministers, that is, that they have no calling at all. Chap. 22. page 160. 162. 163.  
If this were true, first, a great number are unbaptized. Secondly, Caluine, Beza, and other famous men and churches (which I do not think) do err grossly. Lastly, only M. Penries' judgement is sound, which (I am sure) is a most absurd judgement. Read my answer, cap. 22. pag. 161. 162. 163. and cap. 18. pag. 154.  
M. Penry affirmeth readers to be no ministers, and for any thing that is revealed in the word, that they can deliver no Sacrament, and yet that which hath been done by them, may be a Sacrament: and what contrariety (saith he) is there in these assertions? In his exhort. to the Governors etc. of Wales, pag. 32.  
Then yesterday a Sacrament, and to morrow none. Goodly divinity. Such Saint, such shrine.  
M. Penry saith, that he hath no ministery, which sinneth in executing the works of the ministery, as administering Sacraments etc. His words are these: the calling of an unpreaching minister, is not the calling of the ministery, because he sinneth in intermeddling with the works thereof. Chap. 25.  
If this were true, the contentious ministers of Philippi, were no ministers: for, they sinned in executing the works of the ministery. That appeareth in these words of the Apostle: Some preach Christ through envy and strife, Phi. 1.15. Besides, M. Penries' ignorant Levites were no priests in the old Testament: for they sinned in executing the priesthood.  
That the outward approbation of the Church, doth not make a minister. Chap. 12. page 131.  
If he mean, that it doth not furnish a minister with knowledge, I grant it. If he mean that it doth not make him a minister to us, than were the ignorant levitical priests no priests in the jewish Church. Which ignorant levitical priests, in M. Penries' judgement, were lawful priests, though not good priests. Chap. 11. page 125. read my answer, chap. 12. page 132.  
M. Penry saith, that unfitness to teach, made not a nullity of the levitical priests office. Chap. 11. page 125.  
M. Penry saith in an other place, that no ministery is separated from a gift. Again, whosoever preserveth not knowledge in his lips, is no minister: in his addition page 57 58. Again, to make a minister, there be two things required: First, a being or life, which the Lord only can give: Secondly, a birth, which the Church, as an instrument of the ordinance of God, is to bestow upon him by his outward calling. These two things are so essentially to be required in a minister, that whosoever wanteth either of them, he cannot possibly be a minister. Again, be it, that a man have the outward calling of the Church: yet in deed, he is no minister, unless the Lord hath given him the life of a minister, by committing the word of reconciliation unto his hands: in his addi. page 45. 46. M. Penry erreth greatly either in his first, or last propositions. If he can reconcile them, he can work miracles. The toughest glue that is, can not make them cleave together.  
M. Penry offers disputation. Chap. 16. page 143.  
Inscitia audax: none so bold as blind bayard. Read my answer. Chap. 16. page 143. 144.  
M. Penry hath these words: I dare arrest and attaint of high treason against the majesty of the Highest, all both men and Angels, who either defend the communicating with unpreaching ministers, lawful, or communicate with them: in his addition page 65.  
Sesquipedalia verba: every word as big as a house: Great smoke, but no fire, thanks be to God. Your arrest is like Goliaths curse: it is not so fearful as paper shot.  
Thus M. Penry hath troubled HEAVEN, CHURCH, COMMONWEALTH, and HIMSELF. HEAVEN, for he being dust and ashes, hath been too bold and saucy with God himself: CHURCH, for he hath offered unto it for treasure, not coals, which had been very base, but poison, which is very dangerous: COMMONWEALTH, for he hath undermined the chair of the Magistrate: I hope such coneys will be looked unto: HIMSELF, for he hath contrived and broached many proud, blasphemous, & anabaptistical fancies. I perceive it is true which that famous man M. Caluine hath written, viz. that an anabaptistical head is immensum deliriorum mare, a vast Sea of dotages. Calu. contra Anabapt.   

CHAP. 1. A DEFENCE OF SUCH points in R. SOMES last treatise, as M. Penry hath dealt against.  R. Some. 
Before that I answer M. Penryes' book, I am to desire the godly Reader to consider weightily of this little which followeth. My two first propositions which M. Penry dealeth against, are.  
1. They which were baptised in the Popish Church by Popish Priests, received true Baptism, touching the substance of Baptism.  
2. They are the Sacraments of Baptism and the holy Supper, which are delivered in the Church of England by unpreaching ministers.  I. Penry. 
YOu handle two needless points. First, that They which were baptised by Popish Priests etc. Secondly, that They are the Sacraments of Baptism, etc. In these two points M. Some, you have proved nothing that my writings have denied.  R. Some. 
I do see as yet no difference between us. If M. Penry denieth them not to be Sacraments which are administered by Popish priests & unpreaching Ministers, he can not deny Popish priests and unpreaching Ministers to have a calling, etc. For it is a rule in Divinity: Sacramentum nullum sine ministro, that is, No Sacrament without a minister. My third proposition which M. Penry censureth, is.  
3 The godly are not polluted which receive the Sacrament at the hands of an unpreaching Minister.  I. Penry. 
Paul communicated since his conversion with those Priests that were as unlearned as ever any. Which he would not have done if inability to teach had made them no Priests.  R. Some. 
Then in M. Penryes' judgement, the holy Apostle was not polluted by communicating with unpreaching Ministers. Can any man (if he have but half an eye) suspect that M. Penry dissenteth from me in judgement? What then may I think, against whom he hath written? Well, I must be content with the measure he offereth me. My comfort is, that he shall gain, and I lose nothing by it. Yea, I assure myself by God's grace that God's Church shall gain by this difference. He pretendeth great desire of a learned ministery: but his eager defence of ignorant levitical priests, bewrayeth him. If I had written so much for ignorant Ministers, the great bell had been rung out before this. I should have had it on both sides of mine ears. I have dealt very earnestly and humbly by writings and speech for a learned ministery. I have received very comfortable answer of very great and honourable personages: who have already (thanks be to God) employed some, and will, I doubt not, employ more in the Church's service. The Lord increase that blessing for his Christ's sake. The mark, I fear, which M. Penry leavels at, is, simply to condemn the outward calling of the Ministers in our Church: and so to shake hands with the anabaptistical Recusants. Though he hit not that white, he will hardly miss that Butt. If he be thoroughly searched, it is not unlike to fall out so. Some part of his writings look shrewdly that way.   

CHAP. 2. ALMIGHTY GOD NEVER called any to the holy ministery, either in the old or new Testament, but he furnished them with gifts fit for that holy function.  
THE Israelites lived in slavery and drudgery in Egypt. They were as rude & gross as might be. When the Lord would make his Tabernacle, he furnished Bezaleel & Aholiab of the tribes of juda & Dan, for that excellent work. He gave them skill in working all kind of broiderie, Exo. 31. & 36. chap. When salomon's Temple should be built, Almighty God furnished Hiram of Tyrus for that stately work, 1. Kin. 7. If Almighty God; for the framing and building of the Tabernacle and Temple, which were figures of the Church, did so excellently beautify Bezaleel, Aholiab and Hiram: it is great wickedness to think, that his Majesty did ever send any unfurnished to build his spiritual Tabernacle and Temple, which is his spouse, body, City, etc.  
When the Lord commanded Aaron, Eleazar, etc. to be consecrated his Priests, and consequently to teach, to pray for the Israelites, and to offer sacrifices, (in which three branches, the Priest's office consisted) he furnished them with excellent furniture for that honourable service. The words of God himself are clear for this: My covenant was with Levi of life and peace, and I gave him fear, and he feared me, and was afraid before my Name. The Law of truth was in his mouth, and there was no iniquity found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. Mal. 2.  
It is a positive law of Almighty God: The Priest's lips shall keep knowledge, etc. Mal. 2. It is a Canon of the Apostle: A minister must be apt to teach, 1. Tim. 3. If Almighty God had by any warrant of his, commended the Israelites heretofore to the charge of ignorant Levites, or his Church since to ignorant ministers, he had broken a statute law and Canon of his own, and had been greatly touched in honour.  
Those levitical priests were sent of God, and pastors according to his heart, which were able to feed God's people with knowledge and understanding, jere. 3.  
Those Levitical priests which were unfit to teach, were never of Gods sending, though they were of the line of Aaron. Almighty God disclaims them in these words: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me, Hose. 4.  
Esay was a famous man for birth and eloquence. Before that he was sent to denounce and deliver God's judgements and mercies to jerusalem and juda etc., the Lord did singularly furnish him with knowledge, speech, courage etc. Esa. 6. and 50. Chap.  
jeremy was an excellent Prophet. When the Lord would use his service, he touched his mouth, furnished his heart, etc. jere. 1. In like sort dealt Almighty God with Micheas: he made him a complete man, Mich. 3.  
Elizeus attended on the plough, 1. Kin. 19 Amos on the herd, Amos 1. and 7. Chap. The Lord did not use the ministery of Elizeus and Amos, until he had furnished them with skill, wisdom, courage, etc.  
Our Saviour Christ did not send any university men at the first to preach the Gospel, lest the conversion of men should be attributed to learning and eloquence. He called rude and base men from their occupations to be his Apostles. Before he sent them to be his trumpets, & to deliver his message, he cast them (as it were) into a new mould, he gave them special furniture, john 20. Act. 2. If the Lord jesus had not dealt thus with them, how could they have acquitted themselves in preaching and disputation as they did? for they attended before, on fishing and other trades.  
Saint Paul setting out in orient colours, the largesse and bounty of our Saviour Christ to his Church after his Ascension, hath these words: He gave some to be Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, for the gathering together of the Saints, for the work of the ministery, and for the edification of the body of Christ, Eph. 4. If these here mentioned had been unfurnished: First, Christ's gift had been no benefit, but a burden. Secondly, how should the Saints have been gathered, his body built, his sheep fed, his spouse garnished?  
Those Princes and Captains which send unskilful Ambassadors & untrained soldiers on ambassade and warfare, do greatly stain and dishonour themselves. Almighty God, which is the greatest Prince and most valiant Captain, did never fault in this. If he had, he had given his glory and the Church a grievous blow. I confess, God gives not to all his servants, like furniture. Some have ten, some, five: some, two: some, one talon, which talents must neither be buried in the earth, nor wrapped in a napkin. If they be used, they will multiply as the loaves in the Gospel. They which cannot feed with manchet, must feed with barley bread. Rams skins & goats hair were amongst the holy offerings, as well as gold, silver, brass, purple, etc. Exod. 25.  
If none are called by almighty God to the holy ministery, but such as he hath furnished with gifts in some measure: it is the duty of the civil and ecclesiastical magistrates to provide, that ignorant men which are not acquainted with God's book, be kept and thrust out of the holy ministery, unless they will be partakers of great sins, and consequently of great plagues. A sufficient teacher is a rare blessing: for he setteth the Lords plough forward, and is God's hand to deliver heavenly treasures. If good care shall be had by our Prince, our Bishops, our Patrons, to go on in advancing and making choice of such both governors and pastors: God's religion, Church, Universities, will flourish more notably, and consequently God's glory: our gracious Prince shall be more sound honoured: the people of the land shall be singularly encouraged to serve God, to fight for the religion, for their Prince, for their country, against any, either foreign or home enemy: and God's favour and blessings shall be multiplied upon our Queen, upon us, and upon our posterity. Almighty God will accept this at our hands for great thankfulness for his late mercy in preserving the English both fleet and nation, and amazing & dispersing the popish fleet, by his mighty hand. This gracious and notable favour of God hath daunted Gods & our enemies in all popish kingdoms and churches: and hath put life into God's servants, in all nations & Churches that profess the religion. The Lord for his Christ's sake grant, that we may be reverently mindful of, and humbly thankful to his majesty for this deliverance. And, that as in the time of danger, we used the 83. and 68 psalms, to entreat God's favour: so we may ever sing the 124. and 46. psalms, to publish God's mercy, and to testify our thankfulness for this gracious conquest.   

CHAP. 3. ALMIGHTY GOD NEVER called any to Magistracy, but he furnished them accordingly.  
THe Egyptians were hard masters to the Israelites. They kept them very short in Egypt. When almighty God would bless the Israelites with freedom and government, he furnished Moses notably for that excellent service. He gave him singular wisdom, courage, etc. If he had not, Moses had been utterly unfit for such a famous match.  
Moses complained unto the Lord, that he alone was not able to govern the Israelites. Almighty God, for the ease of Moses appointed 70. Elders of Israel to help in that government. That those Ancients might carry themselves profitably in that charge, the Lord did garnish them accordingly. Num. 11.  
Moses before his death, desired the Lord to appoint one to succeed him in the government, that the Israelites might not be as sheep without a shepherd, Num. 27. God's pleasure was that josua should be the man, Deut. 34. He did so assist and furnish him with the fear of God, with the spirit of wisdom, courage, etc. that he became very famous, in peace, in war, at, and after his dying day.  
The Church & common wealth of the Israelites, decayed greatly, & were at a low ebb in king saul's time. That both Church and common wealth might be revived, the Lord advanced his servant David to the kingdom. He did beautify him with extraordinary graces, as with precious Diamonds. David was very religious, very wise, very valiant: very religious, for he brought home the lords Ark: very wise, for his royal throne was a seat of justice: very valiant, for he vanquished many enemies.  
Solomon succeeded his father David in the government of the Israelites. That he might carry himself accordingly in that great charge, he desired and obtained at God's hands, a wise and understanding heart. 1. King 3.  
Shebna was a great officer in Ezechias Court. His course was cunning and dangerous to the common wealth of juda. Almighty God could not bear him, therefore sent a notable vengeance upon him. In his stead, Eliakim was appointed under the King of juda: A man singularly furnished by the Lord, for he was a father of the inhabitants of jerusalem, and of the house of juda. Esay 22.  
joseph was advanced in Egypt: Nehemias in Persia: Daniel in Chaldea. They dealt excellently in their government: for, almighty God did notable furnish them.  
Gedeon was a very mean man: he attended on the flail. In his time the Madianites were heavy to the Israelites. 7. years. That the Lord might deliver his people from the tyranny of the Madianites, he furnished Gedeon for that service in extraordinary sort. judg. 6. and 7. chap. There were in Gedeon which ought to be in every Captain both by sea and land, Scientia rei militaris, virtus, authoritas, faelicitas. Cic. pro lege Manil. That is, skill in warlike affairs, virtue, authority, felicity.  
They which are inwardly called to the Magistracy, are such as are furnished by the Lord with good parts for that weighty function. They are not brambles, as Abimelech was, nor sots, as Maximinus was, nor fools, as Candaules was. They are vine, fig, olive trees, as David, Ezechias, josaphat, Constantinus were. These are such Magistrates in whom God delighteth, and which are best welcome to God's people: for, they are rare ornaments both of Church and common wealth. God increase the number of such in this land, that both Church and common wealth, may shine continually as stars at home, abroad, etc. to the glory of God, the honour of the Prince, the terror of the enemy, and the comfort of the English nation.   

CHAP. 4. THE READING OF THE holy Scripture doth edify.  
MOses commanded the Priests in this sort, etc. When all Israel shall come to appear before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel, that they may hear it. Gather the people together: men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and keep, and observe all the words of this law. And that their children which have not known it, may hear it, and learn to fear the Lord your God, etc. Deut. 31. I gather my argument out of this place thus. By reading of the law of God, the Israelites did learn and fear God: therefore they were edified. If you reply that all the Israelites did not profit by this reading, I answer, no more did all profit by the preaching of the Prophets, of Christ and the Apostles. The fault was not in the seed, but in the ground. Unless God's spirit touch our hearts, as the word doth pierce our ears, God's truth either read or preached is a shut book, and as a sealed letter unto us.  
When he shall sit upon the throne of his kingdom, then shall he write him this law repeated in a book, by the Priests of the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and to keep all the words of this law, and these ordinances, for to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not from the commandment, to the right hand or to the left, but that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his sons in the mids of Israel. Deut. 17. I frame my argument thus. The king is commanded to read the law of God, that he may learn to fear God, and decline pride: therefore the reading of the law of God doth edify.  
In king josias time, the book of the law was found by Hilkiah the Priest. This book was read in the lords house. The king was present: so were all the men of juda, & the inhabitants of jerusalem, and the Priests, and the Levites, and all the people from the greatest to the smallest, etc. 2. Chron. 34. I make my argument thus. The book of the law was not read in vain in the lords house, etc. 2. Kings 22. therefore it did edify.  
All the words of my mouth are righteous, there is no lewdness, nor frowardness in them. They are all plain to him that will understand, and straight to them that would find knowledge. Prou. 8. Therefore the holy Scriptures both read and preached, do edify. His salubriter, prava corriguntur, paruanutriuntur, magna oblectantur ingenia. Aug. Epist. 3. The holy Scripture hath in it, milk for babes, and stronger meat for them that are of age. Heb. 5. The holy Scripture, is a shallow water, where in the lamb may wade, and a great sea, wherein the Elephant may swim.  
The Law and the Prophets were read in the Churches of Antiochia, and jerusalem. Act. 13. and in Nazareth. Luke 4. If the reading of the holy Scriptures do not edify, why were the law and Prophets read in the Temple and Synagogues?  
The Apostle writeth thus to the pastors and people of Colosse: Let the word of Christ dwell in you plenteously, etc. Coloss. 3. Therefore God's people are not to be barred from the reading of the holy Scripture. If it doth not edify, they were justly barred by the Popish Clergy.  
Victorinus was an Orator in Rome. By reading the Scriptures he became a Christian: Mirante Roma, gaudente ecclesia: that is, Rome marveled at Victorinus conversion: God's Church was glad of it. Aug. Confess. lib. 8. cap. 2.  
God's speech unto us, I am sure, doth edify: when the Scriptures are read, God speaketh unto us. The holy Scriptures are Dei Epistola. etc. that is, God's Epistle unto us.  
By reading the Scriptures, God's people do more easily receive Gods holy truth, and espy Popish absurdities and anabaptistical fancies.  
They which mislike the reading of the scriptures, are Zwingfildians, that is, absurd heretics. What then is master Penry, which writeth that the word barely read, and to no other purpose then to edify by reading, is not wholesome doctrine?  
If any shall gather of this I have set down, that I am an enemy to the preaching of the word, he deserveth no answer. My judgement is: If the reading of the holy scriptures doth edify, that sound preaching doth edify much more. By sound preaching, I understand the giving of the true sense of the scripture, and applying it to the profit of the auditors. Thus did Ezra, Christ, the Apostles, preach. This course, I am sure, doth highly please God, and bringeth many sheep into the lords fold. The Lord increase the number of such teachers, that God's religion may flourish as Aaron's rod did, and that Popish and anabaptistical errors may be devoured as the rods of the Egyptian sorcerers were.  
Ille huic doctrinae inimicus est animus, qui vel errando eam nescit esse saluberrimam, vel odit aegrotando medicinam.  Agust. Epist. 3.  

CHAP. 5. A DEFENCE OF THAT which hath been written in the questions of the ignorant ministery and the communicating with them:  
By JOHN PENRY.  
THere be two things (M. D. SOME) wherein you by oppugning that truth, which out of the word of God I had set down, concerning the two former questions, have been wanting both unto yourself and to the cause: the defence whereof you undertook. The former want of the two, appeareth by your spare dealing in a matter of such great weight: wherein you have dealt with so illiberal a hand, that what hath been written by you, might seem to proceed rather from any then from a man whose gifts and learning seemed to promise the affording of greater and more weighty matters, than any set down in that treatise.  R. Some. 
Your beginning is full of courage. I do not wonder at it. He that runneth alone, is always foremost. You accuse me to withstand God's truth. A sore charge. If true, I must reverse my judgement: if untrue, true, you have dealt injuriously with me. When joas was advanced to the Imperial Crown of juda, Athalia cried, Treason, Treason. 2. Chron. 23. A hard speech against king joas, jehoiada, etc. But Athalia herself was the Traitor. You shall apply this. I have dealt, you say, very sparingly in a matter of great importance. If I have so, your advantage is greater. If the seed sown in my book, were like yours, I might be justly thought to be very prodigal. My treatise, I perceive, is not for your tooth: it is simple in your eye. Aquila non capit muscas. It hath pleased many, I thank God, of excellent learning and wisdom to like of it: That is my comfort. Instar mill, Platonis calculus. I make very mean account, as yet, of your judgement. You are not read, you are to seek in the principles of divinity, you have broached gross errors, you know not your ignorance. For that knowledge which Almighty God hath given me, I thank his Majesty very humbly. It is more, I confess, than I am worthy of. God give me grace to use it to his glory.  I. Penry. 
The number of my reasons were many: you only have touched two of them, the rest are not dealt with. And therefore the cause as yet remaineth whole. For, be it you had answered these two as you have not, yet had you not satisfied the doubtful conscience of those, that know not in these points which way to turn them, as long as any one of my reasons remained unanswered.  R. Some. 
Your reasons, I confess, have number: but they want weight. I have confuted three of them. The first of the three, is accounted by you a pillar of marble. But I have not, you say, dealt with the rest. Content yourself: I have made no fault. I answered such and so many, as were delivered to me by some of your faction. When I had finished my treatise, your book was brought me: before, I knew not that you were the father of them. You deny that I have answered any of your reasons. It is easy to say so, and you might worst have said it. A party is unfit to be a judge. Your reasons are all of one stamp: therefore the overthrow of the principal, is the overthrow of all. Your followers which know not which way to turn them, may thank both you and themselves: you, for sowing: themselves, for reaping such giddy fancies. It is an easy thing to lead and fall into an anabaptistical maze. They will not be satisfied, you say, before every one of your reasons be answered. A peremptory resolution. They are pinned be like on your sleeve. I hope we shall not have a Pythagoras of you. Would you have your boisterous speech go for an Oracle, and carry all as a violent stream before it? God forbidden. It were a hard case. I trust you desire it not. If you do, you are not like to have it.  I. Penry. 
In this point there is also another want, which I would had been redressed. And that is of two sorts. First, a manifest going from the controversy: for the question being, whether ignorant men, not ordained of God for the gathering together of the Saints, be ministers or no: you leave that, and prove the Sacraments administered by them, viz. by popish priests, & our dumb ministers, in the days of blindness and ignorance, to be sacraments, which is no part of the matter in controversy, 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 serve not one jot from the cause I dealt in. For proof of this, consider what I writ. Certain in London gave out in my hearing: first, that such as were baptised by Popish Priests in the Popish Church, and by unpreaching ministers in our Church, received no baptism: Secondly, that the Godly were polluted, which received any Sacrament at the hands of unpreaching ministers. To heal these sores, I was desired to provide a plaster. I did so, and God hath given a good blessing unto it. All this time your book was as great a stranger to me, as it is now to the Duke of Medina. What say you M. Penry? Have I faulted as you imagine? Had you any the least cause so roughly to seize upon me, and to charge me with going from the point? Bee judge yourself: yea, I refuse not the judgement of your disciples, if they have any dram of equity in them.  I. Penry. 
Secondly, your reasons are so few, and so commonly known unto all, that for their number a small deal of paper might contain an answer unto them: for their novelty, they could not put a man that had according unto knowledge, but once allowed of the cause, to any great labour in answering them. As being things so commonly objected by all, learned or unlearned, that hold our readers to be ministers, and think it lawful to communicate with them, as by course of speech they fall unto that discourse, where all men may easily see, that there was a great oversight committed by M Some, in deeming that the oppugning of a cause countenanced by most of the Godly learned, would be taken in hand by any, who could not answer the reasons which he might be sure would be objected by all. And who could be ignorant, that the odious controversy, concerning the profanation of baptism, both by Popish Priests, and our dumb Ministers, would offer itself in the forefront to withstand the truth? that the civil Magistracy, the ministery of the dumb Levites, the corrupt outward calling of our readers would require an answer, which are the reasons, and the only reasons used by you.  R. Some. 
If my arguments be few, I have done you pleasure: for they are sooner answered. They have, you say, no novelty: I like them the better: for they are as I desired. If they be not for your diet, I do not pass: my thought is taken. If nothing were good or bad, but that which you like or mislike, precious pearls should go for tile sherdes, and pebble stones for Diamonds. Tichonius a Donatist said of himself and his fellows: Quod volumus, sanctum est. Your music, I hope, is not like his. If it be, you are too imperial: You will not be abidden. What, and how weak my reasons are, must be decided hereafter: for, your words are no arguments. If my reasons were suitable to your answers, they were very woeful. Your odious speech that I withstand the truth, is used often: it is a special flower in your book. This course hurts you and not me. It hurts you: for it bewrays your humour. It hurts not me: for your tongue cannot disgrace me.  I. Penry. 
The last want I find in you, is contained in the insufficiency of your reasons, which evidently show the insufficiency of the conclusion, that would be inferred by them. Your reasons are all of them faulty, either because they desire that for granted which is the question, or make those things of like nature, wherein there is a great dissimilitude. From the first of the two faults it cometh to pass, that you take for granted, that the writings of reverend and godly men, as of Augustine, M. Beza, etc. will prove that which the word of the eternal God doth not warrant. Hence you take it granted, that Popish Priests were ministers: that the outward approbation of the Church, maketh a Minister: that, whensoever the word of institution is pronounced with the outward element, there must presently be a Sacrament: that, I take an evil Minister for no Minister: that, there was a nullity both of Caiphas ministery, because he came in by bribery, and of the litigious Ministers in the Church of Philippi, etc. Howsoever you take those things as granted principles, yet they are the points in controversy, and so far from being yielded unto by me, that I have showed every one of them to be manifestly false.  R. Some. 
You find many faults. You are a hard man: you cover none. Moats with you are beams, and molhils mountains: yea, no moats and no molhils are beams and mountains, if they appear at your bar. It pleaseth you to give out that all my reasons are faulty. If you mean in your eye, I do easily grant it: If you mean in the eye of the learned, you mistake the matter. But what are the faults which you pursue so hotly? Forsooth, I take that, you say, for granted, which is the question: viz. that Popish priests were ministers: that whensoever 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 ever say or write that Popish priests had a lawful calling? I have written (I confess) that Popish priests have a calling, though a faulty one. Of this judgement are Beza, Calvin, the reformed Churches: But all these are wide of the Butt: only you do hit the white: you will teach them. Sus Mineruam. It becometh not the house. Did I ever say or write, that whensoever the word of Institution is added to the element, there must presently be a Sacrament? There is no syllable in my treatise, that looks that way. You imagine I say so: and of this absurd conceit, you conclude that private men, children, women, idiots (in my judgement) may administer a Sacrament. You pretend great sincerity: but your dealing with me in this and some other points, is neither honest nor scholarlike. It shall appear so by God's grace in this book. These particulars, & that of Caiphas priesthood, and of the contentious ministers of Philippi, shall be handled in their several places.  I. Penry. 
The dissimilitude is in the reasons drawn from the levitical priesthood, and the civil magistracy: with whom if you compare the ministery of the new covenant, you shall find, first, that you bring in a similitude to show that which is not proved: and secondly, that you make those to be twins, which all men must needs grant to be as unlike, as crooked and strait lines are unmatchable.  R. Some. 
My second fault is, as you say, in drawing an Argument from the levitical priesthood to the ministery of the new Testament. Is this a fault? no, no: the fault is in your eye, not in my pen: but, why may I not draw an argument, as I did from the Levititical priesthood, to the ministery of the new Testament? Your reason is: the levitical priesthood and the ministery of the new Testament are not twins, are unmatchable, they cannot stand together: therefore a reason cannot be drawn from the one to the other. You take this, I am sure, to be an invincible argument: but it is as strong as a rope of sand. I deny your argument. My reasons are: first, Aaron did not take the priesthood upon him before he was called: therefore none in our time, may enter into the ministery, unless he be called. This argument is grounded upon these words of the Apostle: No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God as Aaron. Heb. 5. Secondly, the levitical priests ought to be furnished with knowledge, therefore the ministers of the new Testament etc. The ground of this reason is set down by the Prophet Malachi in this sort: The priests lips shall preserve knowledge, and they shall seek the Law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts. Mal. 2. You see now, I hope, that an argument may be framed from the levitical priesthood to the ministery of the new Testament: if you do not, you are stark blind: if you do, confess your ignorance. Thirdly, the ministery of death and condemnation, and the ministery of the spirit and righteousness: that which should be abolished, and that which remaineth, are things very far and greatly different: yet an argument may be drawn from the one to the other in this sort. The law which was the ministery of death, of condemnation, and which should be abolished, was glorious: therefore the Gospel which is the ministery of the spirit and righteousness, and which remaineth, is more glorious. This argument is, as the Logicians call it, à comparatis: and is sound gathered out of these words of the holy Apostle: If the ministration of death was glorious, how shall not the ministration of the spirit be more glorious? If the ministery of condemnation was glorious, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory: if that which should be abolished was glorious, much more shall that which remaineth be glorious. 2. Cor. 3. What say you now master Penry? do you not perceive by this I have set down, that an argument may be drawn very aptly from one thing to another, wherein there is great dissimilitude: which are not twins, which are unmatcheable? if you do, be wiser hereafter in the name of God. Whether an argument may be drawn from the civil magistracy, shall appear in an other place.  I. Penry. 
And thus much I thought needful generally to set down concerning your manner of dealing: not that I would any way disgrace you, whom I reverence: for that is no part of mine intent, the Lord is my witness. Nay I would be loath to let that fillable escape me, that might give you, or any the least occasion in the world, to think that I carry any other heart towards you, than I ought to bear towards a reverent learned man fearing God. And howsoever, unless you altar your judgement, I can never agree with you in these points, because I am assured, you serve from the truth: Yet this disagreement shall be so far from making a breach of that bond of love, wherewith in the Lord I am tied unto you, that I doubt not, but we shall be at one in that day, when all of us shall be at unity in him that remaineth one and the self same for ever.  R. Some. 
It is gently done of you: when you have broken my head, you give me a plaster: but I refuse your surgery. You will not, you say, disgrace me: You reverence me: Good words. A foul hook under a fair bait. If you reverence your friends on this fashion, what shall your enemies look for? Philippides cudgeled his own father. A monstrous son. Being asked why he did so, his answer was: he did it for love: strange love. I will account somewhat better of your reverence. If I serve from the truth, as you assure yourself, you have great reason to dissent from me: God's truth must be preferred: It is more excellent than any creature: but if I have any learning, you do toto coelo errare. You are strangely wide: for, you have set down absurd errors for clear truths, and have condemned sure points of divinity for gross errors. I see little hope of agreement between you and me in these particulars. I am resolute in my judgement: if you be so in yours, I am sorry for you. God give you an other mind.   

CHAP. 6.  john Penry. 
Now I am to come to your book: from the 20. page whereof unto the 28. laying the foundation of the reasons you use against me, to prove the lawfulness of communicating with dumb ministers, you handle two needless points. First, that they which were baptised by popish priests, have received true baptism as touching the substance. Secondly, that they are the Sacraments of baptism, and the holy Supper of the Lord, which are delivered in the Church of England by unpreaching ministers. In these two points, M. Some, you have proved nothing that my writings have denied: but you have quickened a dead controversy, not unlikely to give the wrangling spirits of this age, cause to breed greater stirs in the Church. I see no other effect, which the handling of these questions can bring forth but this. And it is to be feared that the slenderness of the reasons used in your book, to prove that which you have undertaken to show, will give occasion unto many, who of themselves are too too ready to jangle, to doubt of that whereof before they made no question. So that by seeking to stay the course of a needful controversy, you have both given it a larger passage, and opened the door unto a question very fruitless in our time. You know I deal in neither of these points. If you cannot be stayed from entering into controversies that are very odious, and more impertinent unto the matter in hand: it were good that the Church were further and more sound satisfied by you in these two points, which you alone in our Church have publicly called in question. And for mine own part, when you have done, I know not who will be your adversary. I see no reason why I should deal in controversies of so small gain. Of this I am assured, that neither Popish priests, nor any other ignorant guides are Ministers. Whether the Element administered by them, be a Sacrament or no, look you to that, which have in your Treatise debated that, which my writings never called into question. If you will needs prove readers to be Ministers, because you cannot get me to deny that which hath been administered to be a Sacrament, you shall but press that which will prove nothing. Your reason is, as if you should say, that either all they which supply the places of ministers are ministers, or else an inconvenience is likely to follow. A strange manner of demonstration: God's ordinance must needs be thrust out of the doors, because an inconvenience would be likely to ensue the admitting of it. The cause will not be thus answered at your hands, and I am sorry that a man so reverend in mine eyes, hath dealt so unsubstantially, in a matter belonging to the service of the everliving God: the slenderness of the reason is apparent. In the latter end of the book I have further showed the same: thither I am to refer you and the reader.  R. Some. 
You are come at the last to my treatise. In God's name. You give out that I dealt in two needless points. Not so, by your leave: for some in London and other places, being seduced by unskilful teachers, denied them both. You do not so, your words are as clear as the day, and are these: In these two points M. Some etc. you have proved nothing that my writings have denied. I thank you for this. You are now in a very good mood: but you will not be so long. Virtutes latere non possunt. Full vessels will burst, if they have not a vent. If you deny not that true baptism was delivered by popish priests and unpreaching ministers, you cannot deny popish priests and unpreaching ministers to have a calling. My reason is: Nullum Sacramentum sine ministro: that is, No Sacrament without a minister. The wrangling spirits you writ of, are the more because of your absurd writings: but they are not so many, thanks be to God, as you imagine. They which are so forward in jangling of these points, are either of your humour, which is very bad, or anabaptistical recusants, which is somewhat worse. You add these words, A strange manner of demonstration etc. They do proclaim your ignorance: they do not answer my reason. I perceive an argument ab absurdo, is a pill that will not down with you. The slenderness of my reasons is repeated by you every handwhile. It is like the Cuckoos song. It pleaseth you again to reverence me. You are at more cost than I would have you. This reverence is either a burden or a benefit. If a burden, lad some other with it: If a benefit, beneficium non datur invito, I will none of it.  I. Penry. 
Now I could well overpass these two points, because of themselves they contain nothing that I have withstood: but in as much as you have not only grounded them upon false principles, and such as in no wise can be warranted by the Canon of the word, but also infer upon their grant, that our readers are ministers, and consequently that it is no sin to communicate with them: I am first to set down the state of the question, which in deed is and aught to be decided between you and me concerning the Element administered both by popish priests, and other unpreaching ministers: and secondly to examine the grounds whereby you prove the Element already delivered by them to be a sacrament, which you know I do not deny to be so.  R. Some. 
Because I have an ill memory, you tell me again and again, that you deny not the sixth and seventh proposition of my treatise. It is well done of you. I would you would keep you there. Only you mislike the foundation I built on, and some consequents. I am sorry for your heaviness. My grounds, you say, shallbe examined. Spare them not. Arraign them if you will. But what shall I reason of, or look for at your hands? To be acquitted? no hope of that. To be condemned? It is certain: for, it hath pleased you to give sentence before examination. Hard dealing: but I must abide it.  I. Penry. 
The question therefore is not whether the one or the other of them have delivered a Sacrament in respect of the action done, but whether a Christian going unto them for those holy seals, may be assured, that he can receive the same at their hands. I affirm that we cannot: M. Some taketh it granted that we may. My warrant is out of the word, because there is no promise made to us therein, that the action celebrated by such men, is a Sacramental action: and where there is no promise, there can be no assurance, because our assurance ariseth only of faith, which must be grounded upon the promises set down in the word. We have no promise that they can deliver us a Sacrament, because they are no ministers. For they only are enjoined by our Saviour Christ to deliver a Sacrament, neither do we know what he can deliver which is no minister.  R. Some. 
No marvel though you descent from me. Conueniet nulli, qui secum etc. You are at war with yourself. Your words agree like harp and harrowe. One while, you deny not that popish priests and unpreaching ministers have delivered a sacrament: An other while you know not what they can deliver: for, they are, as you say, no ministers. To that end you deprave Christ's speech in S. Matthew etc. What dealing is this? Sacrament, and no Sacrament, and all with one breath? What? can such as are no ministers, deliver a Sacrament? If you say, No: then popish Priests & unpreaching ministers, neither have nor can deliver a Sacrament: for they are, as you say, no ministers, that is, they have no calling at all. Your disciples are fit vessels to receive any liquor of yours: but men of learning and wisdom, are otherwise affected. They see clearly, that your dealing is absurd and dangerous. Absurd: for it is void of truth. Dangerous: for it would breed confusion. The magistrates, thanks be to God, neither do nor will suffer this bad course of yours. If they should, fancies would (as weeds) grow too too fast, and this noble land should receive more hurt than your head is worth. I doubt not of their godly wisdom. The miserable estate of Germany heretofore, by reason of Sectaries, may and will awake them. If you be restrained for your gross errors, as some other are very justly: you may not cry, persecution, persecution: your note must be poena perfidiae, that is, that you are justly met with. Otherwise you sing out of tune.  I. Penry. 
So that the question is now grown to this issue, Whether Popish priests and our unpreaching Ministers, be Ministers or no: whom if I can prove to be none, than the matter is clear, that no man going unto them for the Sacrament, can assure himself there to have the same. And this shall be a general reason, equally belonging unto both the points handled by you, the particulars whereof shall follow in their places.  R. Some. 
If you can prove that, I will commend and prefer you before Martyr, Bucer, Caluine, Beza, and other very famous men and Churches. Yea, I will deny her Majesty and a great number of her excellent subjects to be baptised, which I am sure are baptised. The mark you level at, is (as I take it) either to send many thousands to the Font again, or to make them guilty of contempt of Baptism. One of these two must needs fall out, if Popish priests, and unpreaching Ministers (without any calling) did administer a Sacrament. You may level and level again at this mark: but you shall never hit it. The Bow you shoot in, is too strong: and your arms are very weak. Besides, you would feign have me confess that either Popish priests and ignorant Ministers, are lawful and good Ministers of God: or that no Sacrament was or is delivered by them. I will grant you neither. Not the first, for I abhor that defence: Not the second, for I detest your anabaptistical fancies. The next thing you deal in, is, that neither Popish priests nor unpreaching Ministers are ministers. In which Treatise you bewray intolerable both pride and ignorance. What I like or mislike in that discourse, appeareth in the end of this book. Thither I refer you. I will now set down that part of my Treatise which you fight against.   

CHAP. 7. THEY WHICH WERE baptised in the Popish Church by Popish Priests, received true Baptism, touching the substance of Baptism.  R. Some. 
THe Popish priests do retain the essential form of Christ's baptism, that is, they do baptise in the name, not of Pope or idol, but of the holy Trinity: therefore it is not man's, but God's baptism, which is delivered by them. If it be God's baptism, I am sure it is true baptism. Master Calvin calleth them Catabaptists, which deny that we are rightly baptised in the Popish Church. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 15. Sect. 16.  I. Penry. 
Now to the examination of your reason brought to prove that they which were baptised in Popery, have received true baptism. Your conclusion, you must remember, I do not deny, though your reason proveth not the same, which is thus framed. Whosoever deliver God's baptism, they deliver true baptism: But Popish priests deliver God's baptism, therefore true baptism. You have changed the conclusion from that which was done, unto that which is done: But this oversight I omit. The assumption you prove thus: Whosoever baptise in the name not of Pope or Idols, but of the holy Trinity, they deliver God's baptism: but Popish priests do baptise in the name of the holy Trinity, therefore they deliver God's baptism. Your proposition in this last syllogism is most false, and such as upon the grant whereof, not only the communicating with unpreaching ministers might be advouched, but also Gods whole ordinance in the institution of his holy Sacraments quite overthrown. For if it were true, that there were no more required to make substantial baptism (as you here require no more) but to baptise in the name of the Trinity: then these impious absurdities would follow thereof. 1 That an Amalekite might deliver true circumcision, as touching the substance. 2 That true baptism might be administered unto a substance not capable of baptism: But this odious instance I will not urge. 3. That a woman, 4. That any man not being a Minister, as a child of five years old, a Turk, or jew, might deliver true baptism as touching the substance. For these pronouncing the words of Institution, might retain, by your reason the essential form of Christ's baptism, and so to use your own words, they baptizing not in the name of Pope or of Idols, but of the holy Trinity, should deliver God's baptism and not man's? If God's baptism, then true baptism I am sure: in like manner, by this reason they should be Catabaptists, which deny men to be rightly baptised by Turks or women.  R. Some. 
You deny not my conclusion. I must you say remember it. You have sung this song very often. It needed not. A word had been enough if it had so pleased you. You tell me, You will omit an oversight of mine. You deserve no thanks for this courtesy: therefore I will give you none. But what I beseech you is my oversight? Forsooth, I do account it as true baptism, which is administered now as heretofore in the Popish Church. Call you this an oversight? Was it true baptism yesterday and is it none to day? A marvelous case: This is like those absurd fellows, of whom Tertullian writeth in an other case: hody presbyter, quicras laicus. De prescr. adversus Haer. That is, to day a Minister, but to morrow none. You are one of the strangest Divines that ever I hard of. Very ignorant: very bold: very absurd. You are such a one as the Apostle mentioneth, 1. Tim. 1.7. To proceed: my reason you say proveth not my proposition. In the judgement of any learned man it doth: if not in yours, the matter is not great: for your judgement is not worth a rush. The argument I made is in deed M. Calvin's, & a very sure one. It is allowed of all Churches, that I can hear of. It pleaseth you to set down my reason thus: Whosoever deliver God's baptism, they deliver true baptism: But Popish priests deliver God's baptism, therefore true baptism. You say I prove my Minor thus: Whosoever baptise in the name not of Pope or idols, but of the holy Trinity, they deliver God's baptism: But Popish priests etc. Your answer is that my Mayor proposition is most false, & that upon the grant of it, many absurdities would follow, etc. Your dealing with me is most absurd. It shall appear thus. My Minor proposition set down by you, was: Popish priests deliver God's baptism. You say I prove it thus: Whosoever baptise in the name not of Pope or idols, but of the holy Trinity, they deliver God's baptism. Upon this you infer many consesequents at your pleasure: viz. that Turks, jews, women, private men, children, might deliver true baptism touching the substance. You pretend great sincerity. Answer me directly. I appeal to your conscience, if you have any. Did I ever deliver such a Mayor proposition? If I have, quote the page, set down the words. If I have not, (which I am well assured of) you have grossly abused me. You may as easily fetch oil out of a flint, as any such consequents out of my writings. The godly reader may see by this little, how near you are driven, when you use such beggarly shifts to bombast your Treatise. Honest Matrons use no painting: but harlots do. Simple truth needs no lies to welt and guard it: gross errors have need of such Vermilion. They which have either heard my Sermons, or read my writings, do know very well, that I allow none whatsoever without a calling, to administer a Sacrament or preach the word, therefore neither woman nor private man. Yea, mine own words in this present chapter are as clear as the sun: viz. Popish priests do retain the essential form of Christ's baptism, etc. which Popish priests have a calling though a faulty one. It is very strange that you could not see this. I perceive, the vail of malice did hinder your sight. The odious instance you mention, doth best become your Spirit. It is suitable to the rest of your writings, that is, most absurd and childish.  I. Penry. 
I would be fulsory, that the errors of the Catabaptists or Anabaptists, could not be confured by you with sounder reasons, than this you have brought: and I would be also sorry, that you should defend such absurd consequents as I will drive you unto whether you will or no, unless you revoke (as I hope you will) that which you have written. Pardon me, I pray you. I deal as reverently as I may with you, retaining the majesty of the cause I defend, and I deal not against you, but against an erroneous assertion, which I now leave: desiring you very earnestly, that you would consider how unreverently the ordinance of God in the holy Sacraments is dealt with, when the same is made to depend upon the pronouncing of a few syllables, without any consideration either of the person who is to administer, or of the substantial form of consecration contained in the exposition of the holy institution of baptism, & the invocation of the Name of God, all which are necessarily required in the administration of baptism, and could not possibly be in Egypt, where all was and is covered under the darkness of a strange tongue.  R. Some. 
You pretend great sorrow for me. I do not thank you for it. Be sorry for your own absurdities, which are many & gross. The absurd consequents which you will drive me perforce unto, unless I reverse my writings, are easily numbered. They are not one, thanks be to God. Your lusty speech can not daunt me. It is but a viso. I have been long acquainted with the boisterous speeches of such ignorant and bold companions as you are. Touching the argument now in hand between us, spare me not: I desire no favour: I will not revoke any jot I have set down. You desire pardon of me. If you recant your anabaptistical errors, you shall have an easy suit: Otherwise, I do and will account very basely of you. Hath the cause you deal for, Majesty in it? You might have spared the name of Majesty very well. It is too costly a garment for such a leprous body, as your Treatise is. But I must bear with you. It is the manner of Sectaries to use majestical & lofty words, that their ignorant followers may commend them above the skies. The reverend dealing you talk of, is idle speech. I have and do refuse it. The erroneous assertion which you fight against, is not mine: I did never so much as once think of it. It is yours: use it as you list. You may be bold with it. You give out, that I make the Sacrament to depend upon the pronouncing of a few syllables, without consideration of the person who is to administer it. My answer is, that you are a wicked slanderer. You require three things necessarily in the administration of baptism. First, one which hath calling to administer it. I agree with you in this. Secondly, the substantial form of consecration contained in the exposition of the holy institution of Baptism. I descent from you in this, and yet do like sound preaching as well as you. Lastly, the invocation of the name of God. I say Amen to this. Then you add this Minor: but these could not possibly be in Egypt, that is, in the Popish Church, etc. Will you stand to the second branch of the three? If you do, I may justly conclude, first that you account Consecration, not Christ's words in baptism, as you ought, but some gloss upon Christ's words, which you ought not: Secondly, that you deny any Sacrament to be delivered by Popish Priests, & unpreaching Ministers; etc. And yet you have said often, and have desired me to remember that you deny it not. I do not wring your words, and pull them out of joint, as you do mine. Such dealing is an argument of a vile nature and wrangling spirit. It is very far, I thank God, from me: I do detest it. If I were of your humour, I could chase and pursue you hotly, for your inconstancy & error: Inconstancy, for affirming and denying one and the self same particular: Error, for giving out that the word preached is necessarily required to the Essence of the Sacrament. If a sermon were necessarily required to the Essence of a Sacrament, these absurdities would follow: First, the Sacraments are dead Sacraments, that is, seals without writing, and plain blanks, if there want a sermon: Secondly, if Baptism be no sacrament without a sermon, then can it not regenerate or be effectual to any which either have been, or are baptised without a sermon.  
Objection of the fantastical crew.  
The Popish Priests have no lawful calling: therefore it is no true Baptism which is delivered by them.  R. Some. 
The Argument follows not. I confess that Popish priests have no lawful calling: yet they have a calling, though a faulty one. They which are not lawfully called unto the ministry, are to be accounted in another place than they which have no calling. Caiphas was not in deed the lawful high Priest: for he entered by money, and the Priesthood in his time was rend in pieces: yet because he sat in the high priests chair, he was accounted the high Priest. A faulty vocation may hurt him that usurps an office, but it doth not defile those things which are done by that party. This is M. Bezaes' judgement in his 142. question.  
If any shall gather of this, that I allow the Popish Priesthood, he deserves rather a censor, than confuter. For I confess, that Sacerdotium Papisticum est sacrilegium: that is, that the Popish Priesthood is Sacrilege.  I. Penry. 
Your distinction that Popish Priests have a calling, though a faulty, is a begging of the question. For as I have showed, Popish Priests have no calling at all in the Church, and therefore how can they sit in the chair of the ministery? Is there a ministery out of the Church? Caiphas priesthood cometh afterward to be considered of.  R. Some. 
The distinction which you say is mine, is in deed M. Bezaes'. It is termed by you a begging of the question. Nay rather, your answer to M. Beza is beggarly, and none at all. If Popish priests (as you writ) have no calling at all: first, Luther, which had imposition of hands in the Popish Church, had no external calling at all: Secondly, in your judgement, either no Baptism was delivered by Popish Priests in the Popish Church: or, Baptism, if any were in the Popish Church, was administered by private men: for they which have no calling at all, are private men. I need not drive you to absurd consequents: you cast yourself headlong into them, as into a dangerous quavemire. Your Treatises wherein you have sown gross errors thick and threefold, are witnesses enough of this. Are not your disciples most unhappy, which depend on you as on another Pope? You ask whether there is a ministry out of the Church. What my judgement is, appeareth hereafter. In the mean time, you deny not, that there is true baptism (therefore consequently a ministry) in the Popish Church which (you say) is no Church. Caiphas Priesthood hath both searched and found you out. It bewrayeth your gross ignorance.   

CHAP. 8. THEY ARE THE SACRAments of Baptism and the holy Supper, which are delivered in the Church of England, by unpreaching Ministers.  I. Penry. 
YOu know M. Some, what I mean by an unpreaching Minister, namely every one, learned or unlearned, that cannot show himself by the good trial of his gifts, to have that fitness to reach, whereof we read 2. Tim. 2. 1. Tim. 3. Which ability the Lord doth not ordinarily bestow upon any in these our days, without the knowledge of the Arts, especially the two handmaids of all learning, Rhetoric, and Logic, and the two original tongues wherein the word was written.  R. Some. 
If none are to be accounted ministers ordinarily, which are not furnished, as you prescribe and require: many in the primitive Church after Christ's Ascension were no ordinary ministers: Valerius a godly man, whom Augustine succeeded at Hippo in afric, was no ordinary minister. Possid. in vita Aug. cap. 5. Samsucius, a godly Bishop, was no ordinary minister. Aug. epist. 168. Augustine, which was a famous man, was no ordinary minister. Many profitable pastors in this age, are no ordinary ministers. Yea, M. Penryes' ignorant levitical priests, whom he alloweth and defendeth to be lawful Priests, were no ordinary ministers.  
If such as were baptised in the popish Church, received true baptism, I trust they are rightly baptised in the Church of England, which are baptised by unpreaching ministers.  I. Penry. 
The rest of your book is now to be examined. Your conclusion, pag. 22. that they which were baptised by unpreaching ministers, are rightly baptised as touching the substance of baptism, I do not gainsay. Your reasons are weak: for how could we prove your conclusion, if men should deny popish baptism, to be true baptism, as I do not, you know, and he should do me great injury, which would lay that to my charge. Were it sufficient for us to say they were Catabaptists which deny popish baptism? how could this be proved? and this should not prove the matter doubted of.  R. Some. 
Do you answer of this fashion? this is as far off, as York from London. The sum of your answer is, that my reasons are weak, & that you deny not my conclusion. Are my reasons weak, because you say so? If they were like your senseless answers, they were strange stuff. If you deny not them, which were baptised by unpreaching ministers, to be rightly baptised: it is a necessary consequent, even in your own judgement: first, that either unpreaching ministers are ministers, or that private men may deliver a Sacrament: secondly, that it was and is a Sacrament, which is administered without a Sermon. They which deny that such as were baptised in the popish Church, received true baptism, touching the substance of baptism, are Catabaptists in the judgement of all learned writers and reformed Churches. I rest in their judgement.  R. Some. 
If such as were baptised by popish priests in the popish Church, and by unpreaching ministers in the Church of England, received no Sacrament, many gross absurdities would follow. First, very many are unbaptized: and if they be unbaptized, they sin grievously, in not presenting themselves to the holy Sacrament.  I. Penry. 
Shall we say that they sin, in not presenting themselves to be baptised? To whom should they present themselves? who would baptise them?  R. Some. 
What mean scholar in either of the Universities? yea, what Russet coat in the Country would shape such an answer? In stead of answering my reasons, you ask me two questions: I must be content to answer, there is no remedy. Your first question is: Shall we say that they sin in not presenting themselves to be baptised? My answer is: they do sin: no learned and godly man doubts of it: my reasons are: First, Baptism is externus character, that is, the outward mark and badge of a Christian. so writeth that famous man M. Fox, Cap. 14. in Apocal. Secondly, the contempt of circumcision was grievously punished, Gen. 17. Yea, the Angel would have killed Moses, because his son was not circumcised, Exod. 4. Thirdly, they in the primitive Church which had excellent graces, presented themselves to baptism: which baptism before, they had not. So did many in jerusalem after Peter's sermon, Act. 2. many in Samaria after Philip's sermons, Act. 8. many in Corinth after Paul's sermons, Act. 18. Your second question is: to whom should they present themselves: who would baptise them? my answer is: after a public profession of their faith in the christian assembly, they must present themselves to be baptised of the minister. So did Cornelius in Caesarea, Act. 10. Lydia in Philippi, Acts. 16. Crispus and Gaius in Corinth. Act. 18.1. Cor. 1. and a jew of late years in London. I speak now of such as be of years, and are unbaptized. I hope you will not gather of this, that I shut our infants from the holy Sacrament of Baptism: if you should, you deserve rather to be censured by the Magistrate, then to be confuted by argument.  R. Some. 
If such as were baptised by popish priests in the popish Church, and by unpreaching ministers in the Church of England received no Sacrament, a great number have sinned grossly in partaking the holy Supper. My reason is: none uncircumcised might eat the passover, Exo. 12.48. therefore none unbaptized, may receive the holy Supper.  I. Penry. 
Admit they sinned in receiving the Lords Supper, before they were baptised, should they therefore be bereaved of the comfort of baptism? to affirm that this were a going backward, is no reason, because they were persuaded that they had baptism, otherwise they would not have been so far on their journey, until they had been accompanied therewith: But they omitted baptism of ignorance, and not of contempt: therefore they deny the receiving of the Lords Supper, to have been a sin any more, than it would be a sin in them now to receive the Lords Supper, if they could not have Baptism. Baptism they would have, if they could orderly come by the same. Because men will be so injurious unto them, as to deny them the comfort of baptism, which they cannot have, should they deny to themselves the comfort of the lords Supper which they may have? Yea, but no uncircumcised might eat the pascal lamb. Exod. 12.48 True: But what shall we say unto those that were uncircumcised in the wilderness forty years almost? Ios. 5.5. Did they never eat the passover all that time? If they did, the place of Exodus will be quickly answered. It is plain that the passover was celebrated in the wilderness once at the least. Nom. 9.1. If every year, why should the godly of the family be excluded from the action, the cause why they were uncircumcised not being in them?  R. Some. 
You answer very strangely. Your wits, I think, were a wool gathering. If they sinned in partaking the lords supper before they were baptised, there is great reason they should abstain from the holy table, until they be baptised: which Baptism (if the case so required) might orderly and easily be come by. But they omitted baptism, you say, of ignorance, not of contempt: therefore they sinned not, which being unbaptized did partake the holy Supper. I deny your argument: My reason is: Ignorantia excusat non à toto, sed à tanto: that is, Ignorance maketh the fault less, it doth not make it none. M. Penry at the length toucheth one part of my reason: but by his leave I will first set down my whole reason, and then his answer. My reason is this: None uncircumcised might eat the passover. Exod. 12.48. therefore, none unbaptized may receive the holy Supper. M. Penryes' answer is contained in these words: True, But what shall we say unto those that were uncircumcised in the wilderness forty years almost. josua. 5.5. Did they never eat the passover all that time? If they did, the place of Exodus will be quickly answered. It is plain that the passover was celebrated in the wilderness once at the least. Numbers 9.1. If every year, why should the godly of the family be excluded from the action, the cause why they were uncircumcised not being in them? Call you this answering? There was never any such I am sure in Cambridge or Oxford. It came I think out of Barbary. I hope you are ashamed of it by this time. You ask me whether they which were uncircumcised in the wilderness almost forty years, did all that time never eat the passover? My answer is, that no such thing appeareth in the text: and where the holy Ghost stayeth his pen, it becometh us to stay our tongues. Yea, it is clear in joshua, that the Israelites, after they were circumcised, did keep the feast of the passover. Ios. 5.8.10. You add, If the Israelites being uncircumcised, did partake the passover, that the place in Exodus will be quickly answered. You say true. If the sky fall, you shall catch Larks. When you prove this (if) of yours, I will accept your answer. Till then, you shall pardon me. You proceed in this sort, It is plain you say that the passover was celebrated in the wilderness, once at the least, Numb. 9 Will you conclude of this: therefore they which were uncircumcised did eat the passover? If you do, I deny your argument: My reason is: If they had admitted any uncircumcised to the passover, they had profaned the holy Sacrament. The words in the text are manifest: If a stranger dwell with thee, and will observe the passover of the Lord, let him circumcise all the males, that belong unto him, and then let him come and observe it, and he shall be as one that is borne in the land: for, no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is borne in the land, and to the stranger that dwelleth among you. Exod. 12. another reason of yours is: the cause why the Israelites were uncircumcised, was not in them: therefore the godly uncircumcised of the family might not be barred from the passover. I answer: your argument is nought, and very saucy: for, you control Almighty God by whom they were barred. This is no pride, M. Penry. I might say to you as the Apostle in another case: O man, who art thou that pleadest against God? hath not the potter power of the Clay, etc. Rom. 9 I confess that the Israelites ceased from circumcision in the wilderness: and yet were not faulty in omitting and deferring circumcision: for, they had Gods special dispensation to do so, because they were in continual travail: and people being newly circumcised, could abide no labour. For the surer proof of this point: vidz. that none which are known to be unbaptized, may either present themselves, or be admitted to the holy Supper, I offer these reasons to the godly Reader. First, Baptism is an entrance into the visible church: the holy Supper is a confirmation of this entrance. Secondly, they which were of years in the primitive Church were first baptised, and afterward received the holy Supper. This is manifest in these words of S. Luke: Then they that gladly received his word, were baptised: and the same day, there were added to the Church about three thousand souls. And they continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread and prayers, etc. Act. 2. By breaking of bread, is understanded the partaking of the Lords Supper. Thirdly, None may present themselves to the holy table, before due examination of themselves, 1. Cor. 11. This examination consisteth of faith and repentance: which faith and repentance are not in them, which either wittingly omit, or wilfully contemn the holy Sacrament of baptism: which baptism is the Sacrament of repentance. Matth. 3. Calu. Inst. lib. 4. cap. 19 sect. 17. Lastly, all famous men and Churches are of my side. If master Penry dissent, it is no great matter. His writings are not as the laws of the Medes and Persians, etc.  R. Some. 
If such as were baptised by popish Priests in the popish Church, and by unpreaching ministers in the Church of England, received no Sacrament, many excellent men have usurped the preachers office. My reason is: It is unlawful for any man to be a public teacher in the visible Church, which is not by baptism grafted into, and so become a member of the visible Church. Our Saviour Christ was baptised of john in jordane before he preached. Mat. 3. and 4. Chap. The Apostle Paul was baptised of Ananias in Damascus, before he preached. Act. 9  I. Penry. 
None uncircumcised might minister before the altar. True: but did none of the Levites that were borne in the wilderness, teach jacob the law, or offer the incense of his God in all those forty years?  R. Some. 
The truth I perceive, is mighty. It maketh the enemy many times to confess it: so doth it you in this place. Your words are clear for me, and flat against yourself. You grant that none uncircumcised might minister before the altar. I thank you for it. Of this I conclude: therefore none unbaptized may be a public teacher in the visible church. Thus, you see by the way, which may not be forgotten, that an argument may be drawn from the levitical priesthood to the ministery of the new testament: which priesthood and ministery are not twins, are unmatcheable and cannot stand together. I confess myself greatly bound unto you: you deal very liberally with me: for you reach me arguments (as weapons) to smite yourself withal. M. Penry a little after in steed of answering my reason, asketh a question after his usual manner. Did (saith he) none of the uncircumcised Levites teach jacob the law, or offer incense, etc. I answer: First, that no such thing appeareth in the text: Secondly, that it is against the practice of the levitical priefts in the old Testament. Did ever any student deal so childishly, as M. Penry doth? is not he a very fit man to censure famous men & Churches? Caluine, Martyr, Beza, Augustine, etc. are no body with him. I did never see him that I know of: but, ex unguibus leonem: I see by his answers what a deep clerk he is.  I. Penry. 
Thus many things, you see, might be objected against your reasons, and I take the objections to be of some weight. It had been well, you had considered of them, before you had published your book. And the Baptism by unpreaching ministers, must have better proofs, than any you have brought as yet, or else I fear me, our posterities will not be satisfied therewith.  R. Some. 
Your weighty objections are invincible in your eye. Suum cuique pulchrum. But they have neither Suczum nor Sanguinem: they have no pith in them: they are lighter than any feather, and bewray your ignorance. You wish I had considered before hand of your objections: Satis pro imperio. You are by your leave a little too lordly: had I nothing to think of but of your absurd fancies? you imagine very basely of me. My arguments for baptism by unpreaching ministers are such, as you are unable to stir: for proof of this, I refer the reader to your unscholerlike answers. Your fear that the posterity will not rest in my reasons, is a vain fear, etc.  R. Some. 
The unpreaching ministers do add the word unto the Element in the administration of Baptism: therefore it is the Sacrament of Baptism which is delivered by them. Accedit verbum ad Elementum, & fit Sacramentum. August. Tract. 80. in johan. that is, The word is added to the Element, and it becomes a Sacrament. By (word) in Baptism is understanded the word of Institution, which is, to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, etc. Of this judgement are Beza confess. Cap. 4. Art. 47. and Musculus de sig. Sacram. Art. 4.  I. Penry. 
Your next reason, page 23. is slender. Readers pronounce the words of Institution with the delivery of the Element, therefore (say you) they deliver a Sacrament. You have once already alleged this to prove popish baptism, page 20. I have answered it page 29. 30. 31. And the place of Matth. 28.19. brought in by you page 23. proveth your consequent to be false. For it showeth, that he, who is to baptise, must be also able to teach, which ability is wanting in our Readers. Go, saith our Saviour, and teach all nations, baptizing etc. Therefore if he, that delivereth the Element, be not able to teach, we cannot be assured, that it is a Sacrament: Because the commandment is not generally to all that could pronounce the words of Institution, being thereunto permitted by the corruption of the time, but particularly limited unto them that can teach, unless you will say that the Lord biddeth them go teach, who cannot teach: which were not once to be conceived of his Majesty.  R. Some. 
Whatsoever passeth from me is slender in your opinion. All that you deliver, is ex tripod, an oracle at the least. You answered before wisely & like yourself. So you do in this place: semper idem: you are no changeling. You deny my consequent, and do add for your reason an objection set down by me a little after. My answer to that objection is extant and very direct. I rest in it: I did never say or think that Almighty God did either command or allow any to be a priest in the old, or a minister in the new Testament, which had not gifts in some measure. It pleaseth you to write in your treatise, that unfitness to teach made not a nullity of the levitical priests office. If you mean, that it made not a nullity before God, you conceive very basely of Almighty God: for, you make him to allow ignorant men to be his priests in the old Testament: which absurd course would have brought great dishonour to his Majesty, and great hurt to the Church of the Israelites. I do now but touch this gross and blasphemous paradox of yours: and (with the dog of Egypt) do, as it were, sip and away: but I will examine it more surely hereafter, that the reader may see clearly, as in a Crystal glass, what base ware you commend unto us for excellent divinity.  I. Penry. 
The corruption in the Church of England, that the delivery of the Element should be severed from the preaching of the word, is a breach of God's ordinance, you cannot deny, Matth. 28.19. Acts 20.7. and therefore ungodly and intolerable. Whether it make the action frustrate or no, that is not the question.  R. Some. 
You mean, as I take it, by the word added to the Element, the word preached: but you do not say flatly here (though you have a little before) that the want of a Sermon maketh the action frustrate, that is, the sacrament to be no sacrament. I confess that Paul preached at Troas in the administration of the holy Supper, Act. 20.7. and that the Apostles did teach the Gentiles before they baptised them, Mat. 28.19. But no learned man will conclude of this, that a Sermon is simply necessary to the Essence of a Sacrament. If you will know, what I think of sound preaching before the administration of the holy sacrament, my answer is, that I do greatly both like and commend it. Yea, I do wish with all my heart, that all the Churches in England had able teachers to perform that duty. This mind was I ever of, since I knew what Gods religion and good divinity meant. Of this mind are all godly and learned men in the Church of England.  
An objection of the fantastical sort.  
Christ said to his Apostles, Go and teach all nations, baptizing etc. Matt. 28.19. Therefore, if the word preached, be not added to the Element, it is no sacrament of Baptism.  
Answer.  
The Argument is very weak. I confess, that Christ commanded his Apostles, first to teach such as were of years and alients from his religion, and then to baptise them. If the Gentiles had not been first taught, they would not have offered themselves, nor the Apostles admitted them to the holy sacrament of Baptism. If any will conclude of this place in saint Matthew, that none whatsoever may be admitted to baptism, before they be taught: they shut our infants from the holy sacrament, and therefore are Catabaptists.  
Master Penry answers nothing to this. So am I eased of some labour.  R. Some. 
The unpreaching Ministers do add (verbum aedificans) that is, an edifying word, to the Elements, in the administration of the holy Supper: therefore, etc.  I. Penry. 
Unpreaching Ministers do add an edifying word unto the Element, therefore it is a Sacrament. This reason is the same with the former. Which showeth the great nakedness & poverty of the cause, that one reason must be thrice perjured to prove the goodness of it, which notwithstanding it can not show. I deny the antecedent, and consequent.  R. Some. 
Your eyes are not matches. If they were, you might have seen very easily, that no reason of mine is perjured once, much less, thrice. I am persuaded that if you be not well conjured by the Magistrate, you will prove a strange body. You are far gone already. Strange fancies have almost consumed you. The Magistrate's discipline is the fittest medicine for you. If that will not recover you, your disease is desperate. You deny both my antecedent, & consequent. My antecedent was that unpreaching Ministers do add an edifying word to the Element. That there is verbum aedificans, I prove it thus. The sum of Christ's Sermon in the Institution & administration of the holy Supper by himself is the word of Institution in the administration of the holy Supper in the Church of England: therefore, unless we will deny the sum of Christ's Sermon, to be an edifying word, (which no learned man will deny) we must confess, that we have verbum aedificans, that is, an edifying word, in the administration of the holy Supper with us.  I. Penry. 
Your reason of the antecedent, that the recital of the sum of Christ's Sermon, that is, the words of Institution, is an edifying word, is false, and maintaineth charming. For do you think, that the word of institution, being, as you say, the sum of Christ's Sermon, is then an edifying word, whensoever it is recited by a profane person, even in the profanation of God's ordinance? Look 2. Tim. 4.3. and you shall find that the word barely read, and to no other purpose, then to edify by reading, is not wholesome doctrine. The popish priest either without or within the book, pronounceth in his dark Latin, the sum of Christ's sermon: Is that an edifying word, which he profanely breatheth? The word of God uttered, is not an edifying word, unless it be uttered according to the ordinance, both in regard of the persons that utter the same, and the end wherefore it is uttered. No learned man will deny the Lords prayer rightly said, to be an edifying word. And yet, by your leave, no learned man, unless he favoureth charming or popery, will say that the Lords prayer pronounced by an ignorant man in a strange tongue, or profaned by a witch, is an edifying word.  R. Some. 
M. Penry is now in his Ruff. His pride and ignorance appear in their colours. They are proclaimed even by himself. He denieth that the recital of the sum of Christ's Sermon, by an unpreaching minister, is an edifying word: he saith, it maintaineth charming. Can we think, that this man is guided by God's spirit, whose heart conceived, and pen brought forth such blasphemy? That the reader may be assured, that the sum of Christ's Sermon, is an edifying word, I will first set down the word of Institution, which is the sum of Christ's Sermon, and then prove the point. The word of institution in the holy Supper, is: The Lord jesus the same night that he was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do ye in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new Testament in my blood: this do as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 1. Cor. 11. That this word of Institution doth edify, it is manifest: for it teacheth us, first, who did institute the holy Supper: The Lord jesus. Secondly, at what time: The same night that he was betrayed. Thirdly, what the Elements are in the holy Supper: Bread and wine. Fourthly, what our Saviour Christ did: He gave thanks, he broke the bread, etc. Fifthly, what the Lord jesus said when he delivered the Elements: Take, eat, etc. Doth this maintain charming? Is there not edifying in this? If you be not void of grace, be ashamed and sorry for your blasphemous lewdness. another particular which you reach unto us, is a bird of the same feather: viz. that the word barely read, and to no other purpose then to edify by reading, is not wholesome doctrine. For proof of this gross and blasphemous error, you use three reasons. The first is out of S. Paul to Timothee: The time will come, when they will not suffer wholesome doctrine: but having their ears itching, shall after their own lusts get them an heap of teachers, 2. Tim. 4.3. Therefore the word barely read, and to no other purpose then to edify by reading, is no wholesome doctrine. This reason cleaves together like a broken potsherd. I deny your argument: The Apostle in that Chapter commandeth Timothee to attend carefully upon preaching, etc. His reason is: Many will loathe and hate wholesome doctrine: they will choose such teachers as will tickle their ears and feed their humours. 2. Tim. 4.3. Such graceless people were in the time of Esay and Micheas. Esa. 30. Mich. 2. Such were they of Anathoth in jeremies' time jer. 11. Such a one was Amaziah of jeroboams Court in Amos time. Am. 7. Such were in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia in S. Paul's time. Such are they of the fantastical crew in our time, which pike out teachers as rot out of an apple. etc. Do you not perceive M. Penry, how fitly saint Paul to Timothee doth serve your turn? you have been very bold with him. You have used the holy Apostle as Cacus did Hercules' oxen: therefore I may not think much that my writings are depraved by you. Your second reason is this: the sum of Christ's sermon, pronounced by a Popish priest, either without or within the book in his dark Latin, is not an edifying word: therefore the word barely read, and to no other purpose then to edify by reading, is not wholesome doctrine. Your Antecedent might have been kept in: No man denieth it. It is confessed by all of the religion, that the scriptures delivered in an unknown tongue do not edify. The Apostle proveth this notably. 1. Cor. 14. In linguis quas non intelligimus surdi sumus, Cic. in Tusc. that is, when we hear a strange language we are as deaf men. But I deny your Argument: it is as strange as the Popish priests latin is dark. Every child may see the weakness of it. But I must be content and put it up. It is such ware as you have. He that wanteth wood, must burn turf. Your third reason is: No learned man unless he favoureth charming or Popery, will say that the Lords prayer pronounced by an ignorant man in a strange tongue, or profaned by a witch, is an edifying word: therefore the word barely read & to no other purpose then to edify by reading, is not wholesome doctrine. My answer is, I deny your Argument. It is as weak as a staff of reed. This last reason is in deed the same with the former. I might tell you if I listed, that your cause is poor and naked, when one reason must be twice perjured, etc. verbum sapienti. You know the rest: It came out of your wardroabe. Did any student ever broche such stuff as this? You need not study for these arguments. You may deliver them ex tempore, and power them out by the dosens. Many Carremen in London can make better arguments than these. I may say to you as Archidamus said to his son, which was more adventurous than became him: Either add more strength or be less confident. You have heard M. Penryes' invincible reasons. Consider now these words of his: No learned man (saith he) will deny the lords prayer rightly said, to be an edifying word. I thank you for this, and do conclude thus against you: Therefore the Scripture barely read, and to no other purpose then to edify by reading, is wholesome doctrine: for, the Lords prayer is a part of the holy Scripture. Thus at unwares, he hath overthrown his former fancy. I see now of what force the truth is. It cannot be hidden long. It will break out at the last, as the Sun thorough a black cloud. It hath pleased M. Penry to deliver an other strange point of divinity in these words: viz. The word of God uttered, is not an edifying word, unless it be uttered according to the ordinance, both in regard of the persons that utter the same, & the end wherefore it is uttered. Is not this (M Penry) to make the person to give credit to the holy word of God? which position is very gross and blasphemous. It is a certain truth in divinity: Scriptura est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the Scripture is of credit in itself: it needeth not to borrow credit of any man whatsoever. 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 clear proof of this point, viz. that the reading of the holy Scriptures doth edify, I have set down sound reasons in the former part of this Treatise. Thither I refer the godly Reader. M. Penry besides my Antecedent, denied my consequent: viz. that it is not therefore a Sacrament, because unpreaching Ministers do add an edifying word unto the Element. His reason, such as it is, is contained in his own words which follow.  I. Penry. 
Concerning your consequent, do you think, that every one, that can add an edifying word unto the Element, may minister a Sacrament? it is not so: for Paul requireth the words of every Christian (women and all) to be edifying words, Ephes. 4.29. even in common talk. Shall therefore the Element administered by every Christian, be a Sacrament? God forbidden. And yet every Christian can add the sum of Christ's Sermon unto the Element, in the administration of the Supper, which if it were sufficient, as by your reason it is, than women, children, etc. Idiots that could not read might deliver a Sacrament.  R. Some. 
You want matter to work on. That is the cause, why you shoot so much at rovers in your Treatise. If the common speech of every Christian must bring edification and grace, that is, godly profit to the hearers, Ephe. 4: What shall we think of you, whose writings have neither grace nor salt, that is, are neither profitable nor savoury, as the Apostle requireth, Colos. 4. You would bear the world in hand, that, in my judgement, every one which can add an edifying word to the Element, may deliver a Sacrament: and so consequently, women, children, idiots. I am very far, I thank God, from this fancy. If you had any spark of good nature or common sense in you, you would not father that on me continually, whereof, not so much as the least print appeareth in my writings. I perceive the black More cannot change his skin, nor the Leopard his spots. Your absurd collections are evidences of your spirit. They shall never trouble me: I will not do you that pleasure. Fructus laedentis in dolore laesi. Tertul. de pat. that is, the pleasure which an enemy taketh, is in the grief of him that is hurt.  R. Some. 
If any will conclude of this, that I mislike preaching before the administration of the Sacrament, he doth me great wrong.  
M. Penry saith nothing to this.  
An objection of the fantastical sort.  
Unpreaching Ministers are not apt to teach: therefore they are no Sacraments which are delivered by them.  R. Some. 
The Argument follows not. My reason is, Many jewish priests were both ignorant and dissolute in Esay and Christ's time. Esay 28.7. Matt. 9.36. But the sacrifices offered, & the Sacraments reached by them, were both Sacrifices and Sacraments. Otherwise, the Prophets which were at jerusalem, when the jewish Church was full of corruption, would not have been present at, and partakers of the Sacrifices in salomon's Temple. Calu. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 1. sect. 18, 19  
An objection of the fantastical sort.  
Ignorant Ministers are not apt to teach: therefore no Ministers, and consequently, they are no Sacraments which are delivered by them.  R. Some. 
The Argument follows not. I grant that it is of the substance of a lawful 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 have the Churches calling. This appeareth clearly in the Magistrate. The holy Ghost requireth that none should be chosen a Magistrate, unless he were a man of courage, fearing God, dealing truly, and hating covetousness. Exod. 18.21. When such are advanced as defile their hands, either with filthy bribes, as Felix did, or with barbarous cruelty, as Abimelech and Herode did, shall we say that they are no Magistrates? I confess, they are not singled out by the electors according to Almighty God's direction in his holy Bible: but they are Magistrates notwithstanding, and we are commanded by the Lord to perform all duty unto them, saluo officio, that is, our duty being reserved to the highest Magistrate, which is God himself.  I. Penry. 
The reason concluding unpreaching ministers to be none, because they are not apt to teach, you have twice repeated within one twelve lives, and made two several objections thereof. That was an oversight: the sufficiency of the argument, I have showed to be such, as Caiphas ministry and Herod's magistracy brought in by you, will never answer the same. Both of them, with the reason from the outward calling of readers, I refer to your next chapter, where they are repeated: thither now I am come, where the contradictory of the question shallbe set down and proved briefly: because the nullity of the unpreaching ministry may be in stead of a thousand reasons to prove the same.  R. Some. 
My objections are several, whatsoever you say. Any one that hath but half an eye, may easily see it by my several answers. I have set down the objections as they were delivered to me. The confutation of my answers, if it be any, is forth coming, you say, in an other place. I have sought for it, but I cannot find it, It is shrunk, I fear, in the wetting.  R. Some. 
If any shall gather of this I have set down, that I undertake the defence of ignorant ministers: my answer is, that my writings and Sermons, are not Ajax shield to cover them, but the Lords sword to cut them. I confess freely, that I am very far from opening either the Church door to ignorant ministers, or the pulpit door to unskilful preachers: which unskilful preachers give God's religion a greater blow than the ignorant ministers: for in stead of dividing the word of truth aright, they speak at all adventures, yet very boldly: and as unskilful Apothecaries, deliver quid pro quo, chaff for wheat, and strange fancies for Gods holy truth. By such absurd fellows, many Churches and excellent men in this land, have been greatly disquieted, and the good course of religion hath been greatly hindered. The cause of this sore, is intolerable pride, and gross ignorance in these bad companions, and want of care in the Magistrates.  I. Penry. 
I am as far from accounting the unskilful preachers which speak hand over head they care not what, (against whom your complaint is very just) to be ministers: as I am from acknowledging many of our absucde doctors to be apt to teach, who can bring nothing into the Pulpit, but that which other men have written: and that very often so fit to the purpose of edification, as the reason from the corner to the staff is sound concluded. In these three sorts of supposed ministers (and there could be a fourth added unto them) consisteth the woe of our Church.  R. Some. 
Is my complaint just against unskilful preachers? Do you, M. Penry, wipe them out of the roll of ministers? Will you shut the pulpit door against them? Take heed what you do. You bid yourself loss. Your kingdom will then fall to the ground: for unskilful preachers are your Bulwarks and Blockhouses to support your fancies. The absurd Doctors you mention, shall have no defence of me. If they preach as you writ, for that duty and love I own and bear to the Church and Universities, I would both they & you were disgraded: and they kept out of the Pulpit, and your writings out of the Press. I hope some good will grow by your writings. First, that the Universities will take better heed, upon whom they bestow their degrees: Secondly, that the Magistrates will look better to the Printing houses. By the fourth sort of supposed Ministers which you write of, I know not whom you mean. I could guess shrewdly, but I will not, because I will not misconstrue you. If they or any other be the murrain of our Church, I would they were either reform or removed.  R. Some. 
If any shall ask me what the true causes are, why so many unfit men are the Church's ministers: I answer, either great want of judgement, or great corruption in such, which do ordain and prefer them. The sin of these men is very great: for they dishonour Almighty God, and do grossly abuse the people of the land. This disease will be healed, when the Church's maintenance is not disposed of by them which have the golden dropsy, but is freely given to worthy and painful students, which will neither fish with the silver hook, nor open the Church door with a silver key.  
M. Penry sayeth nothing to this.   

CHAP. 9 THE GODLY ARE NOT polluted which receive the Sacrament at the hands of an unpreaching Minister.  I. Penry. 
BY pollution I doubt not you mean sin.  R. Some. 
I do so.  R. Some. 
The Sacraments are God's ordinance: the ministers ignorance can not pervert the nature of God's ordinance.  I. Penry. 
The Minister's ignorance, say you, page 28. cannot pervert God's ordinance: and again page 29. the Sacraments are not the worse for the ignorance of the minister, etc. All this I grant, but bare readers are not ministers, and the doubt is, whether the action performed by them be the ordinance of God, whether it be a Sacrament. These be the questions which you ought to have proved, and not have taken them as principles, though you do this the third and fourth time.  R. Some. 
Your writings are like the wind, not long in one corner. Before you denied it not to be a Sacrament, which was delivered by unpreaching ministers: here you doubt of it. You erred either then, or now. Were he not a wise man, that would follow your humour? The rock he should build on, should be nothing but sand: his building should be as the wall in Ezechiel, daubed with untempered mortar. If unpreaching ministers have administered a Sacrament in your judgement, I am sure you cannot deny them to have a calling: for you will not account it a Sacrament, which is delivered by private men. But let us see what you writ in an other place of this argument.  I. Penry. 
If unpreaching ministers be no ministers, and if I cannot be assured to receive a Sacrament, but only at the hands of a minister: then cannot I assure myself, that an unpreaching minister can deliver a Sacrament unto me: and therefore it is unlawful for me, or any Christian, to go unto an unpreaching minister for the Sacraments: if unlawful, than a sin: if a sin, than the godly are polluted, which go unto them for the Sacraments.  R. Some. 
If unpreaching ministers were no ministers (as you affirm and I deny) than I would confess that a Sacrament might as easily be had of them, as water of a dry ditch. But, what if some did minister the Sacrament in the Apostles times, which were not preachers? very famous men are of that judgement. Caluine upon these words of the Apostle, Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel, 1. Cor. 1.17. writeth thus: There were few to whom the office of preaching was committed: but the administration of Baptism was committed to many. Martyr writeth thus upon the same place of the Apostle: Munus tingendi, etc. that is, the administration of Baptism may be committed to every one in the Church, but not the office of preaching. Chrisostome upon that place of S. Paul hath these words: Euangelizare perpaucorum est, etc. that is, few are able to preach, but every one may baptise, that hath a calling. Of this judgement are Ambrose, Hemingius, etc. Augustine hath these words: Perfectè baptizare minùs docti possunt: perfect evangelizare, multò difficilioris & rarioris est operis. Ideo doctor gentium, plurimis excellentior, Euangelizare missus est, non baptizare: quoniam, hoc per multos fieri poterat, illud per paucos, inter quos eminebat. August. contra lit. Petil. Don. lib. 3. cap. 56. I have not set down this as either sword or shield for ignorant Ministers. My judgement is, that none ought to enter into, or continue in the holy ministery, unless they have gifts in some measure. The Plough man may return to his share: the Artificer to his shop: Other to their several trades. Almighty God will not be offended if they do thus: Yea, his Majesty will be highly pleased. Zach. 13. Ruff. lib. 1. cap. 6. Melius de media via recurrere, quàm semper currere malè. It is not safe to continue in a wicked course.  R. Some. 
A Sacrament can never be without promise of salvation: therefore, the worthy partaker of the Sacrament receives a blessing: if a blessing, than no pollution. That he receives a blessing, the Apostle teacheth us: We are buried with Christ (saith. S. Paul) by baptism into his death, etc. Rom. 6.4. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 1. Cor. 11.16.  I. Penry. 
M. Some saith: the worthy partaker receives a blessing: if a blessing, no pollution, etc. First, it is doubted whether we may be assured that it is a Sacrament. Secondly, he is no worthy receiver that receiveth of an idol Minister. Thirdly, there may be a blessing received, & yet pollution in the receiver. Look 2. Chro. 30.17.18, 19 Nom. 9.7.  R. Some. 
Nodum in scirpo quaeris. You stumble in the plain way. My answer is: First, if the unpreaching Minister have a calling, (which no learned man in this land doubteth of) it cannot be denied to be a Sacrament. It pleaseth you, inter sacrum & saxum haerere, to doubt of it. Secondly, whosoever bringeth faith and repentance with him to the holy Table, is a worthy receiver, though the Minister be an idol. The unworthiness worthiness of the Minister hurts himself, but not the godly communicant. Otherwise the holy Prophets were unworthy receivers, which communicated with idol priests. Thirdly, you add that a blessing may be received, and yet pollution in the receiver, 2. Chr. 30. Nomb. 9 This is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just from the corner to the staff, that I may use your own phrase. Do you confute on this fashion? You should have proved that the worthy partaker of the Sacrament receiving a blessing, received pollution, (that is sin,) by partaking the Sacrament. Because this passeth your skill, you fight with your shadow, and tell me, that a blessing may be received, and yet pollution in the receiver: That is to say, that pollution is brought of the Communicant to the holy table, not received from or by the holy Sacrament. This makes nothing against that which I have written. Only it bewrayeth your ignorance. All godly men confess, that pollution, that is sin, is in the holiest Communicants: I mean, peccatum habitans non regnans, That is, sin dwelleth in God's servants, but hath not dominion over them. The patriarchs, Nazarites, Prophets, Apostles, had this pollution. They could not shake it off in this life: the best of them had their wants. Only our Saviour Christ was clear of sin. You and I agree, I am sure, in this particular. If I should ask you, how you prove pollution, that is, sin, to be in the receiver of the holy Sacrament, you would refer me to your quotations in the book of Chronicles and Numbers. Give me leave to examine your quotations a little. Your first place is in the Chronicles. The words of the text are these: Because there were many in the Congregation that were not sanctified, therefore the Levites had the charge of the kill of the passover, for all that were not clean, to sanctify it to the Lord. For a multitude of the people, even a multitude of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did eat the passover, but not as it was written: Wherefore Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord be merciful toward him, that prepareth his whole heart to seek the Lord God, the God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed, according to the purification of the Sanctuary. 2. Chr. 30.17, 18, 19 All that you can prove by this place, is, that they of Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, etc. were unclean according to the purification of the Sanctuary, that is, touching some ceremony of Moses law: for which uncleanness they were dispensed with. Your second place is in the book of Numbers. The words of the text are these: And certain men were defiled by a dead man that they might not keep the passover the same day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron the same day. And those men said unto him, we are defiled by a dead man: wherefore are we kept back that we may not offer an offering unto the Lord, in the time thereunto appointed, among the children of Israel? Then Moses said unto them, stand still, and I will hear what the Lord will command concerning you. And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, & say, if any among you, or of your posterity, shall he unclean by the reason of a corpse, or be in a long journey, he shall keep the passover unto the Lord. Nu. 9 ver. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. All that you can gather of this place, is, that these men which were defiled by reason of a dead man, did not celebrate the passover before the lords pleasure was known. You cannot conclude either of this place in the book of Numbers, or of the former place in the Chronicles, that sin was in these, which offered themselves to the passover. I doubt not but that these men had pollution, that is, sin, in them: But I am sure these places neither do nor can prove it: for you may not reason thus: They of Ephraim etc. were unclean touching some ceremony of Moses law, therefore they were sinners. If you do, I deny your argument. It is a certain truth in divinity, that not every legal pollution was joined with sin: My reason is, the touching of a dead body, was a legal uncleanness. If it were a sin, than the burial of the dead, which is a Christian duty, and a work of mercy, should be sin. Thus, you have taken pains, but to little purpose. You have shot, I confess: but, nec coelum nec terram attingis, you are many scores wide.  R. Some. 
The parents of Christ went to jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover, Luk. 2.41. Their going to jerusalem, was to testify their religion, & to be partakers of the Sacrifices. There were at that time in Solomon's Temple manifold corruptions: the high priesthood was sold for money, many of the jewish priests were ignorant, yet joseph and the virgin Mary were not polluted. Calu. Luc. 2.41.  I. Penry. 
The blindness of the ignorant levites cannot make such a nullity of their priesthood, as they should be no priests unto the people. And therefore great reason why the parents of our Saviour, and the rest of the godly should not leave the service of God, for the pollution of the priests.  R. Some. 
The ignorant Levites are deep in your books. They find grace with you. You allow them to be priests unto the Israelites, whom Almighty God never approved: yea, whom his majesty hath disclaimed. Hos. 6. You must of force be as beneficial to ignorant ministers, unless you do simply condemn the external calling of the ministers in the Church of England, to be none at all. If you do so, then in your judgement, we have no ministery, no sacraments, no visible Church in England.  R. Some. 
The godly which receive the holy Supper of an unpreaching Minister, are not partakers of the Ministers unworthiness, but of the holy Sacrament, which is a pillar of our faith: therefore the unworthiness of the minister doth not defile the Communicant. Alterius, sive Pastoris, sive privati indignitate, non laediturpia conscientia. etc. Calu. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 1. sect. 19 that is, A godly conscience is not hurt by the unworthiness of another, either Pastor or private man: neither are the mysteries less pure and healthful to a holy man, because they are then handled of such as be impure. Ille qui accipit, si homo bonus ab homine malo, si fidelis à perfido, si pius ab impio: perniciosum erit danti, non accipienti. Illud quip sanctum malè utentem judicat, bene accipientem sanctificat. Aug. contra Cres. gram. lib. 2. cap. 28. that is, He which receiveth, if a good of an evil man, if a faithful of a faithless man, if a godly of a wicked man, it will be hurtful to the giver, not to the receiver: for that holy thing (he meaneth the Sacrament) doth judge him which useth it ill, but doth sanctify him which receiveth it well.  
M. Penry answers nothing to this.  R. Some. 
Circumcision was one of the Lords Sacraments in the jewish Church. The jews which were circumcised of impure priests, and apostates, received no hurt: therefore no pollution. Calu. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 15. sect. 16. The Sacraments neither are, nor can be the worse for the ignorance or unworthiness, or better for the learning or worthiness of any man whatsoever. Whosoever thinketh otherwise, is a Donatist.  I. Penry. 
The Sacraments are not the worse for the ignorance of the minister: All this I grant etc.  R. Some. 
The first part of my reason is passed over with silence: A brief kind of answering. In this M. Penry resembles young children. Where they cannot read they skip over.  R. Some. 
Touching this point of the Sacrament, I rest wholly in Augustine's judgement: his words are these. Ego dico, melius per bonum ministrum quàm per malum dispensari Sacramenta divina: verùm hoc propter ipsum ministrum melius est, ut eis rebus quas ministrat, vita & moribus congruat, non propter illum, qui etiam si incurrerit in ministrum malum dispensantem veritatem, securitatem accipit à domino suo monente ac dicente: Quae dicunt facite, quae autem faciunt, nolite facere: dicunt enim, & non faciunt. Addo etiam ad hoc esse melius, ut ille cui ministratur, ministri boni probitatem ac sanctitatem diligendo facilius imitetur: Sed non ideo veriora & sanctiora sunt quae ministrantur, quia per meliorem ministrantur. Illa namque per seipsa vera & sancta sunt, propter Deum verum & sanctum cuius sunt, & ideo fieri potest ut accedens adsoctetatem populi Dei, alium inveniat à quo facilè baptizetut, alium eligat quem salubriter imitetur. Certus est enim sanctume esse sacramentum Christi, etiamsiper minus sanctum, vel non sanctum hominem ministratum est, se autem eiusdem ipsius sacramenti sanctitate puniri, si indignè acciperit; si malè usus fuerit, si ei non convenienter & congruè vixerit. August. contra Cres. Gram. lib: 4. Chap. 20. The sum of Augustine's words is, that the Sacrament is administered better by a good, then by a bad minister: yet that the Sacraments of themselves are true and holy, etc. by what minister soever they be delivered, etc. If any shall ask me, whether it be lawful to omit the partaking of the holy Sacrament in such Churches, over which ignorant ministers are set, and to present ourselves and our infants to the holy Sacrament in other Churches: my answer is, that I refer them to the Magistrate and governors of our Churches, etc.  
Nothing is answered to this.  
An objection of a fantastical body.  
By whom a thing ought not to be delivered, by another it ought not to be received: but ignorant ministers ought nor to deliver the Sacraments, therefore etc.  R. Some. 
The mayor is false. My reason is. An evil man ought not to deliver the word of God, but we ought to receive it. An evil man ought not to give alms, but a poor man may receive it. An absurd minister ought not to deliver the Sacrament, but they are not polluted which receive it.  I. Penry. 
The objection concerning the giver and the receiver, was never mine: I could turn it against you, but I must be brief.  R. Some. 
It was not yours, I confess. I do not charge you with it. It was an other man's. You must give some other men leave to make fond arguments as well as yourself. You could turn it, you say, against me. You are one of the strangest turners that ever I knew. You have turned out such a deal of gross divinity upon me and other, that we are weary, and you may be ashamed of it.   

CHAP. 10. I. Penry. THE GODLY DO SIN, which do communicate with unpreaching ministers.  
Reasons.  
Because they communicate with those, who are no Ministers.  R. Some. 
YOu have been liberal in charging me to beg the question. It is your fault in this place. You affirm that unpreaching Ministers are no Ministers: I deny it. It is very strange to me that you will account ignorant Levitical priests lawful priests, and deny unpreaching Ministers to have any calling. If you were indifferent, you would serve them both alike.  I. Penry. 
They cannot be assured to receive a sacrament at their hands.  R. Some. 
Yourself denies not that they are the Sacraments which are delivered by unpreaching Ministers. If they be the Sacraments which are administered, I am sure, first, that they are the Sacraments which are received: secondly, that they have a calling which do administer them. Besides, the ignorance of the Minister cannot pollute the godly receiver.  I. Penry. 
They do not examine themselves aright, & so are not worthy receivers, 1. Cor. 11.28. in as much as they do not acknowledge it a sin to communicate where there is no Minister.  R. Some. 
This reason is all one with your first: therefore it is already answered. They which offer themselves to the holy Table, without due examination of themselves, are unworthy receivers. This examination consists of faith and repentance.  I. Penry. 
Because they either make the element to be a Sacrament naturally in itself, and not by the ordinance of God, or else think the ordinance of God in the institution of the Sacrament, only to consist in the recital of the words: I baptize thee, etc. or take, eat, etc. whereas a Minister is a most principal part of the ordinance.  R. Some. 
You are an unpleasant Musician: You harp still on one string: viz. that unpreaching Ministenrs have no calling. Unless that be granted, you are at a full point. No godly man that I know maketh the element to be a Sacrament naturally in itself: or once thinketh that it is a Sacrament, when the words of institution I baptise thee, etc. or take, eat, etc. are added to the elements, by one that hath no calling. Only M. Penry is of that judgement, which denieth not that they are Sacraments, which are administered by unpreaching Ministers: and yet these Sacraments are but bare elements, if unpreaching Ministers have no calling, as M. Pen. affirmeth. You make the Minister a most principal part of the Sacrament. I grant the Minister is an instrument to deliver it, but the most principal part & life of the Sacraments, dependeth upon God's promises expressed in his holy word  I. Penry. 
Because they make the Sacraments to be marks no more essential unto the Church, then to other idolatrous Synagogues: for, the element may be delivered out of the Church, by a public person, even as substantially, as by our mere readers.  R. Some. 
This reason must needs by a sure one, it is so handsomely trussed together. The godly communicants confess the Sacraments to be essential marks of the Church, & that idolatrous Synagogues are unworthy of such precious jewels. I grant that water, which is the outward element in Baptism, may be delivered by any either woman or private man without the Church: but, it shall not be a Sacrament, as that is, which is delivered by unpreaching Ministers. If I should tell you, that a Sacrament hath been delivered out of the Church, you would account it a strange paradox. What I think of it, doth appear in an other place of this treatise. But, what if M. Penry denieth not, that baptism hath been and is delivered out of the Church? That he doth not, deny it, it is manifest: His own words are these: Will you hold that there is a Church in Popery? the assertion is dangerous, etc. pag. 25. And a little after he hath these words: In Popery there is no Church, pag. 27. M. Penry in other places of his book, denieth not that such as were baptised in Popery received true baptism: therefore he denieth not, that a Sacrament is delivered out of the Church, etc. even by Popish priests which (as he saith) have no calling at all in the Church.  I. Penry. 
They approve the fin of the unpreaching ministery.  R. Some. 
The Apostles received the lords Supper with judas: but they did not approve the theft & treason of judas. The godly which desire execution of justice at the hands of a heathen or corrupt Magistrate, can not be said to approve either Paganism or corruption in the Magistrate: for then the Apostle sinned grossly in appealing unto Caesar, Acts. 25. The godly communicants do not approve any sin of the ignorant ministery: for they condemn it and pray against it.  I. Penry. 
Because they are persuaded, that Christ doth deliver unto them the seals of their salvation, by the hands of those that are not Ministers: to wit, by unpreaching readers. In all which points, the godly sin, & therefore are polluted in communicating with unpreaching Ministers.  R. Some. 
Not one learned man in this land that I can hear of, is so persuaded. They all do confess that unpreaching Ministers have a calling: and that the godly receiving the Sacrament at their hands, are parakers of the seals of their salvation. If you and your crew be otherwise affected, God send you other minds.  
john Penry. In his addition Page 65.  
And I dare arrest and attaint of high treason, against the Majesty of the highest, all those both men and Angels, who either defend the communicating with them lawful, communicate with them, or tolerate them as ministers under their government.  R. Some. 
You lay on load: but it is fulmen sine tonitru: black clouds, but no rain. When your single arguments will not serve the turn, you play the officer, and do arrest for traitors against God, all the Magistrates and learned men of this land. The best is, Almighty God hath not put his mace into your hands. It is a note of a false prophet to kill the souls of them that die not. Ezech. 13. That they are not polluted which receive the Sacraments at the hands of unpreaching Ministers, is sufficiently proved. Such Bishops and Patrons, as have either ordained or presented unfit men to the holy ministry and clergy livings, have much to answer for. I do not defend or excuse such Bishops, Patrons, or ministers. I know they have highly offended the majesty of God: and I pray God with all my heart, that this sore may be healed.  I. Penry. 
They of whose ministry there is a Nullity before God, although they have an outward calling, ought not to be accounted ministers: therefore not to be communicated with.  R. Some. 
I deny your Antecedent: My reasons are: first, there was a nullity before God of Caiphas priesthood: for he entered by money, and the priesthood was divided between him and Annas, against the Lord's order. Calu. Luc. 3. yet Caiphas is called the high Priest by the Evangelists. Matth. 26. john 18. Secondly, there was a nullity before God, of the ministry of some in Philippi, which preached Christ of contention, and to add more affliction to Paul's bands. Philip. Chap. 1.15, 16. But these are accounted ministers by the Apostle verse 15.18. If any shall deny, that there was a nullity before God of their ministery, I prove it thus: they had not an inward calling. M. Penry saith, that an inward calling is contained in the sufficiency of gifts and willingness to practise them. Pag. 45. If M. Penry mean the practice of gifts to God's glory, I say, Amen, unto it. I confess that they of Philippi had gifts in some measure, but they had not willingness to practise those gifts to God's glory: which willingness etc. is one of the necessary branches of an inward calling. That they of Philippi had not this willingness etc. it is manifest: for they sought themselves, & practised their gifts wholly to increase the Apostles afflictions.  I. Penry. 
Concerning the Nullity of our reader's ministry, we are to know, that there is a nullity of a ministry before God, either because the action proceedeth from a corrupt minister, as Psalm. 50.16. whom God would not have to deal with his ordinances, or from a corrupt and evil ministery, which is none of God's ordinance. The action of the former is substantial in regard of us: of the latter we know no substance it can have. Of the former there is a nullity only in the sight of God: of the latter, both in respect of the Lord and also of us. The nullity of our reader's ministery is of this latter sort, namely such as we ought in no wise to account a ministry. Whereas therefore you grant that there is a nullity of our reader's ministry before God, and yet affirm them to be ministers, you serve from the point, and so your answer is nothing to the purpose, but a desiring of the question, after your usual manner. As Caiphas then, and the rest of the sleepy dogs, against whom the prophet crieth out, were wicked men, God would not have such to be his ministers: hither refer Esay 1.13. But as they had the ministry which God allowed of, they were ministers unto the people. This ministry, our reader's want, therefore they can be no ministers, neither in respect of the Lord, nor of the Church. Shemaiah was a wicked man, and a false prophet, so were the rest of his stamp. The Lord detested both them and their ministery. Zephaniah and Caiphas high priests with their company, were as wicked as any of the false prophets, the Lord abhorred the men, but their ministry was his ordinance. Hence. M Some, it followeth, that neither the bribery of your Caiphas, nor the blindness of your ignorant Levites, can make such a nullity of their prietshood, as they should be no priests unto the people. And therefore great reason why the parents of our saviour, and the rest of the godly whereof you speak, Page 28. 29. should not leave the service of God for the pollution of the priests. Esay speaketh against blind watchmen, Chap. 56.10. but chap. 42.19, 20. it shall appear, that they saw many things, but kept them not. I pray you confer the places, and it can never be proved, that any of them were so blind, as they could not declare by preaching the general use of the sacrifices and ceremonies. Their wants might be many, but not like the insufficiency of our readers. Be it they were as insufficient, yet their ministery might be allowable.  
Your answer consisteth of several branches. I will handle the chiefest of them so briefly as I can. Your first branch is, that the ministry of the ignorant levitical priests is allowed of God: but that the outward calling of our unpreaching ministers, is not allowed of God. Of this you conclude, that the Levitical priests were ministers unto the people (and consequently that joseph and the virgin Mary were not polluted by their Sacrifices) but that our unpreaching ministers are not so to us. If the action of ignorant ministers be, as you writ, not substantial in regard of us: than you must deny (which before you did not) that any Sacrament either was or is delivered by them. I would fain know why the ministry of the ignorant levites should be allowed, and not the ministery of ignorant ministers. I confess freely, that I take their cases to be like, howsoever you mince & shift the matter. But Ismel your meaning: Latet anguis in herba, there is a pad in the straw. To proceed, you stand very much upon the outward calling of the ministers in our Church. If you repel the unpreaching minister for his ignorance, you can not allow the ignorant levitical priests. If you repel the unpreaching minister, because of his outward calling, you may by the like reason discharge the worthiest ministers in this land of the holy ministery: for all have one and the same external calling in the Church of England. If you be so affected, the next news we shall hear of you, will be that you shake hands with our anabaptistical recusants, uno absurdo dato, multa consequuntur. that is, Every absurdity hath many attendants. The second branch of your answer, is, a comparing, or rather preferring the ignorant levitical priests before our ignorant ministers. Nobile par: neither barrel better herring. I must a little while examine this second branch of yours. You tell us that the wants of the levitical priests might be many, but not like the insufficiency of our readers. For proof of this, you quote two texts in the Prophet Esay. The first is contained in these words: Their watchmen are all blind: they have no knowledge: they are all dumb dogs: they cannot bark: they lie and sleep, and delight in sleeping. Esa. 56. Will you gather of these words, that the ignorant levitical priests were more learned and better furnished then the ignorant ministers? The prophet Esay saith that these Levitical priests had neither rem nor spem, that is, that they were woebegone. If you would study seven years, you could not devise to speak worse of the most ignorant ministers in our Church. The second place of the Prophet hath these words: Who is blind but my servant? or deaf as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as the perfect, and blind as the Lords servants? Seeing many things but thou keepest them not? opening the ears, but he heareth not? Esay 42. Esay in these verses calleth the levitical priests blind and deaf, not in body, but in heart, because they did see and hear God's judgements with their bodily eyes and ears, and did not observe them with the eyes and ears of their hearts. You can not conclude of this place, that the ignorant levitical priests were deeper clerks than the ignorant ministers in the Church of England. The third branch of your answer is, that the ministry of Caiphas was the Lord's ordinance. I deny it, and do dissent from you in this. My reason is: Caiphas had not the high prieshood alone, therefore his high priesthood was not the Lord's ordinance. The Antecedent is manifest, for Annas and Caiphas were high priests together, Luk. 3. The argument follows: for the Lord's ordinance was that only one should be the high priest. Calu: Luk. 3.2. You say nothing here of the contentious ministers of Philippi. You take and leave at your pleasure. It pleaseth you to call Caiphas, my Caiphas, and the blind Levites, my ignorant Levites. I should be sped, I perceive, if I would receive all that you cast upon me. Before, you did lad me with reverence: now, you throw Caiphas and the ignorant Levites, as cobble stones, at me. You are very liberal: but I refuse your guests: I disclaim them, and return them to yourself. You are much fit to entertain them, than I: for, you have magnified Caiphas ministry, & are a hot pleader for the ignorant levitical priests. That appeareth in your words which follow.   

CHAP. 11. I. Penry. VNFITNES TO TEACH, made not a nullity of the levitical Priest's office.  
Reasons.  
Because it was sufficient, to make him a lawful, though not a good Priest, for him to be of the line of Aaron.  R. Some. 
YOu have examined and censured my reasons at your pleasure. I hope, I may with your good leave look a little upon yours. My answer is: first, If your first reason be good, than they which received the Sacraments at their hands, were not polluted. If they were not polluted, what say you to these arguments? viz. The Sacrament may not be received at his hands, which wanteth outward calling: therefore not at his hands which is destitute of the inward graces. I. Pen. Again, we have no warrant to receive an extraordinary Sacrament: But that which is administered by ignorant Ministers is an extraordinary Sacrament, if it be any: therefore we have no warrant to receive it. You know, I am sure, the father of these two arguments. They came out of your own Mint. Secondly, if your first reason be good, than a corrupt external approbation made them lawful Priests, which had not an inward calling, that is, sufficiency of gifts, etc. If you deny the external approbation of the ignorant Levites, to be a corrupt approbation, I prove it thus. It was a breach of Gods own order, therefore it was a corrupt approbation. The antecedent is manifest in these words: The Priest's lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the Law at his mouth, etc. Mal. 2. Therefore the external approbation of ignorant Levites was a corrupt approbation.  I. Penry. 
There was no commandment concerning the trial of his fitness to teach: therefore unfitness to teach made not a nullity of the levitical priests office.  R. Some. 
You prove your antecedent thus: Almighty God said to Moses: Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons to execute the Priest's office, etc. Num. 3.10. My answer is: No trial of gifts in Aaron & his sons was needful at the first: for Almighty God did furnish them accordingly. My reason is contained in these words of God himself: My covenant was with him of life and peace and I gave him fear, and he feared me, and was afraid before my Name. The Law of truth was in his mouth and there was no iniquity found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. Mal. 2.5, 6. God did never call any to the holy ministery, but he gave them gifts fit for that function. I have proved this point in the beginning of this treatise. To think otherwise of his Majesty, is great wickedness. I hope, you will not reason thus: There was no commandment concerning the trial of gifts in Aaron and his sons at the first: therefore there was never any trial afterward of gifts in Aaron's posterity. If you reason thus, I deny your Argument. My reason is, If every one of Aaron's posterity, how unfit so ever, might enter into the priests office by the Lords warrant, Almighty God might be justly charged to have had very little care, either of his own honour, or of the Church of the Israelites. Yea, his Majesty had flatly broken one of his own positive Laws contained in these words: The priests lips shall keep knowledge: they shall seek the Law at his mouth. Mal. 2.  I. Penry. 
It is not mentioned that any were put from the Priesthood for want of this ability, whereas the doubt whether they were the sons of Aaron, Esra. 2. and their idolatry, 2. Chro. bereaved them thereof: therefore unfitness to teach made not a nullity of the levitical priests office.  R. Some. 
Your reason is very weak: It is not mentioned &c. therefore none were. I deny your argument: for it is, à non scripto ad non factum, which is not sure in this case. If no ignorant levitical Priests were removed from the priesthood, for their unfitness to teach: God's Church had, & the governors did, greater wrong. I am sure, they should have been removed: for Almighty God's resolution is flat in these words: Because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me, etc. Hos. 4. The wise Prince will displace an absurd Ambassador. The valiant captain will remove a cowardly soldier. The husband man will not suffer that drudge to attend on his trough, which cannot feed his hogs. If such as were not found within the compass of Aaron's genealogy, were removed from the Priesthood, they had no wrong: for, this was a Law of God himself: Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons to execute the priest's office: and, the stranger that cometh near, shall be slain. Numb. 3.10. If such as committed idolatry, were discharged of the Priesthood, they were justly dealt with. Ezech. 44.  I. Penry. 
The example of Paul, Acts. 21.26. confirmeth this, who communicated since his conversion with those priests that were as unlearned as ever any: which he would not have done, if inability to teach, had made them no priests. Now therefore M. Some, to make your Argument from the Levitical priesthood to be forcible for your unpreaching Ministers, you must prove, that either our Readers ministery is a levitical ministery, that the continuance thereof is under the new Covenant, or show that the corrupt approbation, (for so I name the best outward calling they can have of the Church) is as forcible to make them Ministers, as was the ordinance of God to make the sons of Aaron sacrificing at jerusalem, to be priests.  R. Some. 
How learned or unlearned the priests at that time were in jerusalem, appeareth not in that place of the Acts. The meaning of S. Luke is this: The Apostle Paul was accounted by the jews an enemy of Moses Law. To clear himself of this, he entered into salomon's Temple by the advise of the Apostle james, and of the brethren in jerusalem, and was purified. Acts. 21.26. Your last reason serves very fitly for my purpose: therefore I will use it as a sword to cut in pieces some of your fancies. Paul, you say, communicated after his conversion with those priests, that were as unlearned as ever any, & was not polluted. Of this I conclude: therefore they which receive the Sacraments at the hands of unpreaching Ministers, are not polluted. My reason is: The ignorant Levites and ignorant Ministers agree in eodem tertio, that is, in ignorance. But M. Penry replies that an argument from the levitical priesthood, is not forcible for unpreaching Ministers. To prove this, he useth two reasons. The first is: our reader's ministery is not a levitical ministery, therefore an Argument from the Levitical Priesthood, is not forcible for unpreaching Ministers. My answer is: I grant that no ministery in these days is a levitical ministery: for, the date of that ministery is out long ago. But I deny your Argument. My reason is: An argument is and may be forcibly drawn from one thing to another, which are unmatchable. All Logicians confess that similitudes are of things which differ. Every mean Sophister in the University knoweth it. It is very like that you have forgotten it. Such trifles are too base for your great spirits. Your second reason is: The corrupt approbation of unpreaching Ministers (so you name the best outward calling they can have of the Church) is not so forcible to make them Ministers, as was the ordinance of God to make the sons of Aaron sacrificing at jerusalem, to be priests: therefore an Argument from the levitical priesthood is not forcible for unpreaching Ministers. My answer is: I deny your antecedent, and do add this: first, that it is as lawful (that is to say, utterly unlawful) to make unfit Ministers now, as it was before to make unfit priests. Secondly, that it was not God's pleasure, that all the posterity of Aaron without exception, that is, tag and rag, should be admitted to the holy priesthood. For neither you, nor any man alive, may reason thus: The levitical priesthood must rest in the tribe of Levi: therefore every one of that tribe (though unfit for that holy function) was to be admitted to the priesthood. You might very sound have disputed thus: The levitical priesthood must be kept within the compass of the tribe of Levi, by God's express commandment, Num. 3. therefore no stranger might come near the Lords altar. You call the best outward calling in the Church of England, a corrupt approbation. If you mean it is corrupt in admitting ignorant men to the holy ministery, so was the ordaining of ignorant Levites at jerusalem. If you mean that the best outward calling in the Church of England, is simply corrupt, that is, none at all, though sufficient men be admitted, I detest your Anabaptistical fancy: for then the worthiest Divines in this land, are no Ministers. Besides, it is confessed of all famous & learned men, that God's Church is not necessarily tied in all places and times, to one form in the external calling of the ministers.   

CHAP. 12. I. Penry. THE CORRUPT ALLOWance of the Church cannot make our readers to be substantial Ministers.  
FOr so all men & women without or within the Church, might be capable of the ministery, because all may be capable of this outward allowance. Secondly and particularly, a man not furnished with natural capacity: thirdly, a man that could not read, though he wanted also the gift of interpretation: for, such a one might recite the liturgy without the book: four the Church might make a man Minister against his will, though he should never consent thereunto. And this is the willingness that I mean, when I say, that the inward calling is contained in the sufficiency of gifts, and willingness to practise: which willingness, I gather upon the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used of the Apostle, 1. Tim. 3.1. Your reason therefore from the malicious Philippian Ministers, toucheth not the question. Thus Caiphas with his crew of unworthy and monstrous priests (who within a few pages, in your book have impudently so often troubled the Reader) is answered. And I think it a great judgement of God, that the ornaments of our English and Welsh Ministry, for the most part, consisteth in the deformity of such loathsome spots.  R. Some. 
If by substantial Ministers, you mean such as are furnished with gifts in good measure, it is the peculiar office of God to make such, either miraculously, as he did the Prophets and many in the Primitive Church: or by blessing men's godly studies, as in later and our times. It passeth the Church's reach, by any external calling to make men furnished ministers, which before the external allowance, were not furnished by God himself: therefore to be of the line of Aaron, did make the ignorant levites no more to be substantial priests, than the external calling now, doth make ignorant men to be substantial Ministers. The sum of your reasons may be shut up briefly in this argument: All may be capable, as you say, of the outward allowance: therefore the outward calling of the Church makes not a Minister to us, unless he have the inward. Your antecedent is a special one. If you were not strangely carried, some branches of it might have been kept in. I trust you do not condemn a prescript liturgy in the Church of God. If you do, all the reformed Churches descent from you, and their practice doth apparently confute you. But I leave that, and deny your argument. My reasons are: first, the ignorant Levites had an outward calling, but not an inward: yet they were lawful priests by your own confession. Secondly, judas was called outwardly, but not inwardly: yet he was an Apostle. Lastly, the Apostle chargeth Timothee not to lay hands rashly on any, 1. Tim. 5. therefore the outward allowance is more than you account of. My reason from the contentious Ministers of Philippi, etc. was a very sure one, & did overthrow your fancy. Because you cannot answer it, you tell me, it toucheth not the question. A brief kind of answering. Caiphas and the levitical priests have been alleged no otherwise by me, then by those worthy men Caluine, Beza, etc. before me. The mention of them hath not troubled the godly Reader at all, therefore not impudently, as you give out very saucily. I perceive they have distempered you: for in stead of answering my argument, you exclaim upon them. Your gift in answering, is very rare. You make wash-way of the weightiest arguments. Unto the loathsome spots in the English and Welsh Ministry, God grant either sovereign medicine to cure them, or sound expulsion to remove them.  R. Some. 
Lastly, if your antecedent be true, viz. that they of whose ministery there is a nullity before God, although they have an outward calling, ought not to be accounted ministers: what say you to this proposition? They of whose magistracy there is a nullity before God, though they have an outward calling, ought not to be accounted magistrates. Do you not think this proposition to be very dangerous? I could press and follow this very far, but I abstain of purpose.  I. Penry. 
You demand what I think of this proposition. Surely my judgement is, that it is altogether without sense, and overthroweth itself: for, it is as if you said, he of whose faith there is a nullity before God, though he be assured of his salvation, is not to be accounted a faithful man. Why? to be assured of salvation, and to have a nullity of faith before God, can not stand together. No more can the outward calling of the magistracy, stand with the nullity thereof. For the outward calling maketh a substantial magistrate. But, M. Some, where is that reason which you could press so far? is this it? they of whose magistracy there is a nullity before God, ought not to be accounted magistrates. I say, your proposition is true: assume what you will, you know what manner of nullity I mean.  R. Some. 
My proposition in your judgement is without sense. You are very peremptory. A word, I perceive, and a blow. I may say truly that your answer is without sense. I grant, that the outward calling maketh a wicked man a substantial magistrate in that town or City, over which he is set: But I am very sure, that because he wanteth the inward calling, etc. that almighty God doth not allow that magistrate. My proof is contained in these words of God himself: They have set up a king, but not by me: they have made Princes, and I knew it not. Hos. 8. that is, I did not consent unto it and allow it. The reason is: Almighty God had appointed the posterity of David, to sit in the seat of that kingdom, until the coming of christ. The Israelites did set up jeroboam etc. It pleased you to write, that they of whose ministery there is a nullity before God, that is, that they whom God hath not furnished with gifts, are not to be accounted ministers of us. I do see no reason, why in your judgement, (I say yours, not mine) there should not be the like sense of this proposition, viz. they of whose magistracy there is a nullity before God, that is, that they whom the Lord hath not furnished with gifts etc. are not to be accounted magistrates of us. I grant, that both ministry and magistracy are God's ordinance: but every minister and magistrate is not so. If they were, we could not distinguish as we may between rem & personam, that is, between the man and the function.   

CHAP. 13. I. Penry. THERE BE THREE Essential differences between an evil magistrate and a reading minister.  
1.  
THe outward calling of an evil Magistrate, maketh him a substantial Magistrate: so cannot the outward allowance of Readers, make them to be Ministers.  R. Some. 
I grant, that there are and may be many more essential differences between Magistrates & Ministers, than you set down. Yet this simile shall be good for matter and manner in this sort: viz. Unfit Magistrates outwardly called are Magistrates to us, therefore unfit Ministers outwardly called are Ministers to us. My reason is: the above named Magistrates and Ministers agree in unfitness and outward allowance. I confess, that unfit men ought not to be advanced, either to Magistracy or ministery: yet the actions of unfit both Ministers and Magistrates, are substantial to us, until they be removed. That an argument may very fitly be drawn from the magistracy to the ministery, appeareth by this little which I have delivered. To proceed, I do not see, why the outward allowance of the Church, doth not distinguish unpreaching Ministers from private men, as well as outward baptism doth distinguish such as are baptised, from Pagans.  I. Penry. 
2 The Magistracy of an evil Magistrate, may be allowable before God: so cannot the ministery of Readers.  R. Some. 
In your second difference, the Magistracy and ministery are strangely sorted. You should have set it down thus: the Magistracy of an evil Magistrate may be allowable before God, so cannot the ministery of evil Ministers. If you had matched them so, I would have answered, that both Magistracy and ministery is of God, whatsoever the Magistrate or Minister is. If you will not deliver your second difference otherwise than you have, I answer first, that the Magistracy of Pilate, Licinius, etc. was of God, though his Majesty detested such Magistrates: Secondly, that though ignorant men are not allowed by Almighty God for good and sufficient ministers, yet the outward calling doth distinguish them to us, from private men: otherwise it were wide with your ignorant Levites.  I. Penry. 
3. Men may be assured, to receive that according to the ordinance of God substantially, at the hands of an evil Magistrate, which concerneth them to have from him: so can they not of a bare Reader: for there is no man that can assure himself to be partaker of a substantial Sacrament, at the hands of such: and preach they cannot. I have handled this point of the Magistracy in my former book, from page 47. to 51.  R. Some. 
There is some good thing, I confess, in the worst government: therefore the Philosopher's resolution is, that it is better to live under a tyrant, then under no governor. In this last difference of yours, you give me some advantage: for the corrupt Magistrate hath and may pervert justice, that is, sell the righteous for silver and the poor for shoes: but the ignorant minister cannot pervert the Sacrament which is God's ordinance: and you have given out often in your Treatise, that you deny them not to be the Sacraments of Baptism and the holy Supper, which are delivered by unpreaching Ministers. You confess in this place, that Magistracy is the ordinance of God. You say very truly: but, in your Addition whither you refer me, you have handled that point with very foul and bepitched hands. In your Addition you use these words, viz. Magistracy is an humane ordinance, that is, as you expound it, not an Ecclesiastical constitution prescribed in the word. This is a very gross and anabaptistical error. Almighty God saith thus: By me Kings reign. Prou. 8. Our Saviour Christ a little before his condemnation, answereth Pilate which was governor of judea under the Romans, in this sort: Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above. john. 19 The Apostle Paul writeth thus: There is no power but of God: and the powers that be, are ordained of God: whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God Rom. 13. The Greek Poet can teach you this Lesson: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Every learned man knoweth, first, that the civil government before, in, and after the time of Nimrod, and after the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt, until their entrance into the land of Chanaan, and in Chanaan until and after the captivity in Babylon, was the Lord's ordinance, & appeareth in God's book. Secondly, that the disposing of the four famous Monarchies, viz. the first of the Chaldeans, the second of the Medes and Persians, the third of the Macedonians, the fourth of the Romans, was God's ordinance, and set down in his holy book. Lastly, the reverence of the Magistrates which is printed by almighty God in the hearts of subjects & inferiors, doth cry aloud against you, that magistracy is not a devise of man, but an Ecclesiastical constitution and ordinance of almighty God, prescribed in his holy word. If you tell me, that the Apostle Peter calleth magistracy an humane ordinance, 1. Pet. 2: I grant he doth so: but his meaning is not, that magistracy was ordained and devised by man, but by almighty God, for the benefit of man. No man, unless he be an Anabaptist, expounds the Apostle Peter's words as you do: so that, not the Apostles words, but the sense which you give them, is anabaptistical. Non scriptura, sed sensus scripturae, est haeresis. that is, Not the scripture, but the sense of the scripture, is heresy.   

CHAP. 14. I. Penry. WHETHER THE GODLY do sin, which receive the holy Sacrament at the hands of an unpreaching Minister.  
THe Sacrament may not be received at his hands, which wanteth outward calling: therefore not at his hands, who is destitute of the inward graces.  R. Some. 
Your Antecedent is true, and maketh against the Anabaptists. I deny your argument. My reason is: Omnia Sacramenta cum obsint indignè tractantibus, prosunt tamen per eos dignè sumentibus. Aug. contra epist. Parmen. lib. 2. ca 10. that is, all Sacraments, though they hurt such as do handle them unworthily, yet they profit such, as do worthily receive them at their hands.  I. Penry. 
My reason concluding the unlawfulness of communicating with readers, having but an outward calling, because it is a sin to communicate with them, which only want the same having fitness to teach, is such, as I cannot but marvel, that you would think it could be answered by a desiting of the question, which is a fault in reasoning, wherein belike you seem to take delight. You say again, that readers deliver a Sacrament. How can we be sure thereof? and why may not I say as well, that a man endued with gifts to teach, doth deliver a Sacrament, though he have no outward calling? which assertion would be false.  R. Some. 
You are the strangest answerer that ever I met with. I must be content & answer you. If they sin which receive the Sacraments of him which hath an outward calling and wants the inward: then many godly Israelites were polluted which received the Sacraments of the ignorant levitical priests, which had an outward but not the inward calling. You deny the latter, therefore you cannot affirm the former, unless you be void of common sense. Petitio principij, begging of the question is a special pearl in your book. You charge me to delight in it. I use it not: there is neither pleasure nor profit in it. You are a privileged man: you may say what you list. The best is, I can receive no disgrace by any speeches of such as you are.  I. Penry. 
We have no warrant to reeive an extraordinary Sacrament: But that, which is administered by ignorant ministers, is an extraordinary Sacrament if it be any: Therefore, we have no warrant to receive it.  R. Some. 
I deny your Minor, and do add this: first, that it is a Sacrament by your own confession, pag. 50.51. which is administered by ignorant ministers. Secondly, that it is no extraordinary Sacrament, which is delivered by them, unless you will call Baptism and the holy Supper, extraordinary Sacraments.  I. Penry. 
By an extraordinary Sacrament, I mean Baptism or the Lord's Supper, administered either privately by a minister, or any way by one that is no minister. I never affirmed, the Elements delivered by readers to be Sacraments. It is one thing not to deny them, an other thing to affirm them to be Sacraments: The former I have written, the latter I never did: and they do my writings great injury, that report the contrary.  R. Some. 
In the shutting up of your Treatise, you have broached two errors, the one is, that it is an extraordinary Sacrament, which is delivered any way by one that is no minister. Of this I gather, that you hold, that one which is no minister, may deliver a Sacrament: for, an extraordinary Sacrament is a Sacrament. If I would enter into your vain, I might set down these consequents: viz. that bargemen, children, women, Idiots etc. in your judgement, may administer an extraordinary Sacrament. Your other error is, that the holy Supper etc. is an extraordinary Sacrament, when it is delivered privately by a minister. I am not of your judgement in this: I am of M. Calvin's: therefore I set down this proposition: viz. that it is lawful to administer the holy Supper in a particular house, if some cautions and circumstances be observed. The reasons do appear a little after. It pleaseth you to say, that as you never denied, so you never affirmed it to be a Sacrament which is delivered by an unpreaching minister. A worthy resolution. If you deny not that it is a Sacrament, etc. you do affirm it. For, not to deny is to affirm. Every child can teach you that lesson. I do less marvel that you are so short and wide in excellent points of divinity, when you fail in a common point of Grammar. Thus, I see how complete a man you are.  R. Some. 
If any will conclude of these my answers, that I mislike M. Penries' desire of a learned ministery in Wales, he takes up that, which I never let fall: for I desire with all my heart, and the Lord for his Christ's sake grant it, that not only Wales may be furnished with worthy governors and pastors, but all other parts of her majesties Dominions, that God's graces may be more and more multiplied upon us and our posterity, and his holy hand watch over us.  
M. Penry sayeth nothing to this.   

CHAP. 15. R. Some. IT IS LAWFUL TO ADMInister the holy Supper in a private house, if some cautions be observed.  
The cautions which must be observed, are:  Calu. Epist. 363. 
1. That there be a convenient number to communicate with the sick party.  
2. That the holy Supper be delivered according to Christ's Institution.  
3. That the explication of the mystery be joined with the action.  
M. Calvin's reasons. Epist. 363.  
IT is forcible for the confirmation of faith, to receive a pledge, as it were, of Christ's hand, whereby we may be more assured, that we are of his body, and that we are fed with Christ's flesh and blood, unto hope of eternal life.  
The receiving of the holy Supper, doth arm us in our spiritual batraile: therefore the godly sick man, is not to be barred of that singular comfort. An eripiendum est singulare adiumentum, quo fretus ad luctam alacriùs descendat, & victoriam obtineat?  
The holy Supper is a sign of holy unity amongst God's children: therefore the godly sick man, whether he have a languishing sickness, or be at deaths door, is not to be barred from professing his unity and consent with God's Church.  Coena, sanctaeinter filios Dei unitatis est Symbolum. 
If any shall reply that the holy Supper, is not a private action of any household, but mere Ecclesiastical: 1. Cor. 11. M. Calvin's answer is, that the holy Supper delivered to a godly sick man, is part of the public action. Partem vel appendicem esse constat publicae actionis. M. Caluine addeth these words: Neque verò Paulus, dum Corinthios admonet, domum cuique suam esse in qua comedat & bibat, Coenam excludit à privatis aedibus. Tunc neque fidelibus patebant templa, neque unquam permissum esset nova extruere. Sed tantùm à communibus epulis discernit spirituale mysterium, ne cum illis misceatur. That is, Paul when he doth admonish the Corinthians that they have private houses to eat and drink in, doth not shut the holy Supper from private houses: For then, the faithful neither had use of any Churches, nor were suffered to build new. Only he distinguisheth the spiritual mystery from common banquets, lest it should be mingled with them.  
The same M. Caluine a little after, hath these words: Coeterum diligenter cavendum esse fateor, ne qua obrepat superstitio, ne spes salutis externo Symbolo affigatur, etc. That is, diligent care must be had, that no superstition creep in, and that no hope of salvation be tied to the external sign, etc. Epist. 363.  
Of this judgement is Peter Martyr in his Commentary upon the 10. chap. ad Cor. Fol. 143.  
Chemnicius writeth that it is an absurd thing to tie the holy Supper to peculiar places: Ad substantiam Sacramenti, sicut non pertinet circumstantia temporis, ita nec circumstantia loci, tanquam necessaria requiritur. Chemn. in 2. part exam. con. Trid. That is, as the circumstance of the time, is not necessarily required to the substance of a Sacrament, so neither the circumstance of place.  
I rest in the judgement of these excellent men. If you descent from me, I pray you condemn these learned writers: but, not before you have confuted their reasons.   

CHAP. 16.  I. Penry. 
THus M. Some, I have run therowe those points in your book that concerned me. I have been driven to deal brieflyer therein, than I had determined. But I am enforced to end, & to omit that, which page 9 I promised to handle in the latter end, with divers other things. I have not the like liberty for Printing that you, M. Some, do enjoy. Procure me but the favour to be judicially heard according to the word, and I will personally upon the peril of my life, by the Lord's assistance, defend these two points against all gainsayer. I am sorry, that you whom I reverence, should be the instrument to oppugn a truth. The Lord respect the cause of his own glory, and pardon our sin. Amen.  R. Some. 
You have run yourself out of breath. You had dealt more wisely, if you had gone with less haste and better speed. Sat citò, si sat been. The brevity which you give out you are driven to, is, dignum patella operculum, a fit garment to cover your absurd writings. You have not, you say, such liberty of printing, as I. No reason you should. You broche and print gross errors and Anabaptistical fancies: so do not I. You refuse to offer & submit your writings to the view and allowance of the Magistrates: so do not I. You would have me procure you judicial hearing, etc. Your request is not equal. Nec te novi, nec ubi sis. Speak for yourself in God's Name: so will I, if you will revoke your errors and heresies. Otherwise, I will not open my lip for you, or any such as you are. After leave obtained, you will appear (you say) though it cost you your life, and deal in Argument, etc. Oh noble Goliath! Do you challenge all gainsayer? so did the Donatists in Augustine's time. Aug. contra Don. post Coll. so did Photinus a gross heretic in Basils' time. Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 6. so did Popish Campian in our time. Alas, good M. Penry, you are utterly unfit for such a match. This heat of yours, is like a blaze of thorns. It will last but a while. Your cause is nought: your armour is not of proof. Your Divinity is at a low ebb. Your Arguments are pitiful: your answers are silly. There is no hope of prevailing. The Donatists, Photinus and Campian presumed of a glorious victory: but they were learnedly confuted. The Donatists by Augustine: Photinus by basil of Ancyra: Campian by some of our learned men. Besides, their garland was poena perfidiae, non corona fidei. I would be sorry, your garland should be of such flowers. The best conquest that you can have, is, to overcome your pride by humility, and your ignorance by godly study. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eurip. in Hippol. Excellent men have their second thoughts, wiser than their first. Non vincimur, quum meliora nobis offeruntur, sed instruimur. Cipr. ad Qu. fratrem. It is no disgrace to yield to better things. You are sorry, that I, whom you reverence, should be an instrument to oppugn a truth. Be sorry for yourself. Detest your fancies. Your reverence I make very mean account of. You are the first that ever charged me in writing to oppugn God's truth. I am very far, I thank God, from that great sin. God's truth, I trust, is as dear to me as to you. I hope it hath had, and shall have more defence by me, then by you: there is some reason it should. You misliked my last Treatise: if this book find the like grace at your hands, I must and will bear it. To your prayer, that the Lord would respect the cause of his own glory, and pardon our sins, I say withal my heart, Amen. I have now, thanks be to God, passed thorough your book. I have not run, but walked a foot pace thorough it. Your absurdities, I confess, are brambles, but they have not pricked me. I would some others took no more hurt by them. If my Treatise shall do either you, or any of your followers good, I will be glad: If not, I say with the holy Apostle, If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 1. Cor. 14.38.  
Non habet Dei charitatem, qui Ecclesiae non diligit unitatem. Aug. de baptis. contra Don.  lib. 3. cap. 16.  

CHAP. 17.  
IT hath pleased M. Penry to take some pains in proving that Popish Priests are no lawful and good ministers of God, that is, that they have no lawful calling. In this he fighteth with his shadow: for he hath not any of the religion his adversary. I mislike the Popish priesthood and sacrifice, as much as he: and if occasion require, will set down sure reasons to shake them both in pieces. That which I hold in this controversy, is, that Popish priests have a calling though a faulty one. If M. Penry will improve that, he must take pen in hand and begin a fresh: for, as yet he hath not encountered with that particular. If he can prevail in that, the famous writings of Caluine, Beza, etc. and the resolution of all the reformed Churches, in which I rest for this point, shall be condemned, and M. Penry shall have the garland. Because I purpose to pass, so briefly as I can, thorough his Treatise of the Popish priests, I will handle first certain propositions which are incident to that discourse.  
The Popish Church is a Church though not a sound Church.  
1. The Pope is Antichrist, therefore the Church of Rome is a Church.  
No Protestant doubteth of the antecedent, etc. I prove my argument thus: Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God. 2. Thess. 2.4. Per Templum Dei, Ecclesia: per sessionem, regnum intelligitur. Musc. 2. Thess. 2.4. that is, by the Temple of God, the Church: by sitting, a kingdom is understanded.  
Viretus a man of excellent learning, writeth thus of the popish Church: Non dum eò usque degeneravit, & prolapsa est, ut eadem prorsus à nobis judicari debeat, & eo haberi in loco, quo aut Mahumetana, aut judaica, quae Christum penitus repudiant, & ab eius legibus & institutis abhorrent. Name, sinulla omnino extarent in ea, veteris Ecclesiae vestigia, Daniel non praedixisset, futuram abominationem in loco sancto, nequè Paulus, perditum illum filium, in Templo Dei sessurum. Quomodo enim sederet Antichristus in Templo Dei, si nullae amplius superessent illius Templi saltem reliquiae, & aliqua ruinarum vestigia? aut, quomodo occupare abominatio lucum sanctum, si totus adeò esset profanatus, ut ne ullus quidem vel exiguus angulus pristinae sanctitati relictus esset? Name, etsi praevalet, ac latiùs dominari videtur, hominum judicio, impietatis regnum: Et Christi Ecclesia vsqué eò oppressa, ac pene suffocata, ut vix spiritum ampliùs trahere possit, nondum tamen penitus animam exhalait. Viret. Tract. de Commun. fid. cum Pap. cer. pag. 66. 67. The sum of his words is, first, that the popish Church may not be accounted of as the Mahomet & jewish Churches, which refuse Christ altogether: Secondly, that if no prints of God's Church remained in the popish Church, Daniel and Paul would not have foretold: the one, that abomination should be in the Holy place: the other, that Antichrist should sit in the temple of God: Lastly, that the Church of God amongst the Papists, though it be almost smothered, hath not as yet given up the ghost.  
Daneus writeth, that the Popish Church is the Church and Temple of God, not simply, but secundum quid, that is, after a sort: His reason is, because the popish Church retaineth some print of the marks and badges of God's Church. Tract. de Ant. cap. 17.  
M. Fox hath these words: Neque enim Romam ita totam etc. In Apoc. cap. 13. pag. 235. that is, we do not so sever Rome from all fellowship of the church, that it shall have no conjunction at all, with the body of Christ.  
If M. Penry mislike my first reason, let him confute it, etc.  
2 jeroboam did set up Calves at Bethel and Dan. In his time, the service of God was strangely corrupted: yet, certain prerogatives belonging to the Church, remained then amongst the jews. Circumcision, which was the lords Sacrament, could not be so defiled by the unclean hands of the jews, but that it was always a sign and Sacrament of God's covenant: therefore God called the infants of that people, his children, etc. In the Popish Church, God hath preserved Baptism, etc. Besides, there remain amongst them other remnants, vidz, the Lords prayer, the Articles of the faith, the Commandments, etc. lest the Church should utterly perish, etc. Lastly, Almighty God hath miraculously preserved amongst them the remnants of his people, though poorly and thinly scattered, etc. Of this M. Caluine concludeth, that the popish Churches, are Churches. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 2. sect. 11.12.  
If my second reason, taken out of M. Caluine please you not, confute that part of M. Calvin's Institutions.  
3 If there be no Church at all in Popery, the infants of Papists, are not to be baptised in any reformed Church, though some of the religion, do answer for, & undertake the good education of them. Which I take to be a great error.  
Master Caluine, and the rest of the learned men in Geneva, being required of M. Knox to set down their judgement, touching this question, vidz. whether the infants of Idolaters and excommunicate persons might be admitted to baptism, etc. deliver this answer: Promissio, non sobolem tantum cuiusque fidelium in primo gradu comprehendit, sed in mill generationes extenditur. unde etiam factum est, ut pietatis interruptio, quae grassata est in papatu, etc. Calu. Epist. 285. The sum of their words is, that God's promise, doth not only comprehend the posterity of the faithful in the first degree, but reacheth unto a thousand generations: and that those children which descended of such ancestors as were godly many years ago, do belong to the body of the Church, though their parents and grandfathers were Apostates, etc. M. Beza writeth thus of this argument: Iniquum esset Papistas, etc. Epist. 10. The sum of his words is, that Papists are otherwise to be accounted of then Turks: because Popery is an aberration of the Christian Church. Besides, because God's goodness extendeth itself to a thousand generations, that it were a hard case, to judge by the profession of the later parents, whether the infants pertain to God's covenant, etc. Thus far M. Beza.  
If any shall reply, that God's covenant hath no place at all amongst the Papists, and therefore that their infants are at no hand to be baptised in our Churches, howsoever some of the religion offer them in the assembly to the holy Sacrament: M. Calvin's answer is: Certum est, adhuc illic manner residuum faedus Dei exparte: quia quamuis, etc. Cal. Ezec. 16.20. That is, It is certain that the covenant is there on God's behalf, and therefore that Popish baptism needeth not to be renewed: beside, that Satan, albeit he reigned of late in the Popish Church, could not altogether extinguish the grace of God: imò, illic est ecclesia. Alioqui, falsum esset Pauli vaticinium, ubi dicit, antichristum sedere in Dei templo. 2. Thes. 2.4. That is, A Church is there: otherwise Paul's prophecy, that Antichrist should sit in the temple of God, were false, etc. If it shall please the learned reader to read M. Calvin's Commentary upon chap. 16. and vers. 20. of Ezech. It will be worth his labour.  
A Popish objection of the absurd Papists, and of Master Penry.  
If the Church of Rome be a Church, those Magistrates which have separated themselves and their subjects from the Popish Church, are Schismatics, etc.  
Answer.  
Our Magistrates, people, etc. have severed themselves, not from the Church, but from Idolatry: not from the common wealth, but from tyranny oppressing the common wealth: not from the City, but from the plague which pestereth the City, etc. that is, separation is not from any truth remaining in the Popish Church, nor from the poor Church, that is there holden under captivity, but from the corruptions of the Popish Church, and from the tyranny of Antichrist, which is more grievous than the yoke either of Egypt or Chaldaea: therefore godly princes, & people, cannot justly be called Schismatics. Thrasibulus withdrew himself to Phile, during the time that thirty tyrants did tear in pieces the common wealth in Athens. Camillus withdrew himself to Veies, during the time that the Gauls wasted the City of Rome. If any shall conclude of this, that Thrasibulus and Camillus, separated themselves from the common wealths of Rome and Athens, and not from the tyranny under which the athenians and Romans then were, he reasoneth most absurdly, etc. The sum of my answer is contained in the writings of that French Gentleman, Philip of Mornay. Tract. de eccle. cap. 10. The name of Schismatic, is much fit for proud Penry and his fantastical disciples, then for godly Magistrates and people, who are most saucily dealt with, by the anabaptistical crew.  
Question.  
Whether all our ancestors, which lived & died in the Popish Church, are damned?  
Answer.  
Philip of Morney, doth answer thus: As our adversaries make a difference between the Church and the people, snatching the name of the Church only to the Prelates, which should be common to all Christians: so, we likewise do well put a difference, between the people cleaving to the Church of Rome, and the faction of Antichrist: between them who live under the Popedom, and the upholders and maintainers of the Pope: between the enchanters, and those that are enchanted: between the Pharisees, whom Christ calleth a generation of vipers, and the poor sick woman, whom he called the very daughter of Abraham. We say, that among the poor people, which was so long time deceived under the darkness of Antichrist, there was a part of the body of the visible Church: But that the Pope and his maintainers, are the botch of the plague in it, which stifleth & choketh it as much as it can, etc. And a little after, etc. We know that the most part of the people, were ignorant of those pestilent doctrines which the Schoolmen left in writing, that is to say, of the principal blasphemies of the Papacy: also, that the more part did never believe, that they could merit everlasting life by their own works, whatsoever men preached thereof. Again, albeit that through custom and ignorance they went to Saints and Images, and frequented Masses and Pilgrimages: yet notwithstanding in their conflicts of death, they always principally clave to the cross of jesus Christ. We have an example of S. Barnard himself, and we have seen many more in our time. Saint Barnard in certain places savoureth of the contagion of his time, as it was hard he should do otherwise. But see his refuge when he was tempted of the devil, in his last days: I confess (saith he) that I am not worthy of it. I know that I can not by mine own works obtain the kingdom of heaven. But my Lord hath obtained it by a double right: by inheritance from the father, and by the merit of his passion. Now he is contented with the one, and giveth me the other. And when I attribute it to myself, by the gift which he hath made unto me thereof, I cannot be confounded. And in another place: My merit is the mercy of the Lord. And I am not poor in merits, because he is rich in his mercies: I have greatly sinned, but I will comfort myself in the stripes of my Lord. Even so likewise, we assure ourselves in the mercy of God, that a great number held the foundation in jesus Christ, whereof the Apostle speaketh, albeit Antichrist shook it, & as it were, endeavoured to overturn it in them, all that he might. Phil. Mor. Tract. de Eccle. cap. 9 Of this judgement, is that famous man, Peter Martyr, in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Corinthians, cap. 15. vers. 18. I rest in their judgement.   

CHAP. 18. THAT POPISH PRIESTS have a calling, though a faulty one.  
IF popish priests have no calling at all, Baptism was delivered in the Popish Church by private men, which is a gross absurdity.  
2 Many Popish Priests after detestation of their popish errors, were allowed ministers in the reformed Churches, without imposition of hands etc. therefore in the judgement of the best Churches, they had before a calling though a faulty one.  
Those execellent fathers and Martyrs, Cranmer, Rydley, Hooper, Latymer etc. which were sometimes Popish priests, were allowed Ministers of the Gospel without imposition of hands etc. Caluine writing of Popish priests hath these words: Si verò quis istiusmodi etc. and a little after: Si obijcitur Pauli Canon ille, quo, traditur eligendum Episcopum irreprehensibilem esse oportere respondeo, non hîc agi, meo quidem judicio, de simplici vel absoluta electione, sed de approbatione vel restitutione ad certum munus, propter interuenientem corruptionem. And a little after: Duo sunt in illo statu summa vitia. unum, quod non recta ratione instituti sunt ad munus Eeclesiasticum etc. The sum of M. Calvin's words is, that such Popish priests as detested popery, and were fit to be employed in the ministery, might be allowed, or rather restored to the Ecclesiastical function: first, because they were not before rightly instituted. Secondly, ad corrigendum praecedentem defectum, that is, to correct the former defect etc. Calu. Epist. 373. By which words it is manifest that Popish priests even in the popish Church, had, and have in M. Calvin's judgement a calling, though a faulty one. The same M. Caluine in an other place, hath these words: Cogimur fateri penes illos esse ordinarium ministerium. that is, We are compelled to confess that papists have an ordinary ministry. Calu. Ezech: cap. 13. v. 9 If M. Penry will take exception against M. Calvin's writings & the judgement of all God's Churches, let him confute them very sound. If he can do that, he shall be accounted the rarest man alive. If he can not (which I am very sure of) he shall not be Magnus Apollo, that is, go for a Patriarch, (as his ignorant followers do account him) but he shallbe dubbed (as he is in deed) an other Nevius, that is, a loud and clamorous companion. If either M. Penry or any of his fantastical crew shall think much of my speech, I do not pass. I confess freely that sharp words are not sufficient plasters for such proud sores. I hope, the Magistrates will consider further of him and such as he is. Duro nodo, durus cuneus, etc. that is, A wedge of iron, is fittest for knotty wood.   

CHAP. 19.20. THEY WHICH ARE ONCE baptised, must not be baptised again.  
THe covenant of grace and peace, which is made and sealed up in baptism, is perpetual: for, Almighty God remaineth ever faithful in his covenant: therefore, etc.  
2 If Baptism should be iterated, God's fidelity (which cannot be made void by our infidelity) should be called into question: which were a heinous sin.  
3 Circumcision was never iterated, therefore Baptism may not. Baptism is to us, as circumcision was to the Israelites.  
4 As the carnal generation is one, so the spiritual generation is one. Semel nascimur, semel renascimur.  
5 It appeareth not in God's book, that any which received baptismum fluminis, were rebaptized baptizmo fluminis.  
6 Agrippinus the Bishop of Carthage, was author of iterating baptism etc. Vinc. Lir. Cap. 9   

CHAP. 20. THERE IS TRUE Baptism in the Popish Church.  
Such as were and are baptised in the popish Church, were and are engrafted by baptism into a true Christ: therefore they received true Baptism.  
The argument followeth: for baptism is an engraffing into the true Christ. Rom. chap. 6.3. The Antecedent is manifest in M. Penries' judgement: for he will not have them to offer themselves again to baptism: therefore he is either a Catabaptist, or else there was and is (even in his judgement) true baptism in the popish Church.  
2 They which were circumcised in the time of jeroboam and Caiphas, were accounted true circumcised persons, although at that time the state of the Church was almost altogether perverted and corrupted: therefore such as were and are baptised in the popish Church etc. This argument is used of the greatest learned men of the religion, and is allowed of all the reformed Churches.  
3 Caluine and Beza are resolute for this. Calu. Ion: chap: 1. v. 16. Ezech: 16. v. 20. Epist: 103. and 104. Beza Confess. chap. 4. Art: 49. and chap: 7. Art: 11. Epist. 10. and 81.  
Viretus hath these words: Baptismum qui à sacerdotibus Papisticis collatus est, etc. that is, we do allow popish Baptism, albeit we condemn the vain and superstitious ceremonies, which are used in it. Tract de commun. fid. cum Papist. cer. pag. 64.  
Of this judgement are all learned men, and all reformed Churches. None dissent, but Catabaptists, Anabaptists, M. Penry, and the rest of the fantastical order.   

CHAP. 21 THERE HATH BEEN AND may be true Baptism out of the Church.  
THe Donatists thought otherwise in Augustine's time: but they are notably confuted by Augustine in his books, de baptis. contra Don.  
2 True Circumcision was amongst the Edomites.  
3 They which were baptised out of the Church by heretics, neither were nor might be rebaptized: therefore they received true baptism.  
The Antecedent is manifest, for it is a rule in Divinity, and received of all learned men: Baptizati ab haereticis, non sunt rebaptizandi, that is, they which are baptised of heretics, are not to be rebaptized.  
The reasons are.  
Where the essential form of baptism is observed, non haereticus, sed haeretici manu Christus baptizat. that is, not the heretic but Christ doth baptise by the hand of the heretic. Aug. passim. de bapt. count. Don.  
It is not the baptism of heretics or schismatics, but of God & the Church, wheresoever it be found, and whithersoever translated. Aug. de bapt. contra Don. lib. 1. cap. 14.  
The heresy is theirs: the error is theirs, etc. but baptism which is Christ's, must not be accounted theirs. Aug. de baptis. contra Don. lib. 3. cap. 11.  
Cyprian was of an other judgement in the Church of Carthage: but he was condemned for that error by the best Churches in that age.  
4. The Ark of the testament which was taken of the philistines, lost not the virtue of Sanctification, 1. Sam. 4. Dagon can teach us that.  
5 Si foris nemo potest, etc. that is, if no man can have any thing which is Christ's out of the Church, neither can any man have any thing which is the devils within the Church. Aug. de bapt. contr. Don. lib. 4. cap. 7.  
6 Non itaque ideo, non sunt sacramenta Christi & Ecclesiae, etc. that is, they are not therefore, not the Sacraments of Christ and the Church, because heretics and wicked men do unlawfully use them. They, that is, the heretics, etc. are to be amended or punished: but the Sacraments are to be acknowledged and reverently esteemed of, etc.  
Question.  
How do heretics possess baptism?  
Answer.  
Baptismum legitimum habent: sed non legitimè habent: that is, heretics have lawful baptism, but they have it not lawfully. Aug. de Bapt. cont. Don. lib. 5. cap. 7. Neque licitè foris habetur, & tamen habetur: sic, illicitè for is datur, sed tamen datur: that is, Baptism is not had lawfully out of the Church: notwithstanding, it is had: In like sort, it is given out of the church unlawfully: notwithstanding, it is given. Aug. de Bap. contra Don. lib. 6. ca 15. If any shall ask whether it be lawful to offer our infants to baptism out of the Church, etc. because all learned men (except the Donatists, etc. in Augustine's time, and M. Penry and his worthy disciples in our time) have and do affirm, that true baptism hath been and may be out of the Church: My answer is negative, as Augustine's was. I refer the learned reader to his writings contra Cresc. gram. lib. 1. cap. 23. and de Bapt. contra. Don. lib. 1. cap. 4.   

CHAP. 22. I. Penry. THAT NO POPISH Priest is a Minister.  
Every Minister must be at the least by profession, a member of the true Church. No Popish Priest is by profession a member of the true Church. Therefore no Popish Priest is a minister.  
Every minister hath an office within the body of the Church. No popish priest hath an office within the body of the Church. Therefore no popish priest is a minister.  
The propositions or first part of both these reasons are set down evidently and plainly by the wisdom of God, in these words. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not one office: so we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one another's members, seeing then that we have gifts that are divers. etc.  
The place showeth clearly, that whosoever is not a member, is not of the body, if not of the body, than no minister. Again, whosoever is no member, he hath no office in the body: if no office, no minister. He that should object that in this place is meant a member of the body, by election in the secret counsel of God, and not in the acknowledgement of the Church by profession, would not deserve the answering. Because it is vocation and not election, that maketh such a member in the Church as may have an office therein: of which sort the Apostle speaketh in this place. By vocation, I mean that whereof the holy Ghost speaketh, where it is said, Many are called, but few are chosen: neither can any man deny him to be a member of the Church, which by outward profession submitteth himself unto true religion, and such are the members, whereof the Apostle speaketh: namely such as are members in the judgement of the Church. judas was a member in the judgement of the Church, though not belonging to election. A further proof of the propositions you shall find 1. Cor. 12.26.28. He was no priest in the old Testament, that was not a jew by profession: yea, and of the line of Aaron too: and shall he be accounted a minister among us, that is a stranger from the profession of the truth, and a professed Idolater? Ishmael and Esau were circumcised, and the sons of those fathers unto whom the covenant was made: Even I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. They and their posterities fell from true religion: well, admit that the profanation of circumcision had still continued in their houses: yet a man supplying the place of a priest among them, was no priest in deed, though he ten thousand times profaned circumcision, & would brag never so often, that he worshipped after his Idolatrous manner, no other God, but the God of his father Abraham, and swore only by the fear of his father Isaac. The reason hereof is, because that every priest under the law, must be an Israelite by profession, that is, a member of the true Church, neither could any of the godly assure themselves, that an Edomitish priest admistred true circumcision according to the substance. Now I reckon of a popish priest no otherwise than I would have done of an Ismaelitish or Edomitish circumciser: the profanation of that seal of the covenant, still continuing in mount Seir.  R. Some. 
Your Mayor propositions in your two first arguments are. viz. Every Minister must be at the least by profession a member of the true Church. And, every Minister hath an office within the body of the Church. My answer is, that your Mayor propositions, and the proof of them out of the 12. to the Rom. are true, if you give them this sense, viz. that every lawful and good Minister of God is by procession a member and hath an office within the body of the sound Church. If you understand your Mayor propositions otherwise, I deny them: my reason is: Excommunicated heretics which administer true baptism out of the Church, had a calling though a faulty one: and yet these heretics, neither were members, nor had any office in the true Church. That judas was a vessel of wrath, and yet an Apostle and a member of the Church in the judgement of the Church, I make no question. The case of many hypocrites, hath & may be such for reprobation and ministery, though not for Apostleship. That which I like of in this Treatise of yours, I will either allow by some short speech, or else pass over with silence. Caviling and wrangling, become not such as profess and love the Religion. If none may be a Minister in God's Church by God's order, but such as are members, that is, engrafted into God's Church: it is a good consequent that none in the time of the Law, might be a levitical Priest which was uncircumcised. Which point you dealt very strangely in before. It is true that none might be a levitical priest, which was not a jew by profession, and of the line of Aaron: but yet not every one of Aaron's line (if he were unfit for that holy function) might be admitted to the levitical priesthood, as you gave out before very absurdly. No popish Priest (as he is a popish Priest) is accounted a Minister in our Church. If you think otherwise, you think amiss: for I can assure you, that none which have been popish Priests, either did or do administer in our Church without the allowance of our Church. I confess, they receive not imposition of hands again either in our Church or in other reformed Churches. If Circumcision was amongst the Ismaelites and Edomites (as you writ and I affirm) then a Sacrament was amongst them. I pray you remember this. The Priests of Idumea, I grant, were not Priests in deed, that is, they were not lawful and good Ministers of God: for they had no lawful calling: yet they had a calling though a faulty one: Otherwise Circumcision administered by them had been no Sacrament. That which decemeth you, is, that you do not distinguish between a lawful and good Minister of God, and a Minister: between a lawful calling, and a calling, etc.  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 call in his good time: For I would not deny this unto Mahometisme, or that there are not left in Popery certain rubishes & steps of true Religion, for this difference I make between them and other Infidels, though the jews also may claim this unto themselves. But I mean that the Popish religion is such a religion as whosoever liveth & dieth in the profession thereof: he liveth and dieth out of the Church, where salvation is not possibly to be had, for any thing that is made known unto man. Whence it necessarily followeth, that in Popery there is no Church. If it be objected that the Papists are within the Covenant, inasmuch as long since they professed the truth: Mine answer will be, that Popery was never the truth as yet, that no Papist in that he was a Papist, ever professed the truth, and that God made no Covenant with professed Idolaters, as all Papists are.  R. Some. 
Your Minor propositions in your two first arguments are, viz. No popish priest is by profession a member of the church: And, No popish priest hath an office within the body of the Church. My answer is: If by (church) in your Minor propositions you mean 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 body of the Church. If by (Church) you mean an unsound 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 unsound church. For proof of this I have used diverse reasons in this Treatise. I refer you to them. If they will not down with you, you must confute the several writings of Caluine in his Institutions, Commentaries and Epistles, & of other famous men, and condemn the judgement of all the reformed churches. If your stomach serve you, you have matter enough to work on, & more than you were well aware of. That steps of true Religion remain in the Popish Church, it is manifest: for God preserved in that Church verbum suum & baptismum, That is, his Word and Baptism: Beza in Annot. Matt. 23.2. Yea, we of the Religion have received many good things from the papists, as the Israelites did the Ark from the Philistines. I grant that the jews have many good things amongst them: yet there is great difference between jews & papists. The papist receiveth the new Testament: so doth not the Iew. The papist doth not use circumcision, because the date of it is out, but baptism which is an engraffing into Christ. The jew retaineth circumcision & doth not admit baptism. That the papists are not altogether aliens from God's covenant, I have showed before, and do rest in M. Calvin's judgement, for that point. You writ that popery was never the truth as yet. If you mean that all popery was never the truth as yet, I agree with you. If you mean that no part in popery was ever the truth as yet, you err grossly, and are refuted by your own words, which are, that there are certain steps of true religion in popery. You give out that no papist (in that he was a papist) ever professed the truth. My answer is, that they did and do err in very many things, but yet they did and do profess some truth: and I doubt not, but that many which lived and died in the time of popish darkness, died God's servants. If you think that a man being wide in many things, is wide in all things: then because you, M. Penry, have delivered many blasphemous, anabaptistical, and other errors, I might justly conclude that you hold nothing sound: but I will not offer you such measure. If I did, I should deal absurdly with you. How professed papists are Idolaters, appeareth in my second proposition, which is newly added to my former treatise. Thither I refer you.  I. Penry. 
Antichrist I grant should sit as God in the temple of God, but it was never the temple of God, since he planted his pestilent chair therein. Popery in deed hath invaded the seats and possessions of true religion, and began first where the truth was professed. For the mystery of iniquity first appeared within the Church, and not elsewhere, where true religion flourished, and not among the heathen: neither could he be that adversary, whose beginning should be in Paganism. But although Popery took root in the soil where the true Church was planted: yet it so grew there, that it still continued to be the synagogue of Satan, and could never as yet be the Church of God: howsoever it hath overgrown the possession thereof. And what though their fathers, who now are Papists, were within the covenant, as professing true religion: shall it therefore follow that their Idolatrous sons should be so too? If they return the Lord hath mercy in store for them I deny not. But what is there in this point said for the Papists, which the jews cannot with far more show of reason pretend for themselves? The profaning of Baptism among the Papists can make them no more be within the Church, than the continuance of the profanation of Circumcision among the Ishmaelites and Edomites could keep them under the covenant. And why should popish Baptism any more tie the Lords covenant to an Idolatrous race, than an Ishmaelitish or Edomitish cutting off of the foreskin, link him to be the God of those adulterous generations? Oh but the Lord himself hath said, in Isaak shall thy seed be called, and jaacob have I loved, and hated Esau. Why the same Lord in respect of his revealed will, for with his secret election men must not meddle, hath said, the professors of true religion do I love, but the Idolatrous papists my soul abhorreth: It will be here demanded whether I make no more account of popish baptism, then of an Edomitish circumcision, I see no reason why I should. For a circumcised Edomite being received, to be a true worshipper at jerusalem, should as well content himself with that circumcision (circumcision being not a thing invented by man, or done in respect of man, but ordained by the Lord, and done in regard of the covenant made unto Abraham) as we do with popish baptism, which is not called in question.  
And yet that which is spoken concerning the profession of the truth, by the forefathers, is not altogether true in popery: for there be many large regions now professing popery, where not so much as the name of Christ was heard, until they were become grossly popish. So that their first step was out of paganism unto popery. And this is the estate of all those poor oppressed vassals the west Indians, who now in great numbers profess Romish Idolatry. For at such time as the Spaniard invading their land brought upon them the most miserable slavery of the body & soul, that are upon any people under heaven, they had not so much as heard whether there was any Christ, but were most heathenish, and senseless Idolaters, as may appear by the popish historiographers themselves, who wrote the stories of those times: And therefore (to omit, whose posterities many of the nations within Europe are, that have refused the light of the Gospel) though it were granted, that the rest of the popish rabble were within in the covenant: yet these miserable heathen papists, can be said to be under no covenant, but that which is made unto popery and paganism. I hope M. Some, howsoever you may be persuaded, that other popish shavelings can deliver a sacrament, yet that you will doubt, whether any man could be assured to receive those holy seals at the hands of the heathen massmongers remaining in Cuba, Hyspaniola, Mexico, or any other the Eastern parts.  
And thus much concerning the assumption. I am not ignorant that famous and worthy men, have otherwise written concerning the popish Church, and therefore I am not to be pressed with their authority.  R. Some. 
If your writings were as sound as they are absurd, they would give many times great advantage to the Papist, Anabaptist, etc. If the popish church was never the temple of God, since Antichrist planted his pestilent chair there, then in your judgement, the Pope is not Antichrist: for Antichrist doth and must sit in the Temple of God, that is, in the Church of God. I have handled this argument before. I rest in that I have written there. You say that a circumcised Edomite being received into the Church of jerusalem, should content himself with his circumcision in Idumea, because circumcision was the Lord's ordinance etc. I agree with you in this. If the Edomitish circumcision was the Lord's ordinance, than it was a seal of God's covenant to the Idumeans, and consequently the Edomites in your judgement were not Aliens from God's covenant: for, the seal of the covenant, doth import and presuppose a covenant. Besides, if the Edomitish circumcision was true circumcision, and the Edomitish Church no Church: then a Sacrament was out of the Church etc. How like you this, M. Penry? You know my meaning. You add, that you call not popish baptism in question. Here, I grant, you do not: but a little after, you use these words: viz. where there is no true Christ whereunto men can be engrafted by baptism, there true baptism as touching the substance cannot be gotten etc. But in popery there is no true Christ etc. mendacem oportet esse memorem. Your memory is very short. You would never, I think, have vented such motley stuff as this, if you had thought it would have been looked on. I can assure you, that besides me, whom you have put to a little pains, your treatise hath been viewed and reviewed by very many learned men, who condemn it for a foolish and fantastical babble. If the west Indians after profession of their belief in the holy trinity, were baptised, as you say, by popish shavelings, I assure myself that they received true baptism, & were therefore engrafted into Christ. We in the Church of England need not sail (thanks be to God) to the massmongers in Cuba, Hispaniola, Mexico, or any other part of the Indians, we have Gods holy seals amongst us. If you call such of the Indians as are baptised, heathen, you do them great wrong: for baptism is the external badge of a Christian. I do not marvel though you be bold with the Indians, which are so far off, when you are so saucy with the principal of the religion in this noble land: I mean our Magistrates and learned men, which are singular ornaments of our Church & commonwealth. The question you move, shall receive my answer, when I understand that either you or some other of your fantastical disciples, are on shippe-boarde, & under sail for Mexico in India. You confess that famous men have written otherwise of the popish Church than you think. To that end you quote M. Calvin's 103. Epistle. I rest in his judgement: because you do not so, I pray you confute him. I must needs tell you plainly that I make more account of one Caluine then of a thousand Penries. Caluine was a man of singular learning, an enemy to papists, Anabaptists, Catabaptists, etc. a notable light and ornament in God's Church. What you are, I will not say. I would be loath to do you wrong: therefore, I will not match you with so famous a man as M. Caluine was.  I. Penry. 
I might in the third place use against you M. Some, a reason of your own thus concluded. No ministery is sacrilege, because every ministery is an ordinance of God, which cannot be turned unto sacrilege. The popish priesthood is sacrilege, as you have set down 21. Therefore the popish priesthood is no ministry, and consequently popish priests are no ministers. You may see that you have overthrown your own cause. But this manner of reasoning, although it should be of force against yourself, inasmuch as your own words are brought to express your own meaning, yet I account insufficient.  R. Some. 
I have written, I confess, that the Popish priesthood is sacrilege. Of this you conclude, that the popish Priesthood is no ministery, that is, no calling at all: and that I have overthrown mine own cause. Stay yourself a while good Sir. This victory deserveth not so much as an oaten straw for the trumpet. I deny your argument: for it is a fallace à secundum quid ad simpliciter. I grant that that part of the Popish priesthood which is occupied in sacrificing, is sacrilege: But that part of the Popish priesthood which is occupied in the administration of baptism is not sacrilege. For this point I allow Chemnicius judgement. His words are these: Verum quidem est, quia principalis pars ministerij est doctrina: quod ideo quando vera doctrina depravatur, & pravae opiniones stabiliuntur, ipsum ministerium mutatur, & quod illorum ministerium, qui doctrinam corrumpunt, ideo reliquendum sit, quia scriptum est: Cavete à pseudoprophetis: Item, vocem alienorum non audiunt, sed fugiunt ab ea. Simul tamen & hoc verum est, partem ministerij, ut sacramenti alicuius administrationem, aliquando possideri etiam ab his, qui in alijs materijs graves errores amplectuntur: imò saepe habent, administrant, & daunt vera sacramenta illi etiam, qui ipsis sacramentis assuunt falsas aliquas opiniones, modò substantialia, quae ad materiam & formam juxta institutionem pertinent, servant: sicut exemplum de circumcisione Caiphae, Scribarum & Pharisaeorum manifestè testatur. Nullo modo autem sequitur, quia vera fuit circumcisio, quae à Pharisaeis dabatur, ideo etiam veras fuisse omnes opiniones, quas praeter & contra verbum Dei, non tantum alijs articulis doctrinae, verum ipsi etiam circumcisioni, traditionibus suis assuebant. Chemn. in 2. par. exam. decret. Conc. Trident: Canon. 5. The sum of his words is, that though true doctrine which is the principal part of the ministery be depraved, yet that a part of the ministery, viz. the administration of a Sacrament, is possessed sometimes of them which in other matters hold gross errors. Yea, they have and do often administer a Sacrament (though they do annex to the Sacrament some false opinions) if they retain such things according to the Institution, which be essential for matter and form. Circumcision used in the time of Caiphas and the Pharisees, is witnesses enough of this, etc. Thus you see how trimly my words do serve your turn. Thrasilaus was a frantic man amongst the Athenians. He counted all the ships which sailed towards. Athens, to be his: but he was foully deceived: so are you in accounting my speeches your arguments.  I. Penry. 
They are no ministers whose very ministery overthroweth directly the Priesthood of our savour Christ: But the very ministry of popish priests, directly overthroweth the Priesthood of Christ: therefore they are no ministers.  
I know not what can be pretended against the proposition, unless men would dream of a ministry, with whom the Priesthood of the Lord jesus cannot stand. The latter part of the reason is true, if it be true that Christ is the only sacrifice for sin, that he is no more to be offered, that by once offering himself, he hath made full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, and that the popish priests daily sacrifice to appease God's wrath, for the sins of the quick and the dead.  R. Some. 
Before that I answer this Argument, I must tell you first, that every one of the Religion is persuaded (as well as you) that Christ is the only sacrifice for sin. Secondly, I must tell you, that this argument of yours is very near of kin to that which you will needs borrow of me: for it is all one with the last. But I must bear with you: you have a special gift in varying a phrase. For that, you shall bear the Bell, and carry the clapper too, if you wil Is any part, I beseech you, of the Popish priesthood, called sacrilege by any learned Protestant, but because it is occupied (as the Papists say most absurdly) in sacrificing Christ? Now I come to your worthy reason. I deny your Minor. My reason is as before. I rest in my answer to your former argument, which is the same with this. Now Sir, if I were disposed as you are, I could give out, that you are near driven, when one Argument appeareth (I will not say as you did, is perjured) twice: and that you are like to them which would make men believe, there are several meats, because one kind of meat is served in several dishes.  I. Penry. 
Lastly, they are no Ministers who are made, that is, called, elected and ordained by Idolaters. Popish priests are called, chosen and ordained by Idolaters: Therefore they are no ministers.  
The proposition appeareth, in that a minister can be made by none, but by such as unto whom the Lord hath given leave to deal in that action, otherwise the action is frustrate. As if a company of women, though religious and godly, should go about to make a minister, the action is nothing. Of the assumption that popish priests are made by Idolaters, I make no question. And when did God give Idolaters leave to make ministers?  
Seeing therefore that popish priests are no ministers, I see no show of probability whereupon my faith, or the faith of any can be assured to receive true baptism at their hands: unless it can be showed by you, M. Some, that either there may be faith where there is no promise, or that there is a promise to receive a sacrament where there is no minister, which no man of any christian modesty will affirm. Hence also it followeth, that neither the obstinate crew of recusants in this land, who offer their children to be profaned by traitorous and runagate jesuits, nor any else within the body of the Romish Babylon, can assure themselves that their children receive the substance of baptism.  R. Some. 
If by ministers in your Mayor proposition, you mean lawful and good ministers of God, I agree with you. If you mean otherwise, I descent. If by idolaters in your Mayor proposition, you understand not pagan but popish idolaters: my answer is, that such as were called, elected and ordained by them, had a calling though a faulty one. Otherwise Luether, Ridley, Cranmer, Hooper, etc. had no calling at all. For this point, I refer you to that I have set down before, chap. 18. of this Treatise. You ask this question, viz. When did God give idolaters leave to make ministers? I answer: even then when he gave the Israelites leave to make your ignorant Levites priests: and when he gave foolish electors of Magistrates leave to choose such Magistrates as your foele Candaules was that is, Almighty God gave no leave at all. And yet you are resolute, that the ignorant Levitical priests, which might be well begged for idiots were lawful priests, though not good priests: and that such as are chosen Magistrates even against the wool, have both the life and birth of Magistrates. It pleaseth you to say, that because Popish priests are no ministers in your judgement, that you cannot be assured to receive baptism at their hands. Then belike, if you were persuaded (as all learned men are) that Popish priests have a calling, you would be content that infants should be presented to baptism in the Popish Church: which Popish Church in your judgement, is no church at all. What I think of that particular, I will not presently write: but this I tell you, that this Argument doth not necessarily follow: viz. True circumcision was given in Idumea, and true baptism hath been & may be given of excommunicated heretics: therefore, they of jerusalem in the former times, might require circumcision amongst the Edomites, or they of Hippo or Carthage in latter times, might require baptism amongst the Donatists.  I. Penry. 
My reasons beside that they are no ministers, are these. And I desire that they may be examined by you, good M. Some, where you must remember that I speak not of that which hath been done yesterday, but of them assurance that may be had of that which to morrow is to be done.  R. Some. 
Sir, you desire me to examine your reasons. You shall have an easy suit of this: for I am very forward to do you that pleasure. You grant it to be baptism which was administered yesterday in the Popish church: but, you doubt of that which is delivered to morrow. Then yesterday a Sacrament, and to morrow none. You dare not for your ears, say in flat terms, that it was no baptism which was delivered heretofore in the Popish church: for then, many thousands whose Christendom you call in question, would condemn you for a Catabaptist. But it hath pleased you to set down this marginal note in an other place, viz. As I do not deny that which hath been done to be a Sacrament: so, if any can prove it to be none, I will not withstand him. In your Exhort. to the governors etc. of Wales, pag. 31. If I were not well acquainted with your absurd writings, I should wonder at you more than I do. Your reasons, such as they are, do follow.  I. Penry. 
Where there is no true Christ whereunto men can be engrafted by baptism, there true baptism as touching the substance cannot be gotten: for what baptism is that, which is not an engraffing into the true Christ?  
But in popery there is no true Christ, whereunto men may be engraffed, because he is not the true Christ, who either will not, or cannot satisfy the wrath of God for the sins of the elect, without their merits, and such is the Christ professed in popery, and no other.  
Therefore men cannot be assured to have the substance of baptism in the popish Church.  R. Some. 
I deny your Minor proposition: for such as were baptised in the Popish church, were engrafted by baptism into a true Christ. The essential form of baptism was and is retained by the Popish priests: viz. To baptise in the Name of the holy Trinity. If your Minor proposition were true as it is very false: then very many in this and other lands which were baptised by Popish priests in the Popish church, are unbaptized: for baptism is an engraffing into the true Christ: and you write that no such engraffing is in the Popish church, because no true Christ is professed in popery. If you tell me that you speak not of that which was done yesterday, but of that which is to morrow, it is a blind and beggarly shift: for the Christ professed in popery, was a divided Christ, when her Majesty was baptised, as even now he is in the Popish church. That case and profession is all one. To proceed, because I will answer your reason thoroughly, I will set it down in this sort: The Christ professed in Popery is a divided Christ, and consequently not a true Christ: therefore none in the Popish church are engrafted by baptism into the true Christ. This is your reason M. Penry. My answer is, your Antecedent is true: I deny your argument. My reason is: the false profession of any man whatsoever, cannot separat Christ from his own institution, Rom. 3: therefore, seeing Christ's institution is in Popish baptism, the true Christ is there, that is, in that baptism. I do set down my words more warily than I needed: because I find you to be a mere wrangler, and to take up that which I never let fall. Besides, circumcision in Idumea, as you writ, was true circumcision and a seal of God's covenant: yet, the Edomites, which you cannot deny, failed in the true worship of Almighty God. I hope you see by this time that your Arguments are scopae dissolutae, very lose ware and slenderly trussed together. I am sure you esteemed them mountains: but they are not worthy the name of mollhils. I deal plainly with you. If my answers please you not, confute them directly, and not with ifs, ands, and whies: in which kind of answering (if I may call it answering) you have a special grace.  I. Penry. 
No man can assure himself to have the substance of baptism out of the Church, and that by those that are without the Church: for then a sacrament might be had out of the Church, which were very impious and absurd to be affirmed.  
But popery is out of the Church, and so are all popish priests.  
Therefore no man can assure himself to have the substance of baptism in popery by any popish priest.  R. Some. 
Before that I deny any part of your reason, I must tell you that I have proved already that true baptism hath been and may be out of the Church. Cyprian thought otherwise, and therefore would have such as were baptised by excommunicated heretics, to be rebaptized. But he was and is condemned for that error by ancient & later writers. You give out very peremptorily, that it is very impious and absurd to affirm that baptism either hath been or may be out of the Church. So did the Donatists in Augustine's time. It is no great matter what you say. Your bolt is soon shot. Your water is very shallow. Many points which you condemn in your Consistory for gross absurdities, are manifest truths in the sound judgement of all reformed Churches. So is this present particular. Touching your argument, I deny your Minor. My reason is: the Popish church is a church though an unsound Church: and Popish priests have a calling though a faulty one. For proof of this I refer you to that which I have written before in this Treatise. If you like not my reasons, confute them.  I. Penry. 
That there is no Church at all in popery, and that all popish priests are out of the Church, besides the former reasons, this one doth further show. If there be a Church in popery, or if all popish priests be not out of the Church, than those magistrates that have separated themselves and their subjects (and all others that made this separation) from the Romish religion, as from that synagogue where salvation is not to be had, and consequently, where there is no Church, are schismatics, to speak the least. Because it is a schism to make this separation from the Church, detest the corruptions thereof we may, but make such a separation from the Church, we ought not unless we would be accounted schismatics. But those Magistrates and their people, that made this separation, are not schismatics, because in Popery the foundation is overthrown. You say in your book (M. Some) page 33. that you could press the Argument of the Magistracy against me very far. Whether you may or no, that shall be considered when I deal with the point: but this I am assured of, that in this point, you shall be driven either to defend the absurdity, that baptism is to be had out of the Church in a company estranged from Christ, which I think you will not do, or urged so far, as to the plain breach of a Statute (which far be it from me) even in the cause of treason. Will ye say that baptism may be had out of the Church? the assertion is absurd: Or will you hold that there is a Church in Popery? the assertion is dangerous, and I have proved it false. It is dangerous, because it affirmeth our Magistrates to be schismatics, inasmuch as they have separated themselves from the Church: I hope rather than you will fall into either of these points, that you will grant me the cause.  R. Some. 
I will answer your several points very briefly. The reason which you use to prove there is no Church at all in popery, is this, viz. If there be a Church at all in popery, the Magistrates and people which are of the religion are schismatics at the least. My answer is, that this is a popish argument. I have answered it before, and do rest in that answer. If either you or any of the popish sort mislike my answer, you may confute it. Besides, if there be no Church at all in popery, as you affirm, why should the Churches of England, Germany, Denmark, (which were sometimes popish) be called reformed Churches? The very name of reformed Churches doth manifestly import, that the Churches of England, Germany, Denmark, etc. (though popish and unsound) were Churches in some sort, before the reformation. If you think that all the popish sort which died in the popish Church o'er damned, you think absurdly: for you descent from the judgement of all the learned protestants, and do presume to sit in God's chair, which is intolerable sauciness. To say, or write, that true baptism hath been, and may be out of the Church, is a true proposition in divinity. Augustine did maintain it against the Donatists. The most famous men & Churches in our time, are of that judgement. I rest in that with all my heart. You account it an absurd proposition. The best is, you are not master of the sentences, as Peter Lombard was. If you were (which God defend) the sound divinity which is taught in Cambridge and Oxford, should be cried down, and your strange fancies should be ruled cases. The argument of the magistracy is touched before. I perceive it hath moved you a little: for you draw out a statute of Treason, etc. What, I beseech you good Sir? No less than Treason? you are a charitable man. I have, do, and will perform all duty, by God's grace, to the religion and my gracious Prince, so long as I live: therefore treason statutes can take no hold of me. Yea, the refutation of your blasphemous, anabaptistical, popish, and proud errors by me, is, I am sure, a performance of a special duty to Almighty God, my Prince, and this Church. And, I doubt not, but that blessing which God hath given already to my last treatise, and which his Majesty will give to this, will mar your market. Great words shall not fray me, etc. If your ignorant disciples will still magnify you, it shall not be strange to me: they do but their kind. Such as be learned & wise, have, & do find you out. Cognoscitur quis sit, ut ut laudetur Coruus. The most famous orators that ever were in Rome and Athens, could not make the raven to be no raven. Tertullus commended Felix, Act. 24. but Felix was an absurd body, and stripped of his office by Claudius Caesar. The Samaritans commended Simon Magus. Act. 8: Libanius the Sophister commended julian the Apostate. Socr. lib. 3. cap. 22. Eunomius commended Aetius, which was a pestilent heretic. Theodor. lib. 2. cap. 29. You have protested many times in your treatise that you reverence me: but here you offer me this choice, either to defend that which is in your judgement an absurdity (but in deed is none) or to incur the danger of treason etc. Do you think that I have any the least cause to believe your glorious protestations? joab pretended extraordinary good will to Abner, and Amasa: but he killed them. 2. Sam. 3. and 20. chap. Ishmael pretended extraordinary good will to them of Sichem, Silo, Samaria: the beast shed tears, but they were Crocodiles tears: for of 80. godly men he killed 70. of them. jer. cap. 41. judas kissed Christ, but he betrayed him. Matth. 26. You use goodly words sometimes, but proud malice will appear: it cannot be hidden. Marcus Cicero in his time had many hollow friends. After his return from banishment, he was revenged of them Nihil credendo, omnia cavendo, that is, in crediting them in nothing, and bewaring of them in every thing. If I serve you so, I can not be justly blamed. You pretend great sincerity and innocency: but your heretical absurdities in your treatise, and your shameless dealing with our Magistrates and learned men, do cry aloud that you are in deed very little acquainted with sincerity and innocency. I tell you plainly, that I like better Humile peccatum quàm superbam innocentiam, that is, humble sin then proud innocency. The humble Publican was more accounted of then the proud Pharisee. Luk. 18. I pray God with all my heart to keep me and all such as love the religion and detest your anabaptistical fancies, from such as you and the fantastical sort are. You and they are strange cattle. Your hope that I will grant you the cause you defend, is a vain hope: for I think great scorn to be one of ignorant Penries' disciples, that is, a proud and ignorant Anabaptist. If you will have any thing at my hands in divinity matters, you must gain it by force of argument. If you think that I will come off otherwise, you are in a wrong box: for I intent not to be at your whistle. Yea, I require and charge you in the name of God (if you be not void of grace) to confess your ignorance, to detest your errors, to yield unto God's truth, that God's blessing may rest upon you. If you refuse to do this, take heed that God's vengeance seize not upon you.  I. Penry. 
Lastly, if men might be assured that they could have the true substance of baptism in Popery, than they ought not to keep their children from Popish baptism, if there were no other baptism in the world to be had. For men might come to their baptism & detest their corruptions, if it be God's baptism, as you M. Some affirmed it to be, pag. 20. And they can add an edifying word unto the Sacrament: if the recital of the words of institution be an edifying word, and that be sufficient to make a Sacrament, both which you have written, page 23. 24. But men ought rather to keep their children unbaptized, then to offer them to be profaned by Popish baptism, both for the former reasons, and because we ought to have no more fellowship with Papists in the service of God, then with pagan idolaters. M. Caluine hath written otherwise in this point, therefore again I appeal to the word.  R. Some. 
I will answer this section of yours both briefly and roundly by the grace of God. That baptism delivered in the Popish church, was and is God's baptism, I make no question. For proof of this point, I have set down weighty reasons in my former treatise: One of M. Calvin's, an other ab Absurdo. Your answers to them are very foolish, and are so accounted of by the learned sort. I have examined them a little in this Treatise. It is the judgement of all the reformed Churches, that there was & is true baptism in the Popish church. Before, you denied it not: but now, the case is altered: you account it an error to affirm it. What mutability is this? He that would sail after your compass for Divinity matters, should prove as giddy as a goose. I pray God with all my heart to bless his people in England & Wales, and to keep them from such blind guides as the ignorant sort are, and from such blind guides as the ignorant sort are, and from such shameless and fantastical guides as you, M. Penry, are. Concerning this question, viz. whether men ought to offer their children to Popish baptism, if there were no other baptism in the world to be had: M. Penry saith one while that they ought, if Popish baptism be God's Baptism: which before he denied not. another while, he is peremptory that men ought rather to keep their children unbaptized. His reason is: because we ought to have no more fellowship with papists in God's service, then with pagan Idolaters. The issue therefore now is: first, whether infants ought rather to be kept unbaptized, then to be presented to popish baptism. Secondly, whether no more fellowship is to be had with papists in God's service, then with heathen Idolaters. Concerning the first question, M. Calvin's resolution is affirmative, if the parents (which they cannot do without peril of life) do publicly detest the popish corruptions. M. Calvin's reason is: the omitting of baptism is contempt of Christianity. Cal. Epist. 104. Of this judgement are Melanchthon and Peter Martyr. Cal. Epist. 103. & Viretus Tract: de common: fid. cum papist. Cer. pag. 61, 62, 70. I confess freely, that this is a very weighty question (but in this our time a needless question) and that men of great excellency for learning, have their several judgements. I would be loath to stir coals in this argument. Touching the other question, M. Penry saith that no more fellowship is to be had in religion matters with papists then with pagan Idolaters. I descent from him in this. My reasons are: first, the papists profess the holy Trinity: so do not the pagan Idolaters. Secondly, the papists are not altogether aliens from Gods external covenant: but the heathen Idolaters as yet are. Lastly, M. Caluine is very flat against you in this point. Epist. 104. In steed of answering his reasons in that Epistle, you appeal to the word. A strange kind of appealing, when M. Calvin's arguments are drawn out of the holy word. If you will deal plainly as you ought, never piddle any longer: go through stitch withal: seeing you are over shoes, adventure over boots too: confute Calvin's 104. Epistle, and that which he hath written very excellently upon the 20. verse of the 16. chap. of Ezechiel. If you give the unset, and fail (whereof I make no question) you shall lose no credit of learning: for you never had any as yet. Qui semel verecundiae limits etc. you know the rest.  I. Penry. 
Seeing therefore in Popery there is no Church, no Ministry, no Christ: Seeing we ought in no case to be joined with Papists in their religion, but to be separated from them, as from those that are out of the Church, and such as are become a very filthy cage and nest of unclean and sacrilegious idolaters: therefore also it necessarily followeth, that neither our Popish recusants, nor any else, offering their children to be baptised in the Popish synagogue, by those polluted and unclean Priests, may assure themselves that they can be there partakers of true baptism, as touching the substance of baptism.  R. Some. 
Seeing therefore in the judgement of all learned men and all reformed Churches, there is in popery, a Church, a Ministry, a true Christ into whom very many have been and are engrafted by Baptism: it is a sure consequent, first that you have keptstrange coil's in comptrolling all the Churches of God, and in setting down arguments as clear as midnight: Secondly, that your conclusion (viz. that there is in popery, no Church, no ministry, no Christ) is nothing else but an anabaptistical flourish, which will melt as wax before the fire, and vanish as smoke before the wind.   

CHAP. 24.  R. Some. 
BEfore that I set down M. Penries' proposition & reasons touching unpreaching Ministers, I must tell the godly reader, first, that my judgement is, that Almighty God never called any to the holy ministery, either in the old or new Testament, but he gave them gifts fit for that holy function: Secondly, that by unpreaching Ministers, I understand such as have gifts in no measure, for the discharge of that holy function. Such are M. Penries' ignorant levitical priests, whom he warranteth (notwithstanding their extreme ignorance) to be lawful priests, though not good priests. Such are some in our days, which are fit for the belfray, then for the body of the Church. That such as these are, and they which admitted them, sinned grossly, I make no question. That such ignorant men ought to be thrust out of the holy ministery, and sent to some occupation, is a clear and ruled case in God's book. I have handled this argument before: I rest in that which I have written there.  I. Penry. 
That unpreaching ministers are no ministers.  
They are affirmed to be no Ministers, not because they are evil ministers, but because their ministery is an evil and profane ministery: So that in this point the fault is not found with the evil minister, but with the evil ministery. Their ministery is profane and evil, because there is no mention made of it in the word. And a ministry not mentioned in the word is no ministry, but a profane constitution. For the Lord hath expressly set down every ministry of the new Testament, that should be in the Church unto the world's end: Whereas he hath not once mentioned the ministery of our Readers, because it is not a preaching Ministry. The sum of this whole controversy is contained in these three axioms.  
1 Every ministry is expressly set down in the word.  
2 Every ministry of the new Testament is a preaching ministry.  
3 The ministry of our unpreaching ministers, is not a preaching Ministry.  
If you can show either of these 3. points to be false, I am overthrown: if neither, you must yield. The truth of all three, I have showed out of the word, in the last edition of my book. The two former are confirmed by the places quoted on the margin.  R. Some. 
My answer shall be so brief as may be. Wherein I descent, I will give my reasons. If the ministery (as you say) of unpreaching ministers be an evil and profane ministery, it is a good consequent, that unpreaching ministers, are evil and profane ministers. The argument followeth à coniugatis. To proceed: you writ, that the ministery of ignorant ministers, is not mentioned in the word▪ therefore it is no ministery (in your judgement) but a profane constitution. I am sure you think this argument to be a sure one, but you are foully deceived. I deny your antecedent. My reason is: By ministery in your antecedent, I understand the reading of the holy Scriptures, the delivering of the publikee prayers, the administration of the Sacraments: all which are the constitution of Almighty God, therefore no profane constitution, as you very profanely do imagine. He that misliketh the reading of the holy Scriptures, is a Zwing fildian heretic. He that misliketh the administration of the Sacraments, is a Messalian heretic. He that misliketh the invocation of our gracious God, is a filthy Atheist, that is, of no religion. If you tell me, that you think excellently of the administration of the Sacraments, public prayers, etc. But that your meaning is, that it is not God's pleasure, that ignorant men should administer such precious jewels, I assent unto you: but, I must add this, that as you and I do mislike the entrance of unfit men into, and the continuance of them in the holy ministery, so neither of us can justly mislike their ministery, that is, the reading of the holy Scriptures, etc. Now I come to your propositions, which you call Axioms. The first is this: viz. Every ministery is expressly set down in the word. I grant that the substance of every ministery is expressly set down in the holy word. By ministery, I understand not only the ministery of the word & Sacraments (as you do in this place) but that ministery which concerneth the relief of the poor, and the civil government. For the Magistrate is the minister of God. Rom. 13. If Magistracy is God's ministery, and the substance of it expressly set down in God's book, it is a good consequent that Magistracy is not a device of man, but an ecclesiastical constitution, prescribed in the word. Your second Axiom is this: viz. Every ministery of the new Testament is a preaching ministery. If you mean (as I think you do) every ministery of the word in the new Testament, I descent not from you. Now sir, to come a little nearer you, I must tell you that which either you know not, or dissemble, viz. that the laws of this land do bar ignorant men from entering into the holy ministery: they are flat against it. I offer you a branch of an Act of Parliament to be considered of. The words of the Act are these: viz. That none shall be made minister or admitted to preach or minister the Sacraments, being under the age of 24. years, nor unless he first bring to the Bishop of that Diocese from men known to the Bishop to be of sound religion, a testimonial both of his honest life, and of his professing the doctrine expressed in the said Articles: nor, unless he be able to answer and render to the Ordinary an account of his faith in Latin, according to the said Articles: or, have special gift and ability to be a preacher: nor shall be admitted to the order of Deacon or ministery, unless he shall first subscribe to the said Articles. Anno. 13. Reg. Elizab. cap. 12. You see by this, that the law of the land requireth in him which is to be admitted to the holy ministery, soundness in religion, gifts in some measure, and honesty of life. They must to together. Learning without godliness, is as a gold ring upon a swine's snout. Godliness in a minister, without learning, is, as a fair colour without light to show it by, and as a goodly bell without a clapper. Your third Axoime is this: viz. The ministery of our unpreaching ministers, is not a preaching ministery. No man doubteth of this, unless he be void of common sense. Thus you have my resolution briefly for these points: and yet you are no conqueror, as Caesar was, nor I overthrown, as Pompey was. If your arguments were as tidie, as your speeches are confident, there were no dealing with you. I perceive the greatest barkers are not the sorest biters. Answer me I pray you directly to these questions. Do you think, because our unpreaching ministers are not preaching ministers, that no sacraments either were or are administered by them? Before, you deny it not. If you should, neither sacrifices nor sacraments were offered or administered by your ignorant Levitical priests: for they were unpreaching ministers. Do you think that all such are polluted, which receive a Sacrament at the hands of unpreaching ministers? If you do, than was Saint Paul polluted which communicated with your ignorant Levites: for they were unpreaching ministers. Thus you see, to what straits you are driven.   

CHAP. 25. I. Penry. THE ministery OF OUR unpreaching ministers, is not a preaching ministery.  
IF the ministery of unpreaching ministers be a preaching ministery, or if their function be a pastoral or doctoral function, than there had been a preaching ministry, a pastoral and doctoral function known in the Church, though there never had been any preacher therein. Otherwise, how can their ministry be a preaching ministry, or their function be a pastoral function, whereas the same may be in the Church, no preaching ministry or pastoral function being known there? But no Church, much less a ministry had there been known, if there never had been any that could have preached: Because God ordained the Saints and so a Church, only to be gathered together by preaching ordinarily, but not by the ministry of readers, because it might have been in the world, & yet no saint gathered thereby: which thing experience in our Church proveth to be too true.  R. Some. 
You would think him strangely occupied, that should set down arguments to prove that midnight is not high noon. Your labour is such in this particular: and you sweat & moil in it very busily. The gain you are like to reap, is your labour for your travail. You writ, that if no preaching had been, no Church had been. If you mean that no Church had ordinarily been without preaching, that is, that preaching is the ordinary means for the beginning and growth of the Church, I assent unto you: but I add this, that it hath and doth please God, by the reading of the holy Scriptures and the working of his Spirit, to renew the hearts of many. If you shall answer that this course is not so ordinary as the other, I will accept your answer, and withal confess that in this point, no difference is between us.  I. Penry. 
My 2. and 3. reasons are drawn out of these words of Paul, Rom. 12.6 7.8. Seeing then that we have gifts that are divers, according to the grace that is given unto us: whether we have prophecy, let us prophecy, according to the proportion of faith: or an office, let us wait on the office: or he that teacheth on teaching, or he that exhorteth on exhorting, etc. The 2. reason is thus concluded.  
Whosoever hath received a ministry, and so a pastoral or doctoral function, he hath received prophecy spoken of in this place, verse 6. Because every pastoral or doctoral function, mentioned in the 7. and 8. verse, under these words, he that teacheth, he that exhorteth: are contained under the word prophecy, vers. 6. Insomuch as he that hath not received that prophecy there set down, whereby is meant the interpretation of the word: he hath not received the pastoral or doctoral function set down vers. 7.8 But unpreaching ministers have not received the prophecy spoken of in this place, which is expressly set down, verse 6. to be one of the divers gifts bestowed for the government of the body, which is the Church. Therefore also, they have received neither a pastoral nor a doctoral function, and so no preaching ministry.  R. Some. 
Your drift is as before, to prove that our ignorant ministers are unfurnished, therefore no preachers. You say true. Will you conclude of this, that they have no ministery at all, & that the actions of their ministry, viz. the administration of the sacraments, the reading of the holy scriptures, etc. are not profitable in any sort to the godly assembly? If you dispute thus, I deny your argument, and do give this reason. An absurd Magistrate is not furnished by almighty God, and therefore utterly unfit to be God's lieutenant: but we may not infer of this, that the acts done by him in his magistracy are not the acts of a Magistrate. If you tell me that the arguments for unfit magistrates & ministers are of several stamps, I grant you say so. So did, when time was, an other gross Anabaptist: but all learned men agree with me, and dissent from you.  I. Penry. 
3 No ministry is separated from a gift, because prophecy spoken of in this 6. verse, under which as we see, every pastoral and doctoral ministry is contained, cannot be severed from a gift: but the ministry of our readers is severed in them from a gift: therefore in them it is no ministry.  
It is no ministry in them I say, although that ministry, the general name whereof they have, is not severed from a gift in preaching ministers: But what is that to them? what is the ministry of other men unto them? they are not ministers, by the ministry wherewith other men are endued, but by their own, which being severed from a gift, is no ministry. Paul had been no Apostle, & had received no Apostleship, unless he could have said, I am a minister according unto the grace given unto me, Ephe. 3.7. and not according to the grace given unto other Apostles, the general name of whose Apostleship I am entitled with. A ridiculous speech it were to say, mine apostleship hath received grace, but I that am the apostle have received none.  
How then may our readers claim a preaching ministry unto themselves, seeing the ministry which they challenge, is altogether in them without a gift, though it be not so in others?  R. Some. 
I grant that no lawful and good Minister of God wants furniture of gifts. If you will conclude of this, that the approbation of the Church is nothing if sufficient parts be wanting in them which are admitted to the ministery, I deny your argument, and do offer you for my reason a flower of your own garden: even that which you have written before in these words, viz. that unfitness to teach made not a nullity of the Levitical priests office. If you answer that extreme ignorance in the levitical priests, did neither bar them from, nor strip them of the levitical priesthood: I reply that this is a positive and perpetual law of almighty God for the priests then, & for the Ministers now, viz. The priests lips shall keep knowledge. Mal. 2. yea, M. Caluine a famous learned man writeth upon that place of Malachi, that Sacerdos & doctor sunt termini convertibiles, that is, that God's priest & a teacher are so near of kin, that they are like to Hypocrates twins, which laughed together and wept together, which lived together and died together. You add that the ministery in preaching ministers is not severed from a gift: but that the unpreaching minister is not enriched by the furniture of another man's gifts. A deep matter forsooth. It is as clear as the Sun, that learned ministers have furniture of gifts, & that ignorant men are not learned because the other are so. Blind Bartimeus could have espied this. Do you think that any man of any account for learning will reason thus? divers learned men have written excellently, therefore M. Penry hath so, which hath broached many palpable errors. If any should dispute thus, he should reason absurdly: and yet it is a wise a speech as that which was delivered even now by yourself. You writ that it were a ridiculous speech to say, Mine Apostleship hath received grace, but I that am the Apostle, have received none. I confess that God's graces are not tied to any chair. To think otherwise, is a popish fancy. But I dare tell you this, which I am sure is good divinity, that some actions of ignorant & evil ministers may have good grace at God's hands, when the parties themselves find none. I prove it thus. First, the sacrifices of ignorant levitical priests were profitable to many godly men in that time, but not to those priests. Secondly, public prayers delivered by absurd ministers in the name of the godly assembly, are profitable to the assembly, but not to them: for the prayers are accepted by almighty God, Non properuersitate praepositorum, sed pro devotione populorum, that is, Not for the perverseness of the ministers, but for the devotion of the people. Augu. contra epist. Parm. libr. 2. cap. 8.  I. Penry. 
Every unpreaching minister sinneth in executing the works of a pastoral function, as the Sacraments, etc. therefore he hath no ministry, and so neither a pastoral nor doctoral function. He hath no ministry, because his calling is not the calling of the ministry. His calling is not the calling of the ministry, because he sinneth in intermeddling with the works thereof. And this is an infallible truth, that no man sinneth because he dealeth with the works of his calling. For this is the duty that God requireth at the hands of every man. Many sin in deed because they walk corruptly in their callings, and have no care to glorify God therein, Col. 3.17. But leave thy corruption and thou sinnest not, in keeping thee to the works of thy calling. The hypocrites in the days of Isaiah 1.13. sinned not because they offered sacrifice, but because they did the same through hypocrisy. Their hypocrisy they ought to have left, but not his service in sacrificing according to his commandment: but our readers though they should with as little corruption, and as great zeal to God's glory and the good of his Church as any men, deal in the works of a pastoral ministry, yet they should still do that which the Lord had forbidden them to do, whence it appeareth, that the works of the ministry are not the works of their calling. For God forbiddeth no man to deal therewith, and not being the works of their calling, they are no ministers, and have neither pastoral nor doctoral function.  R. Some. 
You would fain prove that unpreaching ministers have no ministery at all: but it will not be. You have evil luck. you cannot hit that mark. Your reason is this: Every unpreaching minister sinneth in executing the works of a pastoral function, as the Sacraments etc. therefore he hath no ministery etc. Mine answer is, that I deny your argument. My reason is: The sons of Heli sinned in the execution of their ministry, 1. Sam. 2. yet they were ministers. The contentious ministers of Philippi sinned in the execution of their ministery, Philippi. 1. yet they were ministers. You go on M. Penry in this sort: The Lord, you say, hath forbidden ignorant men to deal with the works of the ministery, therefore ignorant ministers have no ministery at all. Your Antecedent is true: for the holy ministery is too high a calling for such base companions. Your argument is very false. My reason is: your ignorant Levites were forbidden by almighty God to enter into the priesthood: yet they were lawful priests in your judgement, because they were of the line of Aaron etc.  I. Penry. 
This is further showed, forasmuch as the Lord doth not commit unto bare readers the charge of those souls, over whom they are, which he doth unto every one that hath a pastoral function, Acts. 20.26.28. 1. thes. 5.12. Heb. 13.17. For to what end else, should he commit a ministery unto any, who have souls under their charge? The Church in deed may commit the souls of men unto readers, but certainly the Lord committeth none unto them. And he is no minister, unto whom the Lord doth not commit this charge, as the places before quoted do show. For the Lord hath in his word, ordained not only offices, the executors whereof should have the oversight of souls, but also the persons who were to execute those functions, 1. Cor. 12.28. 1. Pet. 4.10. Rom. 12.6.7.8. Ephes. 4.7.11. Now unpreaching ministers are none of those persons, because the Lord knoweth them not to be able to feed souls. And let not men be so injurious unto the Lord, as to affirm, that he according unto his revealed ordinance (for thereof I speak as of a ministery, and not of his secret judgements) bequeathed the souls of men to be starved and kept from salvation. As he must needs be convinced, to do if he bequeathed them unto those men, the dispensation of whose ministery is able to beget none, feed none, save none. You must understand again, that I speak of the ministery whereby readers are ministers, that is, of their own, and not of the ministery whereby preaching ministers are ministers, wherewith readers have nothing to do.  R. Some. 
That almighty God never committed charge of souls to ignorant men (unless it were to punish them, as he did the rebellious Israelites by ignorant levitical priests) is a clear truth in divinity: I agree with you in that. You say that the dispensation of our reader's ministery doth feed none. In that you err grossly. My reason is: The Sacraments administered by them do comfort and feed the souls of the godly communicants: for the virtue of the Sacrament dependeth not of any minister whatsoever etc. The scriptures read by unpreaching ministers do edify the assembly which is reverently attentive. If you answer that the word sound preached doth edify more, I assent. If you deny that the scriptures read by unpreaching ministers do edify in any sort, you speak blasphemously, & I have refuted that absurdity, Chap. 4. of this treatise. There is great difference between the Minister and ministery: but either you cannot or will not see it.  I. Penry. 
Moreover, how can the Lord be said to commit the charge of souls, according to his own revealed ordinance, unto those who may truly object unto him, that he dealeth injuriously with them, by exacting those things to be performed at their hands and in their own persons, as necessary duties of their callings, unto the performance whereof, they have received no ability from him? Is man to be answerable unto the Lord of that which he never received? doth the Lord require the use of that talon which he never bestowed? doth he lay that upon any, whereof he may have just cause to complain? When did he impose a charge upon any, unto whom he gave not gifts to discharge the same? now the charge of souls which he committeth unto any, he requireth at their hands unto whom he hath committed it, which he could not do, if he had not given ability to the discharge thereof.  R. Some. 
I have proved before, Chap. 2. that almighty God furnished such as he called to the holy ministery in the old and new Testament. I rest in that. If his Majesty (which is far from him) either had or did commit the charge of souls to such as have no metal in them, he might be justly convinced of, and challenged for inivirious dealing with them. No good Captain will send his soldier naked into the field against an armed enemy. You writ that God dealeth injuriously with men, by exacting those things to be performed at their hands and in their own persons as necessary duties of their callings, unto the performance whereof, they have received no ability from him, etc. You refer this speech, I am sure, to the Ministers. To take you otherwise, were to wring your words, and to misconstrue you. I will not offer you such measure: therefore I leave you a little while, and to tell the godly Reader that the Pelagians in Augustine's time, and the Papists in our time, reason in this sort: Almighty God requireth nothing at our hands, unto the performance whereof he hath not given ability: therefore the regenerate are able to fulfil the Law of God in this life. This argument was and is accounted of the Pelagians and Papists an invincible reason: but it is a very simple one. I deny the Antecedent, etc. The reason is: God requireth of us the fulfilling of the Law: but, the regenerate are not able to fulfil it. That this point may be better understanded, I will set down my proposition and reasons, in the end of this book.  I. Penry. 
What then? shall ignorant ministers be free from the blood of souls, in as much as the Lord never committed any soul unto their charge? It were well with them poor men, if the case so stood. But alas it is not so. And yet the cause of their destruction proceedeth not from their unfaithfulness in the discharge of that vocation which he hath allotted unto them, but it cometh justly upon them, in that they have desperately thrust themselves contrary unto Gods revealed will, upon those men, with the oversight of whose souls God never trusted such as they are. The Lord saith unto them, intrude yourselves and you will, unto the places of pastors, and so enforce me to bring heavy and swift damnation upon you: but surely I will bequeath no soul unto your custody. They on the other side in their practice say, Lord whether thou committest unto us any charge of any soul or no, we care not, but rather than we should not have the means to live in this life, (for this is their only scope in continuing in the ministery) require the blood of souls, and what thou wilt at our hands. And so senseless men, they sell themselves, body and soul unto everlasting woe and destruction.  R. Some. 
I am so far from being a defence to ignorant, either Levites before, or Ministers now, that I confess freely that their entrance into the priesthood and ministery, and continuance in it most absurdly, was and is a grievous sin. If the Lord hath or shall punish them severely for their instrusion into so high a calling, they cannot plead not guilty. If they do, it is in vain: for, at God's bar they shall not be acquitted. You writ that the ignorant ministers, whom you call senseless men, do sell themselves body and soul to everlasting destruction. Your speech is true: Illi viderint: Let them, if they be not graceless and shameless, look unto it. All that I say unto it, is: the Lord for his Christ's sake heal that sore. It is not so grievous, thanks be to God, as it was: I assure myself, it will be less: I would to God it were none.  I. Penry. 
The pretence that the Lord committeth the charge of souls unto their ministery, and not unto them, is first a desiring of that in question: (for they are denied to have any ministery) and otherwise many ways unsufficient. 1 Because the Lord committeth not the charge of souls there, where the punishment of their destruction cannot take hold, as it can not upon the ministery: 2 the ministery is but a dead thing of itself, most beautiful in deed, as being an ordinance of the Lord, but able to save none, unless it be committed unto a person, who in the execution thereof, is able to show himself to be appointed of God for that glorious work. This is taught Ephes. 4. where the Apostle verses 6. and 7. having spoken of the gifts bestowed upon men for this ministerial work, ascribeth vers. 11.12. the gathering together of the Saints, not unto the gifts or functions, but unto men endued with the said gifts. For he doth not say that the Lord hath appointed for the gathering together of the Saints, an apostleship, a pastoral or doctoral function, etc. but that he ordained apostles, pastors, etc. for that end and purpose: whereunto because our readers were not appointed, it forcibly ensueth, that they have no ministery, no pastoral or doctoral function, and so are no ministers: which conclusion also in the last edition of mine exhortation unto my countrymen, I have enforced by many strong, and as I am assured invincible reasons, drawn out of the infallible truth of God's word.  R. Some. 
What other men do or will pretend, I cannot tell. I am fully persuaded, that Almighty God did never commit his sheep, soldiers, city, to foolish shepherds, unskilful captains, blind watchmen. Such shepherds, captains, watchmen, were your ignorant levitical Priests, whose entrance and continuance in the priesthood, are condemned by the written word. The line of Aaron was not strong enough to break the cords of Almighty God. Such shepherds, captains, watchmen, are our ignorant ministers. Let the ignorant Levites and ministers be matched together, good M. Penry. They must needs sail in one ship, fight under one banner, and be condemned at one bar: and yet I grant, that your ignorant levites which were never called of God, but of the jewish Church, did offer and deliver the Legal Sacrifices and Sacraments: and that the godly Communicants were not polluted by their ignorance. You must of force grant me thus much for unpreaching ministers: for you have not before denied it. So shall some questions between you and me be decided, and you shall agree with all the learned Protestants and reform Churches. You writ that the Apostle doth not say that the Lord hath appointed for the gathering together of the Saints, an Apostleship, a pastoral or doctoral function, but that he ordained apostles, pastors, etc. You writ strangely in my judgement. If God appointed Apostles, he appointed the Apostleship: if pastors, he appointed a pastoral function: for they cannot be singled. Every mean Logician, yea every sensible man conceiveth this.  I. Penry. 
I would entreat you, M Some, when you have answered the reasons I have now set down, to answer also the 1.2.3. and 25. reason that I have there used. For you shall but strive in vain against the conclusion, as long as the premises, whereby it is inferred, remain firm. If the Reader would be further satisfied in this point concerning the dumb ministery, he is to be referred unto that which in the aforesaid Treatise I have set down.  R. Some. 
I have now answered your whole book. I have and do submit my labour to the judgement of the learned, therefore not of you or your ignorant disciples. Because you will have me have a little more work, you in treat me to answer four reasons in your Addition. If you had not been very lordly, you would have set down the reasons you self: but, whatsoever you do, becometh you. You may command, control, and deal with others, as Strato did, which was a king over beasts. At the least, you think so, whatsoever other men do. Well, I am content to satisfy your desire: for, as good hap is, I have your book by me: and it is a fault in extremo actu deficere, that is, to resemble the slothful poet in the winding up of the clue. Your first reason is contained in these words: viz. Every one that hath the life of a minister good or bad (or that is a minister in deed) is ordained of God for the gathering together of the Saints: For, there is no other minister spoken of in the word. No bare reader is ordained of God for this end: Therefore no bare reader is a minister in deed, or hath the life of a minister, good or bad. In Add. pag. 52. I answer briefly, that some parts of your Mayor proposition are without sense. You writ that every 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 gross errors. The first error is, that bad ministers are ordained of God for the gathering together of the Saints. It is a certain truth in God's book, that such as are called by the Lord to this excellent work, are not bad ministers, as you very basely do imagine, but choice men for gifts and life, etc. 1. Tim. 3. Your second error, is this: viz. That furniture of gifts is one part of the life of a bad minister. This is strange divinity. My reason is: furniture of gifts is one part of the life of a good minister: therefore want of gifts is one branch of the life of a bad minister. The Antecedent is manifest: the argument is strong: secundùm legem oppositionis, as the Logicians term it. I have told you often, that furniture of gifts is of the essence of a lawful 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, unless you will cry down your ignorant Levites, and hold this for a principle, that no Sacrament, either was or is administered by unpreaching ministers. Your three other reasons, are all one, and may be shut up in this short argument: viz. Unpreaching ministers are not able to feed the elect with the food of knowledge and understanding: therefore they have no calling at all, howsoever they have the Church's approbation, etc. In Add. pag. 55.57. I deny your argument, and have set down 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 have the consent of all the learned, and that Almighty God will bless this labour.   

CHAP. 26. The regenerate are not able to fulfil the Law of God.  
¶ My reasons are.  
THe Law is a yoke, which neither the holy Fathers, nor the Apostles, etc. were able to bear. So saith the Apostle Peter in that famous Council holden at jerusalem: his words are these, Why tempt ye God, to lay a yoke on the disciples necks, which neither our Fathers, nor we were able to bear, etc. Acts. chap. 15. verse 10.11. S. Peter speaketh expressly of such as were regenerate.  
2 It was impossible to the Law (to take away sin and death) in as much as it was weak because of the flesh. So writeth S. Paul Rom. 8. therefore the weakness of flesh is such even in the regenerate, that they are not able to fulfil the Law. jex jubet, non juuat: ostendit peccatum, non tollit: that is, the Law doth command, but not help: the Law doth show sin, but it doth not take away sin.  
3 The regenerate are guilty of the breach of some one commandment: therefore they do not fulfil the Law.  
The antecedent is manifest, for the regenerate do sin, 1. john 1.8. Matth. 6.12. Non peccare, Dei justitia: that is, not to sin is God's righteousness etc. and sin is a transgression of the Law, 1. john 3 I prove my argument thus: He that faileth in one (commandment) is guilty of all. james 2.10. The reason of that is, First, because he hath violated the majesty of the Lawgiver which is one and the same: Secondly, because the body of God's Law is individuum, that is, cannot be parted.  
4 The works of the regenerate, are unperfit. Aaron which was the high Priest, in the time of the Law, and a figure of Christ, was appointed by Almighty God, to bear the iniquity of the holy offerings, Exod. Chap. 28. verse 38. S. Paul after his conversion, was far from perfection, Phil. Chap. 3. The same Apostle writeth thus of himself: I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified. 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, Almighty God) before whom our virtues tremble: So writeth Anselmus, which was sometimes Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Commentary upon 1. Corinth. Chap. 4.  
5 The regenerate cannot love God & their neighbour perfectly, as the Law of God requireth: for they offend God and their neighbour, either in word, deed, or concupiscence, therefore, etc. The Law is spiritual, Rom. Chap. 7. that is, bindeth our hearts as well as our bodies to obedience. Who can say (truly) my heart is clean? Pro. Chap. 20. Who can tell how oft he offendeth? Psal. 19 In quibusdam justos suos quoniam ad huc extolli possunt, non adiwat ad perficiendamiustit iam, ut dum non iustificatur in conspectu eius omnis vivens, actionem gratiarum semper indulgentiae ipsius debeamus: & sic ab illa prima causa omnium vitiorum, id est à tumore superoiae, sancta humilitate sanemur. August de peccas. mer. & remiss. contra. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 13. The sum of Augustine's words is, that because just men may grow proud, Almighty God doth not assist them in some particulars to perfit righteousness, that they may be thankful for his mercy, and decline pride, etc.  
6 The Scripture doth conclude all under sin, that the promise, that is, everlasting inheritance, by the faith of jesus Christ, should be given to them that believe, Galath. Chap. 3. verse 22.  
Question.  
If we cannot fulfil the law of God, what use have we of the law?  
Answer.  
By the law we understand God's pleasure more certainly. Psal. 19 by the law, we understand our nakedness, as we do our debts by an obligation, and our spots by the looking glass. The law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Galath. chap. 3. verse 24. which Christ is a surgeon and physician to the wounded and diseased.  
Question.  
How are we just in God's sight?  
Answer.  
By Christ's righteousness: which is ours by imputation, as our sins were Christ's by imputation. The Apostle writeth that Christ is our righteousness. 1. Corinth. chap. 1.  
It is confessed both by protestants and papists, that we are justified by Grace. The difference between us is in this. The protestants by this word (Grace) understand God's favour, whereby our sins are pardoned: by which mere and only Grace and mercy of God in Christ, we are justified in God's sight. The papists by this word (Grace) understand a quality powered into our hearts by Almighty God: by reason of which quality we live holily and are justified (as they say) in God's sight. This is the Inherent righteousness which the papists do write and speak so much of. We which are the protestants, do confess, that that righteousness, which is an effect of God's sanctifying spirit, and the fruit of our justification before God, is inherent in us: likewise the first fruits of our glorification, that is, peace of conscience & joy in the holy Ghost. That righteousness whereby we are accounted just, or are justified, or are made just before God, is not inherent in us, my reason is: we are made righteous by Christ's obedience. Rom. chap. 5. vers. 19 which obedience of Christ, is not within, but without us: and yet this obedience of Christ, is apprehended by a justifying faith, as alms is by the hand of a poor man. perfit righteousness should be inherent in us, if we could keep all God's commandments as exactly, as Almighty God requireth. The best men were and are short in that. Only our Lord and saviour jesus Christ, which was free from sin, did fulfil the law as God requireth.  
justitia nostra potiùs constat remissione peccatorum, quàm perfectione virtutum: that is, our righteousness doth consist rather in forgiveness of sins, then in perfection of virtues. August. de civit: dei. lib. 19 cap. 27.  
FINIS.