matter more solemnly then any other passage in this businesse wherefore I will lose a little time to shew it to the Reader and put my answere thereunto These are his words Our adversaries in this cause must giue us leaue till we heare further from them to thinke this our third Argument drawne from the lawfull Baptisme of the Church of Rome to bee vnanswerable I answere 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 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. I answere a short businesse will satisfie this Argument 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
destroyer thereof and thus doe these Opponents the life of our Church and all the members thereof is made and vnited together into one body by the Articles of her faith he then that overthrowes and destroyes those Articles discipates and haleth in peeces her whole body and being and thus doe these Opponents in their deed in question Punishment is due vnto them so much J hope J may say without offence vnto your high and honourable authority because the thing it selfe is so apparent Very reason it selfe doth tell vs The subversion of every being that is good makes guilty of punishment Now the deed in question being a subversion of the faith of our Church of England by the same rule must needs likewise make so guilty The degree of this punishment J dare not name J may not thinke vpon seeing the cause now in hand is presented before your sacred Tribunall whose office it is to discerne determine and adiudge the same Yet with all submission J craue a word or two of that matter If any vnder the command of Rome should oppose the very words of the Trent Councell especially where the thing is decreed explorately so as no question can bee made of her sense meaning such a one J say should bee held worthy of no small punishment and we certainly know it because such persons are pronounced accursed by that Councell pursued with fire and all extremity as perpetuall experience doth shew If these Opponents lived in that Church should defend this sentence The office of judging the sense meaning of the Scriptures belongs not to the Church we might easily guesse at their punishment Jf then hat Church esteemeth such opposition vnto her faith to demerit so highly how can we esteeme to deserue but little seeing what their faith is to them the same our faith is to vs but with this difference their faith is erronious so is not ours as the ensuing discourse will evidently shew how much then an opposition to an erronious faith is lesse hurtfull then an opposition to a true faith so much more punishment doto be deserue that opposeth ours more then he that opposeth theirs thus much is all wherewith I will trouble you touching the deed in question Now J hope J may also without reproofe shew some other reason whereupon to moue you If this deed be let passe without controle see what will follow 1. Our enemies of the Romish Church will triumph over vs and thus they will argue With you is not the true Church for where that is there is vnity and a meanes of vnity in all matters of faith but these are not with you for see your Church beleeveth that the Romish Church hath not the nature of the true Church yet two of yours yea after their subscription doe out face her with the contradictory carry it away when they haue done no man sayes black is their eye 2. The salvation of the vnstable vnwise will be really hindred such a man will say vnto our Church if you taught mee the way to life doubtlesse you would agree in it or suppresse the gainsayers seeing therefore you doe neither the one nor the other wee must conclude that the way to life is not with you consequently it is no where for in your iudgement the Romish Church hath it not or at least men of good parts might say if you agree not vpon the way to heaven then 't is hopelesse for vs to finde it because with you are the aged in yeeres great in experience abundant in learning considerate in resolving in the office of governing if our hopes to finde heaven be vaine idle why shall we bestow our paines that wayes who would labour without profit who would lay out his silver to fill his belly with the East winde Surely no man wherefore here is our rest seeing there is no profit in the service of God we will determine with our selves say We care not for the knowledge of the most high let vs cast his lawes behind our back let vs eate and drink for to morrow wee shall die 3. The glory of our Church at least is abated nay I may truly say her beauty is stayned with an eye-sore too vgly to be looked vpon He that casteth dirt in his Mothers face wherein nothing is wanting for feature or complexion shall haue little thankes for his labour what then shall bee bee accounted that scratcheth her till shee bleedes Nay more that pulleth off treadeth vnder foote all the ornaments of her countenance If our Opponents gaue the lye to a man of honest reputation hee should disgrace him not a little but if hee charged him with that lye to the losse of his credit for ever we know he should burt him finally for ever But thus J say if no better then on this manner deale these Opponents with their Mother the Church of England shee hath determined what must bee held in certaine points of religion in that her countenance exceeds in beauty because she did so determine for the avoiding of contention and setling of Peace Peace yea Peace that visage of Peace the most louely delightfull and acceptable countenance of all countenances yet beholde cease not to wonder our two Opponents will not keepe this peace they haue broken downe the walls of that fortresse what shee intended for vnity concord they divert to fraction and discord so haue robbed her of her goodly beautious feature complexion Nay which is more they haue given her that lye which will stick to her ribbs for ever without the exemplary punishment of these offendours for if she be false in her greatest children for learning gravity wisedome piety all met together when they gaue that witnesse then who will trust her for if her word can be true at any time it would be true then Now those each one of them are so inconvenient that J conceiue they must be esteem'd so intollerable if that be so wee haue good reason to bemoane our selues vnto you seeke for redresse at your hands Can wee imagine that our Church and the soules of her children onely shall bee losers by this deed in question Surely no man can bee so much mistaken for marke if they scape with this deed who will not thus argue If Opposers in matters of faith bee not reck ned offedours then Opposers in matters of State must be held innocent seeing the first is of more dangerous consequence then the second If wee may oppose the State who vvill obey seeing liberty is better fancied then subiection Jf vvee are freed from obedience then farevvell government seeing to governe to obey are such relatiues as doe stand fall together If then governing obeying be taken avvay all things come to confusion As then vvee vvill a void destruction to our Church Common-vvealth so must vve open our selues before you eraue your
thing makes a Nation or a fewer number to be Christs Church specifically and formally by reason whereof when we deny The Romish Church to haue the nature of the Church we deny it to haue the nature of A Church And contrariwise when we say The Romish Church hath the nature of a true Church we giue her the nature of the true Church and thus I hope I haue prevented all men that would doubt whether these Opponents doe contradict our Church or not and haue made it manifest that they doe contradict her indeed and accordingly we haue heretofore and may hereafter rightly and iustly presume it as true and take it as certeine and thus am I well neere at an end in my answere to all their passages in common Two onely remaines I will speak breifely vnto them and then finish this matter Amongst the rest of their hard measure offered vnto vs I find one heape which may not be concealed in 15. short lines thus are we stiled Your mindes are prepossessed with preiudiced They content themselues only to take vp opinions vpon trust and will hold them because they know where they had them Whole volumes are nothing vnto them Anuiles they are in vaine should I spend my selfe in beating vpon them Christians they are not ingenuous They haue no care open for Iustice and truth Doubtlesse this Opponent meant to infer something from this rabble for a man of wisdome and learning will not speak words that serue to no purpose I conceiue he would conclude thus Therefore our adversaries cause is naught This was once Bishop Iewels case when he had to doe with rayling Harding to whom he answered thus I pray thee good Reader thinke not our cause the worse though these mens tongues are so ready to speake ill content thy selfe a while and thou shalt see all this smoake blowne away even with one blast In whose words I answer too These ignominious termes are nothing to inferr such a conclusion for evill men may speake the truth and defend a good cause Wherefore the naughtinesse of a person inferreth not badnesse vpon a cause or question The Antecedent is also false we deny our selues to be guilty as he doth charge vs he brings no proofe for his indictment and therefore we must be pronounced Rectius in Curia and so every honest man who hath his eyes in his head will say of vs for if accusation can make guilty who shall be innocent Thus these pleaders Argument is come to nothing like smoake carryed vp with the ayre But let vs reason the case with him a little Is this Authour bitter by custome Is his nature addicted to sharpnesse My selfe am not able to resolue the doubt if he be we willingly pardon the offence we must beare one anothers burthen according to the Apostles rule Nay we will pray in the words of the first Christian Martyr and say O Lord forgiue him for he knowes not what he does his passion was at this time his master but if this ill language be acted if it be taken vp to serue a turn the case is worse for him his account before Gods Tribunall is the greater and heavier but for vs the better his impatience shall commend our patience his bitternesse our meeknesse his crying in the streets our silence best it is to be like him that as a lambe dumbe before the shearer so was he and opened not his mouth And thus much is enough for this passage The last thing which comes in our way is our Opponents insulting and vaunting termes conteined in the title of of his booke and the end of his English Epistle which I haue reported in this Preface num 3. and these they are He is an Instructer His Treatise serues to giue instruction With him is the Spirit The inspiration of the Almighty giues him vnderstanding and him onely for sometimes great men want wâ—sâ—dâ—me and the aged vnderstanding and iudgement therefore you must heare him For his writings they are such as he may let Cato come in and see and censure We haue now the head but we want the tayle he presenteth vs with an Antecdent but his pocket holds the conclusion a consequent Is he wise in that Surely a wise Logician I grant for no man would doe thus but he that excells in that art But what say I Doe I commend him for Logick I doe but 't is my fault and I craue his pardon when he disputes I must extoll him for his Rethorick for with him that art is the queene of arts to serue a Disputers terme and no doubt she was his queene and he followed her lawes when he would thus extoll himselfe Doubtlesse hereby he meant to abase vs and our cause else it had beene vaine thus to elevate himselfe and we will confesse for our owne parts that we must come vnder his see and hide our selues vnder him from the weather shore if all be true that he avoucheth but I doubt of that and so must till I heare Caâ—â— his sentence for he commits the cause to him and so will we too because â—ato amongst all Philosophers is held the wisest and gravest Statesman and Law-maker therefore we will present his particular braggs and attend the sentence of Cato He appeales to Cato nay he invites yea provokes Cato to the search and censure of his writings Even he this Authour a youth as him elfe professeth and all the world knowes he is a yoncker and but a yoncker in age and stadies what will Cato say to this The excellentest of many must rise from his graue to censure the meanest of thousands Let him 〈…〉 An instructer he is but will you know what degree he beares in that office his title will tell you even nothing inferior to God himselfe for he borrowed his whole title from Psal 32 1. onely God calls his worke a Psalme this Opponent names his a treatise but one thing he comes short in that word MASCHIL in the Hebrew is written two severall waies in the one it fignifies to vnderstand or things fit to be vnderstood If it be written the second way it signifies lightnesse folly or to be mad as the learned in that tongue haue observed Thus much I baue beene informed by men of credit in that language for my selfe am wholly ignorant that way things standing thus I say if he had written that word with the Hebrew Character we should haue vnderstood his meaning we might haue knowne the full value of his stile and title of honour but because he hath not we can onely guesse at it wherefore thus we say if we take it to signifie things fit to giue vnderstanding then in this office he giues God the mate what will Cato say to this that a Youth not 30. yeares of age becomes an instructer equall to God himselfe No marvell though he dares Cato to his face seeing he dare set his foote to Gods and instruct in things divine equall to him if he
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 his whole discourse as well â—hat is to the purpose as what is beside the purpose is fully cleered and satisfied wherein â—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. 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 Our adversaries in this cause doe bring the deniall of the foundation of faith as a medium to proue the Church of Rome to be no true Church I answere this man hath a faire gift of inventing some while he can finde an adversary that answers 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 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 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 I would gladly see the testimony of but one in estimation for his learning amongst vs that ever affirmed the Church of Rome to deny the foundation of Faith directly The Church of England hath not passed any such sentence vpon her Some of ours 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 If they Baptise with water in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost then their Baptisme is good for here is water and the words of Christs Institution the one the matter and the other the forme and both essentiall to Baptisme I answere 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 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 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 but I suppose no such thing will bee because the matter is cleere in it 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. The very being and nature of the Sacraments consisteth altogether in relation to some such gift and grace supernaturall as God onely can bestow These things are sufficient as I conceiue to satisfie his first argument in behalfe of Popish Baptisme His second followeth in this forme 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 and he brings nothing to proue it wherefore it stands refelled for in this case our 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 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