Some Laid Open in his Colors, Text (3 of 3)

Some Laid Open in his Colors · Text (3 of 3)

p. 86Vbi non est Ecclesia, ibi non est vocatio:

vbi non est vocatio, ibi non est ministerium:

vbi non est ministerium, ibi non est Sacramentum.

Ergo.

Will you hauehave it in English now? For ile neuer dissemble you, I doe by my Latine, as that sweet babe of Sarum doth by his greeke and Hebrue, begg and borrow here a patch, and there a patch, as the Dictionaries that come in my way do yeeld me sustenance. And if any thing hapen to be false, then it was either Chard my printers fault, or else my Dictionarie was not of the last edition, or els my candle wanted snuffing. But let me not forget my argument I pray you, for it may be I take a pride in it: Then I say,

Where there is no Church, there there is no calling, for Sola Ecclesia vocat: Otherwise, the Churches prerogative in this case, shoulde not be aboue the heathen and vnbeleeuers, if it were in them to call both alike: (take me I pray you, that I speake still of the ministery of the New Testament or els you offer me wrong) In that case I say, it is the Churches only to call. And therin I appeal to the flowre of your own vniuersitier I do not mean D. Copquot, for we count him but of the middle sort, as we set D. Bridges and D. Pearne in the p. 87seuenteenth fourme behind him: No I meane the very ornaments of your Vniversitie in deed, whose very names and liues doe cary with them an estimation to be reverenced: D. Fulke, D. Goad, D. Whytaker, & M. Chaterton: To these men I saye I appeale, to speake their consciences herein, euen Coram tribunali, whether it be not a firme trueth, That there is no calling out of the Church: Speaking of the ministerie of the New Testament. That then being set downe as a brazen wall, I go on in the face of the enemie with my target in my hand in this manner.

Where there is no calling, there there can be no ministerie, Ile never stande to prooue that for shame: For he is worthier of a censurer (as M. Some sayth) then a refuter that will deny that. And last of all

Where there is no ministerie, there there can be no Sacrament. For Nullum sacramentum sine Ministro. This M. Some himselfe confesseth eyther twice or thrice, & calls it a rule in divinitie.

The conclusion therfore is: That there can be no Sacrament out of the Church, and then say I M. Some is beraied, who houlds that true baptisme is and may be out of the Church, wherein it is no more possible for him to escape an absurditie, then it was for Campion to escape hanging. And howe say you nowe? Had it not bin prety that my Logick should hauehave died in a ditch? Wel in good sadnesse for al that, alow me but my first proposition to be true (as I hope you wil) that there is noe calling into the Ministerie but only of the Church, & then good leaue hauehave you to bringe vponupon me a thousand Augustines, Calvines, or Bozaes, or all the famous churches in the worlde, I say in reuerence to them all, Instar mille veritatis calculus, yet M. Some yeelds that Cyprian was of that judgment, and then wee dare be bolde to say that he was in that point of a true judgment p. 88against them all: For I hauehave heard baptisme defined to be an action of the whole Church, that the whole congregation hath an interest in that Sacrament: And if it be so, if it be th'action of the church, howe can it be where there is noe Church? Furthermore M. Some himselfe calls it an entrance into the visible Church, an engrasting into the true Christ, al which howe it may stand, and yet be out of the Church, (I confesse mine owne ignorannce) I see neither sequell nor possibilitie: As to that which is inferred in this case of Heretikes, of Caiphas, of Iudas, and such like, I take it vnderunder correction to be quite beside the cushen, for as I knowe that the wretchednesse and treachery of Iudas, coulde not overthrowe his caling and Ministery, being the very same that Peters was: So doe I also know, that no holinesse or godlinesse of any man whatsoeuer, (if he be blinde or dumbe) can approoue his caling into the ministery: And therevppon I reporte me to you, whether this conclusion hauehave not a wry mouth.

Iudas, Cayphas, heretikes and such vile wretches, may hauehave (for all their lewdnes) a lawfull ministerie, and so deliuer a sacrament:

Ergo popish priests and dumbe ministers (for all their ignorance and inabillitie to teach) may hauehave and doe the lyke.

Me thinks this argument smells as if it were shaped at Salisbury, I cannot tel, but I am greatly deceiued if I hauehave not seene M. D. Bridges ride on such a lame Iade in my daies. Therefore aduise your D. to beware of these curtailes and hacknies of Sarum, that wil stū ble vnreasonably and tyre at every to. miles ryding, wee knowe it right well and wee knewe it before M. Some wrote that the case may be so, that an heretike may deliuet true Baptisme: And if Ciprian were absolutely p. 89of a coutrary judgment to this, wee holde with M. Some he was wide. But what is this to those on whome it is not possible to fasten any such callinge into the ministery, because they are as I may say, of an vncapable nature, as Infants, dumb men, blinde men, &c And (as Mast. Penri will needes hauehave it) men without gifts? For what a kind of refuting call you this? you holde that men without gifts can hauehave no calling of the Church: I proue yes, and howe? Marry forsooth, because that Heretikes somtimes may deliuer true baptisme, woulde you not smile at me? And yet this way you shall finde many of your D. mighrie conclusions to looke, that is full side West, when the winde would serue him a great deale better into Flaunders. Therefore whereas it pleaseth M. Some, very peremptorily to tell his adversarie, that He hath prooved alreadie, 175that true baptisme hath beene and may be out of the Church: We feare not to tell him as resolutely againe, and that vponupon good assurance, That neither he, nor all the Doctors of Sarbona (if they shold sweat their hearts out) can ever proove it while the worlde standeth. And therevpon we conclude against him, that To saye or write, that true baptisme hath bene or may bee out of 176the Church, is a flat false proposition in divinitie, which by Gods assistance, and her Majesties good favor shal (if he dare procure the encounter) be openly mayntained against him or any man of his complexiō within the land.

For that which is saide to be among th'Ismaelites and Edomites, I thinke by M. Somes fauor, that a man may truely saye it was no sacrament: Circumcison might well be amongst them, that is, the bare cutting of the foreskinne: but not the sacrament of Circumcision, as laying on of water may be amongest Midwiues, but the sacrament of baptisme can neuer come p. 90from their handes: no more was it possible, that in that place where there was no ministerie, there could be anye sacrament, whatsoeuer man or Angell shall mutter against it. But M. Some wil prooue it you shal see, by M. Penries owne confession. For M. Penri saith thus: Neyther coulde any of the godly assure themselues, that an Edomitish priest administred true circumcision according to the substance: Wherevpon M. Some courseth him thus: If circumcision were among the Ismaelites and Edomites (as you write and I affirme) then a 162sacrament was amongst them, I pray you remember this. In deede he had neede of a good remembraunce that should remember this, for eyther I do not vnderstand English, or els M. Penri saith no such thing: For how if a man should venter to say thus: He is not liuing that can assure himselfe, to finde eyther wit or learning in M. Bridges? Woulde your D. therevpon face vsus downe, that we confesse there is either wit or learning in such a buzzard as he? Naye, he shoulde write 36. volumes more first, and every one shall be as bigge as his other booke, and then peradventure he may win our hearts. And here by the way, your D. is once more laide open to the charge of a false finger, which he cannot avoid: For where M. Penri speaking of th'Edomitish circumcision, calleth it barely a Cutting of the foreskin and a prophanation of circumcision, &c. thereby sufficiently expressing his meaning, M. Some the better to writhe in something to his advantage, and to make the matter a little more saleable, hath twice at the least, foysted me in this worde true, which his adversatie hath not at all. As for example, these be M. Somes wordes: Circumcision in Idumea (as you write) was true circumcision, 114and a seale of Gods covenant. And againe to the same effect, If th'Edomitish circumcision were true circumcision, and th'Edomitish church no church, then a sacrament p. 91166was out of the church. Howe like you this M. Penri? Wherevnto I doe not see, but that M. Penri might justly replie thus: If in all my writings you cannot finde that ever I gaue that name of true circumcision to th'Edomitish circumcision, then are you taken tardie M. Doctor, and manifestly convinced of legerdimain, How like you this M. Some.

Now if M. Some could abide to be reuerenced, and would not returne it againe vponupon vsus as he doth to M. Penri with vncurteous and reprochful wordes, wee could here tel him, that we are sory, that a man of his estimation and grauitie, should cumber the eares of the learned with such winde shaken stuffe, as is fitter a great deale, for that sory chaplaine of Sarum, then for him. The best is he tels vsus, That excellent men hauehave 144their second thoughts wiser then their first, & that puts vsus in some comfort, that he being (if he deceiue not himselfe) an excellent man, we shal (if it please God) for al his choller, see some printed record of a Seconde thought of his, that shal indeed be wiser, and of more pawzed and grounded judgment then the first, or els I promise you we are halfe shamed. And I tell you true, I like not this jeasting: Therefore me thinks it were good in this case, that your D. did set before his eies his noble Auncestor of Sarum, whoe by a foolish custome of reasoning thus loosely, and shuffeling in desperatly he cares not what, is so far gone as he seeth with a Fleuer Lourdaine, that his braine was neuer in good temper since. And certainly let him looke to it, for if he doe not better bethinke himselfe hereafter, to answere in other sort then hitherto he hath done, It will sure increase the Iealousie and suspition of many, who begin to distrust some priuy maime in M. Somes manhood, that he is not the man he is taken for and that all that greate knowledge which he so boasteth p. 92of, wil without some speedy redres, fall ere it be long into some feareful consumption of the reyns, because the veynes that swel so, are commonly fuller of winde then of bloud, yet for mine owne part, I had rather a great deale attribute all these defects, byships & out rules of his, to that extreame passion and vnrulye affection that quite overswareth his judgment, and is able both to mate and to amaze a man, yea and soe to blindefolde and bewitch him, that he may soone breake his face against a walle, if he looke not to it: And this sure was the cause (as I judge) that the verye maine pointe betwixte his aduersatie and him, he had not (it shoulde seeme) any leasure to pervse: Eor the question being whether we may be assured to receiue a Sacrament at the Dumbe Ministers hands, the very marrow and life of the whole controuersie lying in this word. Assured, your D. hath faier giuen it the slipp, and hath not as far as I see in any on line, clauze or sentence thorough out his whole booke, so much as looked that way: Nay it seemeth to me, he is halse afraied of it when he seeth it. For in the last place that I before mentioned of th'Edomites, where M. Pemi saith that the godly cannot assure themselues, &c. what saith M. Some to this? Not a word I warrant you, tush he is among the organs at Pauls, or els looking out of his window towardes Lambeth, what should he meddle with the thing in question? Can not an olde, vniuersitie man finde his pen play enough without that? And therefore hee threatens kindenesse on his aduersarie and wil needs wring from him whether he will or no. An acknowledgment of a Sacrament among the Edomites, and prayeth him to remember it: yet some mē thinke this matter of Assurance had bin the most need ful thing of al other for your D. to hauehave dealt in, for the cutting of of al seruple, and the satisfing of mens p. 93mindes. For though a man shoulde make no question of the baptisme deliuered in times past by popish shauelings, but satisfiing himselfe with those other comforts that he findeth in the holy excercises of Religion, should neuer trouble himselfe to looke back so farre, though I say a man should make no question of that which is past, yet I se no hurt to desire to be assured in that which is to come, which Assurance (as M. Penri saith) can never be had but by saith, in the promises of God, and that is the point he stands most vppon in al his writings, vz. that in the whole scripture of God there is no promise to bare readers, and men without gifts to deliuer, and therefore no warrant for vsus to receiue any sacrament at their hands. All which if M. Some could overthrowe any otherwise then with some such stale jeasts as this, why then my grandefather was not christened, he might happen work more miracles then he is like to doe. For he must thinke, that it is neither these consequences nor inconueniences, that smel so much of the flesh, nor yet the authoritie of Calvin or Beza (though wee shoulde admire their gifts and reuerence them as Angells) that can settle a mans hart in this case, it must be only the word of the living God and nothing els, out of which, whensoeuer we see any sufficient recorde to warrant this promise wherevppon our faith must be grounded, it shall by Gods grace drawe presently from vsus a willnig and reuerent subscription to the truth, with an open revocation of al that ever hath bin written in that pointe to to the contrary: But that there is no such Scripture to be had for money, wee gather as by others, so specialy by this late treatise of M. Somes, wherin I dare be bold to say, and I speake it advisedly, for I thinke I hauehave vewed it meetly wel, there is not to be found any on text of holy scripture to proue this Assurance, which p. 94is the maine point in question, and then say we whatsoeuer he proueth els, there is some reason he should hauehave his labour for his travell, because he hath bene at so vnreasonnable charges to wounde his owne shadow, and do his adversarie no hurt.

Touching that point, That the popish Churche is in a sort the Churche of God, though an vnsounde Church: More then that, he croppeth out of Caluine, Phillip de Mornay and others (whiche was not written in suche strange characters neither, but that it might be easily vnderstood before M. Some reuealed it vntounto vsus) there is little I dare warrant you of his owne worth taking vp as they say: and that is the thing that we expect in a learned man, especially in this florishing age of the Gospell, to yeeld vsus some sapp and ioyce of his owne, that thereby our judgements might be bettered, and we also occasioned to praise the giftes and graces of Gods spirit as wel in him as in others. Otherwise thus to cloy vsus still, and ouercloye vsus with other mens sayings: why alasse, you see Th'alabaster man of Sarum can do that for need, and that I warrant you so thicke and in so good order, that if he coulde but handsomly turne to them without helpe, it were euen learning inough for a man of his mediocrity, neither might we well require more at his handes with modestie: as in one of his bookes (the 5. as I remember) you shal find that the good soule hath fumbled together, little lesse then 60. pages of other mens writings, and scarce 4. or 5. whole ones of his owne: and is not that a sweete kinde of bookemaking for a mirror to posteritie? Now for the reasons that your D. seemeth to bring of his owne, I am sorie to thinke they should be so ouer travelled or troubled with a Sciatica, that they should not be able to looke a man in the face without limping. Will you consider of them a little, and tell mee p. 95whether they come not towards you for all the world like Cripplegate men, as if they had need poore creatures of some Hospitall to relieue them?

The very name (saith he) of reformed Churches, doth 176manifestly import, that the churches of England, Germanie, Denmarke, &c. (though popishe and vnsound) were yet churches in a sort before: or why els shoulde they bee called reformed churches.

What good lucke was it then, that the protestant churches should light on the name of reformed churches at the first? For if in liew of this, they had happened to hauehave bene called Christian Churches, you may see M. Some had bene in some distresse for one of his braue arguments, and so peradventure his book would hauehave prooued lesse then it is, by one 7. or 8. lines at the least: For christian Churches could neuer hauehave done him halfe that pleasure, as to hauehave implyed any necessitie, that the church of Rome must needs be in a sort, the Church of God before: But it is onelyonly this worde reformed, that hath stroken it dead. Hath not M. Some then good cause to bidd A blessing goe with him whosoeuer he were, that in trauelling ouer the mountains of Arabia, firste founde out this name Reformed, by meanes whereof, he hath as you see, so daunted his aduersary, that he dare scarce peepe out of dores? But I pray you tell me, Is it not a miserie, that such vnlearned stuffe as this, should drop from the penne of anye man that beareth the face of learning? who woulde stand then to blot paper in refuting that which faleih (as you see) to shievers of it selfe? For when this worthy collection is at the strongest, it will be founde but a meere childish Fallax, from the bare name of a thing to a thing in esse, as if it were a good consequent, that this and this must needs be so, because it is so cōmonly called, and runnes so corrant in the account of men: p. 96And yet vponupon the like sandy foundation as this, would he faine enforce vponupon his aduersarie, an acknowledgement of a Ministerie whether he will or no, and that by his owne confession forsooth: For doth not M. Penri I praye you, call the ministerie of vnpreaching ministers, An euill and prosane ministery? why then hauehave at you sayth M: Some, a conjugatis, and if that be a Ministerie, then the persons that exercise that function 183must needs be Ministers. Will you doe so much for me when you passe that way, as to call at D. Peraes window, to see if he can dissolue you of this doubt? & if he cannot, then let him neuer trouble the Vniuersitie more for shame, but faire bundle vp his bookes, and get him to Waltham to some other trade: For if it be manifest, that M. Penri do speake here of such a Ministerie as hath onelyonly the name of a ministerie and nothing els, then must M. Somes reason, a coniugatis, (if he will not hauehave it to look quite Collyweston) point just likewise vponupon suche a minister as hath onelyonly the name of a minister and nothing els: as if one by occasion should say thus: This womans baptisme is a verye wretched and miserable baptisme: or thus, This wilde Irishe ministerie is a very vile and abominable ministerie: had he not neede trow ye, to hauehave his wits newe ground, that vponupon these or such like speeches, woulde headely inferre any consequent, eyther of a sacrament or ministery indeed, because they are so called? or that the popish Church was reuere & in trueth the church of God, because the bell so sounded in his eare? This being (as you know) one of pore M. Bristowes reasons in his Motiues, to prooue the papists to be Catholiks onelyonly in regarde of the name, in that they be called Catholiks: who woulde hauehave thought that M. Some would euer hauehave bestowed new varnishing of an olde rustie and cankred blade, which was so behackled before, p. 97For may not I pray you, the papists by as good a proportion prooue themselues Catholiks by the very name, or the Midwife of Cheapstow prooue her baptisme to be a sacrament by the very name, as M. Some prooues the popish Church to be a Churche, or the dumbe ministerie to bee a ministerie onelyonly for the name? Surely I cannot thinke that his very Carmen, whom he likeneth M. Penri vntounto, will euer be dismaied 102with suche poore papershort conclusions as these. Well to make some amends, you shall see now if you please, the reason of all reasons, euen such a one, as if you looke not to it, will go neere to clatter the glasse windowes in pieces.

Antichrist must sit in the Temple of God.

Ergo (saith he) The popish Church must needes be the 147 166Church of God.

This M. Some thinks to be a sure one, and it semeth in deed he hath a speciall good liking of it aboue the rest, in that he wil needs (after it hath bene all to be battered and defaced by M. Penri, that it knowes not wel which way to looke) arme it neverthelesse into the field a newe, as if a gilded coate armor could any whit releeue a drooping and crazed carkisse: But now I hauehave learned the way, let mee a loane with him, let him bring it into the field a thousand times, and that a horsekacke if he will, you shal see, that I am a man good enough for a dozen as braue Silogisines as this: For I faier and flat denie the argument. It may be you wonder at me, but I tel you againe I deny the argument, yea were it openly at the Commencement at Cambridge, I would deny the argument & never blush at it, nay I am a shrewde fellowe I tel you, why doe you not see what a lame legge it hath? There lacks a certaine thing the cal Ever, and then it were a good consequent in deed, Antichrist must ever sit in the temple p. 98of god, Ergo. The popish Church must needs be the Church of God. And then by M. D. fauour, if he reason so, I denie th' Antecedent: for it was sufficient say I, that Antichrist first planted his seate in that place, which was once the Church of God, and no necessity that it shoude be so still.

Nay if your D. hauehave noe better reasons then these, as meane a Clarke as I am, I durst me thinks dispute with him in the point my selfe, and I beleue if a man were disposed to enter into the question, it were noe harde matter to bring other manner of profes against it, then M. Some hath brought with it for any thing I see: For what say you to this I pray you? And tell mee whether I hauehave forgot my Logicke.

1 If the popish Church continuing Popish, be in any sort the visible Church of God, then there must needs be some one member of it, so continuing a visible member of the Church of God.

2. But it is not possible that any one Member of it so continuing, should be a vizible member of the Church of God, Ergo.

Howe say you? HaueHave not I as good cause to make my cracks of this argument, as M. Some hath of that braue one of his, of Antichrists sitting in the temple of God? By the way I pray you remember, that I speake not here of Gods eternall councel, or secreet election, but of a vizible Church and vizible members, and not of every vizible Church nether: For I know there is Ecclesia Malignantium the church of the malignant but of the vizible Church of God by profession: also when I speake of the popish Church, you must take me that I speake altogether of such a church and such members as by profession continewe popish, even in the main grounds of popery, otherwise if we agre not of this, we shal but swarue from the question and contend p. 99in vaine: This being set downe then for the first, I would faine knowe which of my propositions you can denie, for I am perswaded I tell you, that vnlesse they meete with a very vnreasonable wrangler, they are both sound and of musket proofe: As for the Maior, I will neuer for shame loose time to prooue that, It shal lie as it doth for me open to al the worlde, to giuegive him the blush that shal denie it: For the Minor, if you shal tel me that on may be a papist in this point, as in Crossing, kneeling, oyling, sasling, Pilgrimages, praier for the dead. &c. and so continewe, & yet be a member of Gods Church, you answere nothing: For these and such like slight instances (though they may be otherwise offensiue to god) be not yet the things a quibus dennoiantur tales, though I confesse that these be in deed of the dregs and ossales of popery, (and a very shrewd signe that they that are wholly drenched herein are scarce sounde at the hart) yet can they not rightly be called papists only for these: As an Arrian, what other errors soeuer he hould, yet is he called an Arrian, & hath his name only for the deniall of the Godhead of Christ & nothing els, which detestable heresie whensoeuer he renounceth, (though he be wide in some other smaller points) he is no more an Arrian but may wel be reckoned as a member of the Church: In like sort Papistry consisting of these 3. Pillers. 1. The denial of the true & only Headship of Christ, by placing Antichrist in his rome, 2. The denial of the Sole sufficient sacrafice of Christ by the vse of their blasphemous & Idolatrous Masse: 3. The deniall of our iustification in the bloude of Christ by saith alone, by thrusting in rags and merits of their owne: This being as I say, the whole frame and groundworke of popery, whensoeuer any man renounceth and a bandoneth this, he is no more say I a Papist, though not withstanding in some other p. 110smaller respects, he may peraduenture justly be called Popish, and so may a protestant to in some sorte, as if a woman for the great louelove she bare to hir husbande, woulde by noe meanes be perswaded but to pray for his soule when he is gone, or if a man in some scruple of conscience would in noe sort be drawen to tast any meare on good friday as they cal it: This man or woman (though otherwise sound in the grounds of religion) may in this regard, truely be called popish, and yet none of the papists neither for all that: In which sence, if M. Some should vnderstand popishe, he must needes make a verye warme conclusion of it, for so might the protestantes Churche be called a popishe church. Therefore vnderstanding popery in that sence that al the godly learned for the most part vnderstand it, that is, for a profession that holdeth of these three heads I spake of before: vz. That Antichrist of Rome: Th' idolatrous Masse: and the deniall of our iustification in the blood of Christ. In this sence I take it, my minor proposition is in it selfe sufficiently rampered against the strongest battery of the best lerned pen vnderunder heuen: For who dare say that anye man holding any of these three, & so continuing, can be a visible member of the Church? And if a man may aske it, what was that I pray you that cut of the Iewes from being the people of God? Was it not Insidelitie? For I take it th' Apostle doth not meane in that place that vnbelese made them a stayned or a corrupted Church, but that it quite broke them of from being any Church at all I meane any vizible church, otherwise from the everlasting covenant I knowe there can be no breaking of, neither can infidelitie lay holde of those that are once enrolled in the bocke of life: wel then if it be an aparant truth that infidelitie cut of the Iewes, not onlye from being a sounde Churche, but from being anye p. 101Churche at all, I woulde gladly knowe what Charter of priuiledge the Church of Rome hath, but that the very same defection which was the breaking of of the Iewes, must needs also (and that by Gods just judgment) be the cuttinge of of them: But will you heare any more of my arguments? For I begin nowe to be of M. Somes humor, that is, to hauehave a prety good lik…ng of my selfe.

1 The church of Infidels can in no sort be the Church of God.

2 But the Popish Church is the church of infidells, Ergo.

Remember I pray you that I speake … here of a Church of insidels, not that among insidels there is or may be a church, for that is nothing to the matter: no more is that, That vnderunder the Papacie there is a Church, as M. Some tells vsus of that poore Church that is there held vnderunder captiuitie, and that many of them in th' agonies and conflictes of death, did wholly cleaue to the crosse of Christ, & that numbers of them forsooth held the foundation that is Iesus Christ. &c. which as they be misteries that noe man doubts of, so wee answere your D. that looke howe many of them did so indeede, looke howe many of them claue wholly and thoroughly (as he saith) to the Crosse of Christ without wauering, so many of them (say we) were noe longer papists: as a Iewe by profession in what moment of hower soeuer he forsakes his Iudaisme and cleaues to the Messias, at the same very moment is he no longer a Iewe but a christian, otherwise it is not possible that either a papist continuing a papist, or a Iewe continuing a Iewe shoulde holde the foundation: Therefore the Maior is cleare, that The Church of Insidells continuing Insidels, can in noe sort be the Church of God. The minor is D. Fulks, whose lerned judgment (hauing p. 102so notably deserued of this Church of England) if we should nowe for once & vse it not, set against the bare authoritie of Calvin or Beza in this case, I doe not see that it woulde be any greate prejudice or disparagement to any: These be his words: The catholike Church of Christ (whereof the Church of England is a part,) is an invizible Church, &c. Contrariwise the Popish Church Consu. S…nd of Imag. 168which is vizible is the church of Insidels, & Rome which is vppon earth is the mother of all Antichristians: Nay but for spending of time it should manifestly appeare vntounto you, that there were nothing more easie then to dash this assertion of M. Somes in peeces, and to proue against all the worlde, that The Popish Church is not (as he and some others woulde hauehave it). a stained, corrupted, an vnsound Church but flatly noe Church of God at al: For howe if a man shoulde reason thus?

1 That Church that denieth the foundation of our saluation, can in no sort be the church of God at al:

2. But the popish Church denieth the foundation of our salvation. Ergo.

Taking the Maior to be so cleare that noe man of judgmente can denie it without some checke to his owne hart and conscience, I would easily for neede & neuer goe farther, confirme my Minor by the sacred & inviolable authority of M. Bridges, Scilicet si sanum haberet Sinciput, that is, if his braine were in temper, or his judgment were woorth a marginal note: For he setts downe plainly in one place: That the Church of Rome doth overthrowe the foundation, which by his confession in an other place is Iesus christ: but because I heare that this learned D. is one of Tarletons executors, and it may be he is nowe very busie in proouing of his will, I woulde be loath to trouble him at this time, nei…her were it reason to drawe him from proouing his friends Testament, to helpe to proue any proposition p. 103of mine, and therfore I wil for this once giuegive him good leaue to walke where he will, and content my selfe only with the testimony of D. Fulke whose words against Stapleton be these: If peeces of trueth Contra. Stapl. Fort. pag. 35.might be sufficient to make them the Churche of Christ, many heretiks might chaleng the church which hauehave confessed and practised a greate number of more truthes thē they, and doe erre but in one article, as th' Arlans Pelagians. &c. whereas the papists erre in many, yea in the whole doctrine of iustification by faith and the worship of God: Therefore papistry is not onelyonly a scisme, error or heresie, but an Apostacie, defection, and Antichristianitie, &c. Nay more against Bristowe he speaks to this effect: seing beside these errors of the fathers ye holde many blasphemous Rejond. to B…istovv, pag 10.heresies which they neuer hold, and vtterly deny th' office of Christ, the foundation of our saluation, therefore we iustly denie you to be of the true church of Christ. And yet there is an other place as pregnant as any of these, in the 14. page as I take it of the same book against Bristowe, where he speaketh likewise to the papists in this sort: Ye therefore building saluation vppon good workes done after baptisme, do manifestly build Rejond. 14.vponupon another foundation, then th' onelyonly true …oundation Iesus Christ: and therefore notwithstanding your error, you cannot (as th' old Fathers erring in small matters) be yet the church of God.

Thus you see, I am not so ill befriended, but that I can fetch in my proofes, though M. Bridges were at no leysure to helpe me. But I pray you speake indifferently, is not the evidence very cleare for me, & is not D. Fulk flat against M. Some in that point? doth he not say directly that the popish church is both the church of Infidells, and that it doeth denie the foundation, which were the two points you know, I had in hande to prooue? Neyther if you marke it, doth he mince it p. 104with any of these calme and gentle quallifications, as if he did allow it for a Church in a sort, though an vnsound Church, but he layes it down flatly and expresly (as you see) to the view of al men, that it is not at al the Church of God: and he yeelds this reason, because it buildes not vponupon the foundation Iesus Christe. Can there any thing be clearer then this? Nowe your D. had best take D. Fulke in hande, and tell him another while, that he doth erre grossely, and that (if he hauehave anye learning) he doth toto coelo errare: or that …is one of the strangest diuines that euer he heard off: or that he is very ignorant, very absurde, and that his arguments are pitifull, and his diuinitie at a low eb: or else that his judgement is not worth a rushe, &c. For some such pretie dagger without a sheathe would become the house well, and trouble D. Fulke shrewdly: And so we might happen hauehave a merrie worlde of it, when the sicke man should fall a casting of the phisitions water, and M. Some fall a setting Doct. Fulke to schoole. Well yet we must desire him for all that (because it is a law of his owne making) that he will not be ouerhastie to confute M. Fulke before he hauehave confuted his resō, for so he wishes M. Penri to do by Calvine and others. In deede M. Fulke is a man of singuler learning, an enemie to papistes, &c. A notable light and 143ornament in Gods Church. What M. Some is, we will not say, we would be loath to doe him wrong: Therefore wee 168will not match him with so famous a man as M. Fulke is. You may see now by this, whether I be not old excellent at the Art of imitation. Me thinks your D. should know the sound of this bell by his clapper, I beleeue he can quickly smell out of what forge it came, and therefore I hauehave purposely quoted the place that you may commend my wit, for it is but a little altering of the names, you see otherwise the case is all one. And p. 105howe if the ignorant Welshman should now in some requitall, be so sawcie to tell him, that he for his part, doth rest in the judgement of this excellent man, with all his heart, & therevpon should will him Neuer to stand 177pidling longer, but to go through stitch withal, & sithence he is gone ouer the shoes to rush ouer the bootes, &c. and 147to confute M. Fulke, & to confute him soundly if he can, so shall hee hauehave the garlande, and be counted the rarest 155man aliue, &c. But if he cannot (which we are assured of) he shall no more go for a Patriarke among his ignoraunt followers. &c. And if he giuegive th'onset and faile, be shalbe sure to lose no credit of learning, &c. These with many 18…other mo, being as you know, but the crops and flowers of his owne pretie garden. I muze with what patience he would disgeast it, if a man shoulde thus wipe his nose with his owne sleeue: And by this you may see how much your D. hath aduantaged himselfe, by troubling the printer with a number of such worthio Enigmaes, as may as naturally be apropriate to Iohn a Style as to himselfe: By means wherof, if he should happen by occasion hereafter, to appeal from D. Fulke to the word, M. Penri hauing learned the tricke of it, would be sure to choake him straight with a pill, out of his owne confectionarie in this or the like manner. A strange kinde of appealing, when M. Fulkes arguments are drawne from the worde: and then might not your D. well rue the time that euer he drew out his aduersarie such a line, as by turning of a thredd, might go neere to strangle himselfe? or is it not full as good Englishe, and eueryevery way as good sence for M. Penri to say thus? Th' argument that I made is indeed M. Fulks and a very sure one: as it is for M. Some to say thus, The argument that I made, is indeed M. Caluines, and a very 80sure one? What great ods is there I pray you, betwixt these two countertenors? Being famous learned men p. 106both, and both notable members of Gods Churche. I see no such difference, but that the ballance is full as heauie at this end as at that: and that it were as lawful for M. Penri (if he were so disposed) to say with reuerence, that He doth more esteeme of one Fulke, then of a thousand Somes, as it is for M. Some in a kinde of swelling and disdainfull contempt (which he hath notably layd open in aboue 200. places in his book) to say that He doth more esteeme of one Caluine, then of a thousand Penries, as if that were any thing to the matter, or as if 168the bare defacing of his aduersarie, woulde any whit better his cause in the judgement of the wise, or as if the trueth of God did at any time hang vponupon the gifts and credit of men.

But now I remember me this is not altogether the bare judgment of D. Fulke alone nether, for his books (being as you see authorised) and aparantly stamped with that State marke of Seene and alowed, we may in that regarde trewly say, that looke what is there advisedly set downe as this point, that the popish church is no church at al, must needes be, because it is so often iterated and redoubled, and to be proued very neere in 20. places of his works: therefore I say, looke what is there advisedly set downe, and not by error or oversight mistaken, is implicite the very judgment and resolution of our Church and State: which being true, M. Some hath a warme sute of it to keepe such a stirre about the authoritie of Calvine, when those that my L. of Cant. saith can teach Calvine, are of a contrarie judgment, wherevppon I could here once againe for neede (if I had olde Dorbel of Sarum lying by mee,) blunder you out an other proper figure or 2. to troūce M. Some with, that shoulde sounde in your eares like a Iewes trumpe, after the olde melodious manner: Yea my learned D. are you good at that; Is the winde in that p. 107doore? are you still controling of our church & state. &c. But because you are reasonably acquainted with this sweete note already, I wil not stand nowe to set it in parts, only you may see by this, that if a man shoulde chance to tel M. Some to his face, that to holde that the Romish church is in a sort the church of God, is a grosse and palpable error, there were no danger in it at all, because he that shoulde so doe, hath you see, not only the judgement of a famous learned man to backe him, but also the flat alowance of the Church of England to beare him out in it: For Papistry being (as M. Fulke hath proued) not only a Scisme, error, and heresie Rejond, to Bristovve pag. 5.but an vtter defection and a meere Apostacie compact of all errors, what shoulde feare vsus to say and avowe that our christian magistrates hauehave done wel not only with Thrasibulus to fly from the tiranny of Athens, but rather with Lot and his family to leaue the whole city of Sodome, wherein there was not any free place but al the body one a blister? Even soe if the popishe Church be in trueth nothing els, but a very lumpe, masse, and body of Apostacie, what a proper nice disstinction were this to say, that our Magistrates hauehave indeede seuered themselues from the corruption of Apostacie, but not from Apostacie it selfe, as if there were any thing in Apostacie but corruption? Therefore if M. Some doe thinke he hauehave any advantage that way, good leaue hauehave he to make his best of it: For we, are not afraide to say and say it againe, yea and if it were possible, to proclaime it in the hearing of al the churches in the world, that Q. Elizabeth & her godly magistrates hauehave not only seuered themselues from the plague that pestereth the city, but from the very city of Sodome it selfe, not onelyonly as he saith from the corruption of the popish Church, but from the very popish Church it selfe, and the reason is because it is in no p. 108sort the Church of God, hauing overthrowne the foundation, and therefore must needs (whether M. Some will or noe) be the very Sinagog of Sathan: And then say I as before, that our magistrates hauehave done well, & that which they may justifie by good warrant from Gods worde, otherwise they shoulde be apparantlye guiltie of a greuous sin which after my kinde of Logicke I prooue thus.

1 All christian Magistrates are bounde vtterly to divorce themselues from that Church, not only from the corruptions of that Church, but from that very Church and society it selfe, which hath made a diuorcement from Christ & erreth in the foundation of our faith:

2 But the Romish Church (as is before sufficiently prooued) hath made such a divorcement & erreth in the very foundation: Ergo.

Our Magistrates ought (as thanks be to God they hauehave done) vtterly to diuorce themselues from that very Church it selfe, & therefore neede not M. Somes helpe to cleare them from being Scismatikes:

Thus you may see M. Somes worthy distinction of our Magistrats, not severing themselues from the Church but from the Idolatrie of the Churche, &c. Is by this meanes quite quashed in peeces: For if it were indeed in any sort the Church of God, then woulde fall out this strange paradoxe, that one and the selfe same bodie of a Church might in a sort be the church of Christ and in a sorte againe the Churche of Antichrist, and that might be a peece of Iohn a Bridges diuinitie wel enough for the soundnesse of it: Furthermore if it were only but from the staines and corruptions of the popish Church that this our seperation was made (as M. Some woulde hauehave it) then belike they and we are both one body of a Church, though ours be as much p. 109more refined body then theirs: But howe can that be when they holde not the same heade and foundation that we doe? For one body you knowe must hauehave but one head otherwise it is a monster: They then hauing an other heade, then we hauehave, we may safely conclude that they are not of the same body with vsus, neither doe I see any warrant for a Christian man to seuere himselfe from the bodie of Gods Church (in that sort as we hauehave seuered our selues from Rome) for any blemishes or corruptions whatsoeuer: For so might out Brownists (if they list) get themselues a pretty pleadable shelter of defence, and tel vsus, That they doe not forsooth seuere themselues from our congregation as from the City: but from the plague that pestereth the citye. Not from the common wealth, but from the Tirannie that oppresseth the common wealth: Not from our Church, but from the soule disorders that bleamish our Church, &c. And if they should thus temper the matter, I muze whether M. Some woulde be so curteous to take that for paiment: But it is not come to that you see, for our Brownists are farre of any such coulorable pretences: They goe more roundly to worke with vsus then so, & bash not to tel vsus plainly (though indeede very wretchedly and falsely) That our church is not at al the vizible church of God, and for that cause it is, that they bear vsus in hand, they do so single themselues from vsus, and not for any disorders that might otherwise bleamish or dissigure our Church, why shoulde we then more mince it with our papists?, then these men doe with vsus, clawing them with I konwe not what tollerable and halfe faced alowance of a Church forsooth: though an vnsound Church? Or why shoulde not wee deale as roundly with the enemies of God in a trueth as the Brownists do with the children of God in a falshood? Or why should we feare to make knowne vntounto p. 110the worlde that it is not for this or that corruption, or anye patches or peeces of vnsoundenesse, that wee hauehave thus seuered from the Romish Sinagogue, but only for that the very founteine it selfe is altogether as a poizened puddle, whence nothing can flowe naturally but continuall streames of corruption? And therefore that it is not, nor neuer was since her general defection and Apostacie, any more the Church of God, then the very church of the heathen or Infidels. Marke I pray you, that I say noe more the Church of God, for albeit in some regarde it may peraduenture be neerer the Church of God, (in that they hauehave amongst them I knowe not what rubbishes, remnants, and traces of some good things,) yet to speake of a Church indeed as a Church, it may truely be saide to be no more the Church of God then the very church of the heathen or Infidels, I speake not heere of the nation of the Iewes, who in regarde of Gods promise are neerest of al, I speake only of the heathen and Infidels, and in comparison with them, I say that as a lumpe of Iron or steele is no more an axe heade, then either a peece of wood or stone, though in nature & possibilitie it be neerer: Euen so, if M. Some will hauehave vsus say that the Romish Church is any thing neerer, or in possibilitie liker to be the Churche of God, then that of the hethen or Infidels, we wil not greatly stick with him: Any farther alowance we may not wel giuegive to the popish Church without sinne, the reason is because it hath vtterly cast of the foundation of Iesus Christ crucified, without whome al the learning & eloquence of men or Angells can not make a Church, & therefore he that shal either file his pen or straine his witts to prooue it, shall when he hath strugled to the vttermost, but miserably striue like a birde in the lime, and so flutter himselfe windelesse in his owne conceit.

p. 111Nowe for those prerogatiues and preheminences that are cōmonly giuen to the popish Church aboue other hethen & Idolatrous Churches, if a man should aske M. Some what they be, it is like he woulde begin straight with true baptisme, which if M. Penri should stande vppon as a slat begging of the question, I doe not thinke that your D. with al his skil coulde trauel much farther that way: But alowe it to be so, that in popery there is baptisme, yet you see by M. Somes diuinitie, we are neuer the neerer for a Church, because he holdes that true baptisme may be our of the church Wel what be the other good things that they are supposed to hauehave? If you say the Trinitie, I aske where? in their windowes? If you saye the scriptures, I aske where? in their coffers? If you say our sauiour Christ I aske howe many of them they hauehave, or rather howe many hundred dozen of them? For him alone I am sure, either as mediator, intercessor, or redeemer they hauehave not. So that a man may truely saye, they hauehave much good things but the swine eate them vp all. The very trueth is, let the fayth and profession of a christian be rightly scanned after the line of Gods word, and it will be found (howsoeuer men like to smothe it, or smother it) that they hauehave in deede none of all these things, and the more they hauehave of them, in that maner as they hauehave them, the greater is their condemnation And I take it, that M. Beza himselfe in his Antithesis betwixt the fayth of a christian, and the fayth of a papist, doth sufficiently proue that they hold not a soūd profession in anye one article of the fayth. Howe can that be then the Church of God that venteth & runneth our eueryevery where, that faileth in eueryevery article, & hath not so much as one sounde sinowe to trust vntounto? yea and by your leaue I do not see, but that out of M. Caluine himself if he were narrowly loked into (thogh p. 112M. Some erect him as a piller against vsus, in a manner in eueryevery leafe) there might easily inough be drawne arguments to confirme this judgement of ours. I graunt indeed he saith thus: Whereas we will not simply grant to the papists the tytle of the Church, we do not therefore denie that there be churches among them: likewise again in another place in the same section he saith thus, We doe not denie but that vnderunder the tyrannie of Antichrist remaine Churches, &c. Which is no more in effect then M. Some himselfe hath said before. And I cannot conceiue how this shoulde prejudice the cause any whit, for let vsus draw it into forme if you please:

Among the papistes there are Churches, or vnderunder the tyrannie of Antichrist there are Churches:

Ergo The popish Church is in a sort the church of God

I denie the argument, neither is there any consequence in it at all: For it is not inough say I, to be among and vnderunder, but as I hauehave prooued before, they must be thēselues thorough papists, euen in the maine grounds of poperie, and so continue vntounto th'ende, otherwise it is not possible to frame th'argument, with out the string hault do what they can. Yet rather this semeth to be much stronger against it, when M. Caluin reasoneth to this effect: Like as a mans life is at an ende Institut. lib. 4. cap. 2. sect. 1.when his throat is thruste thorough, or his heart deadly wounded, So when lying is broken into the chief Tower of religion (as no man doubts I trow, but it is in poperie) the destruction of the Church followeth. Marke here, he saith not the corruption of the Churche (as M. Some wold hauehave it) but the destructiō of the church, which immediatly after he explaneth thus: If the true church be the piller and stay of the truth, it is certaine that there is no Church (he dorh not saye an vnsounde Churche) where lying and falshood hath vsurped the dominion. Ye and in the fourth section of the same chapter, hee is p. 113yet more cleare for vsus to this effecte: Where the doctrine of the prophets and Apostles is not, there remaineth nothing that giues anye true signification of the church: if nothing, what babble they of baptism, Lords prayer and I know not what? But in poperie say I, the doctrine of the prophets and Apostles is not. Ergo: & me thinkes th'argument is vnanswerable, which in the end of the seuenth section he confirmeth thus: Who dare call that the Church, where the worde of the Lord is openly and freely troaden vnderunder foote, yea the very soule of the Church is destroyed, &c: But in poperie this is aparant, Ergo. Lastly, in the tenth section of the same chap. he reasoneth thus: If they be Churches (saith he, speaking of popish Churches) then they hauehave the power of the keyes: But the keyes are vnseperably knit with the word, which from thence is quite driuen away, and there vponupon he concludes, That either the promise of Christ is in vaine, or els that in that respect they are no Churches. Can any thing be spoken more plainely and directly then this? out of which places, howe if a man should now argue with M. Some in this manner.

Where the power of the keyes is not, and where the word of God is quite driuen away, there it is vnpossible to be any church of God at all:

But in poperie this is so, witnes M. Caluin. Ergo.

I confesse to you it is strange, and strange againe to me, that the vizible Church being (as I take it) alwaies knowne by the Worde, Sacraments and Discipline: the speciall and principall marke of the 3. being the worde, in that it giueth life and authoritie to th'other, there shoulde yet be a churche where this worde is not: that where this worde is quite driuen away, where the very soule of the church is destroyed, where there cannot be so much as any true signification of the churche, the doctrine of the prophets and p. 114Apostles being vtterly bannished, wherefore I say, all this is (as Master Caluine sufficiently prooueth) there should yet be a Church, this is a wonderfull misterye to me. It had neede be in deede as they saye, a church secundum quid: And yet if there bee nor (as Master Caluine saith) so much as any true signification of the Churche) I doe not see but that they may bee bolde to blot out secundum quid, and by good warrant make it none at al: As for that which is saide of the Trinity, I aske whether the Deuil doe not also beleeue the Trinitie, for in the trinitie I am sure non of them both beleeue: I hauehave heard that Demones credunt et contremiscunt: Then if this be a good argument, the Papist is better then the Turke because he holdes the Trinytie: Then say I, The Diuell is likewise better then the Turke because he holdes the Trinitie: There is only this difference, that the papist or the Turke may be a conuert and dye penitent, so can nor the Deuil, but then say I stil he is no longer either Turke or papist: By this you may see that it is not then hauing bare reading or coffering vp of the scriptures, Lordes prayer, Articles of the faith, &c. Nor the naming, picturing or spelling of the Trinitie, but the sound profession of these holy things, according to the rule of Gods word that doth make the Church.

And me thinks (if a man consider of it well,) that which is aleaged before of M. Fulke against Stapleton, shoulde so cut the face of these poore prerogatiues brought in for defence of this Church Secundun quid, that they shoulde neuer peepe out of doores againe, in any printed record without blushing, shal I repeat it to you againe? Ispeeces of truth (saith he) might be sufficient to make them the Church of Christ, many heretikes Contra. Siaple. pag. 35.might chalenge the Church which confessed & practised a number of more truthes then they, & doe erre but p. 115in one article, as the Arians, Pelagians, &c. what means M. Some then to tel vsus a tale of a Tub, of the Lordes 149prayer, articles of the faith, Commaundements, and some other good things that are amongst them: when these and a hundreth of these (so longe as they erre as they do in the foundation) can not make them the church? For the papists saith D. Fulke in the place before recited, doe erre in many articles, yea in the whole doctrine of iustification of saith & the worship of God: Therefore Papistrie is not only a Scisme, error and heresie, but an apostacie: Defection, & Antichristianitie, &c. and then belike it is somewhat more then M. Some in his calme conceite can wel afforde it to be, for it semeth he dare goe noe farther then to An aberration of the Christian 150Church, and so far you see he dare goe boldely: And is not that wel? For it may be Cardinal Alen with all his troope dare not goe halfe so far: wel for a smale resolution of the whole (being as we are so strengthened and confirmed herein by the judgment of D. Fulke) looke what offer the Demonstration of Discipline maketh to our Bb. that is their liues to their bishopricks: the very same offer is here presently tendered to M. Some, that vppon notice giuen and leaue obteined of a judicial hearing before her maiestie, and the State, (D. Reynoldes & D. Whitakers being judges) if it doe not appeare by vnauoydable proofes that the popish Church is not only An unsound Church, but no church of God at all, and so by that meanes that M. Some is manifestly overthrowne as wel in this point as in sundry others of his tretise, the man that so presents him selfe to this encounter, wil aske no fauor, but willingly submit himselfe to such heauye censure & punishment, as shalbe thought meete for so rash a disturber of the peace of the Church.

There is yet an other point in your D. booke, that p. 116in my conceite his frinds may aswel couer with a curteyne as any of the rest, and that is his loose defence of Bare reading and pronouncing the words of th'institution by Dumbe Ministers, M. Penri denying that vnpreaching Ministers doe adde an edifying worde to the Element, M. Some wil proue it you shal see. But first you must giuegive him leaue to warme himselfe a little at the Magistrates fire, for it may be his handes are a colde: And then (when he hath stirred the coales a while for the better conjuring of his aduersarie) you shall see him proue his Anticedent, as I beleeue you hauehave not seene many Anticedents prooued by a D. of diuinitie in your life. My Anticedent was (saith he) that vnpreching Ministers doe ad an edifieng worde to th'Element: very wel, and will you hauehave this prooued nowe? Then take this with you for a paterne: The summe of Cbristes 98Sermon in th'institution and administration of the holy Supper is the very same that we vse here in the Church of England: Ergo. vnlesse we will denie the summe of Christs Sermon to be an edifiing worde, we must confesse we hauehave verbum aedisicans, &c. and what is this els but (as M. Some saith) to proue that Midnight is not high Noone, and yet I hauehave hearde that with the Antipodes, our midnight is there high noone: Neuerthelesse M. Some (wee thanke him for his cost,) bestoweth aboue 20. lines to prooue this deepe mistery vntounto vsus, paraphrasing vponupon it full demurely: So that eare he hauehave done withal I dare lay a good wager he wil make it as cleare as it was before, & that it was cleare enough, That the worde of institution & the summ of Christs Sermon doth edifie, which if Blinde Bartemeus coulde not hauehave spied, yet I doubt not but his cousin germaine of Sarum (who it may be woulde disdaine to be either his or a better mans inferior in Blindenesse) woulde willingly subscribe vntounto it without wresteling. And I muze if on p. 117should defende That women, idiots, Sorcerers, & Conjurers can not ad an edifying worde to th'Element, though they should repeat the words of th'institution a thousand times over. I muze I say, whether M. Some wold refute this euen as he hath don the former, by telling vsus that which the very boies that learn their pricksong, could not I trow, be ignorant of, vz. That the summe of Christs Sermon is an edifying word: For who doubts (vnlesse his brains be out) that The word of God is in his own nature an edifying woord? That the Scripture is autopisos, that is of credite in it selfe, & inspired not of man but of God, &c. who doubts of al this? but what of that? Shall we therefore infer that out of a Coniurers mouth it is an edifying worde, or that wheresoeuer els, the worde is wretchedly profaned hand over head, as by a woman at baptism, or by a cursed man of no calling in the congregation, there must needs be Edification straight? O but you wil say, M. Some doth not say so, he speaks only of vnpreaching ministers: But I say again he must needs say so whether he wil or no, for the reson that he bringeth doth point as directly, and conclude as forcibly for sorcerers & conlurers, as for Dumbe Ministers, and therein I pray you be judg your self. The sum of christs Sermon (saith he) is an edifying word, Ergo. The dumbe Ministers repeating the same Sermon doe ad an edifying worde. And why not I pray you by the same proportion, Ergo. Women, Ergo. Witches, Ergo. Madmen, Ergo. Idiots repeating the same Sermon, do ad an edifying worde? For if there be no more in the matter but only the wordes of the institution, & the sermon of Christ without regarde had of the calling of the man, and of Gods inuiolable ordinance therin: And M. Penri holding that our dumbe doggs that hauehave no measure of gifts, are no more capable of the ministery then these, then is it not possible but that M. Some must either (as p. 118his vsual delight is) begge the question, or els the consequences must be al one in spight of his hart. I know right wel, that a godly man may even then be edified by the worde, when it is most blasphemed by a hellish mouth, and I knowe that a man may be edified some times & stroken with remorse vponupon the sight of some horrible murther, as he may also at on of these plaies or Theater Spectacles, as some hauehave not let to giuegive out, That they for their parts hauehave bin more edified by a play then by all this preaching: neuerthelesse I hope no man of sence will say that either murther or blaspheming the worde of God, or the same word wretchedly prophaned in a play, is therefore an ordinarie meanes to edifie: And what warrant hath any man to seeke for Edification there where there is noe promise he shall be edefied? Though the worde it selfe be an edefieng word, yet may not the Lord chuse whether it shallbe an edifying word to vsus or no, especially when we make noe conscience of repairing thither, where we knowe before hand his holy ordinance is prophaned? Farther it is worth marking, that whereas M. Penri saith, Noe learned man wil deny the Lords prayer rightly saide to be an edefying worde, nowe M. Some as a man that had long fasted, and thereby glad of any thing to releeue his hunger, doth hereuppon all to be thanke him: I thanke you (saith he) for this, and therfore doe conclude against you that the Scripture barely read, and to non other 120purpose then to edifie, by reading is wholsome doctrine: for the Lords prayer is part of the holy Scripture: wherein I knowe not well whether M. Penri shoulde doe better to thanke him for his coste, or praise him for his curtesie. Neuerthelesse when the matter shall come to sifting, I feare it wil hardly deserue halfe the Thanks that M. Some bestoweth. For did you neuer heare of a man that tooke post horses to ride northwarde, p. 119& yet by wandering all night, founde himselfe within 2. mile of Lambeth in the morning? This was sure M. Some, who making more hast then good speed to ride away with his poore aduantage, is after his long trauel & wandering (as you see) returned home by some night spirit, by meanes whereof he is (if you marke it) as neere his jornies end as when he first set foote in stirrop. Why alasse cannot so greate a Clarke as M. Some is see into these words, Rightly sayed, vnlesse they be written in great text letters or printed in Folio? Or is he nowe to learne that Noe popish Priest as a Priest, Noe Papist as a Papist, Noe Witch as a Witch, did ever say the Lords prayer rightly in his life? What a squinteyed conclusion is this then, to drawe an argument from Rightly saide, to Barely read? As if we were so childish to graunt him that which is Barely reade of a minister in his place & function, were Rightly said, or that the hurrying over the Lords prayer or any other piece of Scripture, either without booke or within booke were rightly saide: that is to say, that the word prophaned contrary to the holy ordinance and institution of Christ were wholsome doctrine. But howe shal we doe nowe? M. Some hath yet spied out an other blasphemie, an other strange pointe of diuinitie, and what is that? Forsooth The worde of God vttered, is not an edifying worde, vnlesse it be vttered according to th'ordinance, both in regarde of the persons that vttered the same, and the ende wherefore it is vttered: wherevppon he questioneth with his adversarie in this manner: Is not this M. Penri to make the person to giuegive credite to the holy word of God? which position is very grosso 120& blasphemons. We answere in M. Penries behalfe, no in deede is it not: First it is cleare M. Penri speaketh here (as he doth in the whole course of his booke) of that which is ordinary & not extraordinary: For what p. 120hauehave we to doe nowe with miracles or extraordinary revelatious: Or (as I saide before) if any man be edified by a Play, by a Murther, by Blaspheming or prophaning of the worde of God, what hauehave wee to doe with that? This being set downe then as a thing cleare and out of question that M. Penri speaketh onlye of that which is ordinarie, we answere that his assertion standeth firme and inviolable against M. Some and all the wrangling spirits in the world, vz. That the worde vttered is not an edefying word, vnlesse it be vttered according to the ordinance both in regarde of the persons, &c. neither is this at all To make the person giuegive credite to the holy word, noe more then we say that the bread & wine prepared for the Lords table, can be no sacramét vnlesse he be a minister that deliuers it. Is this to make the sacrament depend vponupon the person, or the person to giuegive credit to the sacrament? I think not, no more is it of the word. And who seeth not that when he speaketh here of the persons, he meaneth not (as M. Some wold seem to enforce) of the dignity or worthines of the persons, or barely of the persons themselues as they be of men (for that were too childishe) but onelyonly of the Calling and office of the parsons, whiche being the holy ordinance of God prescribed in the worde, what incongruitie or absurdity is it, for the Lord to restrane th'ordinarie blessing of edification to his owne ordinance, as if he should say, My word is in deed the worde of life, neuertheles if any man abuse it, or profane it, if any man presume to deale withall, that hath no calling or warrant therevnto, let him neuer looke that I will bloue vponupon it with my spirit. And who dare saye that there is or can be edification, where the Lorde breatheth not with his spirit? Therefore let M. Some say what he wil, there can be neither error nor heresy to make not the person, but the holy calling of the person, that is, the p. 121Lords owne ordinance to giuegive a majesty & credite to his owne worde, which in trueth is nothing els, but to make the very word giuegive a credite to the word, and so it is Autopisos still. Now for his maner of writing, I rest euen of the same judgment I was, when the book came first into my hands: you know what I then told you vponupon the first taste of it, & I dare warrant you, you shall finde it to be true: for he is all in his short cuts & questions like prety apothegs. What say you to 40. ful points in 50. lines, to 30. ful points, in 33. lines, to 6. ful points in 4. lines, to 4. ful points in 3. lines? Nay in one place, about the pa. 76. as I remēber, he hath more full points then lines: yen & in that space that Iohn a Bridges hath one period, I dare be bound M. Some hath 50 or vpward. And is not that sententiously written? Nay farther, let his whol book be wel viewed, I meane his last book which of it self, is not much aboue 40. leaues & that in a large letter, such as consumeth a great deal of paper in a little matter, & I dare vndertake you shal finde aboue 1500. full points. So that whereas in one place he telleth his aduersary, that vnles it be granted him, that vnpreaching ministers hauehave no calling, he is at a 118ful point: his aduersary may now justly reply vpō him, vnles the contrary be graunted him, he is at a 1000. ful points. And I pray you tel me, are not his lungs in gret danger thinke you, that he is so short winded that he can scarce tie 2. propositiōs togither in mood & figure I promise you for mine owne part I am halfe afraid of him, if he look not to himself in time. Wel, I could tel M. Some a notable receipt for this shortnes of breath, if he woulde be ruled by me. Firste he must crosse the Thames no more towards Lambeth, for the moistues of the air so nere the water side is very dangerous: hē the closenes of London streats is perilous for the stop ping of his pipes: more, the great fare & entertainmēt p. 122about the court & at Bb. houses, may breede in time a Lethergie: therfore his only way (if he louelove his helth) must be to get him into the country in th'open aire, & to make his onelyonly residence & ordinary aboade vponupon Gyrton benefice, shaking of all other appendixes and hangbies whatsoeuer, & euen there in louelove and consience to take pains with his poore parishuers, aswel by publike teaching & catechising of them, as by priuate admonishment & familiar conferences, seeking to win them by all other good & godly means that the Lord hath prescribed in his word. And let him ask M. Grenham whether this be not an excelent medicine for the shortnes of the breath, I warrant you he hath tried it, and hath found good of it, for he hath winde at wil ye see, & as shril pipes as most men. Nowe M. Some may chuse he hath my direction for nothing, & if I might see his water I might happen tell him more. I knowe there be other paltry practicioners in Phisike that wil aduise him otherwise, but let him take it of my word, it wil not be so good for him in the end. For it is sure this short windinesse and nothing els that makes him thus in a kinde of kingly maner with so many vncontrollable periods to debate with vsus: I agree with you in this: I dissent from you in this: strange sansies hauehave almost consumed you: your reuerence I make very base account of: I thinke great scorne I tell you, to be one of ignorant Penries disciples, &c. Sure your D. perswadeth himselfe I beleeue, that looke what he saith it is a statute straght, otherwise he woulde neuer come vppon his poore aduersary in this jumping manner. Wel for all that if he can make shift with all the skill he hath to fetch a jump frō his benefice at Girton to some sweet Deanry or Bishopricke, it wil sure be one of the pretiest jumps that euer he made in his life. There be of his betters that hauehave made such Alemaine leapes in their p. 123dayes, and thereby may the better direct him the way if neede be, how thinke you by these jumps. From Peter house to Penbrooke hall, from thence to Trinitie Colledge, from thence to Lincolne, from Lincolne to Worcester, from Worcester you knowe whither. But were not these vengeable steps? Wel let your D. looke to it, for I hauehave knowne a man bursten in my daies, with fetching such strides. And this I feare me is the blessinge that he so often harpeth vponupon as wel in his preface as in his booke: It pleased God (saith he) to assist me graciously prefacein my paines I hauehave taken: I thanke his maiestie very humbly for it: And I doubt not but he will giuegive ablessing vntounto it. And againe in an other place, I was desired 177(saith he) to prouide a plaster, I did so, and God hath giuen a blessing to it. And yet againe, I doubt not but that blessing which god hath giuen already to my last tretise, & which his maiestie wil giuegive to this, wil marre your market. And last of all he closeth vp the mouth of all with this: My comforte is that almightie God will blesse 198this labor. But you may tel M. Some when you see him that I hauehave hearde of a man whoe dreaming of golde overnight, had but an ilfauored mishap in the mornning: These hasty promises of golden mountaines had neeede wee suppose hauehave better grounds, then these dreaming conceipts and fansies of men: For vnlesse it be some such blessing as I spake of before, namly some hope or promise of promotion, (which is not so priuiledged neither but that it may end in bitternesse) I durst me thinks in this case stand betwixt M. D. and the danger of any other greate blessing that may befall him. As to those high wordes of his, that he thinketh soule scorne to be one of ignorant Penries disciples, &c. Considering howe rightly it sorteth with the rest of his rhetoricke, it can neither bring any grace to him▪ selfe, nor disgrace to his aduersatie. Alasse it doeth but p. 124lay open the rottennesse and corruption of his harte, being very far from that spirit that teacheth, Let the greatest among you be as the least, &c. It is wel enough knowne that there be M. Somes betters, I meane in Luke. 22. 26.Luke 22:26learning and judgment, that wil not refuse even in the feare of God to learne somtimes of far meaner men in gifts then ever M. Penri was, whome howe the Lord hath blessed in plentiful measure that way, his aduersaries themselues hauehave bin forced to acknowledge: but I woulde you would aske M. Some when you see him, where was Humile peccatum, when he did thus treade vponupon his aduersarie with a disdainfull foote. Well to correct this bad humor of his, you may doe wel to referre him to Apollos in the 18. of th' Act. who though he were an eloquent man & mightie in the Scripture, informed in the way of the Lord, and seruent in the spirit, yet saith the text, did he not disdaine to learne of Aquila & Priscilla, who expounded vntounto him the way of God perfectly, wherevpon our Bb. owne note in the margent is this, which we presume M. Some will giuegive eare vntounto with reuerence: Apollo (say they) being a learned man was not ashamed to be taught & instructed in the doctrine of Christ, of a poore crafts man & his wise, what great disparagement then coulde it be for such a man as M. Some is, were he as great as an Archb. or a Cardinal, to learne some small trifling things of of a poorer and meaner student, because he knoweth that the Lord somtimes chooseth the weake thinges of the world to confound the wise. And therefore he that shoulde wish your D. lesse learning & more modestie, shoulde I suppose wish him no hurt. Thus hauehave you my verdicte because you requested it: I confesse I hauehave bin too longe, but it is my falt, wherein as in any thinge els, I am very wel content you shal censure me as you please.

I. G.

End of the text · Job Throckmorton, Some Laid Open in his Colors (1589)