his goodnesse eftsoones to reduce you Two grounds you say there are whereon you haue built your Separation the first whereof you lay downe in these tearmes That the Hierarchie and Ministrie of Arch-bishops Lord Bishops c. and Priests may not bee set ouer the Church of Christ nor retained therein From whence as I vnderstand it you would argue and conclude thus Where are such Church Officers as may not bee set ouer nor retained in the Church there is no true visible Church and consequently Separation must bee made from it But here in England are such Church Officers as Arch-bishops Bishops c. and Priests Ergo here in England is no true visible Church and consequently Separation must bee made from it To this argument thus formed I answer first by denying the Maior Proposition which in that you goe not about to proue you commit that fault in reasoning which Logicians call Petitionem Principij taking that for granted which is most questioned For suppose that Archbishops Bishops and Priests were superfluous officers yet it is not euery superfluity in a Church that takes away the nature and essence thereof and euen they who mislike the present Church gouernement doe not all of them as you Separatists doe inferre thereupon a nullity but onely a corruption or aberration in the Church It would haue beene much more to the purpose if you could haue demonstrated that the Church of England is defectiue in such officers as are essentiall and without which a Church cannot be Here therefore I must entreat you either to acknowledge your rashnesse or else to bestow a little more paines in the proofe of that which without euidence of reason will neuer be yeelded you Againe I deny the Minor Proposition affirming contrarily that Archbishops Bishops and Priests are lawfull Church-Officers and may bee both set ouer and retained in the Church For I hope you vnderstand these tearmes not cauillingly and equiuocally but according to the meaning and definition of the Church of England Otherwise you shall but iangle about words and bewray that you haue more desire to picke quarels then ability to iustify your Separation But you endeauour to fortify your Minor by twelue reasons supplying in the tale if ought bee wanting in the weight Let vs examine them seuerally The first is this 1 No Antichristian ministrie may bee set ouer the Church of Christ nor retained therein 2. Thes 2.3.4.11.12 Ro. 14.9 10. with Ex. 4.5 Deut. 7.26 Ps 119.21.128 But the Ministrie of Arch-bishops lord-Lord-Bishops Priests is Antichristian because the Churches of Antichrist cannot bee compleate if they haue not this Prelacy as appeareth by the Popes Canons and Pontificall and by their Church-Constitution Therefore they are not to bee set ouer the Church of Christ nor retained therein What meane you by the word Antichristian For although I know well what properly it signifies yet I doubt much what you vnderstand thereby it being your manner either through negligence or ignorance too often to speake improperly If you vnderstand it properly and as you ought for that which is against Christ and his ordinance or as your men sometimes expresse themselues which is a speciall part of Antichrists apostasie then I yeeld you your Maior and confesse that no such Ministrie may bee set ouer the Church nor retained therein But if you meane thereby either that which was first instituted and deuized by Antichrist or that which being formerly instituted is vsed and approued in the Church of Antichrist then I deny the Maior For first euery thing by Antichrist ordained is not presently vnlawfull and Antichristian no more then euery act of a tyrant is vniust and tyrannous How many good and wholesome lawes were enacted vnder the raigne of Richard the third who yet was a most bloody and cruell tyrant Neither were they afterward repealed by succeeding Kings but stand still in force notwithstanding his tyranny for they proceeded from him non quà tyrannus not as hee was a tyrant but as hee was a wise and politicke gouernour In like manner not euery thing ordained by Antichrist is foorthwith to bee reiected but onely that which hee doth quà Antichristus as hee is Antichrist and is meerely Antichristian It is a great folly to refuse good counsell because it is giuen by an euill man Wise men will consider non quis sed quid not so much who doth a thing as what is done For as truth is Gods in whose mouth soeuer it bee found so is good also whosoeuer bee the Author thereof Againe if those things whereof Antichrist is the first founder bee not therefore by and by vnlawfull much lesse are those things so which being of a former institution are onely vsed and obserued by him Were it otherwise how many ordinances of God himselfe and wholesome constitutions of the primitiue Church would proue vnlawfull being still retained in Popery This Maior you endeauour to fortify with sundry passages of Scripture But as Cassius of old was wont to say Cui bono to what end For if you would proue it in the sense granted you they are alledged needlesly if in the sense denied friuolously and to speake the truth euery way vainely and impertinently as the very reading of them will manifest to any one that will but take the paines to peruse them But this is the manner of your men to paint your margents with multitude of quotations nothing to the purpose whereas one allegation directly concluding is more then a hundred demonstrations as being the words of the first and infallible verity What you intend hereby I wot not whether to amuse the Reader and ouerwhelme him with your numbers or to win you credit and estimation with the vulgar as if you were the onely skilfull Text-men But sure I am that such sleighting of Scripture is no lesse then the taking of Gods Name in vaine which whosoeuer doth the Lord professeth he will not hold him guiltlesse Scripture is not made nor appointed for pompe and shew but for conquest and victory To the Minor Proposition I answer negatiuely The ministrie of Arch-bishops Lord-Bishops and Priests is not Antichristian whether you vnderstand it as first inuented by Antichrist or against Christ That it is not of Antichrists inuention is as cleere as the Sunne For first Priests are of diuine institution being no other then those Presbyters or Pastors to whom the administration of the Word and Sacraments is committed and who are ordained by Christ for the building vp of his Church vnto the end of the world The Priests of the Church of Rome indeed are of Antichrists founding whose office is to sacrifice and offer vp Christ himselfe in the Masse vnto his Father both for the quicke and the dead But our Priests haue nothing common with them saue the name onely their idolatry wee detest and abhorre although wee retaine the name Theirs are Masse-Priests ours are Preaching or Ministring Priests Neither let the name offend you for
Duraeus Con. Whitel◠p. 140. The Fathers are not counted Fathers when they either write or teach of their owne and what they haue not receiued from the Church p. 1. pa. 75. And Dominicus Bannes The more part of Doctors if some few bee against them make no infallible argument in matters of Faith De iurisd p. 4. Dr Marta also The common opinion of Doctors is not to bee regarded when another contrary opinion fauoureth the power of the keyes and the iurisdiction of the Church De vorb Dei l. 3. c. 10. Likewise Bellarmine The Fathers expound the Scriptures not as Iudges but as Doctors now not to this but that authority is required And De conc In expounding the Scripture the Catholike Church doth not alway and in all things follow the Fathers The writings of the Fathers are no rules and haue no authority to bind vs. In Rom. 14. Finally Tom teltroth Cornelius Mus To speake freely I would yeeld more credence to one chiefe Bishop in those things which concerne the mysteries of Faith then a thousand Augustins Hieromes or Gregories And thus as a right learned writer saith Reinol Conf. c. 2. d. 2. you vse the Fathers as Marchants are wont to vse their counters Sometime they stand with you for pence sometime for pounds as they bee next and readiest at hand to make vp your accounts So that I cannot but maruell how you dare to make that the ground of your Faith which the learnedst of your side so ordinarily reiect as an vnsure foundation to build vpon Shall I tell you M. Bayly you haue been fouly gulled and beguiled by your new Masters For notwithstanding all this faire pretence of Fathers yet in the end not Consent of Fathers but the authority of the present Church must bee your surest anchorhold So saith Gregory de Valentia a man well seene in the Romish mysteries Tom. in Thom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. p. 7. §. 3. De Sacram. l. 2. c. 25. Neither the holy Scripture nor yet tradition alone if yee separate from it the present authority in the Church is that infallible authority and mistresse of Faith So Bellarmine also The firmity of all ancient Councels and Doctrines depends vpon the authority of the present Church And this reason they render because without the authority of the present Church yee can neuer haue infallible certainty either of Scripture or Councels or Traditions which they bee or what is the true meaning of them So that now you must of force remoue your Faith from the ancient Fathers and rest it vpon the present Church But what are you now more safe then you were before Neuer a whit vnlesse you may further bee resolued what is the present Church For it is taken three seuerall wayes by you and is either the Church essentiall consisting of all Catholicks whatsoeuer Prier in Luth. tom 1. fund ◠or Representatiue of Bishops in a Coūcell or Virtuall the Pope who is head of the Church Now which of these three must you pitch vpon The first So say some But the most part of this Church is the Vulgar who are not comprehensiue of those matters which are controuerted neither is it possible for you to gather the voices of such a diuided and dispersed body Others therefore direct you to the second But what to a Councell with the Pope or without the Pope For here is such confusion of tongues and part taking of each side that I feare you will hardly find any rest for the sole of your foote this way Howbeit if the most voices of the new cut now adayes may sway it not a Councell without the Pope but the Pope whether with a Councell or without it it mattereth not much Tom. 3. p. 24. must bee the iudge and ground of Faith In this question saith Gregory de Valentia by the Church wee meant the Roman Bishops in whom resides the full authority of the Church when hee pleases to determine matters of Faith whether hee doe it with a Councell or without And Greiser Def. Bellarm. 10. 1. p. 1450. b. when wee affirme the Church to bee iudge of all controuersies of Faith by the Church wee vnderstand the B. of Rome who for the time being gouernes the ship of the militant Church And Albertin I say that besides the first verity there is an infallible rule liuing and endued with reason such as is the Church and this rule liuing and endued with reason is the chiefe B. of Rome So that Tom. 1. dis 44. Sect. 1. the Popes determination is the truth saith Suares and were it contrary to the sayings of all the Saints yet were it to bee preferred afore them nay if an Angell from Heauen were opposed against him the Popes determination were to bee preferred By all which you see that as you haue once already remoued your Faith from the ancient Fathers to your Mother the present Church so must you bee faine now againe to remoue it from your mother the present Church vnto your holy Father the present Pope But besides that it is altogether vnprobable that the Spirit of Truth should bee chained vnto the chaire of those men who many of them haue beene monsters rather then men and not only Heretiks but very Atheists and Infidels I would willingly learne why the Pope is so seldome in the humour to decide controuersies Why haue wee not from him an exact Commentary on the Bible that wee need no longer stand in doubt of the meaning thereof And why doth hee not stint the deadly fo-hood that now is on foot betweene the Iesuites and Dominicans But suppose hee bee both able and ready to resolue what must I trauell from England so farre as Rome for resolution and when I am arriued before him hath hee clouen tongues sitting vpon him to speake vnto mee in the language I vnderstand Or if I vnderstand him how am I assured that speaking to mee hee intendeth to teach the whole Church for otherwise hee may erre as Bellarmine shewes Innocent the eighth did De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 14. permitting the Norwegians to celebrate the sacrifice of the Masse without wine Shall I tell you a mystery Whatsoeuer your Priests and Iesuits prate either of Fathers or Church or Pope yet to an ordinary man who cannot of himselfe be resolued by them the authority of his Diocesan is sufficient yea and hee merits by belieuing it although what hee teach bee false This perhaps may seeme strange to you L. 3. d. 25. q. v. art 1. yet thus saith Gabriel Biel If a simple and vnlearned man heare his Prelate preach any thing contrary to the Faith thinking that what his Prelate hath so preached is belieued by the Church Instr Sacer. l. 4. c. 3. such a one not only not sinneth but by belieuing that which is false meriteth And Tolet Againe if a Countrey-man belieue his Bishop propounding some hereticall Doctrine about the
they may both find out what they haue not heard and examine what they haue heard This gift of God this Wisdome I meane and illumination of Gods Spirit vse I beseech you to the glory of the donour and the building of your selfe vp in your most holy Faith This you shall doe if shaking off this blind beliefe of the dictates and decrees of men you simply and absolutely yeeld all credence to God alone his word and to men no otherwise then vnder God and for God For as the same Lactantius saith with whose words I conclude Wisdome and Religion are so neerely ioyned together Ib. l. 4. c. 4. 1. c. 1. that they may not bee seuered one from the other in so much as neither any religion is to bee embraced without wisdome nor any wisdome to be approued without religion The Lord giue you a cleane heart and renew within you a right Spirit so prayeth for you from the bottome of his heart Your vnfained friend and louing brother IOHN DOWNE OF SITTING AND KNEELING AT THE COMMVNION VNTO the schedule you sent mee contayning your best reasons for Sitting against Kneeling I here returne you this short answer Your end doubtlesse was by strength of argument to withdraw mee from conformity in Kneeling my intent is by discouering the weaknesse of your arguments to worke you from singularity in Sitting The issue I leaue vnto God yet I trust that as my persuasion and example this last Easter as you know reduced diuers so my Reply through the blessing of God may also reclaime you God grant that being brethren and children of one common mother wee may with one accord obserue her orders and honor her authority Your writing first maintaines sitting then opposes kneeling Of sitting you affirme thus Wee ought to sit at the receiuing of the Elements of the Lords Supper In which Proposition I doubt of one tearme and suspect another The tearme I doubt of is this Wee ought to sit namely what you meane thereby For if either the nature of the Phrase or the Conclusion of your third Syllogisme may determine it then is it equiualent vnto this We must sit imports a necessity of sitting or that sitting is the only lawful I gesture But if we iudge thereof by the probable intention of the two first Syllogismes then the meaning thereof seemes to bee no more then this We may sit or sitting is a lawfull gesture In which sence now vnderstand you this Proposition In the first Then I deny it and say Sitting is not the onely lawfull gesture In the second Then I answer two things First you haue ill exprest your selfe vsing words that beare not your meaning for Wee ought imports a necessary duty and Wee may free choice and liberty Secondly I distinguish For if you vnderstand it Absolutely and Simply in it selfe then I grant Wee may sit for sitting is indifferent and so there shall bee no controuersie betwixt vs. But if you vnderstand it respectiuely and with regard vnto the Canons and constitutions of the Church then I say wee may not sit for the Church vnto whom wee owe obedience hath ordained otherwise Againe I suspect those words at the receiuing of the Elements of the Lords Supper for why doe you not say rather at the receiuing of the Body and Blood of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ especially seeing this is the nobler part of the Sacrament and the Elements are but shadowes of this substance Was it lest sitting might seeme too perfunctory and kneeling neuer a whit too reuerent for so sacred an action If so then are you guilty of no small fault thus to sleight the holy Sacrament for so poore an aduantage But perhaps it was done out of simplicity rather then cunning Howbeit taking vpon you to play the Logician and to dispute Syllogistically you ought to haue been more wary of your tearmes And so I passe vnto your arguments the first whereof is thus framed 1 A comely gesture ought to be vsed 1 Cor. 14.40 Sitting is a comely gesture for the affection of ioy must then bee stirred vp with which it agrees Mar. 14.22 23 24 25 26. Ergo sitting ought to bee vsed This is rather a Paralogisme then Syllogisme for the Propositions are indefinite and of no quantity and out of such Propositions nothing can Logically bee concluded But I will help to rectify your Syllogisme if first I may know what you would conclude The Conclusion must needs bee one of two either this Wee may sit or this Wee must sit Would you conclude Wee may sit in the sence aboue denied for so you ought Then must it thus bee formed Any comely gesture may be vsed notwithstanding the Churches ordinance sitting is a comely gesture Ergo sitting may bee vsed notwithstanding the Churches ordinance But so the Maior is vntrue For Magistrates haue authority to order things indifferent as they find it expedient to auoid confusion and to settle an vniformity and wee are bound not onely for feare but also for Conscience to obey Rom. 13.5 Neither doth the passage you quote for proofe of your Maior euince the contrary For Saint Paul commanding that all things bee done decently permitteth not euery one to vse his liberty as hee listeth In. 1. Cor. 14.40 but setteth bounds vnto vs rather as Caluin saith establisheth the lawfull orders of the Church seeing it cannot bee decent to affront authority and doe as we please But it may bee you would conclude that wee must sit or that sitting is the onely lawfull gesture Then must your argument bee thus framed A comely gesture onely is to bee vsed sitting onely is comely Ergo sitting onely is to bee vsed The Maior whereof I grant and acknowledge to bee sufficiently prooued but I deny the Minor For if sitting bee the onely comely gesture then is not onely the Church of England to bee condemned for kneeling but sundry other reformed Churches also for standing yea our Sauiour himselfe with all his Apostles who as in due place shall bee demonstrated sate not to say nothing that it is your singular opinion and that the man cannot bee named who held the same before you or holds it besides you For as for your reason that sitting agrees with the affection of ioy which then must bee stirred vp it is a very strange and vnreasonable one For first bee it that ioy must then bee stirred vp so must humility reuerence thankfulnesse also And therefore if sitting beecomely because it agreeth with the one Kneeling also is comely because it agreeth with the other Againe suppose that sitting agree with Ioy so doth leaping dancing exultation also Why then if Sitting by vertue of this agreement be comely are not the rest in like manner comely Lastly that Sitting is the embleme of Rest and that such posture of the body is fit for study counsell meditation I haue often heard and so much is meant by those old sayings The Romans conquer by
it but that it is the onely lawfull gesture it cannot possibly prooue If it could by the same reason it would follow that the Eucharist is only to bee administred at euening and after supper because Christ then administred it For they are both circumstances and not essentiall idem jus Titio quod Sejo there is the same reason of both You will yet happily demand why wee make not Christs gesture a precedent for ours are we wiser then Christ And I againe demand of you why you lie not on your beds as Christ did know you what is conuenient better then he your answer I suppose will be that Christs gesture was that which ordinarily they then vsed at meales and Sitting is that which ordinarily they now vse And I answer because wee receiue not the Sacrament with our meales as Christ and his Apostles first did therefore do we not vse the gesture of meales The cause of the gesture being taken away the gesture it selfe may bee changed also The Iewes at the first are the Passeouer standing as wee haue shewed to signifie their hastie departure out of Egypt but being now safely escaped thence they alter that gesture Cap. â—8 Cap. 74. and our Sauiour by his practice approues their so doeing The Councels of Laodicea and of Trullo forbidding Agapas that is the loue feasts with which they were wont to receive the Communion forbad also accubitus sternere to lie any more in the Churches vpon their beds So that in the wisdome of the Churches of both Testaments such circumstances may iustly bee varied as the causes or reasons of them doe vary And thus of your arguments for sitting now let vs take a view also of your reasons against Kneeling They are in number foure all as you thinke demonstratiue and out of necessary premisses concluding that we may at no hand Kneele The first is this 1 If Kneeling ought to bee vsed then it is conuenient But it is not conuenient 2 Chron. 6.13 Dan. 6.11 Ergo it is not to be vsed The Maior of this Syllogisme is Hypotheticall or Conditionall the Consequence whereof is grounded vpon this Categoricall or simple Proposition Nothing ought to be vsed but that which is conuenient Rom. 3.8 Whereunto I answer first as we may not doe euill that good may come of it so neither may we forbeare that good which is coÌ„manded vs for any euill or inconuenience that may follow thereof Secondly in things indifferent which are neither good nor euill if they bee not ordered by authority but are still arbitrary and left vnto our choice then as wee may vse them because they are lawfull so may wee not vse them when they proue inexpedient The rule of charity must ouerrule vs in this case But if once they bee ordered by publicke authority then necessity is laid vpon vs and wee must conforme our selues vnto order notwithstanding any pretended inconuenience The rule of loyalty must sway with vs in this case Bee it then that Kneeling is inconuenient it was the fault of our superiors to command iâ— Now it is commanded and it is our duty to obey them If it bee inconuenient to Kneele it is more inconuenient to disobey and for not Kneeling to bee barred from the Sacrament The sequele therefore of your Maior is not good and I require you to proue it The Assumption is Kneeling is not conuenient I deny it You proue it by two places of Scripture which testify that Salomon Daniel kneeled when they prayed The weaknesse of which proofe that you may the more readily perceiue I reduce it into forme thus That gesture which is vsed in prayer is not conuenient at the Sacrament But Kneeling is a gesture vsed in Prayer Ergo it is inconuenient at the Sacrament The Minor whereof I grant but I deny the Maior as being too palpably absurd For first neuer man yet dreamed that Kneeling is proper quarto modo vnto it and may not bee vsed in any other action Secondly then may wee neither sit nor stand at the Sacrament 1 King 19.4 because Elias prayed sitting and the Publican standing Luc. 18.13 yea happily no gesture is left for the Sacrament seeing Prayer hath ingrost them all before hand Lastly for as much as at the time of receiuing our affections are to bee aduanced and lifted vp vnto God in prayer and thankesgiuing it must needs be by your owne rule that Kneeling is a gesture euery way conuenient for it Your second argument is 2 No will-worship may bee vsed Mat. 15.9 Kneeling is will-worship for Pope Honorius first devised it Acts Mon. pag. 1390. Ergo Kneeling may not bee vsed To yeeld vnto God that Worship which he himselfe hath reuealed and prescribed is an Act of true Religion but to obtrude and thrust vpon him a Worship forged and deuised of our selues is meere superstition The one hee rigourously exacteth of vs the other hee expresly forbiddeth Ex. 15.38.39 In the law God commandeth the Iewes to make them fringes in the borders of their garments and to put a blew ribband vpon it throughout their generations that yee may looke vpon it saith he and remember all the Commandements of the Lord to doe them and that yee seeke not after your owne heart and your owne eyes after which yee vse to goe a whoaring In the Prophets he oftentimes vpbraideth them with their owne inuentions and disdainfully saith vnto them Who hath required these things at your hands And in the new Testament our Sauiour in the place by you quoted Mat. 15.9 Col. 2.23 seuerely taxeth the Pharisees for teaching their owne fantasies and placing the worship of God in the obseruation of mens precepts and Saint Paul to the Colossians in plaine tearmes condemneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wil-worship notwithstaÌ„ding whatsoeuer shew of Wisdome or humility it carry with it All which considered I yeeld you your Maior as true No Wil-worship may be vsed Your Assumption that Kneeling is Wil-worship I deny telling you further that you doe intolerable wrong vnto the Church of England charging her with so grosse a Superstition For the world knoweth and you must needs be a great stranger in Israel if you be ignorant that the Gouernors of our Church presse not their ceremonies vpon the consciences of men as if they were in themselues necessary and not indifferent neither place any part of Religion or diuine worship in them This they leaue vnto that Man of sin who challengeth power vnto himselfe as to create new articles of faith so to prescribe new formes of Worship also That their intent is not Wil-worship but order vniformity they haue oftentimes published if I may so say with sound of trumpet which if you haue not heard it is extreme deafenes if you haue heard and yet will not bee satisfied to say no more it proceeds of meere wilfulnes and frowardnesse Howbeit to proue your Minor you affirme that Pope Honorius first deuised it Cap.
notwithstanding Papists haue abused it to signifie a Sacrificer yet properly it doth not so being originally deriued from Presbyter neither among vs is it now so vnderstood To say nothing that the anciēt Fathers who I presume were not Antichristian vsually call the Ministers of the Gospell Sacerdotes Priests As therefore you cannot without great absurdity reason from the name to the thing thus your Ministers are called Priests Ergo your Ministrie is Antichristian so neither can you without greater absurdity separate your selfe from the thing because of the name and because our Ministers are called Priests withdraw your selfe from our Ministrie Secondly Arch-bishops and Bishops if they be not of diuine institution yet were they some Centuries of yeeres before euer Antichrist appeared in the world as all antiquity and Ecclesiasticall Story testifieth That most famous first generall Councell of Nice assembled by Constantin the Great about the yeere of our Lord 327 not onely approueth them but also affirmeth that the Church anciently and long before that time had been gouerned by them Epiphanius Augustin both reckon Aerius among the number of Hereticks for denying the then-receiued and allowed distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter But to speake my mind plainely I am for my part perswaded that the superiority of Bishops ouer the Ministers was of Apostolicall institution Those Angels to whom Saint Iohn in the second and third of the Reuelation is commanded to write what other were they then the Bishops of those Churches of Asia In Ephesus one of those seuen Churches it is reported by S. Luke that there were many Presbyters and I doubt not but it was so in other of the Churches also howbeit the Apostle writeth vnto one onely whom hee calleth the Angell as being singular and eminent aboue the rest And the ancient story of the Church recordeth the particular Bishops of euery one of those Churches together with their successors for a long time So that Bishops being in the Apostles time and successiuely continued in the Primitiue Church without any contradiction either of the Apostles themselues or any other yea rather with their approbation and allowance as appeareth by those seuen Epistles vnto the seuen Angels and all the writings of the ancient Fathers how can it bee imagined but that Bishops and their superiority ouer others was of Apostolicall institution Now if Priests or Pastors for as wee haue sayd in substance they be all one were ordained by God himselfe and Bishops deriue their pedigree also from the holy Apostles of God it followeth by necessary consequence that as our Ministery is not from Antichrist so neither is it against Christ Were it against Christ it would be either because he hath forbidden it or for that it destroyeth rather then edifieth the Church But it is no where forbidden If it bee shew the place and wee yeeld Neither doth it hinder the edification of the Church For first it is the office both of Bishops Priests to preach the Gospell of Christ and to administer his holy Sacraments Secondly the aduancement of one Presbyter aboue the rest was for the preuention of Schisme For when Factions began to arise in the Church some saying I am of Paul others I am of Apollos I am of Cephas then sayth Hierom was it decreed through the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest Who being so preferred his duty is to ouersee the rest of his brethren that they carefully discharge the office imposed vpon them and frame their liues according to the worthines of their calling All which I am sure furthereth the building of the Church so farre is it from destroying so that nor Priests nor Bishops whether yee regard their offices or the end of their ordination can be sayd to be against Christ Peraduenture for I would willingly let nothing passe vnanswered there lies a mistery in the word Lord-Bishops and you intend that they are the more Antichristian for that they are so called Surely if they should ambitiously affect the title of Lord Mat. 23. as the Pharisees somtimes did the title of Rabbi it were great pride and vanity in them and if they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord it and as it were domineere ouer the flock of Christ as if the inheritance were theirs it would be intollerable presumption tyranny But that a title of honour may be giuen vnto Bishops in regard of their honorable place and calling as there is no reason to the contrary so it must needs proceed from much enuie or frowardnesse to deny Gen. 31.35 1 King 18.7.13 Let it not bee displeasing in the eyes of my Lord saith Rahel to her Father Art not thou my Lord Elias And againe Was it not told my Lord what I did when Iezebel flew the Prophets of the Lord said good Obadiah vnto the Prophet If Laban because he was a naturall Father vnto Rahel and Eliah because hee was a Prophet might iustly bee so stiled why may not Bishops also who are the spirituall Fathers and Prophets yea and Angels of the Church Luc. 22.25.26 you will say our Sauiour expresly forbiddeth them to bee called Gratious Lords I deny it For although it pleased the translator so to render the originall word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because anciently it was a title of honour giuen vnto Princes yet doth it not properly signify so but Benefactors or Wel-doers Neuerthelesse suppose it so signified yet is it not simply the title but the ambitious affectation of the title which Christ disliketh Act. 10.38 If a man imitating Iesus Christ should goe about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doing good were it a sinne trow you to giue him his deserued name and to call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wel-doer Had it been simply vnlawfull for a Minister to be called Lord would Paul and Silas haue admitted it and not rather haue reprehended the keeper of the prison saying vnto them My Lords Act. 16.30 what ought I to doe that I may bee saued Our Sauiour Christ saith vnto his disciples Bee not yee called Masters Bee not yee called Doctors Mat. 23.8.10 and yet among you some Ministers are called Doctors and all Masters So that it appeareth by your owne practice that the name of Lord maketh not Bishops Antichristian but as wee haue said it is the affecting of the name which is forbidden And thus you see your Minor is no way true Notwithstanding you endeauour to proue it thus Because the Churches of Antichrist cannot be compleate without this Prelacy as appeareth you say by the Popes Canons and Pontificall and by their Church-constitutions A seely and sory argument For first the Ministrie of the Church of England is so farre from being a complement of the Churches of Antichrist that the Church of Rome doth Anathematize and accurse it esteeming vs right as you doe to bee no Church at all because wee want their Ministry
Againe may not I with as good reason as you argue thus The state and Kingdome of Antichrist cannot be compleate without the authority of Ciuill Magistrates Ergo Ciuill Magistrates are Antichristian If this kinde of reasoning bee not good neither is yours for they are both of one mould Lastly Antichristianity being a Mysterie and not an Heathnish or Turkish opposition vnto Christ it cannot be compleate except it retaine many of Christs ordinances which therefore I trust you will not say to bee Antichristian A lie cannot subsist but vpon truth nor euill but in good nor Antichrists hypocrisie but vpon the Religion and discipline of Christ And thus haue I fully answered your first argument whereon I haue been the longer because it is the Basis and ground as it were of all the rest and the answer thereunto will in a manner serue them all or the most part of them Your second argument is this 2 Because it cannot be approued by the testament of Christ as the Ministrie had in his Church may and ought to bee * Eph. 4.11.12 1. Cor. 12.4.5.6.28.29 Ro. 12.7.8 1. Tim. 3. 5.3.9.17 6.13.14 And if such as could not proue by their genealogie that they were of Aaron were deposed from their Ministrie under Moses Law * Ezr. 2.62.63 Heb. 3.2.3 2.1.2.3 12.25 much more should such bee now deposed as haue not their offices warranted by Christs Testament If wee reduce your argument into forme it is this That Ministrie which cannot bee approued by the Testament of Christ is not to bee allowed in the Church But the Ministrie of the Church of England cannot bee approued by the Testament of Christ Ergo it is not to bee allowed in the Church The Minor which you might be sure we would deny you haue left naked to the wide world without proofe the Maior which you saw wee could not well deny you endeauour to fortifie with a double reason Let it be supposed then that it is denied how proue you it First The Ministerie had in the Church may and ought to bee so approued How doth this appeare By the places quoted in the margent Nothing lesse They approue indeed certaine officers in the Church but affirme not that euery officer ought to bee so approued Secondly if say you such as could not deriue their genealogy from Aaron were deposed much more are they to be deposed who cannot warrant their offices by Christs Testament A poore argument God wot For in the law there was an expresse commandment that none might execute the Priests office but hee that was of the linage of Aaron but that no office might bee admitted nor retained in the Church vnlesse it were so commanded I find no where in Scripture Wherefore to argue thus Nothing that is against Gods Word may bee allowed Ergo nor any thing that is not commanded is a plaine Non sequitur and it followes not Thus you see if a man were so disposed how easie it is to quarell with your Maior which yet simply I deny not Briefly therefore to cleare all I distinguish of these tearmes Approued and Warranted by the Word A thing may bee said to bee warranted or approued by the Word two wayes both when it is commanded and when it is not forbidden for things neither commanded nor forbidden are indifferent and subiect vnto the Churches power Hereupon thus I answer if you meane it in the former sence only then proue your Maior that what is not by commandment approued is vnlawfull if in the latter then I grant you the Maior that whatsoeuer is forbidden is vnlawfull But withall I deny the Minor that Archbishops Bishops Priests are forbidden requiring you to proue it which I know you can neuer doe For as touching so much of their dutie as is common to them all to wit the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments they are all Pastors and Teachers and so warranted in the Texts by you quoted but in regard of preeminence and superiority one aboue another Bishops are no other then were the Angels of the seuen Churches as wee haue aboue demonstrated Howsoeuer if Bishops bee not commanded yet are they not forbidden and their office making not against edification but for it rather it cannot being ordained by the Church but be lawfull Your third argument 3 Because the Church is the Spouse Kingdome and Body of Christ and therefore may not haue Antichrists Hierarchie and ministrie set ouer it or retained in it For what concord hath Christ with Beliall Antichrists Hierarchie and Ministrie may not beset ouer the Church nor retained in it Archbishops Bishops Priests are Antichrists Hierarchie and Ministrie Ergo Archbishops Bishops Priests may not bee set ouer the Church nor retained in it The Maior of this Syllogisme you are very carefull to maintaine because the Church is the Spouse the Kingdome the Body of Christ as also because there can bee no concord betwixt Christ and Belial But to what end all this and with such a stirre to proue that which no man gainsayes for wee confesse Christs Kingdome may not be gouerned by Antichrists policie You should rather haue laboured to strengthen the Minor that Archbishops Bishops and Priests are Antichrists Hierarchie and Ministrie for you might be well assured wee would neuer yeeld you that vnlesse by strength of reason you constrained vs. Here therefore against the rule of Logicke againe you beg the principall matter in question taking for granted that those offices are meerely Antichristian But you must proue it and not looke that whatsoeuer you fancie to be true others vpon your bare word must presently belieue and take to bee true See the answer to the first argument I proceed to the fourth 4 If when a King substituteth Iudges Iustices c. no subiects may either refuse to bee gouerned by these or set ouer themselues officers of other Kingdomes as the Roman tribunes c. how can it be lawfull for any Christians c. It is an old saying that Symbolical diuinitie is no argumēt of proofe and that Similitudes serue rather to illustrate and cleare a mans meaning then to proue and conuince the vnderstanding In regard whereof if I had so pleased I might well haue sleighted this fourth reason and not haue vouchsafed it any answere at all For what is it other then a bare and naked Similitude neuertheles for further satisfaction let vs trie the strength thereof Two things you auouch first that Christians may not refuse to bee gouerned by those officers which Christ hath set ouer them secondly that Christians may not set ouer themselues officers of Antichrists kingdome The former I confesse is true but nothing to the purpose For we reiect not the officers ordained by Christ nor refuse to be gouerned by them If we doe so haue all Churches also done downe from S. Iohns time vnto this present age within which compasse you cānot name any one Church at any time moulded after
your platforme and I am sure all orthodoxall Churches haue euer beene gouerned by the same officers that ours is Whence it followeth that if for want of such a Politie and such Officers as you dreame of we haue in England no true Church neither hath there beene for certaine hundred of yeares aboue a thousand any true Church through the whole world Which how it can agree with the word of God affirming that of his kingdome there shall be none end I cannot conceiue For by your reckoning the kingdome of Christ ceased soone after the departure of the Apostles and suffered an interruption of about fourteen hundred yeares vntill Browne and Barrow began to play the Schismatickes The second Proposition I acknowledge also to be true but withall denie that we haue set ouer our selues any Antichristian or forraigne Officers For as we haue aboue both sayd and shewed Archbishops Bishops Priests are of diuine institution and now I further adde that they were first bred in the kingdome of Christ and not taken from any other kingdome your assertion to the contrary without due proofe argues that you build to your selfe castles in the aire and haue no ground for your presumption Your fift argument followeth 5. Because the Church being Christs spouse kingdome and body must haue his Ministrie set and kept in it and no other And if no man can make a finger or the least member of a naturall humane body or adde any other limme thereto without deformity then God hath created and can much lesse giue life to any such counterfait member of his owne making how is it possible that he can set vp another Ministrie 1. Cor. 12.12.20 27.28 The argument is thus to bee formed The Ministrie of Christ and no other is to be set ouer and kept in the Church The Ministrie of Archbishops Bishops and Priests is not Christs Ergo it is not to be set ouer nor kept in the Church The Maior I grant confessing that no office may bee allowed in the Church but that which is from Christ eyther immediately or mediatly that is from those vnto whose wisdome and discretion hee hath delegated some part of his authority to order many things in the Church For as the Church may not alter that Ministry which Christ hath setled to continue for euer so may shee by vertue of her delegate authority ordaine such offices as are not forbidden and tend to edification And being so ordeined they are though not immediatly yet mediately from Christ Neither yet doth the Church so doing presume to make as you say either a finger or any other member or limme that is essentiall vnto the body much lesse to giue life thereunto but onely to prouide a gloue as it were for the finger or a sute of apparell for the body the better to preserue it in life The Minor that the Ministrie of Archbishops Bishops and Priests is not of Christ I deny affirming the cleane contrary that they are those Pastors and Angels authorized and allowed by Christ in his word It is the greatest vanity and idlenesse that can bee in disputing onely with boldnesse to affirme that which is denied and neuer to endeauour the proofe thereof which yet is your solemne fault almost in euery argument Your sixt reason 6 Because Christians are the Temples of the Holy Ghost 1. Cor. 3.16.17 2. Cor. 6.16 2. Thes 2.4 Col. 2.18 Act. 20.17.28 and their consciences wrought vpon by Ministrie in the Church and therefore may not be defiled by the Hierarchie of Arch-bishops c. whom the Holy Ghost neuer made Ouerseers The argument in forme stands thus Those offices that defile the Temples of the Holy Ghost and consciences of men may not bee set ouer nor retained in the Church But the Hierarchie of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests defiles the Temples of the Holy Ghost and consciences of men Ergo the Hierarchie of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests may not bee set ouer nor retained in the Church The Maior wee readily yeeld you but how proue you the Minor that these Officers defile the Conscience Forsooth because the Holy Ghost hath not made them Ouerseers And how proue you this againe Because the Pastors of Ephesus were made such Ouerseers An Herculean argument I promise you For what letteth but that hee that made the Pastors of Ephesus Ouerseers hath made the Pastors of England Ouerseers also Alas alas that vpon such friuolous and toying reasons so dangerous and offensiue Schismes should be made And take heed how you quench or grieue the Spirit of God who if you haue in you any measure of knowledge or sparke of grace hath wrought it in you by our Ministrie For preaching which is the ordinary meanes to beget faith I suppose you haue not had elsewhere and it is no lesse then blasphemie to call the working of Gods Spirit by his Holy Word vpon the soules of men the defiling of the Conscience The seuenth argument 7 Because Christ alone is the Head of the Church in whom all fulnesse of power dwelleth Eph. 1.22.23.4.11.16 Col. 1.18.19.2.8.9.10.18.19.1 Cor. 12.4.5.6.12.27.28 1. Tim. 3. 5.8.6.13.14 Rev. 11.13.18.8.14.8.17 18. 19. and from whom alone the Church receiueth her life and power so as none may bee subiect to any power or head in Religion saue onely to him And therefore no Ministers or Officers in the Church are to bee set vp or retained who deriue not their power and functions from Christ which the former doe not and therefore they are not c. but to bee abandoned as enemies of Christs soueraigne authority and making their hearers and submitters to them guilty of high treason against our Lord Christ Iesus It is true there is but one Head of the Church from whom shee receiueth life and Power yet are there also vnder Christ gouernors in the Church who by vertue of that power which they haue receiued from him may ordaine many things touching the well gouernment thereof and to submit our selues thereunto is not to bee subiect to another power or head but to the ordinance of Christ himselfe But it is false that Bishops deriue not their power and function from Christ as we haue already manifestly proued If you haue any thing to the contrary I hope wee shall heare of it another time for hitherto you haue onely said but shewed nothing As for those words that Bishops are to bee abandoned as enemies of Christs soueraigne authority c. they sauour more of passion then reason and deserue rather to bee pitied then answered The eigth argument 1. Cor. 18.27.28 Eph. 4.11.12.13 8 Because God onely must haue this preeminence to dispose the members euery one of them in the body of the Church at his owne pleasure so as either it must bee shewed that God hath placed the Hierarchie of Arch-bishops Bishops Priests or they are not to bee set vp or retained or approued We haue satisfyed you in this already if happily you will bee
satisfied For wee haue shewed first that the Ministrie of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests is of diuine and Apostolicall institution and secondly if the superiority of Bishops bee not immediatly from God yet being not forbidden and tending to edification the Church vnder God hath power to ordaine them Hereunto wee expect your answer The ninth argument Mat. 22.25.26 Ep. 4.8.11.12 Ps 68.18 Ro. 14.23 Heb. 11.16 9 Because none can of Faith ioyne vnto the Hierarchie aforesaid because they are not warranted by the Word being not from Heauen but from the earth The Ministrie aforesaid is warranted by Gods Word as wee haue oftentimes said and so is from Heauen not from earth and therefore you may of Faith ioyne vnto it Had it not been a plant of Gods owne setting doubtlesse it would haue beene rooted out of the Church long since and not haue continued fifteen hundred yeeres together The tenth argument 10 Because none can submit vnto or haue spirituall communion with the Hierarchie and Ministrie aforesaid Rev. 14.9.10.11 but hee shall worship the Beast and his image spoken of in the Reuelation and receiue his marke in his forehead or hand and so make himselfe subiect to the wrath of God This argument though differing in words yet in sence and meaning is all one with the first For how can it bee conceiued that they who submit themselues vnto our Ministrie worship as you say the Beast and his Image vnlesse it be for that it is Antichristian For auoiding of Tautologie therefore I referre you vnto the answer of that argument where I plainely demonstrate that it is Christian not Antichristian so that in communicating with it there can bee no danger either of worshipping the Beasts-image or receiuing his marke or incurring the wrath of God But whereas you talke of worshipping the Beast you much mistake the matter For by the Beast is vnderstood not Antichrist but the Roman Empire whereof the State of Antichrist is the image Neither can you shew Rev. 18.4.5.6 2. Cor. 16.17.18 Ioh. 10.5 Num. 16.1.26.40.18.4.5 Ezeh 44.7.18.4.5 Mat. 15.13 Es 11.4 13. 14. Ier. 15. 50. 51.2 Thes 2.3.4.8 Rev. 14.6.7.8 17. 18. 19. if our Ministrie were Antichristian how by retaining it wee should worship the Roman Empire The eleuenth argument 11 Because all are straitly bound and charged by the Lord to depart from and witnesse against the aforesaid Prelacy and Priest-hood being a strange Ministrie and such as is opposed against and exalted aboue the holy ordinance and Ministrie of Christ and shall be abolished by him appearing in the light and power of the Gospell Our Ministrie neither is a strange Ministrie nor opposed or exalted aboue Christs Ministrie but Christs owne Ministrie as now once againe I tell you and therefore no man is charged either to depart from it or to witnesse against it But you are a strange disputer who so peremptorily affirme that which hath euer beene denied and neuer goe about to proue it As for that you say our Ministrie shall bee abolished by Christ appearing in the light and power of the Gospell it bewrayes what you desire should bee but is no certaine Oracle of what indeed shall be Sure I am our Ministrie hath subsisted this fifteen hundred yeeres and the light and power of the Gospell hitherto hath not abolished it but it hath still published and propagated the Gospell Happily when the Church shall cease to be militant and Christ shall deliuer vp the Kingdome to his Father that God may be all in all this ministrie shall haue an end But till then Credat Iudaeus Apella Non ego let Brownists and Barowists belieue it not I. Your obstinate begging of the principall matter in question conuinceth you to bee but a bad disputant and this rash and vnaduised prediction now dubbeth you for a false Prophet also The last argument 2. King 23.5 Ps 101. Pro. 16.10.11.12.25.2 5 Rev. 17.16 Deu. 17.18.19.20 Ro. 12.7.8 Eph. 4.11.12.13 1. Tim. 3. 5.9.17.6.13.14 12 Because it is the dutie and in the power of Princes to suppresse and root out of their dominions all false Ministries and therefore these as well â—s Abbots Friers Nuns Cardinals c. Whereas it is not in their power or of any vnder Heauen to abolish the offices giuen by Christ to his Church Here againe you take for granted that our Ministrie is but a false Ministrie and that Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests are no lesse Antichristian then Abbots Friers Nuns Cardinals which is euer denied but neuer confirmed by you Vaine man proue our Ministrie to bee false and wee will grant it is to be rooted out otherwise outfacing and desperate asseueration will not serue the turne And thus haue I briefly examined all your twelue reasons whereby you goe about to proue the Minor of your principall Syllogisme namely that our Church-officers Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests are not to be set ouer nor retained in the Church Whereupon I inferre seeing your Maior is barely affirmed being vntrue and your Minor so weakly and insufficiently proued you haue not as yet soundly concluded the lawfulnesse and necessity of your separation Let vs proceed to the second ground which you coÌ„ceiue in these words A true visible Church is a company of people called and separated from the world by the Word of God Act. 2.39.19.9 Ro. 1.6.7.10.14.15.16 Iob. 17.14.20 Ezek. 36.38 Phil. 1.5 Act. 2.41 42.47.11.21.24.13.4.34 Ro. 12.5 2. Cor. 9.13 Ps 110.13 Es. 14.1.44.5.60.8 Zach. 4.6.8.21.22.23 and ioyned together by voluntary profession of the Faith of Christ in the Fellowship of the Gospell Out of which if I mistake not you would conclude the iustnes of your separation thus Where there is not a company of people called and separated from the world and ioyned together as aboue there is not a true visible Church and consequently Separation ought to be made from it But in England there is not a company of people so called and separated from the world and so ioined together Ergo in England there is not a true visible Church and consequently separation ought to bee made from it I distinguish of the middle tearme Called for there is a double calling the one is Gratiae oblatae where by God onely inuites men vnto Christ and offers them Grace the other Gratiae inditae infusae whereby hee not only offers but infuseth grace also into them The former Calling maketh not a man of the Church for hee that is no otherwise called answereth not by Faith nor commeth vnto Christ but remaineth still in infidelity and so is vtterly excluded out of the Church Of the latter Calling I distinguish againe for it is either that whereby hee bestoweth vpon man Faith of Doctrine or that whereby ouer and aboue hee giues them Iustification together with true Sanctification Faith of Doctrine is either a Partiall or an Entire Faith a Partiall Faith whereby part onely of the Christian verity is held or an
Entire Faith by which the whole sauing truth is belieued and professed And this againe either in Vnity or in Schisme in Vnity with other Churches of God or in Schisme with Separation from them Now all these and eueryone of them are of the Christian Church for they are neither Gentiles nor Iewes nor Turks being by the calling of grace brought to the profession of the Christian Religion But yet among them there is exceeding great difference for they that hold the entire truth of Christ are of that Christian Church which is called Oxthodoxall they that hold it in part onely are of that Christian Church which is Hereticall They that entirely hold the truth in Vnity with other Churches of God are of that Christian Orthodoxall Church which is Catholicke they that hold the same whole truth in Separation from them are of that Christian Orthodoxall Church which is Schismaticall And such is the Church of Brownists to which you haue adioyned your selfe But they who hold the whole truth of Christ not onely in Vnity but also in Sincerity being truly iustified by Faith and Sanctified in the lauour of Regeneration they I say are of that Christian Orthodoxall Catholicke Church which is Inuisible and knowne only vnto God For although both the persons and profession of those that are thus called be visible and may by outward sense bee discerned whereby in the eye of Charity they are to bee counted Gods elect people yet the inward truth and sincerity of the heart is to vs inuisible and seene of none but onely him who trieth the heart and raines and so alone knoweth who are his These distinctions thus promised I come at length to answer your Syllogisme and demand of you which of these Callings it is that you meane If the last whereby wee haue receiued entirely to belieue the whole truth of Christ and that not onely in Vnity but also in Sincerity and with a sanctified heart then I deny the Maior for it is not the Visible but the Inuisible Church alone that cōsists of such members Neither can such a Visible Church bee found vpon the face of the earth for here corne and cockle chaffe and wheat Saints and hypochrits are mingled together neither can you affirme other of that Church whereunto now you associate your selfe If you meane any other of the Callings aboue mentioned or all of them besides this last then I deny your Minor For here in England wee are a company of people to whom not onely grace hath beene offered but who also haue receiued grace to belieue the truth of Christ and therefore are not Infidels but of the Church of Christ Againe we haue receiued to belieue the whole truth and therefore are an Oxthodoxall not an Hereticall Church Lastly wee hold the whole truth of God in Unity with other Churches and amongst vs there are thousands also who professe the same with sincere and sanctified hearts and therefore wee are not a Schismaticall as you are but a true Catholicke Church This Minor thus denied you goe not about to strengthen with so much as one argument and yet hither should you haue bent all your forces About the Maior you bestow a little more paines endeuouring to fortify it with sixe reasons which although they bee to little purpose yet to giue you the more satisfaction let vs briefly examine them And first that which is in order first 1. Cor. 12.27 Exod. 19.5.6 1. Cor. 14.33 1. Tim. 3.15 Mat. 13.24.31 Psal 46.4.5.80.1 1. Pet. 2.5.9 Rev. 1.11.12.13.20 1. Because a true visible Church is the body of Christ a Kingdome of Priests a Church of Saints the houshold of God the Kingdome of heauen the Citie of God the sheep of the Lord a chosen generation a golden Candlestick c. These titles properly belong vnto the inuisible Church consisting of those who are effectually called by sauing grace And when they are said affirmed of any visible Church you must vnderstand that the denomination is in regard of the better part thereof namely those Saints who haue receiued the spirit of adoption the earnest penny of their euerlasting inheritance not that no euill men are mixed with them In Corinth and Galatia as there were many holy and faithfull seruants of God so were there many lewd and vngodly men also for it is well knowen that they were much pestered both with error in doctrine and corruption in manners And yet the Apostle S. Paul neuer sticketh at it to acknowledge them visible Churches which I am sure he would not haue done had he thought that the mixture of bad and good in the same society did nullify a Church Nay rather if he had beene of your humour he would haue aduized a separation 1. How should it els haue Christ for the Prophet Priest Heb. 3.1.2.3 5 6.9 12.28 Mat. 28.18.19.20 Ps 110.1.4.1 Pet. 2.4.5.25 Act. 2.41.47 Eph. 1.22.23.2.19.22 King thereof or how should men know where to ioine and become members of the body of Christ with assurance to haue him their head c. It is the Inuisible Church the Church of the first borne as S. Paul calleth it whose names are enrolled in heauen Heb. 12.23 vnto which Christ properly and vniuocally is a Prophet Priest and King For he is a Head in such manner vnto those only who are knit together with him in the same mysticall body by the vnity of the same spirit and to whom hee communicateth from himselfe the sweet influence of life sense motion euen grace for grace Ioh. 1.16 as S. Iohn speaketh Is he not then a Head also of the visible Church yes as it is a Church it is a Church equiuocally and so is Christ the Head thereof For hypocrits and wicked men mingled with the good are not members of Christ as Ambrose saith but of the diuell and therefore Christ properly is not their Head Head and Body being Correlatiues Who are Elected and by true Iustifying Faith are ingrafted into Christs body you may charitably iudge but cannot certenly know for God only knoweth who are his Neuertheles where you see a Society of men professing entirely and in vnity the truth of Christ ioine your selfe vnto them knowing that they are a Christian orthodoxall Catholick Church And assure your selfe that there are among them sundry who are the deare Saints of God and professe the truth in sincerity and vprightnes of heart also which if you shall do together with them you need not doubt but you shall haue Christ to be your head Mat. 28.18.19.20 2. Cor. 6.17.18 Lev. 26.11.12 Ps 46.4.5 Es 59.20.21 Ez. 37.27.28 48.35 3. How should it els haue assurance of the promises seales of Gods Couenant presence and blessing to belong and appertaine vnto them The promises of Christ are proclaimed in such mixed companies vnto all on condition of faith repentance though actually performed vnto those only who actually haue performed the condition by repenting and