booke not only in this second Chapter of the first part but chiefely and specially in the second Chapter of the second part of it where I have set downe this Position and proved it that the Church is not so visible as to be alwayes at all times openly seene knowne to the wicked and persecuting world And for proofe hereof Aug. in Psal 1â— De Baptis contr Donatâ—st lib. 6. cap 4. I alledged S. Augustine who therefore compareth the Church to the Mâ—one which is often obscured and hid yea he confesseth and teacheth That the Church may sometime be so hidden as that the verie members thereof shall not know one another It is true that the men whereof the Church consisteth are alwayes visible and may be seene as being men but the Faith and Religion they beleeve and hold is not so visible as to be alwayes seene discovered known to the wicked and malignant world although sometime it be which point you may see there further declared And therefore they be not Chymicall arguments as my Adversarie in his Chymericall and Alchymisticall Divinitie surmiseth but solide and sound proofes that I bring to declare that the true Church is sometimes visible and to be seene of this wicked world and sometimes invisible Revel 9.13 Revel 10.1.2.10.11 and not to be seene of it that is to say it is sometimes a Patent and sometimes a Latent Church of which sort because the Papists will not grant their Church to be but will have it alwayes visible evermore splendently appearing to the eyes of the world it is a plaine demonstrative argument against them that therefore theirs cannot be the true Church I further shewed in this second Chapter that the true Church planted by the Apostles was afterward by little and little and by degrees to grow corrupted and to continue in those her errors corruptions and deformities for a long time even till after the sixt Angell had begun to blow the Trumpet according to the prediction Prophecie thereof in the Revelation of S. Iohn which Prophecie because it is found to agree with our Church and that it cannot be made to agree with theirs which they will not grant to be capable of any corruption or error It thereupon also followeth that not theirs but ours must needs be the true Church planted by the Apostles These arguments I here the rather mention that my adversary might see That the blast of the sixt Angels trumpet did not blow away all the arguments which I should have brought for my purpose as he scoffingly speaketh being not able otherwise or in other then a scoffing sort to answere them For what better argument can there be to prove our Church and to disprove confute theirs then this that ours doth agree with the predictions prophecies contayned in the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures and theirs neyther doth nor can be made to agree with them And here also falleth to the ground that Paradoxe and untrue opinion which he holdeth that one error in the Church overthroweth the whole Church making it to be no true Church but onely an imaginarie Church It is true 1 Cor. 5.6 that S. Paul saith That a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe of dow But hee doth not say that it utterly overthroweth nullifieth and extinguisheth it yea even this Church of Corinth wherein this leaven was by reason of that wicked incestuous man permitted to remaine unseperated 2. Cor. 1.2 unexcommunicated amongst them to the indangering of others by his example was neverthelesse the Church of God and so doth S. Paul expressely call it notwithstanding that error amongst them Againe in the same Church of Corinth there were also Contentions amongst them 1. Cor. 15 12. 1. Cor. 1.11 1. Cor. 3.3 1. Cor. 11 18.19 1. Corinth 1.2 and envying and strife and divisions yea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schismata haereses schismes heresies and yet was it a true Church of God all these errors and faults notwithstanding as S. Paul declareth The Church of Ephesus Rev. 1.2.2 â—4 5 was likewise a true Church of God for sundrie things much commended yet had God some thing against her because she had left her first love Remember therefore saith he from whence thou art fallen and repent Revel â—2 12.13.14.15 doe the first workes c. The Church of Pergamus was also a true Church of God Yet I have saith God a few things against thee because thou hast there them that maintaine the doctrine of Balaam c. And them that maintaine the doctrine of the Nicolaytans which thing I hate The Church of Thiatyra Rev. 2.18.19.20 was likewise a true Church of God and for many things also much commended Notwithstanding saith God I have a few things against thee because thou sufferest the woman Iesabell which calleth her selfe a Prophetesse to teach and deceave my servants c. By all which you see that one error or one fault in a Church doth not therefore prove it to be no Church or no true Church Yea it appeareth that a Church and a true Church may bee though divers defaults and errors bee in it which bee not fundamentall How much then doth mine Adversarie abuse that Text of S. Iames where hee saith Qui deficit in uno factus est omnium reus Iames. 2.10.11 Whosoever shall keepe the whole law and yet fayle in one point he is guilty of all For he that said thou shalt not commit adulterie said also thou shalt not kill now though thou commit no adultery yet if thou killest thou art a transgressor of the law For what S. Iames meaneth by this that he which faileth or offendeth in breaking though but one of Gods Commandements Galat. 3.10 Deut. 27.26 is guilty of all himselfe here sheweth when he saith that he is thereby become a transgressor of the law and consequently guiltie of the curse inflicted by the sentence of the Law upon every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law to doe them So that he is guiltie of all not that he hath broken all the Commandements by breaking only of one nor that he which breaketh onely one shall be punished in hell asmuch and with as great a measure of torments as hee that carelesly breaketh them all but that by this breaking but of one Commandement he hath offended the Majestie of the Law-giver incurred his displeasure and made himselfe aswell lyable to the curse of the law that is hath deserved to suffer eternall tormeÌ„ts though not in so great high a degree and measure as if he had broken them all He therefore much wrongeth this Text when he applyeth it to prove that it cannot be a true Church which hath any error in it or that he that fayles in one point of Religion hath only an imaginarie Religion and no true Religion in him What was the Church wherein
S. Cyprian lived no true Church Euseb lib. 7. cap. 5. in tâ—e greeke and cap. 5. latin or was S. Cyprian no true Christian or had he no true Religion in him because he held the error of Rebaptization Or were none of those true Churches nor had any of them any true Religion in them which held the Chiliasticke error or error of the Millenaries Or were S. Augustine S. Ierome or any of the rest of the ancient Fathers therefore no true Christians or had they onely an imaginarie and no true Religion in them because of some error they held Yea he may aswell conclude out of this Text if he make no care nor conscience to abuse it that everie one whosoever that erreth fayleth in any point eyther of doctrine 1. Iohn 1.8 or manners or that sinneth in any sort by breaking any one of Gods Commandements is onely an imaginarie and no true Christian at all Whereupon would follow this grosse absurditie and untruth that there were then no true Christians at all in the whole world because there be none but have some sinne or other in them It is true Ephes 4.3.4.5 c. that there is but one true Faith and right Religion and that we should all endevour to observe and keepe it as likewise we ought all to endevour so much as is possible to keepe all everie one of Gods CoÌ„mandements but if by reason of the frayltie and imperfection that is in all men any Church doe erre in some one thing or any man doe erre sinne or offend in some one point you see by the premisses that no such inference can be made that therefore it is no true Church or therefore he is no true Christian or hath no good nor true Religion in him because of that one sinne or error committed All which neverthelesse I speake not to justifie or defend any errors in any Church or any sinne transgression or fault in any person nor yet as though he could justly taxe our true Christian Church with any error in Faith or doctrine but onely to shew him his owne error and the fault of his owne idle brainesicke opinion Whereunto also may be adjoyned another Paradoxe or strange opinion of his and not onely his for it is the opinion also of the Rhemists and other Papists where they hold that the blasphemie or sinne against the holy Ghost is remissible may be forgiven which is directly and cleane contratie to the expresse words of Christ Iesus himselfe declaring that the sinne against the Father and the Sonne is remissible Math. 12 31.32 Luk 12.10 Mark 3.28 29. and may be forgiven But the sinne against the holy Ghost saith he shall not be forgiven neyther in this world nor in the world to come And S. Marke relateth it thus That he which committeth that sinne shall never have forgivenesse but is culpable of eternall damnation Now then let all men judge whether of these we should beleeve namely whether Christ or the Papists in this case Lastly he falleth into a consideration what sinne it is that I committed in making and setting forth my Booke distinguishing sinne into three sorts viz. some of Frailtie some of Ignorance some of Malice he freeth me of that of frailty and of that of malice and therefore concludeth that it was a sinne of ignorance Thus out of his ignorance for I hope there is no malice in him he argueth ex non concessis For how doth hee prove it to be any sinne at all to penne such a Booke and to set it forth Ipse dixit is all his proofe What Is it a sinne to speake or write in defence of Gods truth religion Yea is it not cleane contrariewise a sinne and a very great most fearefull sin for my Adversary to write as he doth against God his truth religion against his Church people against the King also in the point of his Supremacie against the Lawes Statutes of the Realme also which establish those two points for which I write and speake and all for defence of the whore of Babylon of that man of sinne the grand Antichrist Is not this a sinne meete for him to repent of This his great sinne therefore all other wicked workes wayes of blind Poperie I would wish him to forsake in time Ephes 5 8. to become walke As one of the children of light which if he desire to doe as I trust he doth he must then with the Psalmist make not his owne Psalm 119.105 or other mens pleasures but Gods will word to be the Lanterne unto his feete and the light unto his path thereby must he be directed Esa 8.20 both for points of doctrine for life conversation also For if any doe not or speake not according to this word 1. Io. 1.5.6 it is because as the Scriptures teach they have not that light in theÌ„ which they should have It is true which he saith That Christ the supreme Iudge of Heaven Earth will most certainely come to judgement and will judge most justly But it were good he would remember withall how Iohn 12 48. Rom. 2.16 by what rule he will judge namely that he will judge according to his owne word Gospell For according to that his Word Gospell it is that hee will judge us all in the last day as himselfe his true faithfull Apostle S. Paul doe both assure us In the meane time then can there be any better course taken or any better wisedome shewed then for both him me for us al humbly willingly to submitte our selves our lives conversations all our positions opinions to be controlled reformed over-ruled judged by that word Gospell according whereunto we shall all be judged in that last day This grace wisedome therefore God of his mercie grant unto us all if it be his will to his honour and glorie and to our owne everlasting comforts through Iesus Christ our whole and onely Mediator Saviour and Redeemer Amen FINIS Post scriptum LEt none hereafter expect any more from mee touching these matters untill my former Booke which by this my Adversarie is promised to be answered according to the three conditions required by me be first accordingly answered and that this Reply be also therewithall Answered and all this to be done in Print and not in Manuscripts with the Answerers right and true name also thereunto subscribed ERRATA CORRECTA IN the Epistle Dedicat. pag. 1. line 12 this word first blotte out In the Epist to the Reader pag. 1 l 2â— for satisfactory satisfactorily p. 8. l 5. for suffertus suffenus p 9. lin 33 for scripturiam scripturam p. 10. l. 14. for ingeniosly ingenuously In the first Chapter of the Booke p 2 l. 5. for will soule p. 13 23. this word secondly blotte out in stead thereof put this figure 2 to note it to be the second section of that Chapter so reade on forward thus It being then a thing very demonstratively evident c p. 13. l. 32. for Ministers Ministery p. 15. l 6. for writeth citeth p. 17. l 6. for makinde mankinde p. 24. in the margent for 2. Sam 20 17 put 2. Sam. 20 26. In p. 24 l. 31. 32 reade it thus Aaron and his sonnes were appointed to the office of priesthood p. 26. l. 31 this word Thirdly blotte out in lieu thereof put the figure of 3. to note it to be the Third section of that Chap p 26. l. 33. for wisheth wished p. 34 l. 10. for youg young p. 38. l 12. for divert direct p. 39. l. 19. reade as unto the chiefe p. 42. l 6. 7. for Iohn 9 11 Iohn 19 11 p. 44 l. 17. for yea yet p. 44 l 18 for construed considered p 45. l. 26 for advantagement advantage p. 51 l. 23 for ingeniously ingenuously p 52. l 10 for Aquinus Aquinas p. 52. 32. for cause clause p. 13. l. 19. betweene as and other Bishops put this word over pag 38. l 16. for worth worthy p 40 l. 5 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 43. l. 33. this word as blotte out p 57 l. 3 this word and blotte out p. 66. l 2. for shall should p 70 l 24 for States seates p. 79. l 24. for under made p 82 l 18 for how now p 83 l 7 for Episcopus Episcopos p 84 l 12 after but reade by pag 15 against l 24 in the margent for Novel const 123 Novel const 133 p 19 l 22 for hignesse highnesse pag 100 l vlt for proferant vel Apo pag 88 l 26 for Airam Hiraâ—â— in margine for 1 Sam 5 1â— reade 2 Sam 5 11 p 88. l 8 for use used p 94 l 3 for could would p 96 l 19 betweene neverthelesse admit put this word to p 97 l 16 for one on p 97 ly the first onely blotte out pag 93 l 9 for grant reade perceave p. 102 l 22 after their reade dayes p 102 l 21 for make made p. 82 l 11 for Bithinijs Bithiniae And if any other faults have escaped in the Printing I desire the Reader to correct them with his pen.
It is true that the same Hosius Bishop of Corduba spake further unto the Emperor in this sort Athanas ad soâ—tariam vitam agentes God saith he hath committed the Empyre to thee to us the things of the Church And as he that envieth thy Empyre contradicteth the ordinance of God So take thou heede least drawing unto thy selfe the things of the Church thou be guiltie of great sinne It is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is therefore neyther lawfull for us that be Bishops to hold a kingdom on earth neyther host thou power ô Prince over sacrifices and sacred things Howbeit these wordes doe onely distinguish and put a difference betweene the office and function of Priests and the office and function of Kings and Princes shewing that the one may not incroch or intrude upon that which râ—ghtly and properly belongeth unto the other but that every one should keepe himselfe within the bounds of his owne proper calling office And so teach the Protestants also and therefore if any King or Prince usurpe or intrude upon that which is proper and peculiar unto the Priests office as King Vzziah entred into the Temple to burne Incense 2 Chron. 26.16.17.18 which pertayned to the Priests office onely they utterly dislike and condemne it Now then let all this be granted that Kings and Princes may not doe any thing that is proper and peculiar to the Priests office nor may meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes after a cruell and tyrannicall maner nor use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes for the maintenance of Arrianisme or of any other heresie or error nor doe any thing against God or his truth and Religion Yet what doth all this or any of this make against those Godly and Christian Kings and Princes that extend and use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes in a good sort and for God and for the maintenance of his trueth Religion and ordinances It maketh as you see just nothing at all against them But it is further objected that S. Ambrose when Valentinian the Emperor would have had a Church in Millan for the Arrian heretickes answereth thus Neyther is it lawfull for me to yeelde unto it Ambros libr. 5. epist. 3â— nor expedient for you ô Emperor to take it The house of a private man you cannot by right invade Doe you thinke then you may take away the house of God It is alledged that the Emperor may doe what he list But I answere burthen not your selfe ô Emperor to thinke that you have any Imperiall right over those things that be Gods Exalt not your selfe so high but if you will raigne long be subject unto God For it is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods Palaces belong to Emperors Churches to Priests Epist â—â— The Church is Gods it ought not to be yeelded by me to Caesar The Temple of God cannot he Caesars right I cannot deliver that to Heretickes which I receaved to keepe on Gods behalfe I would to God Epist 32. it were apparant to me that my Church should not be delivered to the Arrians I would willingly offer my selfe to the judgement of your highnesse I would to God that it were decreed Orat. onâ— Auxenâ— that no Arrian should trouble my Churches and of my person pronounce what sentence you will With my consent I will never forgoe my right if I be compelled I have no way to resist I can sorrow I can weepe I can sigh Teares are my weapons Priests have onely these defences By other meanes I neyther ought nor may resist To flie and forsake my Church I use not least any should thinke it done to avoyde some sorer punishment Ibidem Epist 33. If my goods be sought for take them If my bodie I will be readie Will you put mee in Irons or lead mee to death You shall doe me a pleasure I will not guard my selfe with multitudes of people but I will gladly he sacrificed for the Altars of God All this maketh against the favourers and maintayners of Arrianisme but nothing against that authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters which Kings and Princes have to commande for God and for the good of his Church and the advancement of his Religion against Arrianisme and against all other heresies and errors whatsoever My Adversarie therefore objecteth further that S. Ambrose saith Ambros Epist Lib. 5 cont Aux That a good Emperor is within the Church and not above the Church Indeede seeing the Church is the mother of Christian Emperors aswell as of other Christians it becommeth a Christian Emperor as a good Child and Sonne of such a mother to account â—t his greatest honour to submit himselfe as he ought to the word rules and ordinances which God hath set in the same his Church and not to exaâ—t himselfe aboue them as Valentinian did when he was so forward for the advancement of Arrianisme Arrian assemblies against the true Church of God and the Orthodoxe Bishops therein For that by the Church here S. Ambrose meaneth the things of God in the Church appeareth not only by that Text which he citeth of Give unto Caesar the things that be Caesars and unto God the things that be Gods but by those other words of his likewise where he saith plainely Ambr. lib. 5. c. 33 Ea quae divina saÌ„t imperatoriae potestati non esse subjecta The things that be divine be not subject to the Emperors power And yet the same S. Ambrose affirmeth nevertheles That the Emperor had power over the persons of all men within his Empyre Ambros de obien Theoâ—osij Here then you must learne of S. Ambrose to distinguish betweene the things in the Church and the persons in the Church For over all the persons he confesseth That the Emperor had power but not over the Divine things therein And this also doe the Protestants hold that a Christian King hath power over the persons of all Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers in the Church within his owne Dominions But not over the Divine things therein as namely not over Gods Word his Religion Sacraments and other his Institutions and Ordinances in his Church Yet againe it is objected by some that S. Ambrose reproved the Emperor Valentinian the younger for that he would take upon him to be Iudge in a matter of Faith cause Ecclesiasticall but the reason of it must be knowne For Valentinian a young Prince not yet baptized and a novice in the mysteries of Religion would upon the perswasion and counsell of his Mother Iustina an Arrian needes have Ambrose to come and dispute with Auxentius the Arrian in his Palace or Consistorie before him Ambr â— 5. Orat. coâ—r Auxent Epist. 53. and he would be the Iudge whether of their two Religions were truest Whereunto Ambrose made answere and gave it in writing to Valentinian shewing him amongst
other things That he was young in yeares a novice in Faith not yet baptised and that he was as yet rather to learne then to judge of Bishops That the Palace was no fit place for a Priest to dispute in where the hearers should be Iewes or Gentiles and so scoffe at CHRIST and the Emperor himselfe partiall as appeared by the law published before that time against the trueth Ibidem Auxentius saith Ambrose being driven to his shifts hath recourse to the craft of his forefathers seeking to procure us envie by the Emperors name saying That he ought to be Iudge though he be yong though he be not yet baptised though he be ignorant of the holy Scriptures and that in the Consistorie Jdem libr. 5. Epist 32. And to the young Emperor himselfe he spake thus Your Father a man of riper yeares said it is not for me to judge betweene Bishops Doth then your clemencie at these yeares say I ought to judge He a man baptised in CHRIST thought himselfe unable for the weight of so great a judgement Doth then your Clemencie that hath not yet attayned to the Sacrament of Baptisme challenge to judge of matters of Faith when as yet you know not the mysteries of Faith c In these words you see the reason why S. Ambrose reproved Valentinian disliked that he should challenge or take upon him to judge in a matter of Faith namely not for that he had not authoritie to deale in matters of Faith and causes Ecclesiasticall but in respect of other defects in him viz. For that he was so young and as yet unbaptised a Novice in the Faith and ignorant in the Scriptures c. But then you will say that even Valentinian the elder the Father of this young Valentinian did himselfe refuse and dislike to judge in the same matter But S. Ambrose likewise sheweth you the reason of it namely because Ambr. lib. 5. Epist. 32. inhabilem se c. He then thought himselfe unable to judge in so weightie a cause The great question being whether CHRIST was of the same substance with the Father yea or no. Concerning which question when Valentinian was afterward better instructed then did he judge of the trueth of it and thereupon by his Imperiall Authoritie commanded it as a trueth to be preached as appeareth evidently by the Epistle which he and Valens and Gratian being then the Emperors Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 7.8 wrote to the Bishops of Asia Phrygia Cyrophrygia and Placatia wherein the Emperors write thus unto them After great disputation had to and fro in a full Councell held at Illyria about our Saviour those blessed Bishops have demonstratively proved That there is a consubstantiall Trinitie The Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost from which they would not depart one jott but gave due reverence unto the Religion of the Almighty God And we also say they by our Authoritie have commanded the same to be preached So that although Valentinian at the first for a while untill he were better instructed would not Yet afterward upon better instruction receaved you see that he did take upon him to judge that is to discerne of the trueth of that controversie and by his Imperiall authoritie aswell as the other Emperors commanded it as a truth to be preached Theodosius also that Christian Emperor whom S. Ambrose himselfe so much commendeth judged of the truth of the same controversie betweene the Homousians and the Arrians determining and appointing by a solemne Edict which of them should be accounted Catholickes Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 10. and which Heretickes For seeing the divisions and dissentions that were then in the Church he willed everie sect to put their Faith in writing There was a day prefixed The Bishops being called met at the Emperors Palace There came thither Nectarius and Agelius for the Homousians Demophilus for the Arrians Eunomius himselfe for his followers and Eleusius for the Macedonians When they were come the Prince admitted them to his presence And taking the paper of each mans opinion earnestly besought GOD to helpe him in choosing the truth Then reading their Confessions hee rejected all the rest as deviding and severing the Sacred TRINITIE and tore them in pieces and onely approved and embraced the Homousian faith and therewithall he made a law Cod lib. 1. tit 1 de summa Trinitate fide catholica S. cunctos that such as followed the Faith of the Homousians that is of such as beleeved CHRIST to be of the same substance with the Father and that beleeved one God-head of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost of equall Majestie in the sacred Trinitie should be held and taken for Christian Catholickes and the rest to be held infamous Heretickes So likewise the Emperor Gratian the Sonne of Valentinian after that the Empyre came intirely to his hands judged and condemned the Arrian heresie Theodor. li. 5. c. 2 and thereupon commanded the Preachers of that blasphemie as wilde and savage beasts to be driven from their Churches and the good Pastors to be restored to their Churches againe And the execution of this law he cōmitted to Sapores a famous Captaine of that time Evagrius libr. 1. cap. 12. In like maner did Theodosius the younger also judge and decree against the Nestorian heresie that they which followed the wicked faith of Nestorius or cleaved to his unlawfull doctrine if they were Bishops or Cleargie men they should be cast out of their Churches and if they were Lay-men they should be excommunicate Sozomen libr. 4 cap. 16. And doth not moreover Sozomen record in a certaine case That the Emperor commanded That ten Bishops of the East and ten Bishops of the West chosen by the Councell should repaire to the Court and open unto him the Decrees of the Councell that he might further determine and conclude what were best to be done Yea S. Augustine himselfe Aug. cont epist. Pavin lib 1 c. 7. expostulating this matter with the Donatists saith thus unto them Is it not lawfull for the Emperor to give sentence in a matter of religion Why then went your messengers to the Emperor Why made they him judge of their cause By these premisses then it is very apparant That although none may be judge of Faith and Religion if you speake and meane of an absolute infallible soveraigne and supreme Iudge but God onely Yet if you take judging for discerning as often and usually it is then not onely Christian Kings and Emperors but even all Lay Christians also whatsoever by the tenor of the Scriptures may and ought so farre forth as they shall be able to judge that is to discerne of the doctrines of men whether they be true or false as is more at large declared in the Preface of my former Booke Shall any then be so absurd or unreasonable as to denie this right of judging that is of discerning of the trueth in the doctrines of men
whether our Church were in the Apostles dayes for that coÌ„priseth not the whole Proposition but is onely a part or piece of it Neyther can that be any more the Question then whether it were in the succeeding and aftertimes and ages But the Question will bee as I have signified before viz. Whether the growth and comming in of Poperie as an infection or corruption to the Church did hinder or was any such obstacle or impediment as that by reason thereof our Church had no being at all in the Apostles dayes nor in the dayes and times succeeding It is true that if I had said that our Church was in the Apostles times and had gone no further it had beene an absolute and direct affirmation of our Church to have beene in those dayes But when I goe further and say that our Church was in the Apostles dayes notwithstanding that the seeds of Popery began then to be sowen in this speech I doe not absolutely and simply affirme that our Church was then but that it was then notwithstanding that the seeds of Poperie began then to be sowen that is the beginning and growth of Poperie was no obstacle impediment or argument against the being of our Church in those dayes As likewise if I say that the conveyance made to Iohn at Stile is good notwithstanding that there was no liverie of seisin made upon it this is no direct affirmation that his conveyance is simply good to all intents and purposes but that it is good notwithstanding this exception that there was no liverie and seisin made that is the not making of liverie of seisin is no obstacle or impediment to hinder the goodnesse of it In like sort if I say that K. Salomon was a saved soule notwithstanding that by the enticement of his wives he became an Idolater this is no absolute or direct affirmatioÌ„ that he was a saved soule But that he was a saved soule notwithstanding that reason or allegation that is to say his committing of Idolatrie upon the enticement of his wives is no such obstacle or proofe to the contrarie but that he might be a saved soule that reason or objection notwithstanding As againe if I say that my Adversarie is a good Grecian or a good Hebritian notwithstanding that he hath not shewed it in his Answere this is no direct affirmation that hee is eyther a good Grecian or a good Hebritian but the sence and meaning of that speech is that his not shewing of skill in Greeke or Hebrew in his Answere is no obstacle or argument to the contrarie but that he may be a good Grecian or a good Hebritian that nothwithstanding Wherefore if mine Adversarie would have opposed himselfe against that proposition or assertion of mine before mentioned he should have shewed proved if he had beene able that the comming in and growth of Poperie was such an impediment or obstacle as that by reason thereof our Church could haue no being in the Apostles dayes or in the times or ages that succeeded which because he hath not done he hath spent his breath and talked idly and in vaine and to no purpose And yet hee seemeth to glorie and insult over me that my conclusion assertion being as he saith that our Church was in the Apostles times I brought not so much as one argument there to prove it how much more cause now have I if I were so disposed to glorie and insult over him who by his cutting curtalling and mangling my assertion and not taking it wholy and intirely as of right he should hath utterly mistaken the Question not answered one word to that which was the Question indeede For the question to be deduced out of this entier Proposition not being as he hath strangely mistaken whether our Church was in the Apostles times nor yet whether it were in the succeeding and aftertimes But whether Poperie were such an obstacle or impediment as that it did cause that our Church could not by reason thereof have any being at all eyther in the Apostles times or in the times and ages that succeeded To this it is that I answered and adressed my speech in that second Chapter and to this Question also it is that mine Adversarie should have answered and adressed his speech if he would have spoken materially and to the purpose And yet even this verie assertion that our Church that is men beleeving and professing the same Faith and Religion that we doe was in the Apostles times and by them taught and approved is a thing evidently declared not in one Chapter alone of my former Booke for one Chapter alone would not suffice for so many points and positions as did to such a matter belong but in all the severall Chapâ—ers and whole Contents of my Booke put together And the truth of it may summarily briefely thus appeare namely by that excellent rule and fundamentall ground Tertul. prescript â—avers haeret which Tertullian giveth For hee saith that even those Churches quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis authoreÌ„ suuÌ„ proferaÌ„t ut multo posteriores quae denique quotidie instituuÌ„tur tameÌ„ in eadeÌ„ fide coÌ„spiraÌ„tes noÌ„ minus Apostolicae dâ—putaÌ„tur pro consanguinitate doctrinae which cannot bring any of the Apostles or Apostolicke men for their authors as those that be much later such as are begun every day yet agreeing with theÌ„ in the same faith are for this coÌ„sanguinitie or agreemeÌ„t in doctrine held to be no lesse Apostolicke then the rest Againe he saith Ipsa doctrina eorum Tertul. traescrip advers haeret cap. 32 cum Apostolica comparata ex diversitate contrarietate sua pronunciabit neque Apostoli alicujus authoris esse neque Apostolici Their verie doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostolicke by the diversitie and contrarietie that is betweene them will pronounce that it had for the Author neyther any Apostle nor any man that was Apoâ—tolicall From this rule and fundamentall ground I deduce and make two Arguments the one for our Church the other against the Church of Rome For our Church my Argument is this That Church which holdeth the same Faith doctrine Religion that the Apostles taught in their dayes is Apostolicall But our Church that is the Church of the Protestants holdeth the same Faith doctrine and Religion that the Apostles taught in their Ergo our Church that is the Church of the Protestants is Apostolicall The Maior is verie evident of it selfe and by the testimonie also of Tertullian neyther can it be denied The Minor is also evident by conferring and comparing our Faith doctrine Religion with the Apostolicall writings the rest of the Canonicall Scriptures And it is also manifest by the whole Contents of my former Booke whether I referre you for the proofe of it if any make doubt of it And therefore the conclusion must bee granted On the other side against the Church of Rome from that
ground also I thus frame my argument That Church which holdeth a Religion Faith and doctrine differing or contrarie to that which was taught by the Apostles in their times is not Apostolicall But the Popish Church holdeth a Religion Faith and doctrine differing or contrarie to that which was taught by the Apostles in their times as is apparant if you compare them together examining the severall and particular Positions in these points of Controversie by the writings of the Apostles the rest of the Canonicall Scriptures as is also shewed at large in my former book whether I likewise referre you for the proofe of this Minor Proposition And therefore the Popish Church is not Apostolicall But mine Adversarie taketh here exception to our Church affirming it in three points to be hereticall First in the point of Iustification For he saith it was the heresie of the Symonians and Eunomians to hold Iustification in Gods sight by grace and by faith onely as the Protestants doe And that S. Augustine also affirmeth it to be an error that sprung up even in the Apostles dayes But touching the Symonians they held Irâ—n libr. 1. c. 20 as Irenaeus declareth That they were to be saved by the grace of Simon Magus their sect Master whom they make their God and Saviour The Protestants hold no such abominable thing but contrarywise hold that they are to be saved by the grace of CHRIST What Is it all one with Papists to be saved by Simons grace and by the grace of CHRIST As for the Eunomians such was their doctrine of Faith as that they rejected or made no reckoning of good workes at all Aug. hares 54. Yea they held as S. Augustine sheweth Quod nihil homini obesset quorumlibet perpetratio peccatorum That the committing of any sinnes whatsoever did not hurt a man The Protestants teach no such wicked and damnable doctrine but cleane contrarywise doe teach that the Faith that justifieth and saveth a man is not a dead but a lively Faith that is such as is accompanied with good works and with a godly conversation although Ierem. 23.6 Ierem. 33.16 2. Cor. 5.21 Rom. 10 4. Rom. 9.30.31 32 Rom. 3.14 Ioh 3.14 15 16. Iohn 1.12 in the act of our justification in Gods sight and censure it is Faith alone and not the workes that is the hand or instrument whereby wee apprehend or receave CHRIST IESVS who is indeede our righteousnesse As the eye in respect of the rest of the members wherewith it is accompanied is not alone yet in respect of the power and facultie of seeing it is sole and alone And as in fire likewise there is both heare and light and the heate is not alone but accompanied with the light and yet it is the heate onely and not the light that warmeth the bodie So in a man justified there is Faith and good workes accompanying it and in respect of the good workes wherewith it is accompanied it is not sole and alone but yet in the Act and point of Iustification in Gods sight as it apprehendeth Christ our righteousnesse it is sole and alone good works having no part with it in that action As for that which is alledged out of S. Augustine I answered it in my former Booke and now I answere it once againe Aug. de fide oper cap. 14. or rather S. Augustine himselfe answereth it whilst he sheweth That the error which sprung up in the Apostles dayes was of such as held Faith onely to be sufficient to salvation although they did no good works at all but lived wickedly dissolutely lewdly which is indeede an error and a grosse error Galat. 5.6 Iam. 2 14. 1. Petâ— 29.11 12 2 Pet 1 10. 1. Iohn 3.10 and which the Protestants with S. Augustine with S. Paul with S. Iames with S. Peter with S. Iohn with all the rest of the sacred Scriptures doe likewise utterly condemne The second point wherein he supposeth heresie in our Church is concerning their Popish Purgatorie It is true that we denie it Neyther are the Papists able to prove the deniall of it to be eyther heresie or error My Adversarie saith That Luther Calvine others did likewise denie it what of that was it therefore heresie Or in what Church was it censured and condemned to be heresie If by any he must say it was by his owne the Popish Church which condemneth indeede not only that but all other doctrines and Positions of the Protestants wherein they differ from them be they never so true But it is proved in my former Booke Colâ—s 2.19 That Papal Rome is the whore of Babylon and that the Popish Church hath not Christ but Antichrist to be the head and to rule and raigne over it Neyther is it mine opinion alone that the Pope of Rome the head and ruler thereof is the grand Antichrist and consequently his Church the false Antichristian Church but it is the opinion and position of all sound Protestants likewise as their many and sundrie learned Works written in defence of that Protestant Position against the Papists doe plentifully and at large declare Now then is it any mervaile or any matter that the false adulterate and Antichristian Church condemneth the right beleeving Orthodoxe and true Christian Church and her Positions Yea in this point against their Purgatorie did the Apostolicke Primitive and most ancient Church beleeve as wee doe For S. Paul saith 2. Cor. 5.6 8. Thil. 1.23 of all Gods people That whilst they are in the bodie they are absent from the Lord and that when they goe out of the bodie they are present with the Lord. And so holdeth S. Cyprian Cyprian de mortalitat sect 2 â—dâ—t 159â— That the servants of God then have peace and then enjoy free and quiet rest And that being drawen out from the stormes of this world they arrive at the haven of their everlasting habitation and securitie Againe he saith Ad refrigerium justi vocantur ad supplicium rapiuntur injusti The righteous are called to a refreshing Ibidem sect 11. the unrighteous are haled to torment Ibidem sect 14. In somuch that hee saith further concerning godly persons when they die that Nec accipiendas esse hic atras vestes quando 〈◊〉 ibi indumenta alba iam sumpseriut For them blacke mourning garments are not to be worne here because they have there alreadie put on white rayment Iustin respons ad Orthodox quaest 75. Iustine Martyr likewise saith That after the departure of the soule out of the bodie there is presently made a difference betwixt the just and the unjust For the soules of the just goe to Paradise where they have the comerce and sight of Angels and Archangels c The soules of the unjust to the places in Hell Hilar. in Psal 2. S. Hillarie also observeth out of that which is mentioned in the Gospell concerning the Rich-man Lazarus that as
soone as this life is ended everie one without delay goeth eyther to Abrahams bosâ—me or to the place of torment and in this place is reserved till the day of judgement S. Ambrose also teachech That death is a certaine haven to them Ambros de bono mortis cap. 4. who being tossed in the great sea of this world desire the station of a safe rest And therefore he saith further That whereas fooles doe feare death as the chiefe of evills Wise men doe desire it as a rest after labours and an end of their evills S Basil saith Basil procem in regular fusius disputat This present world is the time of repentance the other of retribution this of working that of rewarding this of patient suffering that of receaving comfort Gregory Nazianzen also in his Funeral orations hath many sayings to this purpose Greg. Nâ—z Orat. 9. ad Iustanum orat 42 in Pasch orat 15 in â—lagam grandinis and was so farre from supposing any Purgatorie or purging prepared for men after their death that hee plainely denieth That after the night of this present life there is any purging to be expected And therefore he giveth us all good counsell telling us That it is better to be corrected and purged now then to be sent unto torments there where the time of punishing is and not of purging And concerning the third point wherein he objecteth heresie It is true that Popish Priests cannot forgive sinnes because they be not the Ministers of Christ but of Antichrist and therefore for any to resort or to goe unto them for absolution or forgivenesse of sinnes must needs rather increase their sinnes then take away any The authoritie neverthelesse of Christ his Ministers to binde and loose and to remitte and retaine sinnes we denie not but affirme and maintaine against the Novatians or whatsoever other heretickes and therefore most injurious is my Adversarie other Papists in charging us with the heresie of the Novatians Micah 7.18 Esai 43. â—5 Mar. 2.7 Luk. 5.21 Revel 3.7 in that point Howbeit it is not an absolute but a Ministeriall limited power and authoritie which the Ministers of Christ have herein received For to forgive sinnes properly and absolutely is a priviledge prerogative proper unto God And therefore did Gregory the great Greg exposit 2. Psalm Poenit. Bishop of Rome say Quis enim potest peccata dimittere nisi solus Deus For who can forgive sinnes but God alone The power of releasing sins saith also Radulphus Ardens Radulph Ard. homil Dominic 1 post Pasch belongeth to God alone But the Ministerie which is also improperly called a power hee hath granted to his substitutes who after their manner doe binde and absolve that is doe declare that men are bound or absolved For God doth first inwardly absolve the sinner by compunction then the Priest outwardly by giving the sentence doth declare that he is absolved Peter Lombard also Master of the Sentences Pet. Lombard lib. 4. Sentent distinct 18. E.F. saith That God alone doth forgive and retayne sinnes and yet hath he given power of binding loosing unto his Church But he bindeth and looseth one way and the Church another For he onely by himselfe forgiveth sinnes who both clenseth the soule from inward blot looseth it from the debt of everlasting death this he hath not granted unto Priests to whom notwithstanding he hath given the power of binding and loosing that is to say of declaring men to be bound or loosed Est ergo in universis servientibus non dominium Optat. libr. 5. sed ministerium There is therefore saith Optatus in all the officers or servants not a dominion but a ministerie Behold Ambr de Spir. Sanct. 〈◊〉 â— c. 10 saith S. Ambrose that by the holy Ghost sinnes are forgiven men to the forgivenesse of sinnes bring but their Ministerie they exercise not any authoritie or power The power of forgiving sinnes saith S. Basil is not given to Christs Ministers absolutely Basil regul Brevior quast 25. but upon the obedience of the penitent his consent with him that hath the care of his foule Yea saith S. Ambrose neyther Angell nor Archangell can Ambros Epist. 28 ad Theod. Imp. nor the Lord himselfe when we have sinned doth release us unlesse we bring repentance with us Christ his Ministers therefore doe not nor ought to declare or pronounce remission and forgivenesse of sinnes to any but to such as Christ their Lord Master by the Tenor of his word hath warranted remission of sinnes unto For if they doe otherwise it is not ratified in heaven which they doe upon earth But all these three points have I handled in my former Booke where aswell as here they appeare to be Apostolicall and Orthodoxe truths and not hereticall or erroneous opinions Now then let all equall men judge how well and wisely this Quidam homo or quoddam animal Anomolon Pseudonymon this Adversarie of mine dealeth with me whilst he termeth me as he pleaseth and resembleth me to a Phripiers Prentice whose office is saith he speaking like a man of skil in that arte or occupation to goe from one Corner unto another searching old Ragges to line new clothes For I have borrowed saith he the shreds of my Religion from Simon Magus the Novatians and other heretickes How much this man is deceaved and mistaken doth now I hope more then sufficiently appeare by that which is before spoken Neyther indeed is it ours but his the Popish Religion that is thus patched and pieced of many and sundrie errors and heresies being therein like a beggars cloake consisting of many ragges and shreds sowed together as diverse Protestants and amongst the rest Doctor Willet in his Tetrastylon Papismi and that learned and Reverend Bishop Doctor Morton in his Catholicke Appeale for the Protestants being an Answere to Brerely the Priest have declared at large and in the many and sundrie particulars thereof Notwithstanding therefore whatsoever mine Adversarie hath said or can say to the contrarie it is apparant by the consanguinitie and agreement in Faith and doctrine which our Church hath with the Apostolicall writings that it was in the Apostles times and by them approved And this being the undoubted true Church and builded upon that inuincible and unruinable Rocke Christ Iesus against which the gates of Hell shall never prevaile must it not needes be supposed to have also a continuance in all succeeding times and ages even to the worlds end notwithstanding that Poperie or whatsoever other errors or heresies did grow up with it like Tares among the good Corne Yea that our Church that is people beleeving and professing the Faith and Religion that we doe was in the times and ages succeeding the Apostles even untill the dayes of the grand Antichrist and during all the time also even of the grand antichrist his raigne is likewise declared in my former