CHAP. 1. Of the question and parties to the disputation.

IN the following discourse we inquire after these two questions.

1 Whether the present Romish Church, be the true Church or not.

2 Whether the professors of the present Romish faith, can be saved or not.

These two doe mutually imply each other. So as we may truely say, if she be a Church, then is there saluation in her, if salvation, then a Church, and contrarywise, wherefore the proofe of the first confirmes the latter.

The parties to the present disputation are, 2 our Church and all her true and lawfull children, vp­on the one part: And two of her vnnatutall chil­dren make the other part. Which of them hath the truth, I hope (by Gods grace) openly to disco­ver, before we end this Treatise.

Our Church holds the negatiue in the first que­stion, and hath set her sentences downe in the se­cond Homilie for whitsontide in these words

1 The state of the present Church of Rome, is so far wide from the nature of the true Church, that nothing can be more.

2 The Bishops of Rome and their adherents, are not the true Church of Christ.

[Page 2]3 The true Church is not at Rome.

The first and second of the alledged sentences, are expressely found barely set downe as I haue al­ledged them, and they are sufficient to let vs know the faith of our Church in the matter in hand.

The third, is necessarily implyed by our Church at these words.

If it be poss [...]ble for Gods spirit to be there where the true Church is not then is it at Rome.

In this latter sentence our Church presumes, that the true Church is not at Rome, otherwise the infe­rence would be fond and ridiculous, and indeed the Disputation in that place being framed accor­ding to Art standeth thus.

• Where the holy Ghost is, there is the true Church.
• But at Rome, there is not the true Church.
• Therefore the holy Ghost is not at Rome,

The Proposition is pursued after the words last alledged, the Assumption is confirmed by argu­ments going before.

Thus our Church by repeating the same con­clusion often, sheweth vs how serious she is in the matter, and by often varying her manner of spea­king, we cleerely vnderstand her meaning.

The foresaid two opponents doe hold the af­firmatiue against our Church, 2 namely:

The Church of Rome as she is at this present, is a true Church. As page 30 in the one, and page 18. in the other.

Before we enter vpon the discussion hereof, 4 we must first vnderstand the termes wherein this question is delivered.

By Romish Church, we meane the Bishops of Rome and their adherents, (that is to say) all such both Clergie and Laytie, which liue in the Romish Reli­gion, and communicate in her faith, and make vp one society or body.

And herein all sides agree as the Reader may finde in the Homilie alledged, and in both our op­ponents in page 13 of the one, and page 15, 17. and 100. of the other. We must also further knowe, that the R [...]mish faith consisteth, either in the Vni­versall consent of their learned, or in the Decrees of their Councels, or in both.

The first is their Catholick, the second is their divine faith. So as he that professeth their religi­on, and communicates in their faith, beleeues as they doe in the manner aforesaid.

Hitherto I haue alledged the Homilie, 5 as the doctrine of our Church, and I presume none will reproue me for it, because all that booke, is solemn­ly confirmed as such by our State, It is to be read in all our Churches by publike appointment, and is subscribed vnto by all our Ministers, as contein­ing Doctrine, godly, wholesome, and necessary, I say, it is so subscribed vnto, because the 36 Canon requi­reth, that no person shalbe received into the Ministry; nor suffered to exercise any part of the Ministeriall function in any place within this Realme, except he shall first subscribe (amongst other things) vnto the 39 Articles [Page 4]of Religion, agreed vpon by the whole Clergy Anno 1562. Now the 36 Canon in commanding subscrip­tion to the said 39 Articles, doth also consequently command subscription to the bookes of Homilies, because the 35 Article doth no more but ratifie & con­firme the former and second booke of Homilies.

Now if the present Homilie be the doctrine of our Church, then the sentences alledged out of the same can be no lesse, for they are such a maine and principall part thereof, that the Homilie cannot subsist without them. And thus I hope every Rea­der hath direction enough, touching the state of the question and the parties to the Disputation.

CHAP. 2. Of our first Argument for the maine question, and of their generall answer thereunto.

OVr Church in the Homilie already recited, 1 hath an argument expresly thus.

• The true Church is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles, and Prophets, Iesus Christ himselfe be­ing the head corner stone.
• But the present Romish Church, is not built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, for they reteyne not the sound and pure doctrine of Christ Iesu, neither do they order the Sacraments in such sort, as he did first institute and ordeyne them, that now they may seeme to be converted in­to a new guise.
• Therefore the present Romish Church, is not the true Church.

The Homilie takes the proposition to be a discription of the Church, so rgreeable to the Scriptures, and Aun­cient Fathers, that none may iustly find fault therewith. So likewise it takes the Assumption, as a confessed truth by all such as haue any light of Gods word, and insight into their liues, and examples. Whereupon it is confi­dent of the conclusion.

Though this Argument wanteth not strength, to inferre the conclusion, 2 so as it needeth not our further labour, yet before I passe from it, I will vn­fold the termes.

By Christ and his seruants, not their persons, but their Preaching and Revelation is vnderstood.

The sacred Revelation, is called the Churches foun­dation, because by the profession therof, the Church is made to be that which it is, and is differenced from all other Societies in the world, and good reason, because by the profession of the divine Re­velation, the Church is ordered vnto heaven, which befalleth no Societie else whatsoever, the Homilie speaks of the foundation of the Church, as one intire & individuall whole, that is, of one complete being vndivided into parts or kinds, and it attri­butes the same in the Proposition to the true Church, as adequate thereunto, and convertible therewith, and it denyes it in the Assumption, vnto the present Romish Church vniuersally, or totally. So as the Church of Rome, and the Sacred Reve­lation in the intent of the Homilie, are divided as things really, and essentially, distinct and different, as if our Church had said, the Romish Church sitteth besides the foundation of the Divine Revelation.

And thus our Church must be vnderstood, be­cause this sence agrees with the Scriptures, with the 39 Article, and with true reason, all other sences are violent and inforced as we shall see in the pro­secution of this Argument.

According to this interpretation, 3 the Argu­ment may be framed in these termes.

• The true Church professeth the Preaching, or Reue­lation of Christ, and his Apostles.
• The present Romish Church professeth not the prea­ching or Revelation of Christ and his Apostles,
• Therefore the present Romish Church, is not the true Church.

Our opponent B. against this Argument pro­ceedeth thus, 4 he denyes not but after a sort confes­seth, that this Argument is our Churches, pa. 83. and so fareth it with his partner our opponent C. pag 21. our opponent B, in his English Epistle, de­nyes the conclusion of this Argument to bee our Churches, but the opponent C saith nothing.

I answer, 5 how can the opponent B. say, our Church holds not the conclusion, who confessed even now, that our Church made the Argument, vnlesse he will say, that the conclusion of an Argu­ment is no part thereof. If that be his iudgement, he must teach Aristotle, for he thinketh otherwise. Prior. lib. 1. cap. 1. Top: lib. 1. cap. 1. For this time the conclusion shall goe for none of hers, that we may see what they will say to it.

Opponent B. in his Latine Epistle sayes, 6

He that thinks the Church of Rome to be no Church, thinks nothing.

His partner C. in his Epistle Dedicatory, profes­seth, that he trembles at the very hearing of this Pro­position, [the present Romish Church is no Church.]

I a [...] sure, these parties are ill matched, because they [...]rosse one the other. The one thinks the pre­sent conclusion to be nothing, the other esteemes it a monster, and that is more then some thing, but let vs for this time thinke so too, because if that be so, then the premises which inferre that conclu­sion are monstrous likewise, if the premises bee monstrous, then will these opponents make them to appeare to be so. And thus much for their an­swers to this Argument in generall.

CHAP. 3. Of the same Argument and their answer thereunto.

THe Reader must remember our Argument, 1 in the true and plainest termes standeth thus.

• The true Church is founded vpon (that is) professeth, the sacred truth revealed by Christ and his Apostles.
• But the present Romish Church is not so founded,
• Therefore the present Romish Church, is not the true Church.

Our opponent C. answereth hereunto, pag 21, 2 22. with these very words.

Thus farre he and not one word further touch­ing this matter.

I reply, 3 In this answer we must looke for the meaning of his words, and the application of the matter to our Argument. His meaning is further to seeke then Sampsons Riddle, or more senselesse then becomes a reasonable man.

He seemes thus to distinguish.

• 1. The truth of the Church is
  • Accidentall in regard of soundnesse.
  • Essentiall in regard of Gods Couenant.
• 2. Soundnes is taken
  • Comparatiuely in regard of the Primitiue Church.
  • Simply.

For thus lyes his words directly: but who shall vnderstand him? The Rules of Logicke cannot help vs, for according to them, these distributions are no wayes to be allowed.

According to Art, every distribution contein­eth a whole, and part. So Aristotle Top. lib: 6. cap. 1. Rursus vtrum (que) &c. cap. 2. Idem contingens: so Ramus lib. 1. cap. 25. But here is no whole and part, for a whole is no more but a gathering together of the parts, so as they all doe make one certaine thing. Thus Arist. Physico: lib. 1. tex. 17. lib. 4. tex. 43. meta. lib. 5. cap. 25. tex. 31. Thus Th. 1. q. 76. art. 8. in cor. & so Ramus lib. 1. cap. 25. But in these distributions, there is no whole and parts.

Moreover, 4 in the first distinction truth is the thing divided, and that is set out by the terme Church, (that is) the adiunct or accident is set out by a first substance or individuall subiect. If that be good, then Aristotle must come to him to learne Logick: for (according to him) all other things are attributed to a singular being, and that attributed to none. Cate­gor. cap. 4. & 5. Prior. lib. 1. cap. 27. post lib. 1. cap. 22.

Againe, 5 in that distribution essentiall and acci­dentall are made parts of truth; but that is impos­sible, for truth is no more but the adequation of the thing, and the apprehension of our vnderstanding, in the Iudgement of Aristotle de interpre cap. 9. & meta lib. 4. cap. 7. text. 27. & Thomas 1. p. q. 21. art. 2. in cor. 1. Dist. 46. q. 1. art. 2. ad 1 ^m. But accidentall and es­sentiall truth makes no such adequation: for those termes import no more but a necessary and con­tingent predication which belongs to the manner of predicating.

The second distribution is as fond, 6 if not worse then the first, but I will not mispend mine owne and the Readers time about it. It was meet for mee to let this opponent see his weaknesse in Logick, because he vaunteth so much of his skill that waies in his Epistle, and throughout his whole booke.

We should now come to the application of this answer to some part of our argument, 7 that we might know what he denies, and what he grants, [Page 10]and why: but I am altogether to seeke for that, because he brings nothing that leades vs thereun­to: Wherefore I come to himselfe and say in his owne words, pag. 3. [...] Apply Iohn Barber, and thou shalt haue a new paire of S [...]zors.

When he hath done so he shall haue further an­swer, and in the meane time I will set downe and examine what his partner B. saith to our argument now in hand; therein I will take onely the summe of his answer and no more, to saue mine owne labour and the Readers, following the example of the schooles, who alwayes run that course.

He beginneth his answer at p. 84. at these words.

We professe that we esteem, 8 &c. And continues the same vnto pag. 88. As his partners answer was, so is his, intricate, perplexed, vnapplyed, but with this difference he was briefer, as liking Logick and not Rethorick, this larger, as loving Rethorick and not Logick, nothing could be made of his. Some­thing as I conceiue may be made of this, wherefore I will set downe that something with the best war­rant of his owne discourse. Thus then he seemes to answere.

Thus I hope I haue exactly expressed his intent, if I haue missed in any thing the fault is his, not mine; he may thanke me for my paines, because I haue done for him what he could not, (at least) what he hath not done for himselfe: that I may vse his partners words, pag. 5.

Now we will take it into severall peeces, and ex­amine them in severall chapters following.

CHAP. 4. Prooving this sentence, The present Romish faith is erronius.

THe examination of his last answer to our As­sumption, 1 (wherin he does attribute some pu­rity of Christs doctrine vnto the Church of Rome) is sufficient to determine the worth of our argu­ment now in hand, and the whole question it selfe: for if the Romish Church be all errour and Anti­christian, (that is) if her faith be erronious, then without doubt she is none of Gods Church. The Church of England in her Assumption (now in question) meant to say so, as I haue already said, cap. 2. n. 1. and will now prooue by Gods assistance.

If the Romish Church retaine some of Christs doctrine pure without mixture of errour, 2 then, 1. Christs doctrine cannot be denied her in termes without limitation. 2. She is not changed into a new guise, nor hath forsaken the commandements of God to set vp her owne constitutions. 3. She is [Page 13]not without the holy Ghost. But (according to our Church) 1. Christs doctrine is denied her in terms without limitation: for thus lye the words of her Assumption: The present Romish Church is not built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, re­taining the sound and pure doctrine of Christ Iesu, neither doe they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute and ordaine them. 2. She is chan­ged into a new guise by chopping and changing, by ad­ding and plucking away. They haue forsaken the com­mandements of God to set vp their owne constituti­ons. 3. They are without the Spirit of God. There­fore (according to our Church in her Assumpti­on) the present Romish Church does not retaine some part of Christs doctrine pure without mix­ture of errour, but she is all errour, and her faith erronious.

Many learned amongst vs haue so vnderstood our Church, and I will name some in stead of all.

Bishop Iewell in the defence of his Apology, pag. 3 4. cap. 11. divis. 1. chargeth her in absolute termes, that she had departed from Gods ward: and more plainly, pag. 5. cap. 13. divis. He saith the same thing in these words. Th [...]se men haue br [...]ken in pecces all the popes and conduits, they haue stopped all the springs and choaked vp the fountaine of living water with dirt and myre. He repeates the same thing in other termes, cap. 15. divis. 2. thus. In the Romish Church we cannot home the word of God sinetrely taught, nor the Sacraments rightly administred, nor the name of God duely called vpon, and wherein was nothing able to stay any wise man, or one that hath consideration of his own [Page 14]safety, I will conclude with his words in the same Apologie part 6. cap. 22. divis. 2. where he saith, that the present Church of Rome hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith.

Doct. Reynolds in his 5. Conclusions & Preface, at the 6. doth charge the present Romish Church to be distempered not with a sicknesse that hindreth the fun­ctions of life, but with such a one, as for it selfe makes her past hope of recouery; and namely she serues not God with a holy worship, nor beleeved God with a holy faith as he hath commanded, but stained the faith of Christ with reproaches, creatures with the Lords honour, Gods service with Idolatry.

Doct. Whitakers in his second controversie of the Church q. 6. cap. 1. adiudgeth the present Romish Church to be nothing else but a deepe pit of heresie and errour, and thereby argueth her no wayes to be or to belong vnto the true Church.

M ^r. Perkins in the Preface to his Reformed Ca­tholike saith: The whole Religion of the present Ro­mish Church is hereticall and schismaticall, and the cup of abomination in the Whores hand, Revel. 17.4. And Doctor Abbot Bishop of Salisbury in his de­fence of this place in M ^r. Perkins doth iustifie and avow the same thing against bishop the Papist.

Bishop Careton in his directions to know the true Church prooues at large that the present Ro­mish Church holas not vnitie with the true Church, nei­ther in the head, nor in the body, nor in the spirit, nor in the faith. If that be true she is all errour, her faith is erronious.

4 Now I haue proved our Assumption against his [Page 15]exception thereto, by the authority of our Church and a cloud of her most learned, and renowned children, I will make the same good by the testi­mony of God himselfe. But I am prevented in that by Mr. Wotton, who hath done it already in his booke called Runne from Rome, where he beginnes this poynt pag 14. num. 4. whereunto I might re­fer the Reader, as vnto a most pious & learned au­thor, & a worke that admitteth not any reall, essen­tiall, or substantiall addition, but I will make bold to take out of him so much as belongs to this cause not word for word, but so much as will be sutable, to the buisinesse.

First I will set downe how he vnfoldeth the terme and then come to his proofes of the question.

The word Faith importeth a singular thing, 5 vn­devided into either members or kindes, with war­rant from the Apostle, who speakes so of it. Eph. 4.5.

There is one faith, (saith he) one Baptisme, one Me­diator between God and man. 1 Tim. 2.5. In what man­ner the Mediator is one, and Baptisme is one, so Faith is once for one phrase of speech is common to them all, but they are one without division into mem­bers, or kinds: therefore so is faith. The thing it selfe sayes no lesse, for this word Faith, importeth a cō ­prehension of many sentences made one body by a common band, namely the divine authority. For in every article a part, and in all of them together, we find the same authority, which draweth vs to consent to them as true, and accordingly the be­leefe of one, is the beleefe of all, the deniall of one, the deniall of all.

Every Engular sentence pronounced by the Church of Rome, as a thing revealed by God is (in this question) the Romish faith.

An Article of faith is then erronious, when it a­grees not with the sacred Revelation, and this wee say, with warrant from the Councell of Trent Sess. 14. cap: 8. of the necessitie of Satisfaction. And after­wards in the Decree touching the Sacrament of pen­nance Canon. 6. And the thing it selfe doth avowe the same: for the varying from the rule, is the ve­ry nature of error, therefore every article of faith, must needs be erronious that agrees not with Gods word, because that word is the rule thereof. By it our faith was revealed vnto vs, and by the recorde thereof it is reserved for vs. And so much for Mr. Wottons explication.

We haue his proofe pag 15. 6 nu. 6. thus set forth.

• That faith which hath a fa [...]se and erronious founda­tion is false and erronions,
• But the foundation of the Romish saith is false and erronious:
• Therefore the Romish faith is false and erronious.

In the Proposition, two things are taken as gran­ted. viz.

• 1 Faith hath a foundation without it.
• 2 Different foundations causeth different faithes.

Both of them are cleere and evident, therefore they stand not in need of my proofe, if the termes be opened they will be out of question. By foun­dation wee meane, the next and formall reason, why we assent to this or that proposition in Divi­nity, (that is) why we iudge this predicate to bee [Page 17]truly and rightly attributed to that subiect: now this is without the Article it selfe, because it is no more but the authority of him that pronounceth the sentence. In the second sentence we meane to say, Every distinct faith, followes the next and formall reason of our beleeving; as when wee be­leeue this or that report to be true, vpon the au­thority of him that reports it: this is humane saith, because it followes humane authority; and accor­dingly the faith of Turks and Heathens is accomp­ted humane, because the next reason of their be­leeving is mans authority: accordingly that is Di­vine faith, when we esteeme this or that sentence to be true, because God hath pronounced it. And thus haue we cleered the Proposition.

M ^r. Wotton prooues the Assumption by these two sentences.

1. The foundation of their faith is the authority of the Pastors of their Church. N ^o. 7.

2. This foundation of faith is false and erronious. N ^o. 10.

And this proofe is manifest and without excep­tion, if both these sentences be true. But they are true: he prooues the first num. 8. by this argument

• They that haue the office to determine what is the true faith, (that is, what is revealed, & what is not revealed) their authority is the founda­tion of faith.
• But the Romish Church, (that is, the Pastors of their Church) hath that office.
• Therefore the authority of their Church, (that is, the Pastors of their Church) is the foun­dation of their faith.

The Proposition needs no reliefe, for that office of shewing what is revealed, and what is not, is the next and formall reason of their beleefe, as by their doctrine and practise we shall see hereafter, num. 8. &c.

The Assumption needes our helpe as little, 8 for every man that is acquainted with their faith knowes that they giue their Church that office: yet for further explication I will shew the same by the Councel of Trent. Sess. 4. praeterea, &c. saith.

By Church, they vnderstand the Pastors of the Church, and we know it by their practise, and the Iudgement of their learned. No man inioyeth a share in the voice of deciding Iudgement in any Councel, but their Bishops, who onely according to them are the Pastors of the Church.

By Iudging, is meant an inforcing power, compel­ling their sentence to be obeyed and received.

By sense of the Scriptures, is vnderstood every Ar­ticle or sentence of faith, for an Article of faith is a sentence held according to the true sense of Gods word.

By Scriptures, they vnderstand every particular sentence contained in the Scriptures, for if they meant some places onely, there could be no cer­tainty in this decree, because they doe not de­termine the particular places subiected to the Churches sentence; and when they subiect the sense of the Scriptures vnto the Churches Iudgement, they would haue vs beleeue, that the [Page 19]Church must tell vs which be the Scriptures, and which be not, else we can haue no divine faith of them: for reason tells vs they must haue autho­rity in all points of faith, or none at all.

This decree of the Councel thus vnderstood, 9 is followed by all their Divines, and Suarez giues it vs in this one sentence.

Bellarmine delivereth the selfe same matter in a most ample & large manner in divers places in his third booke of Gods word, and I will report them in order as they stand, and thus he begins, Cap. 3. Tota igitur.

Hitherto he setteth forth the matter in grosse, 10 and not vnfoulded, wherefore we must seeke for that also, and we shall finde the same in the said 10. Chapter, and first he giveth vs a reason why the Church should haue this office committed to her in these words.

Hitherto wee finde these authors concurring with the Councell in the sense aforesaid, and thereby our Assumption at num. 7. is confirmed, wherein we say, Their Church, (that is, the Pastors of their Church) hath an office to determine which is the true faith, (that is) what is revealed, and what is not revealed: and we must know that their judge­ment is not a private opinion, but the faith of their Church. Suarez saith so expresly in the place alled­ged, and the thing it selfe doth say no lesse of them both, for they agree with the Councell, and all on their side agree with them; none of theirs doe deny what they affirme. If any man think not so, he must shew the contrary, which yet I never found. Wherefore we need not doubt of the conclusion, [Page 21]wherein we maintaine, That their Church is the foun­dation of their faith, being the thing we vndertooke to prooue, num. 7.

Though this be enough to manifest the matter, 11 yet I will adde some other proofe from the testimo­ny of their Church to iustifie the same conclusion, because I would haue the thing made easie to our vnderstanding as well as proved to be true by force of argument. Now Bellarmine doth all this in most plaine and evident manner in the place follow­ing.

If any man desire to see this precept manifested by practise, he does that also after this sort. 12

To conclude, I will report another testimony of his, whereby the whole frame of this building is brought to perfection, and for that end thus he writeth.

Neither is this doctrine Bellarmines fancy, but it is the Romish faith, for it is warranted by the testi­mony of all the learned in that Church, and the Decree of the Trent Councell, already recited n. 8. for when it giues the Church the office to Iudge of the sense of the Scriptures, it grants that the Scriptures are in being already, and therefore that they are the revealers of the Sacred verities, and conse­quently the first foundation of our faith. When it subiecteth the sense onely of the Scriptures to the iudgement of the Church, it giues the Church au­thority, to propound, expound, and apply the Scrip­tures, [Page 23]and therefore it makes the Church a second foundation, and no more.

By this time I hope it is evident enough, 13 that the authority of the Church is the foundation, that is, the next and formall reason of their faith and beleeving, and that is the thing wee seeke for.

Now we should prooue, 14 that this foundation of their Faith is false and erronious, for that is the se­cond thing propounded in this chapter num. 7. But I will spare that labour at this time, because none of ours as I conceiue, will call it into question, besides, if any do. Mr. Wotton in the book recited even now, hath made it manifest against all opposers, pag. 21. num. 5. &c. If therefore any man desires to see it, I referre him thither, because it fitteth not this businesse to transcribe it. And thus much may suffice in proofe of our Assumption propounded cap. 3. num. 1.

CHAP. 5. Defendeth this sentence, The Romish faith is erronius.

1 BOth our opponents are mightily gravelled with this sentence, and all such as hold it; wherefore in both their Epistles Dedicatory they [Page 24]propound it, and blame it, as a thorne in their eyes that may not be indured.

Our opponent B. disputeth against this at large: but (according as I haue done before so will I doe now) his long and tedious discourse shall be con­tracted into a narrow roome, least the reader be wearied with the length, and pusled with the mat­ter: yet still his owne words and true intent shalbe followed.

Thus then he sayes. 2

1 In the Church of Rome is some good.

2 They teach well touching the Trinity.

3 The Dominicans maintaine Gods free grace, a­gainst mans freewill.

4 Much good is in the twelue bookes of Alvarez, and in the interpretations and Commentaries of Maldonat, Lorynus, and the rest of the Iesuites. pag 90.

5 Wee agree on both sides in these poynts following.

1 That the bookes of the old Testament written in Hebrew are Canonicall.

2 That we are instified by faith.

3 That God hath made heaven and hell for mens soules after death.

4 That God may be worshipped in Spirit without an Image

5 That wee are to pray vnto God by Christ.

6 That there be two Sacraments.

7 That Christ is really received in the Lords Sup­per.

8 That Christ hath made one oblation of himselfe vp­on the Crosse for the redemption and satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole world,

[Page 25]9 Vnder the Papacy is much good, nay all, yea the ve­ry kernell of Christianity pag. 39. 40. 41.

I answer, our Opponent C. pag. 4. and 5. 3 blames the man that affirmes without pooofe, and makes it a Law, that such an affirmation is as soone denyed as made. This is the case of this opponent. He telleth vs a tale of their agreement with vs in diverse par­ticulars, but he alledgeth no author, book, or chap­ter, whereby we may try, whether he sayes true or not; if then we deny, that they and wee doe thus agree, all his building falls to the ground, according to his partners sentence, pag 4. Thus soundly he answers to the thing that doth most vrge him, but for this time I am content to say, they and we doe thus a­gree, yet behold his case from himselfe pag. 82. Wee heare of a great cry and little woll: & pag. 83. of a man whose skill in Logick was so good, that hee prooued what was granted, and being granted, was to no pur­pose. Now I commend him for so doing, because I perceiue he spake the very truth, but himselfe gaines nothing thereby, for of him it is verified to the full, and that in this present answer, wherein he spends the greatest part of 7 pages before he ends it, viz. 39. 40. 41. 86. 87. 90. 91. yet ten words had served the turn, as well as all this st [...]r. If he had said no more but thus: The Romish Church agrees with vs in many divine sentences, he had beene as neere his purpose as now: therefore we haue a great cry and lit­tle woll. If he reply that all the rest prooues that sentence, I reioynd, I am content it shall be so, be­cause that shewes his great skill in Logick, for then he prooues the thing that none will deny, and be­ing [Page 26]granted, serues not his purpose, which none will doe, but the good Logician which his part­ner describeth.

4 If we frame this answer with the present questi­on according to art, and all the parts thereof be true, then it is to the purpose, else not; thus then it must be framed.

• They that agree with vs in the particulars recited, their faith is not erronious.
• But the Romish Church agrees with vs in the particu­lars recited.
• Therefore their faith is not erronious.

But no part of this Argument is good. The Pro­position is not true: and why may I not say so, seeing in it selfe, and by it selfe, it is not manifest, neither does he offer any proofe for it; and now I haue denied it, his whole building is come to ru­ine, according to his partners-rule, pag. 4. even now recited.

To the Proposition I answer, 5 that it presumes, that the forenamed Articles are true, and every way the same thing with the Romish faith, and there­vpon giues one state or condition to those Arti­cles, and that faith, attributing truth to the second, from the truth of the first. These Articles in some sense are true, and so farre the Proposition is true also: but those Articles and the Romish faith are not the same thing: but this extends further then them, and himselfe, even he that now answeres be­ing iudge, pag. 40. He writes thus: To the Scrip­tures they adde Traditions, to the Hebrew Canon the Apocrypha, to faith workes, to Heaven and Hell Pur­gatory; [Page 27]and so forth in the rest: whereupon his Proposition beggs the question, and therefore it hath no force to inferre the conclusion. His part­ner C. pag. 2. cannot abide beggery, but this doth loue it weele; but in the meane time he is a good­ly Disputer, that can prooue nothing, vnlesse we grant him what himselfe denies: this is enough to satisfie this Argument, because this feigned surmise is the first and originall foundation there­of. But out of our store of exceptions hereunto for this time, we will forgiue him this fault, and pro­ceed to the rest.

6 We agree with the Romish Church in the recited Articles, as they are Propositions, (that is) they and we pronounce the same thing as true, & so farr the Assumption is granted; but the Proposition is de­nied, because faith and a true Proposition really differs: the one is no more but a subiect, and pre­dicate, rightly ioyned together, whereupon truth in all Propositions is the same, namely the adequa­tion of the thing and the Proposition: but in faith there is also the foundation wherevpon wee be­leeue, from whence it comes to passe, that faith is of different kindes, some divine, and some hu­mane, as I haue shewed.

7 In the recited Articles wee agree not with the Romish, as they are Articles of faith: For in them wee doe really and essentially differ. They pronounce them to bee true, vpon the autho­rity of their Church, which is (indeed) humane, we vpon the authority of Christ the Revealer, which by joynt consent is divine. These things being [Page 28]true, (as they are most true) his Assumption at num. 4. cannot be true, and consequently, there is no meanes to excuse the Rom [...]sh faith from error; nor cause to giue her the name, and nature of a true Church: which is the thing we seeke for.

CHAP. 6. Defendeth this sentence: The faith of the Church is not right and pure, false and erronious together: viz. in different Articles.

1 WE must now goe back againe to the rest of opponent B. his answere left vnsatis­fied, in cap. 3. num. 8. The first branch whereof (we are now to deale withall) hath these words.

In these words, this sentence is implied: ‘The faith of the Church, may be right and true, false and erronious together: viz. in different Articles.’

And he does expressely avouch the same in di­vers passages of his booke; viz.

And nothing is more frequent with him, then words to this effect.

This we deny, 2 and will maintaine the contradi­ctory, (to wit) The faith of the Church, is not right and true, false and erronious together: viz. in diffe­rent Articles. But, If some Articles of Faith be false and erronious, then the Faith of the Church it false and erronious.

I will not now giue reason of this denyall: but deferr the same till we come to the 7. Chap. where it shall be disputed so much as is requisite.

He brings proofe for his opinion, 3 in the words which immediately follow in the foresaid Cap. 3. n. 8. I will first dispose them according to Art, and then frame my answer, as shall be needfull.

Thus then he disputes:

I answer, 4 the consequence of the Proposition we grant, as very necessary: But the Assumption is false. Wee say, that, errour in faith, and the Church are incompatible: and, it is the Argu­ment of our Church already alledged out of the Homily.

To all his proofes ioyntly, I answere: They are farr to weake to vphold this waighty matter, if this assumption be not true, then his whole cause falles to the ground. Himselfe confesseth (as wee haue [Page 31]heard) that the present Romish Church is guiltie of heresy; and, therefore can be no true Church, vnlesse error in faith may be in the Church: For herefie (at least) comprehends error in faith. Wherefore it stood him vpon to gather his witts, and vnite his forces together, to strengthen and mainteyne this businesse: we looked for preg­nant proofe out of Gods word, (for doubtlesse) if this were true, we should find a manifest record for it: because God hath not left matters of this im­portance for man to grope, and guesse at. So lo­ving and wise was the Lord, when he appoynted the meanes of mans salvation. But loe, no such thing is tendred, and therefore wee may conclude, no such thing is in being, and consequently, wee may set downe our rest and say, doubtlesse the faith of the true Church cannot be stained with error: yet that the misery of this cause may the better ap­peare, I will vncover the skirts of all his proofes, in perticular, and single out the one from the o­ther.

5 The authority of our Church prevaileth much with me, so as, that alone would silence my tongue, and suspend my iudgement: but it will doe little good to this opponent B. for he that slighteth, yea reiecteth, nay disputeth against her doctrine in things supreame, must not craue her ayde in things belonging to the mean: and thus stands it with this opponent, who mainteynes the cheife question in this businesse against her, and at this instant, labou­reth all he can, to refell the Proposition of her ar­gument. But how may it appeare, that our Church [Page 32]makes for him? He brings nothing but the autho­rity of Mr. Rogers, and that is no greater then his owne, and consequently thus he sayes, our Church thought so, because I say she did thinke so: but what if our Church and this opponent sayes shee thought not so, then (I hope) the matter thus farr, will be at an end.

From this Opponent I argue thus. He that saith all Gods revealed truth vniuersally, essentially, and reciprically belongs to the Church, frees the faith of the Church from error. But this opponent doth so, (for thus he writes pag 13. The true Church is a company of men professing Gods revealed truth) now, in this sentence, he makes all Gods revealed truth to belong to the Church vniuersally, essentially, and reciprically: because 1. The words themselues (in the common vse of men) doe lye so. 2. According to Aristotle: Poster: lib. 1. cap: 44 & 33. lib. 2. cap. 3. Top. lib. 6. cap: 1. Thom. 2. dist. 27. q. 1. art. 2. ad 9 ^m. Aliaco. quest. de resumpt. lit q Richardus de Trin. lib. 4. cap. 21. fol. 108. Every exact or perfite definition does so: but this Authors sentence alledged, is an exact definition: pag. 13. Therefore this opponent frees the faith of the Church from error, and con­sequently (according to him) our Church doth so too: for shee hath defined the Church, art. 19. iust as he hath done in the sentence we alledged.

If art. 19. 6 subiecteth the faith of the Church vn­to error, then wee must reade it thus. The visible Church is a Congregation, in which some part of the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments in some things be only administred. But art. 19. must not [Page 33]be so read, least the words of the Article (them­selues) be perverted, and some man say, the avoi­ding of diversities of opinions, and establishing of consent touching true religion, was not thereby in­tended: contrary vnto the protestation of our Church in the title to all the Articles in generall. Therefore Art. 19. subiecteth not the faith of the Church vnto errour.

His second proofe lyeth thus: 7

I answere, this geere hangs not together, so well as Harp and Harrow; for they sound alike in some­thing, because both of them begin with a letter: but here is nothing like: The lewes Church was an Infant, and not established: Christs Church (whereof we speak) is of ripe age, and full growth. Their Sacrifice, Ephod, and Circumcision, is no­thing like to the faith of Christs Church. Their want of Sacrifice, Ephod, and Circumcision, is a meere privation, and a not being: Errour in faith is some position, for it comprehendeth an incon­formable Iudgement, or opinion.

His third and last proofe stands on this fashion. 8

I answer: the farther the worse, he must vnder­stand the word and Sacraments to be every way [Page 34]the same thing with the faith of the Church; so also he must vnderstand the termes, corrupted, and intermitted, to be every way the same with these termes, subiect to errour: else, here is not the least shew of consequence: but how he will doe that, I doe not yet see, and I presume I never shall: hee brings no proofes for the Antecedent, therefore at the best, we haue but his owne word.

The last argument, 9 (which I can finde) belong­ing vnto this matter, is in the Opponent B. his English Epistle, a little after the beginning, in these words: ‘If an Heretick were put to death for his Christi­an profession sake, wee could not deny him the name of a Martyr.’

And we may apply it to the present purpose in this forme.

• Every Martyr is a member of the true Church.
• Some Heretick is a Martyr, viz. such a one as suf­fers death for his Christian profession sake.
• Therefore some Heretick is a member of the true Church, and consequently, the faith of the Church may be true and false together.

I answer: Every Martyr in the sense of the ho­ly Ghost, Revel. 20.4. is a member of the true Church; and so farre the Proposition is true: but the Assumption is false, no Heretick is or can be such a Martyr. This Opponent may presume it, and does; but prooue it, he neither does, nor can: because the same holy Ghost willeth vs, to a­void an Heretick as a party condemned of his owne con­science: Tit. 3.10. (and therefore of God who is [Page 35]greater then the heart. 1 Iohn 3.21.) If God con­demnes an heretick, he esteemes him not a Martyr. Reuel. 20.4. For such Martyrs are commended and saved. Revel. 20.4. If this opponent takes the word Martyr otherwise then God does, I deny the Pro­position, and say, He that is no Martyr of Gods, is no member of the true Church, notwithstanding his name and tittle of Martyrdome. In this sence I grant the Assumption, namely, some heretick may bee a Martyr in the account of man, but not of God.

The proofe of his Assumption supposeth, 10 that an heretick may professe Christianity, and I say so too. If he meanes that he may so professe, according to humane faith, and naturall reason, then we are a­greed; because heresie is a worke of the flesh, Gal. 5.20. and is exercised about the Christian faith, importing errour in faith: but then his Assump­tion is vnprooved, because, no man that is such a Christian, can be a Martyr, Revel. 20.4. for Gods Martyrs goe to heaven, but so does not such Chri­stians: flesh and blood inherit not the Kingdome of heaven, 1 Cor. 15.50.

If he thinks, 11 some hereticks professe Christiani­ty, (that is salvation by Christ) according vnto di­vine faith, he begs the question, viz. That the faith of the Church may be true and false, right and er­ronious, orthodox and hereticall together: which we deny, and he vndertakes (by this very Argu­ment) to prooue: O acute! ô admirable Dispu­ter! Bring the conclusion to prooue the conclusi­on, who would desire better? Doubtlesse his Re­thorick, [Page 36]not his Logick, wrought now; because, he prefers that (for disputation) before this: pag. 80, 81. But now, all the fat is in the fire: he that begs the question prooues nothing, if Aristotle may be Iudge, Top. l. 8. cap. 11. and this begging, of all others, is the most beggerly: for, it is a womans reason, they vse to say, It is so, because it is so: and iust so does he. This is answere enough for such petty trifles, and thus are we come to an end of all that which Opponent B. hath to say against the Proposition of our Churches Argument, Cap. 3. num. 1. and therewithall I haue finished a full de­fence of that whole Argument: The Reader must now iudge whether the Mother or the rebellious childe hath the better.

CHAP. 7. Containeth a second proofe, that [The Romish faith is false and erronious.]

Mr. 1 Wotton hath saved me a labour in this pas­sage also, pag. 46. hee bringeth this Argu­ment.

• If some Articles of the Romish faith be false and er­ronious, then the Romish faith is false and erro­nious.
• But some Articles of the Romish faith be false and erronious.
• Therefore the Romish faith is false and erronious.

Perhaps I may seeme vnto some to argue very [Page 37]loosely, because it is a ruled case, some parts can­not argue the whole, because all the parts toge­ther doe make vp the whole, and are adequate thereunto. If some parts be wanting, the whole is not obtained: from whence it falls out, the state, condition, and denomination, of some parts alone, doe not belong to the whole.

I reply, such a man mistakes this reason: 2 I doe not argue the whole to be so, because some parts are so, the rest being free: but I prooue the whole is to be held erronious, because there is an infection of errour in the whole.

If any man desire to know how errour in some Articles onely is errour in the whole faith: I an­swere, he may satisfie himselfe in that demand, cap. 4. num. 5. where it is prooved, That Faith is such an vnite, and continued thing, that though it is made of many ingredients, yet it admitteth no division into members, or kindes. Now, this being true, (as it is most true) then the faith of the Church can no wayes be said to be erronious in any one Article, but presently the whole is erronious.

This Argument and manner of reasoning, 3 is shadowed out in a leprous man, who is accounted and dealt withall as wholly leprous, though the seat of the disease be in the flesh onely: the reason is, because, though in a divided sense, and in our apprehension, man consisteth, and is compounded of, distinct beings, viz. soule and body, flesh and spirit, yet take him an individuall man, he is so com­pacted, that he is made one Hypostecis, or conti­nued subsistency, limited by one terme onely. [Page 38]Wherefore when the Priest in Moses Law gaue sen­tence of a leprous man, the whole man was com­prehended vnder that sentence, If a leprous man was shut out of the host, the whole man, (not some part onely) was thrust out: and this was not against reason, for the soule gaue life, sense, and vigitation to the flesh, and thereby it became subiect to dis­case and defection, and consequently the soule was indeed leprous, though by reflection, and at se­cond hand: so is it with the Christian faith, errour may be seated only in some Articles, yet the whole stand infected therewith; because the foundation of faith, which is the soule thereof, runs through the whole, as one continued streame without in­termission, distinction, or limitation; by reason whereof, if some Articles onely be charged with errour, the foundation of faith cannot be free, if that be infected, the whole faith is subiect thereun­to; because, every Article or Proposition becomes an Article of faith by the force and efficacy of that foundation.

I conceiue by this time that the Proposition of this Argument is sufficiently prooved, 4 and explai­ned: so as every man will beleeue, and vnder­stand it, and, accordingly, I may content my selfe, and saue all further labour: yet because the Reader shall haue full and ample satisfaction, I will pro­ceed somewhat further.

All ours doe grant the Assumption, 5 namely, that, some Articles of the Romish faith be erronious: and a­mongst the rest both our Opponents are lavish e­nough in words of that kinde, calling that Church [Page 39](so farre as their faith is erronious) Babell, and he­reticall, so as in rigour I am not bound to answere further: yet because our Opponent B. hath done it samely, and falsely, pag. 40.90.124. &c. to the shame of his owne reading, and the sorrow and shame of our whole Nation, if I may speake in his partners language, pag. 22. To mend the matter, and for the Readers sake, I will proceed and shew, that some Articles of their faith be erronious, by assigning the particulars which are so faulty, that it may be knowne we doe them no wrong, when we charge them in that manner: besides this, every lover of truth, may the better be directed to sever truth from falshood: for that purpose I frame this Argument.

All the succeeding Articles are erronious, viz.

1 The saving truth taught by Christ, and his Apo­stles, is conteined also, in vnwritten Traditions. Coun­cell Trent, Sess. 4.

2 Originall sinne is an vneleannesse within mans soule, and is a sin which is the death of the soule. Sess. 5. Decret. 2. & 3.

3 Grace doth take away, whatsoever hath the true, and proper nature of sinne. Sess. 5. Decret. 5.

4 Concupiscence in the regenerate, is not truly, and properly sinne. Sess. 5. Decret. 5.

5 Hee that receiveth the inspiration of grace, can [actually] reiect the same, and [actually] dissent therefrom, if he will. Sess. 6. Cap. 5. Can. 4.

6 The onely formall cause of Iustification, is Iustice inherent. Sess. 6. Cap. 7.

7 Sinne is mortall and veniall. Cap. 11. & 14.

[Page 40]8 The iust, in some actions, doe not sinne venially. Cap. 11.

9 By every mortall sin, a man falleth away from the grace of Iustification, which he had receiued. cap. 14.15.

10 Gods Commandements are not impossible to bee kept by him that is iustified. Sess. 6. Cap. 11.

11 The grace of iustification is bestowed vpon them, also, which are not preaestinate. Sess. 6. Can: 17.

12 The whole temporall punishment, is not alwayes remitted together with the fault. Sess: 6. Cap. 14. and Can. 30: Sess. 14. Cap. 8. Can. 12.

13 The works which be done in God, doe, for the state of this life, fully satisfie the Law. Sess. 6. Cap. 16.

14 The iust, in some actions, sinne not at all: and in no action doe they deserue eternall punishment. Sess. 6. Cap. 11.

15 The good works of the iust are their merits. Sess. 6. Cap. 16. Can. 32.

16 The Iustified, by their good works, do truely me­rit the obtayning of eternall life it selfe Sess. 6. Can. 32.

17 It is no sinne to worke in the intuition of the re­ward. Sess. 6. Cap. 11. Can. 31.

18 The Images of Christ, the Virgine Mary, and o­ther Saints. 1. Are to be had, and kept, cheifely in Chur­ches. 2. Due honour, and worship, is to be giuen vnto them. 3. Are of Sacred vse, and yeeld much fruit. Sess: 25: Decret: de invocat.

19 The honour which we yeeld vnto Images, is refer­red vnto the thing which they represent, & whose like­nes they beare. Sess. 25.

20 Worship and honour is due to be giuen, to the bo­dyes of Saints departed.

[Page 41]21 The Monuments, and memories of the Saints de­parted, are to be frequented, and honoured. Sess: 25.

22 Feast dayes are to be kept, in honour and celebra­tion of the Saints, and for visiting their Reliques.

23 By visiting the Reliques of Saints, we obtayne their help. Sess. 25.

24 Prayers are to be made, for the faithfull departed.

25 The Saints that raigne with Christ, and enioy eter­nall felicity in heaven, 1 are to be called vpon. 2 they pray for vs, even, singular men. 3 It is profitable for vs, to fly to their prayers, help, and furtherance for be­nifites to be receiued from God. Sess. 25.

26 There is a Purgatorie. Sess. 25.

27 Some temporall punishment remayneth to be satis­fied for in purgatory, before the way to heauen can bee opened. Sess. 6. Can. 30,

28 The power of granting Indulgences was commit­ted by Christ to the Church, and the vse of them is help­full to Christian people. Sess. 25. Decret. de Indul.

29 The whole choise of meates serueth vnto the mor­tification of the flesh.

30 The deuout celebration of feast dayes, causeth the increase of piety. Sess. 25. Decret: de delectu.

31 The Sacrifice of the Mass, prayers, almes giuing, are suffrages of the faithfull, that are aliue, for other faithfull that are dead. Sess: 25. Decret: de Purga.

32 The Sacraments of the new Testament, are neither more, nor fewer then seven: to wit, 1 Baptisme. 2 Con­firmation. 3 The Lords Supper. 4 Pennance. 5 Ex­treame Vnction. 6 Ordination. 7 Matrimony. And every one of these, is truely and properly a Sacrament. Sess: 7: Can. 1.

[Page 42]33 The Sacraments of the New Testament contayne the things they signifi, and beslow it vpon them which hindreth not. Can: 6. And vpon all, as much as is re­quyred on Gods part. Ca: 7. And that by the worke wrought: Can: 8. Baptisme, Confirmation, and Or­dination, imprint in the soule, a character that cannot be blotted out: Can: 9,

34 After the Consecration of the bread and wine in the Lords Supper, the Lord Iesus Christ, true God and Man, is contained, truely, really, and substantially, vn­der the shewes of those sensible things. Sess: 13. de Sacra: Eucha: Cap: 1. Can: 1.

35 By the consecration of the bread and wine, a con­version is made of the whole substance of the bread, in­to the substance of Christs body, and of the whole sub­stance of the wine, into the substance of his blood: so as, in that Sacrament the substance of bread and wine remaynes not together with the body and blood of Christ. Which conversion, is properly called transub­stantiation. Cap: 4. Can: 2.

36 In the Masse a true and proper Sacrifice is offe­red vnto God, Propitiatory, and profitable vnto o­thers, also, besids such as receiue it, and it ought to bee offred for the quick and dead, for satisfaction of the punishment of sinnes, and other necessities. Sess: 22. Can. 3.

37 The holy Eucharist is to be reserved in the Chancell, and carried honorably to the sicke. Sess. 13. Cap. 6. To be worshipped with a peculiar festiuall ce­lebritie, and divine worship; yea externall also: solemn­ly and publickly to be caryed about, that it may be wor­shipped by the people. Can. 6.

[Page 43]38 Water is to be mingled with wine in the Cha­lice that is to be offred. Sess. 22. Cap. 7.

39 No man that knowes himselfe to be guiltie of mortall sinne, how contrite soever he seemes to him­selfe to be, may come to the holy Encharist without Sa­cramentall Confession going before. Sess. 13. Cap. 7. Can. 11. that is, vnill he haue confessed all, and eve­ry one of his mortall sinnes, and also those circumstan­ces which change the kinde of the sinne. Sess. 14. Cap. 5. and that to a Priestan secret. Can. 6.7.

40 Our Saviour Christ when hee sayd [doe this in remembrance of me] did institute his Apostles Priests, and ordained that themselues and other Priests should offer his body, and blood: Sess: 22: Can. 2.

41 No man, vnlesse he doth Consecrate, is bound by Gods Law, to receiue vnder both kinds. Sess: 21. Cap. 1: but all such must receiue vnder one kinde on­ly. Cap. 5.

42 Wee may make satisfaction to God, through Iesus Christ, by temporall afflictions, layd on vs by God, and borne patiently by vs. Sess. 14. Cap. 9. and Can. 15.

43 By the Sacrament of Pennance, the grace of Instification which was lost is recovered. Sess: 6. Cap. 14.

44 Matrymony contracted, not consummated, is dissolued by the solemne profession of Religion, by ei­ther partie. Sess. 24. Can. 6.

45 Power was given to the Apostles, and their law­full successors to remit, and retaine sinnes, for the re­conciling of such of the faithfull as fall after Baptis­me. Sess. 14. de sacra peniten. Cap. 1.

But these are Articles of the Romish faith.

Therefore some Articles of the Romish faith be erronious.

None of ours will deny either part of this Ar­gument, 6 vnlesse he be very ill advised. If any ex­cept against any branch of the Proposition, let him assigne the particular, and he shall see by our an­sweres and arguments, that it agrees not with Gods word, and therefore it is erronious.

If it be answered some of theirs doe not agree to the Councell in the particulars assigned, and there­fore their faith is not recorded therein, and so our Opponent seemes to argue, pag. 108. and 130. I re­ply, the Antecedent is false, no man can name a member of their Church, that bids defiance to the authority of that Councell, nor can: for such a party is accursed by the Councell, and thereby made an heretick, and none of theirs as we finde in the decree thereof, touching the receiving and ob­serving of the decrees of that Councell, Sess. 25. and the acclamation of the Fathers at the end of that Councell: whereupon we may rest assured, that some Articles of their faith be erronious, and which they be in particular. Having hitherto dis­cussed the first principall question, propounded, cap. 1. num. 1. I now descend to the second, where­in I may be the more briefe; because I haue insisted so long vpon the first.

CHAP. 8. Prooveth this sentence, No Papist, (as a Papist) can be saved.

THis position speakes not of salvation actually, 1 and in the event; but of the meanes and possi­bility of attaining salvation by their faith.

By Papist is meant, such a man as does commu­nicate in the Romish faith. So as in plaine English this sentence ought to be pronounced thus.

The Romish faith disposeth or leadeth not vnto sal­vation.

It belongs not to vs to iudge of the event, 2 hea­ven and hell are in the hands of God, and to send men thither it is a right so peculiar to God, that he will not account with vs for it. His sacred Revela­tion shewes vs the way to obtaine the one, and a­void the other; wherefore about this may we con­tend, and must: about that we doe not striue, nor may: lest we seeke to be wise beyond sobriety, a­gainst the Apostles rule, Rom. 12.3.

Thus haue we propounded the point, 3 and vn­foulded the sense. It remaineth that in the next place wee see what our adversaries say to it. The Opponent B. pag. 6. writeth thereof in this man­ner.

I answere, 4 so farre as these words doe guide vs, we must say, that this Opponent opposeth not vs in this point: for if their religion made them guil­ty of, and lyable vnto punishment, then doubtlesse their faith leads not to eternall life: for it is impos­sible it should tend to two ends of adverse nature: so as now we will take him for a friend, not as an enemy: for we think him so honest, that his heart and hand doe agree.

In the next page hee layeth out the way for their escape from the said danger of punishment, 5 and assigneth Repentance to bee the meanes: namely repentance, either actuall or generall. By the first he would haue all such to avoid that danger and be saved, which indeed haue builded themselues vpon the rock, which is the foundation of the Church; though through ignorance they hold the same but weakly, & frame ma­ny base & vnsutable things therupon: but he thinks that actuall repentance is necessary for all knowne faults.

I answere, 6 he professeth in his margin, that he borrowed this discourse from M ^r. Hooker, (of pur­pose as I conceiue for his further grace) but it a­vailes him little. If he will be our debtor we will grant him all his writing, who will not say, that by repentance the greatest sinner may avoid hell, and [Page 47]goe to heaven; seeing that, God hath promised to put all our sinnes out of his remembrance whensoever we repent: Ezek. 18. Yet notwithstanding we need not feare his strength in this cause, for two reasons. 1. This is nothing to the present businesse, for we enquire after the end vnto which the Romish faith doth tend, and he sheweth the fruit, profit, or end of repentance: how farre then repentance, or tur­ning away from the Popish faith is different, or distant from the Popish faith, so farre is hee wide from the cause in hand. 2. This discourse, makes strongly for our assertion, thus. If a man must re­pent of the Popish religion, that is he must turne himselfe from it, before he can avoid hell, and ob­taine heaven, then doubtlesse the Romish faith leads not to heaven: for the way thither stands not in need of repentance. Now, let who else will grace his answere, seeing the more glory it hath, the more glorious is our cause, which is so strongly confirmed by it.

His partner Opponent C. rambleth about this matter, and scattereth (in divers places) some words tending to the same purpose: but I will not trou­ble my selfe and the Reader with them, onely it is meet that we obserue, (in his Epistle Dedicatory) that he maketh the point now in hand one of those whereat he trembles when he does but heare it. If there be any cause why, it will shew it selfe by his arguments and answeres for it, if he be naked in them, we may conclude that he feares without a cause, and runnes when none pursues.

Enough hath bin said already, to driue this con­clusion [Page 48]to the head: we haue proved that the Ro­mish faith is erronious: by arguments that are not, nor can be refelled, and who would require more, to argue her faith to be vnable, and altogether vn­fit, to lead a man to heaven? Can an erronious faith shew a man the way to heaven? Surely it can not: because it sits beside the divine Revelation, which is the onely record wherein the way to life is referved for vs. I say heaven and eternall happi­nesse, is only to be found in Gods Revelation, and who will not beleiue me? for where the end is a­boue nature, the meanes thereto must needes be so also. What need I then to trouble my selfe and the Reader with more arguments? But seeing it will not saue our labour (some are so contentious, and will not rest in truthes apparent) therefore such must be met withall, and their endeavours preven­ted: as the frugall man weedes his feild, that his grayne may be the better vnto sight, and service.

CHAP. 9. Our Opponent B. his first Argument.

WEe are now come to the second part of this Discourse, 1 wherein the Arguments for the contrary party are propounded and refuted: and I will begin with our Oppo­nent B. who brings his first Argument, pag. 31. to this effect.

• The seat of Antichaist is the true Church, for hee sitts in Gods Temple. 2 Thess: 2.4.
• [Page 49]But the present Romish Church, is the seate of Antichrist:
• Therefore the present Romish Church is the true Church.

The Proposition of this Argument, is set forth pag 36. The conclusion is implyed in the title of Chap: 8, pag 31 The assumption is wanting.

I answere: he is confident, that, 2 no man can deny the Proposition, pag. 38. but sayes nothing of the Assumption: and no maruaile, for that beggs the question, by presuming that the Pope is Anti­christ: a point (to many) more doubtfull then the present conclusion. But that fault though it spoiles all, (for this time) shall goe for nothing.

The Proposition is not onely false, 3 but it is im­possible to be true: for the seat of Antichrist is a certaine space, or place, that receiveth the person of Antichrist: and where he governes. Reuel. 16.19.17.9.18. [...]0. The true Church is a society of men professing the revealed truth. If then this pro­fession be that place, or necessarily flowes from the internall being thereof, (which is impossible) then his Proposition may be true.

The Assumption hath the same fault, 4 the Ro­mish Church is a society professing their religion: now, it is not possible for the person of Antichrist to be contained in the profession of religion, as in a space or place.

To conclude, 5 if we put this Syllogisme into its true and naturall termes, these will be the words thereof.

• The space containing the person of Antichrist, is [Page 50]that society of men which professeth the revea­led verities.
• But that society which professeth the Romish religi­on, is the space containing Antichrist.
• Therefore that society which profess;eth the Romish re­ligion, is that society which professeth the revea­led verities.

But every child that knowes chalke from cheese will laugh at this: therefore it shall passe as ridi­culous.

He does imagine, 6 that, we will say in answere to this Argument, that, ‘Antichristianity cannot argue the Church to be Christian, being the bane and plaine overthrow of Christianity. Pag. 36.’

I answer, we doe not thus answer to this Argu­ment, neither need we, vnlesse our answer should be as fond as his proofe, and experience will now iustifie the same: we haue answered otherwayes, and yet his reason is refelled,

Keep your kindnesse for your friend, and answer for vs when wee need it, wee know Sophocles said true:

In the rest of this 8. 7 chapter he hunts the wild goose chase: but all his long discourse, and many words amounteth in the totall vnto thus much.

A recompence too great for such a workeman, yet let me tell you, the Iewes Church at no time, was equall, or stood in the same termes or conditi­on with the present Romish Church: for they al­wayes retained the true, and vndoubted foundati­on of faith, they relied onely vpon Gods authority the revealer of sacred things, so as what ever they believed, they so believed, because God revealed it, they thrust not in the authority of man between the sacred revelation, and their faith and credence: so as, still they enioyed at least the meanes for get­ting of divine faith, and consequently salvation it selfe; but so it is not with the Romish Church, as manifestly appeareth in former passages, cap. 4. num. 7. &c. whereupon we may conclude: Though the Iewish Church was the true Church of God: yet that will not inferre the Romish Church to be so also. Moreover, the Iewes defection was in mat­ter of practise rather then of precept: when they failed in doctrine, it was peculiar to some, not vni­versall and common to all that Church: their er­rour was matter of opinion, not of faith: for no publick authority of theirs did command that o­pinion, or misbeliefe, to bee vniversally recei­ved as being divinely revealed. But with the Church of Rome the matter is altogether other­wise, Their errour is first in precept, and then in practise: this errour is common to all in that [Page 52]Church, no man can be exempted therefrom, vn­lesse he will professe himselfe to be none of theirs. Againe, that errour of the Romish Church is ad­iudged to be revealed by God, and commaunded to be received by all the members of that Church, by an authority that pretendeth freedome from erring, and power of enioying: so as, whatsoever is so commanded must be obeyed without delay, or inquiring, as is shewed, cap. 4. num. 7. &c. where­fore we need not doubt to say, the one lost not the truth of a Church, the other hath not the truth of a Church.

We may allow God a share in some that dwell in Babylon: 8 but what is that share? Even persons elected, but not yet called, and vnto such God commandeth that they Come out of Babylon, and they shall heare and obey in their appointed time. But what is this to vs? Elected persons, (not cal­led) are such members of the Church as are vn­knowne to vs, and therefore are reckoned to ap­pertaine to the Church invisible: but out question is of the Church visible.

More then so, God may require vs to come out of Babylon, even vs that are not there, for such a com­maund is no more but to prevent our going thi­ther: forasmuch as the same person that is furthest from Babylon in this present estate, is there, (even there already) in possibility: because, the holiest man that liveth, liveth in the flesh, or humane na­ture, and therfore may he be carried to Babylon, be­cause Babylon is heresie, or at least includes it; and herefie is a fruit of the flesh. By this time (I hope) [Page 53]his whole discourse, as well [...]hat is to the purpose, as what is beside the purpose, is fully cleered and satisfied: wherein [...]hine departed from the li­berty of an answerer, of loue and desire to satisfie the Reader.

CHAP. 10. Our Opponent B. his second Argument.

HE vrgeth vs, cap. 9. pag. 37. 1 with a second Ar­gument concluding after this manner.

• That Society which wanteth the nature of a true Church, denyes fundamentall truth, directly, not by consequence.
• But the present Romish Church, does not deny fundamentall truth directly, but by consequence (at the most:) for the Popes Arithmetick, which he vseth in calculating the Articles of faith, is not subrstaction, but addition.
• Therefore the present Romish Church, wanteth not the nature of a true Church.

The Assumption and conclusion, is set downe pag 41. and the title of the Chapter, pag 37. The Proposition is wanting.

In pag. 21, 22. he writeth thus. 2

I answere, this man hath a faire gift of inventing: some while he can finde an adversary that answers, [Page 54]another while one that disputes, and all is no more but his owne shadow, or imagination. If he would haue the Reader to thinke otherwise, let him name the Authour that thus disputes, and the place where we may finde it, till then this must goe for false.

None of ours would dispute so, for it presumes, that, some Articles of faith be fundamentall, and some be not; and that is false: the whole divine revelation conduceth to eternall life, and accor­dingly it is the foundation thereof, and conso­quently every Article of faith is fundamentall.

I answere further, 3 This reason (as it lyeth) doth admit many egregious exceptions, but because I am willing to interpret him with the vttermost fa­vour, I will forbeare to charge him with them.

He confines fundamentall trueth vnto the being of the Scriptures, and Christs comming to saue sinners: pag. 19. & 20. To deny fundamentall trueth (accor­ding to him) directly, is directly to deny that [Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners] as Pagans, Turkes, and Iewes doe: pag. 22. They deny it by con­sequent, which holding it directly, maintaine any one assertion whatsoever whereupon the direct deniall thereof may be necessarily concluded. Thus the Gala­tians holding Circumcision, did by consequence over­throw salvation by Christ, inasmuch as, it was impossi­ble that they should stand together: pag. 23, 24.

According vnto this explication, this Argument will be freest from exception if it bee framed in these termes.

CHAP. 11. Of the same Argument new framed.

• THat society which wants the nature of a true Church does, in words, 1 and professedly deny the Scriptures and Christs comming to saue sin­ners.
• But the present Romish Church does not in words, and professedly deny the Scriptures, and Christs comming to saue sinners.
• Therefore the present Romish Church, wants not the nature of a true Church.

His proofes for this Assumption are two, the one, pag. 126. in these words: ‘Offer the fundamentall words to them of the Ro­mish Church, and none amongst them will refuse to subscribe vnto them.’

The other is his fifth Argument, pag. 59. &c: To proue the maine question: so desirous he is to make shewes of plenty, that one shall be divided into two, rather then he will be short in number. In that, he writeth thus: ‘In our disputations with them, we doe not proue that Christ came to saue sinners, but we bring it in proofe against them: pag. 62.’

And this sayes he is ‘A tacite consent of all ours, that the Church of Rome does not directly deny the foundation. pag. 61.’

In pag 70. he writeth thus. 1

Some of ours, 3 touching this matter, haue writ­ten thus: ‘The Church of Rome denyeth Christ Iesus direct­ly, not by consequence onely.’

At this our Opponent B. pag. 122. growes very angry, and craues pardon for breaking his long pati­ence, and doth challenge him for an egregious con­tradiction, in avouching a deniall direct, and by conse­quence: and why? Because, The foundation cannot be overthrowne both by consequence, and directly too. None can overthrow by consequence, vnlesse they hold directly, and no man can both hold directly, and deny directly: And in conclusion, he does grauely re­prehend that Author, because he labour to proue, that, the Church of Rome is guilty of such deniall, both directly, and by consequence; seeing such proofe makes the whole fall to the ground, being nothing worth: and least something should be wanting pertaining to the honour of a learned Dis­puter, he giues his word for all this, esteeming the least proofe his great disgrace.

I answere, 4 If I proue that the Church of Rome directly denies the being of the Scriptures and the comming of Christ to saue sinners, I doe enough to satisfie this Argument, even by the confession of this Opponent: for, pag. 124. he writes thus: If you can proue the Church of Rome directly to deny sal­vation [Page 57]by Christ, alone, we binde our selves to grant you the victory, and yours be the day.

If I proue the Church of Rome by conse­quence, also, so to deny, then that Authour hath made no contradiction by this Opponents owne rule: namely, because both of them may be true toge­ther.

This Opponent demandeth how, or where that proofe shall be had, and made, pag. 124. I answere, I will haue that proofe out of the Councel of Trent, and frame it according to art, and the rules of an­swering; for that is my office at this time. Tou­ching the first.

I answere: to deny and affirme is made by voice, 5 and accordingly to deny and affirme may be by the voice of humane reason, or divine faith. This I take as granted, else there can be no difference be­tween the Heathen Philosophers, Turks, and Chri­stians, when they all professe, even in so many words, That there is a God. In the first sense I grant the Assumption, (that is) The Romish Church professeth, even in so many words, the being of the Scriptures, and the comming of Christ, by the voice of humane reason: and so farre we are con­tent to goe along with this Opponent: but the Proposition is false. This we say, The profession of the Scriptures, and of Christs comming to saue sinners, by the voice of humane faith, though it be in words never so plaine and expresse, yet it giues not being to the Church, for the Church subsist­eth in it selfe, and differeth from all other societies, by supernaturall, not by naturall, or humane en­dowments: [Page 58]and this I take as granted.

In the second sense the Proposition is true, name­ly, The profession, even in so many words, of these fundamentall truthes: [There be Scriptures] [Christ came to saue sinners] by the voice of divine faith is the very soule of the Church, and so essentiall therto, that without it there can be no Christian Church, and where that is, the Church is also: because it is so operatiue wheresoever it doth encline, that all other things requisite to a Christian Church does follow: ac­cording as this Opponent writeth, pag. 21.29.34.

CHAP. 12. The Romish Church directly denies sal­vation by Christ.

BVt in this sense the Assumption is false, 1 the present Romish Church does in words, and professedly deny the being of the Scriptures, and the comming of Christ to saue sinners, according vnto the voice of divine faith: and I proue it thus.

They that doe not confesse Christs comming to saue sinners, doe professedly deny his comming to saue sin­ners: for in this case, a not confession, is a professed ne­gation, and so accounted by our Saviour, who saith, he that is not with me is against me; he that gathereth not, scattereth: Matth. 12.30. And good reason hee should so esteeme it: for such a not confession, is a voluntary omission of our duty; This is the will of [Page 59]my heavenly Father, that yee beleeue on him whom hee hath sent. Ioh. 6.29. Even all men whatsoever, be­cause the earth is his inheritance, and the vttermost ends thereof is his possession. Psal. 2.8. Wee see the truth hereof in the omission of any duty. Hee that withheld his tythes, is held professedly to deny the paying of tythes. Mal. 3.8. He that honoureth not his parents, is reckoned professedly to dishonour his Parents. Matth. 15.6. This Proposition then being very evident, I thus assume.

But the Romish Church doth not confesse Christs comming to saue sinners, by the voice of divine faith: because the faith of that Church (by meanes of the foundation thereof) is humane, and not divine, as hath beene manifestly proved, cap. 4. num. 7. &c.

He thinks to shrowd himselfe vnder the autho­rity of our Church, 2 which hee vrgeth negatiuely thus.

I answer, 1. he takes the authority of our Church to be of moment, I demand then, why he disputes against her all this while, yea against her doctrine subscribed by himselfe? 2. The consequence is nought, our Churches silence argues not the Ro­mish Church to be innocent, for this question of denying or not denying, was not in being when her faith was published. This was done, Anno [Page 60]1562. that began, Anno 1588. or neere thereup­on, for any thing I can yet learne, or this Oppo­nent proue. 3. The Antecedent is false; for two reasons. 1. Errours in matters of faith may be a di­rect deniall of salvation by Christ; for he that so denies, errs in matter of faith; and we must thinke our Church meant so: because her words will beare it, and this Opponent cannot shew the con­trary. 2. Our Church in the second Homily for Whitsontide (often times already alledged) does de­ny her to be built vpon Christ the corner stone in that foundation, and that importeth a direct deniall of salvation by Christ: because he that sits be­sides that foundation, shall goe without salvati­on.

This proofe and defence being considered, 3 we may safely rest in this conclusion. The Romish Church according to the voice of divine faith, profes­sedly denies Christs comming to saue sinners, and ac­cordingly we haue the victory, and ours is the day: according to this Opponents offer and our accep­tation, num. 4. chap. 11. I might proceed to proue their professed deniall of the Scriptures vpon the same ground, but I forbeare to doe it; because the Reader may see this Argument serues for both that, and this, by changing the termes.

This Opponent seemeth to qualifie his former recited promise, 4 and calleth vs, as he thinkes, to a new reckoning, pag. 22, 23. wherein hee writeth thus: ‘They overthrow the foundation directly, to whom Christ is an execration, And to tread vnder foot [Page 61]the sonne of God, to count the blood of the cove­nant wherewith all wee are sanctified, an vnholy thing, and to doe despite vnto the spirit of grace. Heb. 10.29. is directly to deny the foundation.’

And then, he assumes in these words: ‘Of which crime, whosoever is able, let him indict the Church of Rome, producing sufficient evi­dence thereof: and whosoever shall open his mouth to plead for them, let him be guilty of all the dishonour, that ever hath beene done to the Sonne of God, and lyable to the Apostles curse: 1 Cor. 16.22.’

I answere, this is his last refuge: 5 if therefore he failes in this, he is gone for ever. In true forme he reasoneth thus:

• They that directly deny salvation by Christ, are guil­ty as aforesaid.
• But the Romish Church are not so guilty.
• Therefore the Romish Church denies not directly sal­vation by Christ.

I may except against the Assumption with bet­ter reason then he can argue for it: wherefore this I say, The Romish Church is so guilty for, They that know and belieue Christs comming to saue sinners onely by naturall reason, and humane faith, They tread him vnder foote, account his blood vnholy, and doe despite vnto the spirit of grace. Heb. 10.29. be­cause, the naturall man perceiveth (or receiveth not) the things of God, (as they are the things of God) for­asmuch as they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. 2.14.

The very wisedome of the flesh is enmitie vnto God. Rom. 8.7. But the Romish Church does know [Page 62]and beleiue Christs comming to saue sinners; only by naturall reason, and humaine faith: for all their knowledge, and beleiving, ariseth vpon the teach­ing of the Pastors of their Church, which is meer­ly humaine, because they haue no Commission for such teaching, as appeareth Cap. 4. num. 7. &c.

If any man doe iudge that the place alledged, Heb. 10.29. mean no more but thus, then I rest here as in a sufficient answer to this argument, and claim this Opponents finall promise last mentioned, and so we are at an end for this cause: the day is ours, we must carry the victory, and the signes thereof, leading these Opponents in tryumph.

6 If the Apostle be vnderstood to speake of more then this, then I deny the Proposition, as wanting the very shew of truth. I say, some men directly deny salvation by Christ, who are not guiltie as a­foresaid; and, I haue two reasons for it, the first is this: Iewes and Pagans are not guilty as aforesaid: for the parties so guilty, haue received the know­ledge of the truth, and afterwards sinne wilfully, ver. 26. by fors [...]king the Assembly of the faithfull, vers. 25. and therefore are certeinely subiected vnto Gods fiery devouring indignation and iudgment, ver. 27. But Iewes and Pagans deny salvation by Christ, (in the iudgement of this Opponent pag 22.) Se­condly, if all that directly deny salvation by Christ are thus guiltie, then this guiltines in the Apostles intent is the totall, and adaequate nature of that de­nyall, otherwise the Proposition conteineth not an vniversall truth. But this guiltines (in the Apo­stles intent) is not the totall and adaequate nature [Page 63]of that denyall: but [...] denyall in one speciall kinde, viz. Apostacy, and wilfull backsliding: for thus lyes the Apostles reason. If wilfull forsakers of their profession, and the society of the Saints, shall cer­tainly bee punished with Gods fiery devouring in­dignation, and judgement, then let vs hold fast the profession of our faith, and the assembly of the Saints without wavering.

But such shall be so punished: for their sinne de­serues it, inasmuch as, thereby they tread vnder foote the Sonne of God, &c.

The Proposition and Assumption is set forth from verse 23. to the end of verse 27. and the proofe of the Assumption verse 29. (being the place which we haue now in hand) whereupon we may con­clude: Some that directly deny salvation by Christ, are not thus guilty; and so his Proposition is false, that maketh all such deniers to be so guilty, and consequently, our Mother the Church of England hath the day of victory, and so shall hold it.

These Opponents are vnder the hatches, and there we will keepe them.

This Opponent telleth vs, pag. 123. 7 that we shall not need to proue, that, The Romish Church denies salvation by Christ by consequence: he will pardon vs that labour, to the end that the Reader should see, & we confesse him to be a fair adversary.

I answere, and why does he account this pardon a favour done vs, seeing himselfe does confesse the thing it selfe, so often: does he thinke, himselfe can doe what we cannot? Surely then, what dif­fers [Page 64]he from the Bold Braggadochiaes in the Campe, whereof wee reade in his partner Opponents Epi­stle. It may be he will say, he that makes that proofe must grant, that they directly hold salvation by Christ, which he does, and we doe not. I reply, he is deceived, we doe say, they directly hold salvation by Christ, according to the voice of humane faith, as I haue answered, chap. 11. num. 5. therefore if any thing makes the difference between his power to proue, and ours, It is not his affirmation, and our negation; but he hath skill and we haue none, well, let him vaunt that hath the vayne, To the present matter, we say, we despise his pardon, we craue no favour, let him doe his worst, wee know whose faith we maintaine, and will now proue.

CHAP. 13. The Romish Church by consequence de­nies salvation by Christ.

IN proofe of this sentence, 1 I will content my selfe with an Argument in this forme.

• They that directly hold salvation by Christ, and o­ther things which cannot stand therewith, they by consequence deny salvation by Christ: because from the second, the direct dentall of the first may be necessarily concluded.
• But the Romish Church directly holds salvation by Christ, and other things that cannot stand there­with.
• [Page 65]Therefore the Romish Church by consequence denies salvation by Christ.

This Opponent may not deny any part of this Argument: because the Proposition & the proofe thereof is his owne, pag 23. & 24. so is the Assump­tion, pag. 26. The conclusion is gathered out of them both, who therefore (on this mans behalfe) can except against any part thereof.

It may be some man may say, 2 In all the former passages we haue charged the Romish Church, with a direct deniall of salvation by Christ, and in this ar­gument we free that Church, from such denyall, and consequently we contradict our selues, so as the proofe of the one, doth equally overthrow the proofe of the other, and thus our opponent seemes to argue, as I haue reported, Cap. 11. num. 3. I an­swer, this exception may be taken off with ease: for we charge them and discharge them as is aforesaid, indifferent respects, we say they deny salvation by Christ according vnto, or in respect of divine faith, we grant them the contradictory according vnto, or in respect of naturall reason or humaine faith, as the Reader may finde, cap. 11. num. 5. In regard whereof, both sentences and their proofes may e­qually stand together, without domage the one to the other. If any man thinkes otherwise, he must shew it by the rules of Art, else no man is bound to beleiue him. I answer further, this direct hold­ing of salvation by Christ, which wee grant vnto them, is inducement & foundation enough, wher­vpon we may charge them with the denyall of the same thing by consequence? For that holding is a [Page 66]reall confession, and accordingly doth put the thing confessed in a being sufficient, whereupon it may be denyed, or avoyded by inference, and therefore our Proposition is true, that supposeth the same.

And thus our Argument is sufficiently fenced, against the clawes of this Opponent: and there­fore here I must end the matter of their denyall of salvation by Christ by consequence: for none of our Opponents brings more then thus touching the same.

3 Some man perhaps would accompt it a thing worth our labour, if we rested not in these Op­ponents confession for the truth of our Assumpti­on: but avowed the same thing by the Records of the Romish faith. To whom I answer: that desire is not vnmeet, nor the thing hard to to be done, but the present businesse, and my office must not be forgotten. If I entred vpon that, wee rush into another question. I am now to answere, but hee that does that, must proue. This Assumption is confessed by all parties, therefore it is a principle, and accordingly it may make an Argument in this question, & therfore it must passe as a thing certain.

Accordingly here we would rest, but our pre­sent Opponent is not so contented: for hee de­nyes, that, the Romish Church may be ranked with the old Hereticks, because they goe not the same way to worke with them; They (saith he) struck neerer the head then the Church of Rome does. She indeed is wan­dred from God, and her doctrine is iniurous and con­tumelious to God and our Redeemer: It doth gainsay [Page 67]the foundation of our faith: but yet it is remooued a great distance therefrom: raze it, it doth: but by a cir­cle of consequence (at the most) thus he writes pag 3. 18. 24. 25. 38. 41. 127. 128. Yet he does not varnish o­ver their opinion, nor help the best foote of a lame cause forward; if you will beleiue his words pag 127. For this cause therefore, I will prooue the Romish Church to deny salvation by Christ, by conse­quence, direct and immediate, not by a circle, or meanes that comes betweene that proofe and that salvation: and then wee shall know, whether that Church ranks with the old hereticks or not, and whether this Opponent is not a faithfull advocate vnto her or not. I frame my proofe thus.

• 4 If some Articles of the Romish faith in them­selues be opposite to this sentence. [Saluation is by Christ] then that Church denyes saluation by Christ, by a consequence that is direct & immedi­ate, not by circle and the interposing of others: for such is the nature of opposites, that both of them cannot befall the same subiect, in the same re­spect, part and time, by reason whereof, the affir­mation or presence of the one, is a denyall & ab­sence of the other, as Aliaco doeth truely teach. 1. sent. q. 2. lit: H.
• But some Articles of the Romish faith, in them­selues, be opposite to this sentence [Saluation is by Christ.]
• Therefore the Romish Church, denyes Salvation by Christ, by a consequence that is direct & immedi­ate, not circular by the interposing of others.

In the avowry of my Assumption, I will proue three things.

[Page 68]1. According to the Romish Church.

2. According to the Scriptures.

3. These two Articles are opposite in themselues.

When I haue manifested these three, our Argu­ment standeth firme of all foure, (as we say) It is sound in all parts, and crazed in nothing.

Touching the first; The Councell of Trent hath decreed thus:

Thus farr Christ hath share (according to them) in our salvation, we will see now what place they assigne vnto inherent grace, with the merit and sa­tisfaction of our workes.

Now (I presume) I haue made it very manifest, that they attribute vnto Christ no other part in our salvation, but the office of giving vs grace, and therefore we are beholden to him for no more, but the beginning and the possibility of salvation; but vnto inherent grace, and the merit of worke, they assigne the next and formall reason of our salvati­on, in hope while we liue here, and in possession when we are gone from hence.

5 In this place we must inquire what office is as­signed to the satisfaction of good workes, and for that we reade these Decrees in the Councell.

As in the former, so here, they make the satisfa­ction of our works, the key to open heaven gates, and the recōpence for iniury done to God, but Christ, he shall haue no more part in the businesse, but to make vs able to turne the key, if he help vs we neede no more of him, we do the rest our selues.

Wee no sooner turne the Key, but in we goe: If we make recompence we are discharged, and con­sequently, the satisfaction of our owne workes, is the next and formall reason of our release from Purgatorie, and the opening of heaven gates.

I haue done enough in proofe of the first, 6 and now come to the second. For that I haue lesse la­bour, because the Scriptures are full and plaine for it: as followeth.

If any man doubt whether these places do make Christ the next & formall reason of our saluation, he may satisfie himselfe by the phrase, which the holy Ghost vseth: for hee makes an imme­diate connexion betweene Christ and heaven, which he would not doe so often, if some thing else came betweene Christ and heaven: for to set forth a remote and mediate cause, by a next & immedi­ate, is an improper, and borrowed speech, which is an vndecent thing to be so often (and more often then thus) in the pen of the holy Ghost: If then we dare not charge him so, we must conceiue hee meant to make Christ the next and formall reason of our saluation.

I need not proue Christ and mans merits to be [Page 72]opposite next and formall reasons of our salvation, for it is manifest by it selfe: so as, now our Assump­tion num. 4. is sufficiently confirmed, let the Rea­der iudge of our cause, and the present Opponent.

CHAP. 14. They that deny salvation by Christ by conse­quence are not the true Church.

THe Argument propounded, 1 Chap. 11. num. 1. presumes the contradictory to this position, and this our present Opponent, pag. 25. and 26. does expressely teach it, in these words: ‘Whole Churches haue denied, (and yet doe) deny by consequence, that salvaton is by Christ: yet we doe, and must hold them Christian.’

All this while we haue let that supposition passe vntouched, as if it were true: because the weak­nesse of that proofe should be the more apparent: but now (and in all good time) we say, he suppo­seth falsely, and therefore he is a begger, no pro­ver.

We proue against him with this Argument.

I conceiue, in pag. 24. 2 he meant (at least he might with the matter there contained) dispute with this Argument.

I answere, those Gallatians whereof we reade, Gallat. 5.2, 3, 4. by consequence denied salvation by Christ, & therefore the Proposition is true: but that the Apostle writes there, of the whole Church of Gallatia, may not reasonably be affirmed, nor can possibly be proved; because, no part of Gods word doth say so, or leade vs to thinke so. The A­postle in the 5. Chapter, reproues the Gallatians, for biting, and devouring one another, verse 15. and [Page 74]for vaine glory, and envie, verse 26. Now the par­ties thus reproved were particular persons, not ge­nerally the whole Church: for, it is not likely, that every singular man in Gallatia was so guilty: if ther­fore, singular persons were reproved here, then there also: for the same phrase and manner of re­proofe, is vsed both there and here.

If any man be desirous, 3 to haue vs vnderstand the Apostle of the whole Church of Gallatia, vers. 2, 3, 4. we may doe it without profit to this Argu­ment.

For then, I grant, them of Gallatia were a true Church: because the Apostle, cap. 1. verse 2. terms them a Church, and saluteth them with grace and peace from God and Christ, verse 3. and does ac­knowledge them to haue received libertie, and freeaome by Christ, cap. 5. verse 1. We may conti­nue, that, they ioyned Circumcision, and the keeping of Moses Law, vnto Christ, in opinion, not as mat­ter of faith. At that time they began to grow in li­king with that conceit; but they were not confir­med, and setled in their iudgement that God had revealed it, nor professed it to the world as such. If they did so indeed, then I may grant the whole reason without losse; because, the conclusion vr­geth not vs: we willingly acknowledge, that the true Church is subiect to errour, in opinion, in things very important vnto salvation: we onely deny that erring in matter of faith can befall the true Church, whilest it is so. I say we may thus iudge of that Church, vntill we see good reason for the contrary: because, charity thinketh not evill, [Page 75]nor is suspitious. Nay, the Apostles phrase lea­deth vs to thinke so: for, if that had beene a mat­ter of faith with them, hee would haue charged them with the fact as a thing perfectly done: but he does not so, yea rather the contrary: for, verse 1. he wills them to stand fast in their Christian libertie: and, verse 2. he puts the matter to an If, saying, If yee be circumcised, &c: verse 7. he tells them, yee did runne well, and demands who it was that did let them, &c. and verse 10. and 12. he threatneth, and intreateth for their punishment that did trouble them: and finally, verse 10. he shewes himselfe con­fident, that they would shake off, and forsake the present doctrine, and continue in the same minde, vnto which he had brought them, and in which he had left them: wherein it is very apparent, he speakes of them as men wavering, not as parties confirmed in their iudgement.

These things considered, we may vndoubtedly resolue, that, the Church of Gallatia, is no exam­ple, wherein we finde that deniall of salvation by Christ by consequence, which is the thing we seeke for, and deny to the Church. And thus much shall suffice in refutation of his great, and important ar­gument, propounded, cap. num.

CHAP. 15. Of the same Opponents third Argument.

HItherto we haue discussed, 1 all that he hath to [Page 76]say, touching the Romish Churches acknowledge­ment, and publike profession of the Scriptures, and of salvation by Christ, and haue insisted therein to the vttermost, lest some should be deceiued by those glorious and beautifull titles. In this place we must examine, what good their Baptisme does them, wherein we may say thus much (aforehand) If their profession of the Scriptures, and salvation by Christ, does not grace them: but notwith­standing such profession, they remaine still desti­tute of the nature of Christs Church, then doubt­lesse Baptisme cannot helpe them to it, even in this Opponents iudgement; for pag. 85. he delivers it for a ruled case, that, The Church of God may want Baptisme for a time, and yet remaine a true Church: But he will not say so of professing the Scriptures and salvation by Christ; which we belieue, and he affirmes, is the soule of the Church.

From their Baptisme hee frameth this Argu­ment. 2

• That society which consisteth of persons Baptized, that is the true Church.
• But the Romish Church consisteth of persons Bapti­zed.
• Therefore the Romish Church, is a true Church.

The Assumption, and conclusion, is plainly (e­nough) set forth in the title of chap. 10. pag. 42. and in pag. 45. The Proposition is wanting, but all the rest of the Chapter containes no more, but a proofe thereof.

I answere: 3 The Sacraments duely administred ac­cording to Christs ordinance, in all those things that of [Page 77]necessity are requisite to the same, is of the internall, and formall being of the Church, I willingly grant with our Church of England, which giues the Sa­craments (in this sense) a place in the definition of a Church, Artic. 19. and accordingly, in this sense, I grant the Proposition, and say, that, That society wherein Baptisme is thus administred, and consisteth of parties thus Baptized, that is a true Church: and he may saue his labour to proue it, because all Chri­stians will confesse, that such Sacraments are peculi­ars to the Church; Testimonies of Gods gracious dig­nation, and favour, Pledges of his invisible grace, seales of the agreement betweene him, and his Church, and badges to distinguish the same from all others: be­cause, no society else, does carry the like vnto them, in the things themselves, and the loue of the Church: as this Opponent setteth forth, pag, 33.

But I deny the Assumption, and say, The Romish Baptisme is the shell and relique of Baptisme: and I will now make it appeare, though this Opponent of ours seemes to be tragically mooved, and in a pelting fume thereat; insomuch that hee confes­seth himselfe to make good vse of a bridle, pag. 46. and 47. and it is well, so good an instrument was present; for the further he had roved, the more he had missed of the true marke.

The Romish Baptisme is the shell, 4 and relique of Baptisme, no Baptisme duly administred, as afore­said, I proue it by the authoritie of our Church, in the second Homilie for Whitsontide (often­times already quoted) which expressely saith, the Church of Rome does not order the Sacraments (and [Page 78]therefore this of Baptisme) in such sort as Christ did first institute, and ordaine them: but, haue so in­termingled their owne traditions, and inventions by chopping, and changing, by adding, and plucking away, that now, they may seeme to bee converted into a new guise.

Will our present Opponent thinke this insuffici­ent, to proue the Romish Baptisme a shell and relique of Baptisme? I hope not: if he does oppose it as not sufficient, his partners words, pag. 17. shall serue him, O mouth! ô forehead! and he well deserues it: what? One man instruct a whole Church, yea his Mother that bred him, whose Articles of faith gaue him his first life, and confirmed him in it, e­ver since? Nay will he afront himselfe, (yea him­selfe) not in transient words, but in manent letters, his subscription made with his owne hand, for he hath subscribed this Homily.

Perhaps he will say, 5 his latter thoughts are bet­ter then his first, and to returne to the better, is more decent, then to remaine in the worser: where­fore, I will confirm the same thing by other proofe: which I frame thus: The Articles, & doctrine of di­vine faith, of necessitie are requisite to Baptisme, I say requisite, previally, & by antecession, not really, and vnto constitution: such doctrine must precede the Sacrament, though formally it makes not the Sacrament. I proue it: Gods covenant, and agree­ment with man, of necessity must precede Baptisme, for (according to this Opponent) Baptisme is the seale thereof. But the Articles of divine faith, are Gods covenant, and agreement with man. There­fore [Page 79]the Articles of divine saith, of necessitie must precede Baptisme. If they must so precede, then the Romish Baptisme is not administred accor­ding to Christs ordinance, in all things of necessity requisite vnto the same; for the Articles of their faith, are the Popes, and humane; not Gods, and divine; as I haue proved already. If their Bap­tisme be not so administred, then it is erronious, and none of Christs ordination. If that be so, it is a shell, and relique of Baptisme, retaining the out­ward ceremony, and materiall forme; but wan­ting the inward life, and true intention.

I answere further, 6 That society which consisteth of persons Baptised, according to mans invention, that is not the true Church: for, Christs Church, and all the members thereof, are sheep of his fold, and heare his voice; servants of his houshold, and obey his will. In this sense the Proposition is false; but the Assumption is true: wee willingly grant, that, the Romish Church consisteth of parties Bap­tised according vnto mans devising: but this gains them nothing, the Proposition being false, the con­clusion is so too.

By way of reply to this answere, he averreth, pag. 45. and 46, that, ‘Popish Baptisme is true Baptisme, holy, good, and the ordinance of God.’

But I know not what law will tye mee to ioyne thereunto; because, himselfe is vncertaine, and resteth not in it, one while hee saith, he will not trouble himselfe to proue it till he knowes who de­nies it: another while, he takes it to be out of all [Page 80]question, and so doth contradict himselfe: for, if at another time hee will proue it, then it needes proofe, and consequently it is not without all que­stion. If it be without all question, then it needes no proofe, for, according to Aristotle, Nothing must be proved, but things that may be doubted of Top. lib. 1. cap. 11. and he esteemes him mad, who puts that for a question, that all men grants. Top. lib. 1. cap. 10.

In both the pages last mentioned, hee disputes thus:

• He that calls the Sacrament of Baptisme a shell, and relique of Baptisme, was not guided by Gods Spi­rit, disgraceth Christ, and the Sacrament.
• But our adversaries in this cause, so call the Sacra­nent of Baptisme: pag. 35.47.
• Therefore our adversaries in this cause, were not guided by Gods Spirit, and disgrace Christ, and the Sacrament.

I answere, 7 in the prosecution of the last Argu­ment, we promised him two paire of new Sizors: vpon a faire condition we will now increase his wa­ges, so as, if he can proue, and apply, this present Argument, that it may serue in any part of this que­stion, he shall haue three paire: so desirous are we to make vse of stuffe so precious: Let him doe his labour, and his wages are ready. It may be he will say, he amplifies the conclusion, and it may be so too: but, is he so good an Oratour, that, he am­plifies before he proues, I hope he forgets not him­selfe, and his owne rule. Will he one while af­firme, another while ceny the same thing? Now answere, then argue, by and by declaime? Surely, [Page 81]this is altogether without his owne appointed or­der pag 77. it is meet the Reader should be put in minde of these things, least he mistake the matter, and the learning of the disputer.

His mind cannot be at quiet, 8 the Popish Baptis­me is so great a more in his eye, and therefore, pag. 87. hee falls into it againe, and avoucheth thus much:

I answere, 9 the second branch is a meere repetiti­on of his former answere, and imposeth a conceit vpon vs, viz. that, The Popish erronious opinions, and indecent rites, make void the being and efficacy of the Sacraments.

To the first branch I will say nothing, because I haue done enough for that already. In the second he is mistaken, or a false accuser: if hee will excuse himselfe, let him shew the Authour, and place of that opinion. This we say, and haue said it alrea­dy, They haue no Sacraments, because they haue no divine faith. And we thinke this consequence is good: because, the Sacraments haue no being, nor vse, but in order vnto, and in presupposall of, the divine faith: and I suppose, our strictest Op­ponent will say no lesse; for if the Sacraments might be inioyed, in their true and reall being, and naturall efficacy, where divine faith is wanting, [Page 82]then Turks, and Heathen men might haue them, which I know this Opponent (at least) will deny: because, The Sacraments are peculiars to the Church, making men Christians, and Christianity makes the Church: for thus he writeth, pag. 117. and 119.

Hee promised to forbeare his proofes till hee found his position denied, 10 but the heate within him, whereof we reade in his English Epistle, would not giue way to that: wherefore, pag. 118. he alled­geth two, and I will report them in true forme, that the Reader may see their soundnesse. In the first he concludes thus.

I answere, 11 I deny the consequence, as naught in it selfe, and as ill proved: the reason of my deni­all is given already, so as, I might be silent here, but repetition will bee vsefull: often practise makes things, and men more expert, and facile.

This proofe supposeth, that, Nothing is essentiall to Baptisme, (that is nothing by Christs institution is of necessity requisite vnto the Sacrament of Bap­tisme) but water, and the words of Institution.

I answere: 12 In the Sacrament of Baptisme admi­nistred according to Christs ordinance, wee con­ceiue a being; or entitie, comprehended vnder cer­taine limits, as all vnite, and individuall things are; taking that Sacrament as an individuall being, [Page 83]made by motion, there is nothing required to the being thereof, but the water, and words of instituti­on: and so farre this Argument supposeth right­ly; but nothing against vs; for we doe not de­ny an entitie, or being vnto Popish Baptisme: we know, when water is powred on, and the words pronounced, there is a motion, and a thing made by motion, which was not before, and is distinct from all other motions, or things made by motion. In the Sacrament (so truly administred) there is likewise, besides the said individuall entity, or be­ing; a certaine connotation, or essentiall relation, and that three wayes. 1. Of man to God. 2. Of the Sacrament it selfe. 3. Of God vnto man. In the first relation man shewes his obedience to God. In the second and third man is ordered vnto heaven, so farre as the Sacrament can: man being thereby confirmed in the expectation of Gods loue, and the re­ceit of inherent grace. Now, vnto this relation, or ordering to heaven, more things are essentiall then water, and the words of institution: namely the sa­cred revelation, believed by a divine faith: which (I say) doth so order vs to heaven, by comman­ding their vse, and promising Gods favour, and working grace, to such as vse them rightly: from the first ariseth our obedience, from the second our assured expectation of his favour, and grace: and thus much this Opponent himselfe will confesse I doubt not.

Nothing (I presume) will be questioned in this answere, but this distinction: 13 but I suppose no such thing will bee: because the matter is cleere in it [Page 84]selfe, the name Sacrament importeth, that there is this connotation, or relation, over and aboue the vnite, and individuall entitie thereof: for, it signi­fieth (at least) that the vnite, and individuall thing is sacred, and holy; and that is more then the in­dividuall entity it selfe: but howsoever it be with others, this Opponent must not oppose the latter branch of the distinction; for himselfe doth teach it; expressely, if not more fully, then I haue set forth: thus he writeth, pag. 47.

These things are sufficient (as I conceiue to sa­tisfie his first argument, in behalfe of Popish Bap­tisme.

His second followeth in this forme. 14

• If the Baptisme in the Romish Church bee not true; then it must be iterated when they turne to vs.
• But the Romish Baptisme may not be iterated, when they turne to vs.
• Therefore the Baptisme in the Romish Church is true Baptisme.

I answere, if by true Baptisme he vnderstandeth, all things of necessitie requyred vnto Baptisme, then this conclusion serues our purpose in the pre­sent question: for, we inquyre and search after such a Baptisme, otherwise not.

In that sence the consequence of the Propositi­on is vnsound, 15 and he brings nothing to proue it: wherefore it stands refelled, for in this case, our [Page 85]negation is better then his affirmation: he that al­ledgeth must proue, or loose his action, by the course of all courts in the world. Yet (for this time) I will depart from mine owne right, and giue a reason for my denyall: because, I desire to satisfie the Reader, and this I say:

Although their Baptisme want some things which of necessitie are requyred thereunto, by the institution of Christ: yet, from hence will it not follow, that it ought to be repeated: because where Baptisme is repeated, there all things essentiall thereunto (by Christs institution) must be want­ting: for repetition argues a nullitie. But in the Romish Baptisme, some things essentiall thereun­to (by Christs institution) are present, namely, 1 the water. 2 The words of institution. 3 An outward profession of Christianitie. The first and second are essentiall to Baptisme, as it is an individuall be­ing, and the third is one vse, and end thereof. So as, thus the case stands betweene vs: Their Baptis­me is refused, because the sacreed revelation, belei­ved by a divine faith goes not with it. It is retain­ed, because the water, the words of institution, and the outward profession of Christianitie goes with it: and herein we doe well, because, for want of the first, it cannot order vs to heaven: and by the presence of the rest, wee follow the institution of Christ: when they come vs we cannot giue them of the water, of the words of institution, and of out­ward Christian profession more then they haue al­ready. All that we doe when they come to vs, is, to perfect what is begun, and supply what is wan­ting.

I answere moreover, 16 Though I will not deny the Assumption, yet if any should, this Opponents proofe could not rescue it: for, thus he argues: Pa­pists, with us, may not bee baptized againe; because, such as former hereticks baptized, were not to be bapti­zed againe. This consequence (I say) is naught, because the Popish Church, and former hereticks doe really differ: for these are farre worse then they, (as Bishop Carleton hath abundantly proved, in his Direction to know the true Church) and here ends my answere to his third Argument.

He concludes this present matter more solemnly then any other passage in this businesse: 17 where­fore, I will lose a little time to shew it to the Rea­der, and put my answere thereunto. These are his words.

I answere: 18 It seemeth, when you heare from vs, and finde we ioyne not with you, your minde will change: are you so variable, that you are one thing when the streame goes with you, and another when it is against you? Well, wee now know your minde, you would not say nay, till you had heard vs say so before you. Now you haue so much as you expected, see you performe whatsoever you haue promised: and so I passe from this third Ar­gument.

CHAP. 16. The fourth Argument for the same purpose.

HIs fourth Argument, 1 himselfe setteth out in this sort.

• Wheresoever there bee persons retaining the Mi­nisteriall function and office, Ephes. 4.8. There is the true Church, because such persons haue the tutelage of the Church, Cant. 8.11. and the pro­mise of Christs presence to the worlds end. Mat. 28.20.
• But in the Church of Rome there be such persons.
• Therefore the Romish Church is a true Church.

This Argument is implyed in the title of chap. 11. pag. 48. The Proposition is expressely delivered, pag. 50. and the proofe thereof, pag. 49. the As­sumption and the proofe therof is implyed in these words: ‘There is lawfull ordination in the Church of Rome, pag. 56. In the Church of Rome there is true, and lawfull or dination, wherein they receiue commission, and doe promise to teach the people, not the Popes Legends, but out of the holy Scrip­tures: so that, both Pastor and Flock are ours, by admission, promise, and ingagement: theirs, by abuse and practise: pag. 58.’ The conclusion is also implyed in these words: She hath not wholly lost the face of a Church: pag. 58. 2 I answere, a short businesse will satisfie this Ar­gument, [Page 88]if wee remember what hath beene said touching the two former.

The proposition cannot be denied, because where the ministeriall function (mentioned Ephes. 4.8.) is present, there the word and Sacraments of Christ duly administred connot be wanting, seeing this function presumeth that word, and those Sa­craments; as a fountaine from whence it flowed, and an obiect whereabout it is exercised, as our Sa­uiours words Mat. 28.19.20. do import.

But the assumption is false, and impossible to be true. For, they haue forsaken the fountaines of liuing water. Ier. 2.13. what life therefore can be in them? Shall we looke for the ministeriall function, mentioned Ephes. 4.8. where the words, and seales of Christs charter are wanting? Surely, no wise man will, and he that does, shall loose his longing, and his eyes shall sooner faile, then the thing he lookes for be found. This is enough in the strictest termes, to refell this argument.

Yet more specially I answere: 3 that function Ephes. 4.8. implyeth a double power the one of Iurisdiction, and the other of Order. The first doth exercise Church discipline for goverment; as im­posing of hands vnto ordination, &c. The other administreth the word and Sacraments, as Bellar­mine truly hath it: De Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 22. At the begining with the ioynt consent of all theirs, and ours. Now, neither of these powers (of Iuris­diction or of Order, mentioned Ephes. 4.8.) can be found in the Romish Church: for, they serue to gather the Saints, and to build vp the body of Christ [Page 89]verse. 12.13. But the Romish Church can haue none such: seeing their faith is erronious, and their Sacraments shadowes, and without the true sub­stance.

Moreouer, such as haue the power of order, 4 haue commission Mat. 28.19. to teach divine faith, and administer Christs Sacraments, but none amongst them, haue such commission: for, they are admit­ted, and and ordained, to offer vp the body, and blood of Christ, a propitiatory sacrifice, for the quick and dead, as we learne by the Councell of Trent. Sess. 22. Can. 1.2.3.

If any man thinke, that the Councel hath not set out the adequate nature of their power of order, he must shew some other Record (conteyning mat­ter of their faith) wherein their order of Preist­hood consisteth in more then this. But we knowe he cannot: because, perpetuall experience shewes, that so soone as a Preist is ordeined, he is such a sa­crificer, and as he is a Preist, he doth noe other office, but offer that sacrifice, what everels they do, it is an addition to their Preisthood.

They haue the power of Iurisdiction in some sort, 5 namely soe farre as humaine reason leads them therevnto. They found that in the prece­dent ages of the Church; they sawe it was comly, and profitable, and therefore they continew it still amongst them; But, as we said before, of the word and Sacraments, professed and adminnistred by them; so must we say of power of Iurisdiction, ac­cording to divine faith, they haue no such power: because, they receiue it not from God by his au­thority [Page 90]as a Revealer of the sacred verities: (but, chiefly, and next of all) because, the Pastors of their Church command it, and accordingly they exercise and apply it.

These things being true, (as they are certaine) The Assumption is false: for they haue not that power of Iurisdiction whereof we reade, Ephes. 4.8. for that is such a Iurisdiction as is received from, and imployed about, the word of divine faith.

Noreover, this power of Iurisdiction which we grant them, profits them nothing: because, their power to ordaine Elders, & exercise Church Disci­pline, arising from humane reason, and serving to humane ends, hath no place, nor power, in consti­tuting that Church, which is (indeed) the family of Iesus.

Now we haue denied his Assumption, 6 and gi­ven our reason for that deniall: we must see, in the next place, what reason he can bring to confirme the same: and for that end we find three things: to which I answere ioyntly, that they come too short, because they serue not to take away the rea­son of our deniall, and therefore are not sufficient to maintaine his Assumption.

The first, himselfe disposeth thus: ‘If they haue not lawfull ordination, then haue not we, for ours comes from them.’

I answere: this comes farre short of his Assump­tion: for in that, he attributes the Ministeriall fun­ction, (whereof we reade, Ephes. 4.8.) vnto the Ro­mish Church. In this he speakes onely of ordina­tion, which is but one part of that function: so as, [Page 91]if he would dispute from their ordination, as hee does from their Ministeriall function; his Argu­ment, would proue their Church to be a true Church, very weakly and lamely: because, the be­ing, and essence of Christs Church, is not constitu­ted by any power of ordination: and this is e­nough to satisfie this consequence of our Oppo­nent B. But we will try him a little further.

Hee saith, Our Ordination came from them, and thereby he indeavours to proue the foresaid con­sequence: But it comes short of that: The outward ceremony of Ordination, (that is) the imposing of hands by one that hath Diocesan Authority, which we enioy and doe exercise, came from them, so farre (for this time) we yeeld; that is, that, such Ministers of ours, as first led the way vnto our sepe­ration from them, were ordeined or admitted into the worke of the Ministery by such authority of theirs. But this proues not, that our Ordination and theirs is the same: for, ours ariseth from, and is exercised about, divine faith; so is not theirs. Our Ordination, as it ariseth from, and is exerci­sed about, divine faith, is not received from them: because amongst them, that divine faith is wholly wanting If then any desire to know, how they, and we doe agree in the outward ceremony, and disa­gree in the in the inward, and Spirituall life of Or­dina [...]ion, or the power of Iurisdiction, left by Christ vnto his Church. I answere, the provi­dence of God hath made that difference. They are given vp to beleeue lyes, wee are preserved in the truth, and faith once delivered to the Saints.

The second proofe of his Assumption, 7 is contai­ned in these words: ‘Wee doe not ordeine them anew which haue taken Orders from that Sea, when they become con­verts.’

I answere, 1. This proofe hath the same fault with the former: Orders cannot argue the Mini­steriall function, Ephes. 4.8. because that compre­hends more then then this, yea, this seemes to be but the entrance into the function, and not the es­sence thereof. 2. I answere, The inference is also naught. Their ordination may not be repeated when they turne to vs: yet ours and theirs may be essentially different, as an empty vessell may not be reiected, and yet differs from that which is full: and indeed soe stands the case betweene their ordination, and ours. They haue the outward ce­remony, taken vp by tradition from the precedent and pure ages of the Church: wee haue that and the substance also, because divine faith goes with ours, but is wanting to theirs.

His third proofe conteineth these words. 8

I answer, This branch came out of his owne braine. He never found it in any records of their faith. Moreover, the records of their faith are a­gainst him, as I haue partly alledged, Num. 3. and may further appeare by the 4. Sess. of the Coun­cell of Trent formerly reported, wherein the iudg­ment of the true sence of the Scriptures, is attribut­ed to the Church, that is, as themselues expound [Page 93]it vnto the Pope. If then their preists must each the Scriptures in the Popes sense, then the Scrip­tures are no better then the Popes Legends, and consequently when they teach the Scriptures, they teach the Popes Legends.

To conclude, if Commission to teach the Popes Legends be a Ministery differing from the Mini­stery, Ephes. 4.8. (as this Opponent implyes) then the Popish Priesthood is not that Ministery, Ephes. 4.8, because it teaches the Popes Legends. And thus in stead of confirming he overthrowes his Assumption.

CHAP. 17. The conclusion of the whole, claiming our Opponents promise.

NOw we haue fully finished the body of the disputation, we are to come vnto, both our Opponents conclusions, lest something be left vn­touched, to the hurt of the cause, and offence to the Reader.

Our elder Opponent, concludeth his booke, pag. 115. with these words.

And in his second Epistle he promiseth after this sort.

The younger Opponent, pag. 132. ioynes with his partner in the same promise.

I answere, the whole summe of their promise, makes vp this conditionall Proposition.

Whereunto I will adde this Assumption.

And accordingly every must make this conclu­sion.

The consequence of the proposition may not be questioned, because then selues haue made it, and the one hath professed (before God) to per­forme it.

The other craueth the punnishment due to an he­ritick, if he breakes it. Wherefore, so farr, our ground worke is certaine.

If they doubt of the assumption, they haue offred faire, and I accept it.

They are content to stand to the iudgement of of such readers as be wise, honest, and do feare God. I desire noe better arbitratours, They require [Page 95]to be shewed better by sound, and substantiall conviction, and I say it is the best issue.

If therefore, such Readers finde such con­viction these Opponents must grant the assumption, and execute the conclusion; for every honest man performes his pro­mise, when he hath re­ceived the con­dition.