out question is of the Church visible More then so God may require vs to come out of Babylon even vs that are not there for such a commaund is no more but to prevent our going thither forasmuch as the same person that is furthest from Babylon in this present estate is there even there already in possibility because the holiest man that liveth liveth in the flesh or humane nature and therfore may he be carried to Babylon because Babylon is heresie or at least includes it and herefie is a fruit of the flesh By this time I hope his whole discourse as well â—hat is to the purpose as what is beside the purpose is fully cleered and satisfied wherein â—hine departed from the liberty of an answerer of loue and desire to satisfie the Reader CHAP. 10. Our Opponent B. his second Argument HE vrgeth vs cap. 9. pag. 37. with a second Argument concluding after this manner That Society which wanteth the nature of a true Church denyes fundamentall truth directly not by consequence But the present Romish Church does not deny fundamentall truth directly but by consequence at the most for the Popes Arithmetick which he vseth in calculating the Articles of faith is not subrstaction but addition Therefore the present Romish Church wanteth not the nature of a true Church The Assumption and conclusion is set downe pag 41. and the title of the Chapter pag 37. The Proposition is wanting In pag. 21 22. he writeth thus Our adversaries in this cause doe bring the deniall of the foundation of faith as a medium to proue the Church of Rome to be no true Church I answere this man hath a faire gift of inventing some while he can finde an adversary that answers another while one that disputes and all is no more but his owne shadow or imagination If he would haue the Reader to thinke otherwise let him name the Authour that thus disputes and the place where we may finde it till then this must goe for false None of ours would dispute so for it presumes that some Articles of faith be fundamentall and some be not and that is false the whole divine revelation conduceth to eternall life and accordingly it is the foundation thereof and consoquently every Article of faith is fundamentall I answere further This reason as it lyeth doth admit many egregious exceptions but because I am willing to interpret him with the vttermost favour I will forbeare to charge him with them He confines fundamentall trueth vnto the being of the Scriptures and Christs comming to saue sinners pag. 19. 20. To deny fundamentall trueth according to him directly is directly to deny that Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners as Pagans Turkes and Iewes doe pag. 22. They deny it by consequent which holding it directly maintaine any one assertion whatsoever whereupon the direct deniall thereof may be necessarily concluded Thus the Galatians holding Circumcision did by consequence overthrow salvation by Christ inasmuch as it was impossible that they should stand together pag. 23 24. According vnto this explication this Argument will be freest from exception if it bee framed in these termes CHAP. 11. Of the same Argument new framed THat society which wants the nature of a true Church does in words and professedly deny the Scriptures and Christs comming to saue sinners But the present Romish Church does not in words and professedly deny the Scriptures and Christs comming to saue sinners Therefore the present Romish Church wants not the nature of a true Church His proofes for this Assumption are two the one pag. 126. in these words Offer the fundamentall words to them of the Romish Church and none amongst them will refuse to subscribe vnto them The other is his fifth Argument pag. 59. c To proue the maine question so desirous he is to make shewes of plenty that one shall be divided into two rather then he will be short in number In that he writeth thus In our disputations with them we doe not proue that Christ came to saue sinners but we bring it in proofe against them pag. 62. And this sayes he is A tacite consent of all ours that the Church of Rome does not directly deny the foundation pag. 61. In pag 70. he writeth thus I would gladly see the testimony of but one in estimation for his learning amongst vs that ever affirmed the Church of Rome to deny the foundation of Faith directly The Church of England hath not passed any such sentence vpon her Some of ours touching this matter haue written thus The Church of Rome denyeth Christ Iesus directly not by consequence onely At this our Opponent B. pag. 122. growes very angry and craues pardon for breaking his long patience and doth challenge him for an egregious contradiction in avouching a deniall direct and by consequence and why Because The foundation cannot be overthrowne both by consequence and directly too None can overthrow by consequence vnlesse they hold directly and no man can both hold directly and deny directly And in conclusion he does grauely reprehend that Author because he labour to proue that the Church of Rome is guilty of such deniall both directly and by consequence seeing such proofe makes the whole fall to the ground being nothing worth and least something should be wanting pertaining to the honour of a learned Disputer he giues his word for all this esteeming the least proofe his great disgrace I answere If I proue that the Church of Rome directly denies the being of the Scriptures and the comming of Christ to saue sinners I doe enough to satisfie this Argument even by the confession of this Opponent for pag. 124. he writes thus If you can proue the Church of Rome directly to deny salvation by Christ alone we binde our selves to grant you the victory and yours be the day If I proue the Church of Rome by consequence also so to deny then that Authour hath made no contradiction by this Opponents owne rule namely because both of them may be true together This Opponent demandeth how or where that proofe shall be had and made pag. 124. I answere I will haue that proofe out of the Councel of Trent and frame it according to art and the rules of answering for that is my office at this time Touching the first I answere to deny and affirme is made by voice and accordingly to deny and affirme may be by the voice of humane reason or divine faith This I take as granted else there can be no difference between the Heathen Philosophers Turks and Christians when they all professe even in so many words That there is a God In the first sense I grant the Assumption that is The Romish Church professeth even in so many words the being of the Scriptures and the comming of Christ by the voice of humane reason and so farre we are content to goe along with this Opponent but the Proposition is false This we say The profession of
Iesu neither do they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute and ordeyne them that now they may seeme to be converted into a new guise Therefore the present Romish Church is not the true Church The Homilie takes the proposition to be a discription of the Church so rgreeable to the Scriptures and Auncient Fathers that none may iustly find fault therewith So likewise it takes the Assumption as a confessed truth by all such as haue any light of Gods word and insight into their liues and examples Whereupon it is confident of the conclusion Though this Argument wanteth not strength to inferre the conclusion so as it needeth not our further labour yet before I passe from it I will vnfold the termes By Christ and his seruants not their persons but their Preaching and Revelation is vnderstood The sacred Revelation is called the Churches foundation because by the profession therof the Church is made to be that which it is and is differenced from all other Societies in the world and good reason because by the profession of the divine Revelation the Church is ordered vnto heaven which befalleth no Societie else whatsoever the Homilie speaks of the foundation of the Church as one intire individuall whole that is of one complete being vndivided into parts or kinds and it attributes the same in the Proposition to the true Church as adequate thereunto and convertible therewith and it denyes it in the Assumption vnto the present Romish Church vniuersally or totally So as the Church of Rome and the Sacred Revelation in the intent of the Homilie are divided as things really and essentially distinct and different as if our Church had said the Romish Church sitteth besides the foundation of the Divine Revelation And thus our Church must be vnderstood because this sence agrees with the Scriptures with the 39 Article and with true reason all other sences are violent and inforced as we shall see in the prosecution of this Argument According to this interpretation the Argument may be framed in these termes The true Church professeth the Preaching or Reuelation of Christ and his Apostles The present Romish Church professeth not the preaching or Revelation of Christ and his Apostles Therefore the present Romish Church is not the true Church Our opponent B. against this Argument proceedeth thus he denyes not but after a sort confesseth that this Argument is our Churches pa. 83. and so fareth it with his partner our opponent C. pag 21. our opponent B in his English Epistle denyes the conclusion of this Argument to bee our Churches but the opponent C saith nothing I answer how can the opponent B. say our Church holds not the conclusion who confessed even now that our Church made the Argument vnlesse he will say that the conclusion of an Argument is no part thereof If that be his iudgement he must teach Aristotle for he thinketh otherwise Prior. lib. 1. cap. 1. Top lib. 1. cap. 1. For this time the conclusion shall goe for none of hers that we may see what they will say to it Opponent B. in his Latine Epistle sayes He that thinks the Church of Rome to be no Church thinks nothing His partner C. in his Epistle Dedicatory professeth that he trembles at the very hearing of this Proposition the present Romish Church is no Church I aâ— sure these parties are ill matched because they â—rosse one the other The one thinks the present conclusion to be nothing the other esteemes it a monster and that is more then some thing but let vs for this time thinke so too because if that be so then the premises which inferre that conclusion are monstrous likewise if the premises bee monstrous then will these opponents make them to appeare to be so And thus much for their answers to this Argument in generall CHAP. 3. Of the same Argument and their answer thereunto THe Reader must remember our Argument in the true and plainest termes standeth thus The true Church is founded vpon that is professeth the sacred truth revealed by Christ and his Apostles But the present Romish Church is not so founded Therefore the present Romish Church is not the true Church Our opponent C. answereth hereunto pag 21 22. with these very words These words must receiue this construction First they must be vnderstood of the accidentall truth of the Church in regard of soundnes and not of essentiall truth in regard of Gods Covenant Secondly they must be vnderstood even of soundnes comparatiuely and not simply that is in regard of the Primitiue Church and not otherwise Thus farre he and not one word further touching this matter I reply In this answer we must looke for the meaning of his words and the application of the matter to our Argument His meaning is further to seeke then Sampsons Riddle or more senselesse then becomes a reasonable man He seemes thus to distinguish 1. The truth of the Church is Accidentall in regard of soundnesse Essentiall in regard of Gods Couenant 2. Soundnes is taken Comparatiuely in regard of the Primitiue Church Simply For thus lyes his words directly but who shall vnderstand him The Rules of Logicke cannot help vs for according to them these distributions are no wayes to be allowed According to Art every distribution conteineth a whole and part So Aristotle Top. lib 6. cap. 1. Rursus vtrumque c. cap. 2. Idem contingens so Ramus lib. 1. cap. 25. But here is no whole and part for a whole is no more but a gathering together of the parts so as they all doe make one certaine thing Thus Arist Physico lib. 1. tex 17. lib. 4. tex 43. meta lib. 5. cap. 25. tex 31. Thus Th. 1. q. 76. art 8. in cor so Ramus lib. 1. cap. 25. But in these distributions there is no whole and parts Moreover in the first distinction truth is the thing divided and that is set out by the terme Church that is the adiunct or accident is set out by a first substance or individuall subiect If that be good then Aristotle must come to him to learne Logick for according to him all other things are attributed to a singular being and that attributed to none Categor cap. 4. 5. Prior. lib. 1. cap. 27. post lib. 1. cap. 22. Againe in that distribution essentiall and accidentall are made parts of truth but that is impossible for truth is no more but the adequation of the thing and the apprehension of our vnderstanding in the Iudgement of Aristotle de interpre cap. 9. meta lib. 4. cap. 7. text 27. Thomas 1. p. q. 21. art 2. in cor 1. Dist 46. q. 1. art 2. ad 1m. But accidentall and essentiall truth makes no such adequation for those termes import no more but a necessary and contingent predication which belongs to the manner of predicating Lastly he attributes soundnesse to accidentall truth and Gods covenant to essentiall truth but that is impossible
the Scriptures vnto the Churches Iudgement they would haue vs beleeue that the Church must tell vs which be the Scriptures and which be not else we can haue no divine faith of them for reason tells vs they must haue authority in all points of faith or none at all This decree of the Councel thus vnderstood is followed by all their Divines and Suarez giues it vs in this one sentence A generall Councell in which the Pope is present either in his owne person or by his Legats and confirmed by the Pope is an infallible rule of Faith And this is a matter of Faith De Fide c. Tracta 1. Disp 5. Sect. 7. No. 6. 9. Bellarmine delivereth the selfe same matter in a most ample large manner in divers places in his third booke of Gods word and I will report them in order as they stand and thus he begins Cap. 3. Tota igitur The Church that is the Pope with his Councell of other Pastors is the Iudge of the true sense of the Scriptures in which all Catholikes agree and the Councell of Trent hath it expresly Sess 4. It is committed singularly to Peter and his Successours that they should teach all men what is to be held concerning the doctrine of Faith Cap. 5. Ex his c. The Councels and Popes execute the office of a Iudge committed to them by God a Iudge delivereth his sentence as a thing that necessarily must be followed Cap. 10. Respond aliud est Christians are bound to receiue the doctrine of the Church when it setteth forth the matters of faith and not to doubt whether those things be so or not Cap. 10. sept argumentum Hitherto he setteth forth the matter in grosse and not vnfoulded wherefore we must seeke for that also and we shall finde the same in the said 10. Chapter and first he giveth vs a reason why the Church should haue this office committed to her in these words The Scripture for it selfe needs not the witnesse of men for it is most true in it selfe whether it be vnderstood or not but for our sake it needs the witnesse of the Church because otherwise we are not certaine what bookes are sacred and divine or what is the true and proper meaning Cap. 10. Respondeo Christus Hitherto wee finde these authors concurring with the Councell in the sense aforesaid and thereby our Assumption at num 7. is confirmed wherein we say Their Church that is the Pastors of their Church hath an office to determine which is the true faith that is what is revealed and what is not revealed and we must know that their judgement is not a private opinion but the faith of their Church Suarez saith so expresly in the place alledged and the thing it selfe doth say no lesse of them both for they agree with the Councell and all on their side agree with them none of theirs doe deny what they affirme If any man think not so he must shew the contrary which yet I never found Wherefore we need not doubt of the conclusion wherein we maintaine That their Church is the foundation of their faith being the thing we vndertooke to prooue num 7. Though this be enough to manifest the matter yet I will adde some other proofe from the testimony of their Church to iustifie the same conclusion because I would haue the thing made easie to our vnderstanding as well as proved to be true by force of argument Now Bellarmine doth all this in most plaine and evident manner in the place following The word of God delivered by the Prophets and Apostles is the first foundation of our faith for therefore we beleeve whatsoever we beleeue because God hath revealed it by his Prophets and Apostles but wee adde that besides this first foundation there is another secondary foundation needfull to wit the testimony of the Church for we know not certainly what God hath revealed but by the testimony of the Church Therefore our faith cleaveth to Christ the first truth revealing those mysteries as to the first foundation It cleaves also to Peter that is to the Pope propounding and expounding these mysteries as to a second foundation Cap. 10. Respondeo ad hoc If any man desire to see this precept manifested by practise he does that also after this sort Wee are to know that a Proposition or Article of faith is concluded in such a Syllogisme as this Whatsoever God hath revealed is true But this God hath revealed Therefore this is true Of the first of these Propositions no man makes any question The second is held for certaine truth amongst all Catholiks for it is grounded vpon the testrmony of the Church Cap. 10. Respondeo verbum To conclude I will report another testimony of his whereby the whole frame of this building is brought to perfection and for that end thus he writeth A precept of faith is to be prooued foure wayes 1. By expresse testimony of Scripture with a declaration of the Church 2. By euident deduction out of expresse Scripture with a declaration of the Church being added thereunto 3. Out of Gods word not written by the Apostles but deliuered from hand to hand 4. By eutdent deduction out of the word of God deliuered from hand to hand De Purga lib. 1. cap. 15. Haec sive Neither is this doctrine Bellarmines fancy but it is the Romish faith for it is warranted by the testimony of all the learned in that Church and the Decree of the Trent Councell already recited n. 8. for when it giues the Church the office to Iudge of the sense of the Scriptures it grants that the Scriptures are in being already and therefore that they are the revealers of the Sacred verities and consequently the first foundation of our faith When it subiecteth the sense onely of the Scriptures to the iudgement of the Church it giues the Church authority to propound expound and apply the Scriptures and therefore it makes the Church a second foundation and no more By this time I hope it is evident enough that the authority of the Church is the foundation that is the next and formall reason of their faith and beleeving and that is the thing wee seeke for Now we should prooue that this foundation of their Faith is false and erronious for that is the second thing propounded in this chapter num 7. But I will spare that labour at this time because none of ours as I conceiue will call it into question besides if any do Mr. Wotton in the book recited even now hath made it manifest against all opposers pag. 21. num 5. c. If therefore any man desires to see it I referre him thither because it fitteth not this businesse to transcribe it And thus much may suffice in proofe of our Assumption propounded cap. 3. num 1. CHAP. 5. Defendeth this sentence The Romish faith is erronius BOth our opponents are mightily gravelled with this sentence and all such as hold
and afterwards sinne wilfully ver 26. by forsâ—king the Assembly of the faithfull vers 25. and therefore are certeinely subiected vnto Gods fiery devouring indignation and iudgment ver 27. But Iewes and Pagans deny salvation by Christ in the iudgement of this Opponent pag 22. Secondly if all that directly deny salvation by Christ are thus guiltie then this guiltines in the Apostles intent is the totall and adaequate nature of that denyall otherwise the Proposition conteineth not an vniversall truth But this guiltines in the Apostles intent is not the totall and adaequate nature of that denyall but 〈◊〉 denyall in one speciall kinde viz. Apostacy and wilfull backsliding for thus lyes the Apostles reason If wilfull forsakers of their profession and the society of the Saints shall certainly bee punished with Gods fiery devouring indignation and judgement then let vs hold fast the profession of our faith and the assembly of the Saints without wavering But such shall be so punished for their sinne deserues it inasmuch as thereby they tread vnder foote the Sonne of God c. The Proposition and Assumption is set forth from verse 23. to the end of verse 27. and the proofe of the Assumption verse 29. being the place which we haue now in hand whereupon we may conclude Some that directly deny salvation by Christ are not thus guilty and so his Proposition is false that maketh all such deniers to be so guilty and consequently our Mother the Church of England hath the day of victory and so shall hold it These Opponents are vnder the hatches and there we will keepe them This Opponent telleth vs pag. 123. that we shall not need to proue that The Romish Church denies salvation by Christ by consequence he will pardon vs that labour to the end that the Reader should see we confesse him to be a fair adversary I answere and why does he account this pardon a favour done vs seeing himselfe does confesse the thing it selfe so often does he thinke himselfe can doe what we cannot Surely then what differs he from the Bold Braggadochiaes in the Campe whereof wee reade in his partner Opponents Epistle It may be he will say he that makes that proofe must grant that they directly hold salvation by Christ which he does and we doe not I reply he is deceived we doe say they directly hold salvation by Christ according to the voice of humane faith as I haue answered chap. 11. num 5. therefore if any thing makes the difference between his power to proue and ours It is not his affirmation and our negation but he hath skill and we haue none well let him vaunt that hath the vayne To the present matter we say we despise his pardon we craue no favour let him doe his worst wee know whose faith we maintaine and will now proue CHAP. 13. The Romish Church by consequence denies salvation by Christ IN proofe of this sentence I will content my selfe with an Argument in this forme They that directly hold salvation by Christ and other things which cannot stand therewith they by consequence deny salvation by Christ because from the second the direct dentall of the first may be necessarily concluded But the Romish Church directly holds salvation by Christ and other things that cannot stand therewith Therefore the Romish Church by consequence denies salvation by Christ This Opponent may not deny any part of this Argument because the Proposition the proofe thereof is his owne pag 23. 24. so is the Assumption pag. 26. The conclusion is gathered out of them both who therefore on this mans behalfe can except against any part thereof It may be some man may say In all the former passages we haue charged the Romish Church with a direct deniall of salvation by Christ and in this argument we free that Church from such denyall and consequently we contradict our selues so as the proofe of the one doth equally overthrow the proofe of the other and thus our opponent seemes to argue as I haue reported Cap. 11. num 3. I answer this exception may be taken off with ease for we charge them and discharge them as is aforesaid indifferent respects we say they deny salvation by Christ according vnto or in respect of divine faith we grant them the contradictory according vnto or in respect of naturall reason or humaine faith as the Reader may finde cap. 11. num 5. In regard whereof both sentences and their proofes may equally stand together without domage the one to the other If any man thinkes otherwise he must shew it by the rules of Art else no man is bound to beleiue him I answer further this direct holding of salvation by Christ which wee grant vnto them is inducement foundation enough whervpon we may charge them with the denyall of the same thing by consequence For that holding is a reall confession and accordingly doth put the thing confessed in a being sufficient whereupon it may be denyed or avoyded by inference and therefore our Proposition is true that supposeth the same And thus our Argument is sufficiently fenced against the clawes of this Opponent and therefore here I must end the matter of their denyall of salvation by Christ by consequence for none of our Opponents brings more then thus touching the same Some man perhaps would accompt it a thing worth our labour if we rested not in these Opponents confession for the truth of our Assumption but avowed the same thing by the Records of the Romish faith To whom I answer that desire is not vnmeet nor the thing hard to to be done but the present businesse and my office must not be forgotten If I entred vpon that wee rush into another question I am now to answere but hee that does that must proue This Assumption is confessed by all parties therefore it is a principle and accordingly it may make an Argument in this question therfore it must passe as a thing certain Accordingly here we would rest but our present Opponent is not so contented for hee denyes that the Romish Church may be ranked with the old Hereticks because they goe not the same way to worke with them They saith he struck neerer the head then the Church of Rome does She indeed is wandred from God and her doctrine is iniurous and contumelious to God and our Redeemer It doth gainsay the foundation of our faith but yet it is remooued a great distance therefrom raze it it doth but by a circle of consequence at the most thus he writes pag 3. 18. 24. 25. 38. 41. 127. 128. Yet he does not varnish over their opinion nor help the best foote of a lame cause forward if you will beleiue his words pag 127. For this cause therefore I will prooue the Romish Church to deny salvation by Christ by consequence direct and immediate not by a circle or meanes that comes betweene that proofe and that salvation and then wee shall know whether that Church
matter more solemnly then any other passage in this businesse wherefore I will lose a little time to shew it to the Reader and put my answere thereunto These are his words Our adversaries in this cause must giue us leaue till we heare further from them to thinke this our third Argument drawne from the lawfull Baptisme of the Church of Rome to bee vnanswerable I answere It seemeth when you heare from vs and finde we ioyne not with you your minde will change are you so variable that you are one thing when the streame goes with you and another when it is against you Well wee now know your minde you would not say nay till you had heard vs say so before you Now you haue so much as you expected see you performe whatsoever you haue promised and so I passe from this third Argument CHAP. 16. The fourth Argument for the same purpose HIs fourth Argument himselfe setteth out in this sort Wheresoever there bee persons retaining the Ministeriall function and office Ephes 4.8 There is the true Church because such persons haue the tutelage of the Church Cant. 8.11 and the promise of Christs presence to the worlds end Mat. 28.20 But in the Church of Rome there be such persons Therefore the Romish Church is a true Church This Argument is implyed in the title of chap. 11. pag. 48. The Proposition is expressely delivered pag. 50. and the proofe thereof pag. 49. the Assumption and the proofe therof is implyed in these words There is lawfull ordination in the Church of Rome pag. 56. In the Church of Rome there is true and lawfull or dination wherein they receiue commission and doe promise to teach the people not the Popes Legends but out of the holy Scriptures so that both Pastor and Flock are ours by admission promise and ingagement theirs by abuse and practise pag. 58. The conclusion is also implyed in these words She hath not wholly lost the face of a Church pag. 58. I answere a short businesse will satisfie this Argument if wee remember what hath beene said touching the two former The proposition cannot be denied because where the ministeriall function mentioned Ephes 4.8 is present there the word and Sacraments of Christ duly administred connot be wanting seeing this function presumeth that word and those Sacraments as a fountaine from whence it flowed and an obiect whereabout it is exercised as our Sauiours words Mat. 28.19.20 do import But the assumption is false and impossible to be true For they haue forsaken the fountaines of liuing water Ier. 2.13 what life therefore can be in them Shall we looke for the ministeriall function mentioned Ephes 4.8 where the words and seales of Christs charter are wanting Surely no wise man will and he that does shall loose his longing and his eyes shall sooner faile then the thing he lookes for be found This is enough in the strictest termes to refell this argument Yet more specially I answere that function Ephes 4.8 implyeth a double power the one of Iurisdiction and the other of Order The first doth exercise Church discipline for goverment as imposing of hands vnto ordination c. The other administreth the word and Sacraments as Bellarmine truly hath it De Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 22. At the begining with the ioynt consent of all theirs and ours Now neither of these powers of Iurisdiction or of Order mentioned Ephes 4.8 can be found in the Romish Church for they serue to gather the Saints and to build vp the body of Christ verse 12.13 But the Romish Church can haue none such seeing their faith is erronious and their Sacraments shadowes and without the true substance Moreouer such as haue the power of order haue commission Mat. 28.19 to teach divine faith and administer Christs Sacraments but none amongst them haue such commission for they are admitted and and ordained to offer vp the body and blood of Christ a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead as we learne by the Councell of Trent Sess 22. Can. 1.2.3 If any man thinke that the Councel hath not set out the adequate nature of their power of order he must shew some other Record conteyning matter of their faith wherein their order of Preisthood consisteth in more then this But we knowe he cannot because perpetuall experience shewes that so soone as a Preist is ordeined he is such a sacrificer and as he is a Preist he doth noe other office but offer that sacrifice what everels they do it is an addition to their Preisthood They haue the power of Iurisdiction in some sort namely soe farre as humaine reason leads them therevnto They found that in the precedent ages of the Church they sawe it was comly and profitable and therefore they continew it still amongst them But as we said before of the word and Sacraments professed and adminnistred by them so must we say of power of Iurisdiction according to divine faith they haue no such power because they receiue it not from God by his authority as a Revealer of the sacred verities but chiefly and next of all because the Pastors of their Church command it and accordingly they exercise and apply it These things being true as they are certaine The Assumption is false for they haue not that power of Iurisdiction whereof we reade Ephes 4.8 for that is such a Iurisdiction as is received from and imployed about the word of divine faith Noreover this power of Iurisdiction which we grant them profits them nothing because their power to ordaine Elders exercise Church Discipline arising from humane reason and serving to humane ends hath no place nor power in constituting that Church which is indeed the family of Iesus Now we haue denied his Assumption and given our reason for that deniall we must see in the next place what reason he can bring to confirme the same and for that end we find three things to which I answere ioyntly that they come too short because they serue not to take away the reason of our deniall and therefore are not sufficient to maintaine his Assumption The first himselfe disposeth thus If they haue not lawfull ordination then haue not we for ours comes from them I answere this comes farre short of his Assumption for in that he attributes the Ministeriall function whereof we reade Ephes 4.8 vnto the Romish Church In this he speakes onely of ordination which is but one part of that function so as if he would dispute from their ordination as hee does from their Ministeriall function his Argument would proue their Church to be a true Church very weakly and lamely because the being and essence of Christs Church is not constituted by any power of ordination and this is enough to satisfie this consequence of our Opponent B. But we will try him a little further Hee saith Our Ordination came from them and thereby he indeavours to proue the foresaid consequence But it comes short of that The outward ceremony