should cease to be one In these words this sentence is implied The faith of the Church may be right and true false and erronious together viz. in different Articles And he does expressely avouch the same in divers passages of his booke viz. The present Church of Rome is corrupted and deformed yet hath the true essence of a Church pag. 30. The Church of Rome hath a religion more after Homer then after the Scriptures and yet holdeth fundamentall truth pag. 4. In the Popes Arithmetick Articles of faith are added pag. 39. Such affirmatiues of ours as concerne the foundation of Faith are professed by the Church of Rome pag 41. And nothing is more frequent with him then words to this effect The Church of Rome that is all those which lying in that religion make vp one body or societie is not Babylon in the Revelation but that Babylon is a faction in that Church pag. 100. The Papacy is not the Church but the disease of the Church The Papacy is in the Church as an accident in the subiect we must distinguish betwixt the Church and the Papacy pag. 28 29. Wee haue learned to distinguish betwixt the Church and the great Whore in the Church we haue communion with the Church wee seperate from Babylon pag. 101. This we deny and will maintaine the contradictory to wit The faith of the Church is not right and true false and erronious together viz. in different Articles But If some Articles of Faith be false and erronious then the Faith of the Church it false and erronious I will not now giue reason of this denyall but deferr the same till we come to the 7. Chap. where it shall be disputed so much as is requisite He brings proofe for his opinion in the words which immediately follow in the foresaid Cap. 3. n. 8. I will first dispose them according to Art and then frame my answer as shall be needfull Thus then he disputes If the Faith of the Church cannot be true and erronious together then where error in faith is there cannot be a true Church But where error in faith is there may bee a true Church for first our Church thinks so Article 19. according to Mr. Rogers in his Commentary vpon the place Propo. 8. 2 The children of Israell did abide many dayes without a Sacrifice and Ephod c. Hosea 3.4 and without Circumcision the space of 40. yeares Iosh 5.6 yet then were they the Church of God 3 The word and Sacraments may be corrupted as in the times of blindnesse and superstition or intermitted as in persecution I answer the consequence of the Proposition we grant as very necessary But the Assumption is false Wee say that errour in faith and the Church are incompatible and it is the Argument of our Church already alledged out of the Homily To all his proofes ioyntly I answere They are farr to weake to vphold this waighty matter if this assumption be not true then his whole cause falles to the ground Himselfe confesseth as wee haue heard that the present Romish Church is guiltie of heresy and therefore can be no true Church vnlesse error in faith may be in the Church For herefie at least comprehends error in faith Wherefore it stood him vpon to gather his witts and vnite his forces together to strengthen and mainteyne this businesse we looked for pregnant proofe out of Gods word for doubtlesse if this were true we should find a manifest record for it because God hath not left matters of this importance for man to grope and guesse at So loving and wise was the Lord when he appoynted the meanes of mans salvation But loe no such thing is tendred and therefore wee may conclude no such thing is in being and consequently wee may set downe our rest and say doubtlesse the faith of the true Church cannot be stained with error yet that the misery of this cause may the better appeare I will vncover the skirts of all his proofes in perticular and single out the one from the other The authority of our Church prevaileth much with me so as that alone would silence my tongue and suspend my iudgement but it will doe little good to this opponent B. for he that slighteth yea reiecteth nay disputeth against her doctrine in things supreame must not craue her ayde in things belonging to the mean and thus stands it with this opponent who mainteynes the cheife question in this businesse against her and at this instant laboureth all he can to refell the Proposition of her argument But how may it appeare that our Church makes for him He brings nothing but the authority of Mr. Rogers and that is no greater then his owne and consequently thus he sayes our Church thought so because I say she did thinke so but what if our Church and this opponent sayes shee thought not so then I hope the matter thus farr will be at an end From this Opponent I argue thus He that saith all Gods revealed truth vniuersally essentially and reciprically belongs to the Church frees the faith of the Church from error But this opponent doth so for thus he writes pag 13. The true Church is a company of men professing Gods revealed truth now in this sentence he makes all Gods revealed truth to belong to the Church vniuersally essentially and reciprically because 1. The words themselues in the common vse of men doe lye so 2. According to Aristotle Poster lib. 1. cap 44 33. lib. 2. cap. 3. Top. lib. 6. cap 1. Thom. 2. dist 27. q. 1. art 2. ad 9m. Aliaco quest de resumpt lit q Richardus de Trin. lib. 4. cap. 21. fol. 108. Every exact or perfite definition does so but this Authors sentence alledged is an exact definition pag. 13. Therefore this opponent frees the faith of the Church from error and consequently according to him our Church doth so too for shee hath defined the Church art 19. iust as he hath done in the sentence we alledged If art 19. subiecteth the faith of the Church vnto error then wee must reade it thus The visible Church is a Congregation in which some part of the pure word of God is preached and the Sacraments in some things be only administred But art 19. must not be so read least the words of the Article themselues be perverted and some man say the avoiding of diversities of opinions and establishing of consent touching true religion was not thereby intended contrary vnto the protestation of our Church in the title to all the Articles in generall Therefore Art 19. subiecteth not the faith of the Church vnto errour His second proofe lyeth thus The Israelites wanted Sacrifice and Circumcision Therefore the faith of the Church is subiect to errour I answere this geere hangs not together so well as Harp and Harrow for they sound alike in something because both of them begin with a letter but here is nothing like The lewes Church was an Infant and not established
Christs Church whereof we speak is of ripe age and full growth Their Sacrifice Ephod and Circumcision is nothing like to the faith of Christs Church Their want of Sacrifice Ephod and Circumcision is a meere privation and a not being Errour in faith is some position for it comprehendeth an inconformable Iudgement or opinion His third and last proofe stands on this fashion The word and Sacraments may be corrupted in the time of blindnesse and superstition or intermitted as in the the time of persecution Therefore the faith of the Church is subiect to errour I answer the farther the worse he must vnderstand the word and Sacraments to be every way the same thing with the faith of the Church so also he must vnderstand the termes corrupted and intermitted to be every way the same with these termes subiect to errour else here is not the least shew of consequence but how he will doe that I doe not yet see and I presume I never shall hee brings no proofes for the Antecedent therefore at the best we haue but his owne word The last argument which I can finde belonging vnto this matter is in the Opponent B. his English Epistle a little after the beginning in these words If an Heretick were put to death for his Christian profession sake wee could not deny him the name of a Martyr And we may apply it to the present purpose in this forme Every Martyr is a member of the true Church Some Heretick is a Martyr viz. such a one as suffers death for his Christian profession sake Therefore some Heretick is a member of the true Church and consequently the faith of the Church may be true and false together I answer Every Martyr in the sense of the holy Ghost Revel 20.4 is a member of the true Church and so farre the Proposition is true but the Assumption is false no Heretick is or can be such a Martyr This Opponent may presume it and does but prooue it he neither does nor can because the same holy Ghost willeth vs to avoid an Heretick as a party condemned of his owne conscience Tit. 3.10 and therefore of God who is greater then the heart 1 Iohn 3.21 If God condemnes an heretick he esteemes him not a Martyr Reuel 20.4 For such Martyrs are commended and saved Revel 20.4 If this opponent takes the word Martyr otherwise then God does I deny the Proposition and say He that is no Martyr of Gods is no member of the true Church notwithstanding his name and tittle of Martyrdome In this sence I grant the Assumption namely some heretick may bee a Martyr in the account of man but not of God The proofe of his Assumption supposeth that an heretick may professe Christianity and I say so too If he meanes that he may so professe according to humane faith and naturall reason then we are agreed because heresie is a worke of the flesh Gal. 5.20 and is exercised about the Christian faith importing errour in faith but then his Assumption is vnprooved because no man that is such a Christian can be a Martyr Revel 20.4 for Gods Martyrs goe to heaven but so does not such Christians flesh and blood inherit not the Kingdome of heaven 1 Cor. 15.50 If he thinks some hereticks professe Christianity that is salvation by Christ according vnto divine faith he begs the question viz. That the faith of the Church may be true and false right and erronious orthodox and hereticall together which we deny and he vndertakes by this very Argument to prooue O acute ô admirable Disputer Bring the conclusion to prooue the conclusion who would desire better Doubtlesse his Rethorick not his Logick wrought now because he prefers that for disputation before this pag. 80 81. But now all the fat is in the fire he that begs the question prooues nothing if Aristotle may be Iudge Top. l. 8. cap. 11. and this begging of all others is the most beggerly for it is a womans reason they vse to say It is so because it is so and iust so does he This is answere enough for such petty trifles and thus are we come to an end of all that which Opponent B. hath to say against the Proposition of our Churches Argument Cap. 3. num 1. and therewithall I haue finished a full defence of that whole Argument The Reader must now iudge whether the Mother or the rebellious childe hath the better CHAP. 7. Containeth a second proofe that The Romish faith is false and erronious Mr. Wotton hath saved me a labour in this passage also pag. 46. hee bringeth this Argument If some Articles of the Romish faith be false and erronious then the Romish faith is false and erronious But some Articles of the Romish faith be false and erronious Therefore the Romish faith is false and erronious Perhaps I may seeme vnto some to argue very loosely because it is a ruled case some parts cannot argue the whole because all the parts together doe make vp the whole and are adequate thereunto If some parts be wanting the whole is not obtained from whence it falls out the state condition and denomination of some parts alone doe not belong to the whole I reply such a man mistakes this reason I doe not argue the whole to be so because some parts are so the rest being free but I prooue the whole is to be held erronious because there is an infection of errour in the whole If any man desire to know how errour in some Articles onely is errour in the whole faith I answere he may satisfie himselfe in that demand cap. 4. num 5. where it is prooved That Faith is such an vnite and continued thing that though it is made of many ingredients yet it admitteth no division into members or kindes Now this being true as it is most true then the faith of the Church can no wayes be said to be erronious in any one Article but presently the whole is erronious This Argument and manner of reasoning is shadowed out in a leprous man who is accounted and dealt withall as wholly leprous though the seat of the disease be in the flesh onely the reason is because though in a divided sense and in our apprehension man consisteth and is compounded of distinct beings viz. soule and body flesh and spirit yet take him an individuall man he is so compacted that he is made one Hypostecis or continued subsistency limited by one terme onely Wherefore when the Priest in Moses Law gaue sentence of a leprous man the whole man was comprehended vnder that sentence If a leprous man was shut out of the host the whole man not some part onely was thrust out and this was not against reason for the soule gaue life sense and vigitation to the flesh and thereby it became subiect to discase and defection and consequently the soule was indeed leprous though by reflection and at second hand so is it with the Christian faith errour may be seated
definition of a Church Artic. 19. and accordingly in this sense I grant the Proposition and say that That society wherein Baptisme is thus administred and consisteth of parties thus Baptized that is a true Church and he may saue his labour to proue it because all Christians will confesse that such Sacraments are peculiars to the Church Testimonies of Gods gracious dignation and favour Pledges of his invisible grace seales of the agreement betweene him and his Church and badges to distinguish the same from all others because no society else does carry the like vnto them in the things themselves and the loue of the Church as this Opponent setteth forth pag 33. But I deny the Assumption and say The Romish Baptisme is the shell and relique of Baptisme and I will now make it appeare though this Opponent of ours seemes to be tragically mooved and in a pelting fume thereat insomuch that hee confesseth himselfe to make good vse of a bridle pag. 46. and 47. and it is well so good an instrument was present for the further he had roved the more he had missed of the true marke The Romish Baptisme is the shell and relique of Baptisme no Baptisme duly administred as aforesaid I proue it by the authoritie of our Church in the second Homilie for Whitsontide oftentimes already quoted which expressely saith the Church of Rome does not order the Sacraments and therefore this of Baptisme in such sort as Christ did first institute and ordaine them but haue so intermingled their owne traditions and inventions by chopping and changing by adding and plucking away that now they may seeme to bee converted into a new guise Will our present Opponent thinke this insufficient to proue the Romish Baptisme a shell and relique of Baptisme I hope not if he does oppose it as not sufficient his partners words pag. 17. shall serue him O mouth ô forehead and he well deserues it what One man instruct a whole Church yea his Mother that bred him whose Articles of faith gaue him his first life and confirmed him in it ever since Nay will he afront himselfe yea himselfe not in transient words but in manent letters his subscription made with his owne hand for he hath subscribed this Homily Perhaps he will say his latter thoughts are better then his first and to returne to the better is more decent then to remaine in the worser wherefore I will confirm the same thing by other proofe which I frame thus The Articles doctrine of divine faith of necessitie are requisite to Baptisme I say requisite previally by antecession not really and vnto constitution such doctrine must precede the Sacrament though formally it makes not the Sacrament I proue it Gods covenant and agreement with man of necessity must precede Baptisme for according to this Opponent Baptisme is the seale thereof But the Articles of divine faith are Gods covenant and agreement with man Therefore the Articles of divine saith of necessitie must precede Baptisme If they must so precede then the Romish Baptisme is not administred according to Christs ordinance in all things of necessity requisite vnto the same for the Articles of their faith are the Popes and humane not Gods and divine as I haue proved already If their Baptisme be not so administred then it is erronious and none of Christs ordination If that be so it is a shell and relique of Baptisme retaining the outward ceremony and materiall forme but wanting the inward life and true intention I answere further That society which consisteth of persons Baptised according to mans invention that is not the true Church for Christs Church and all the members thereof are sheep of his fold and heare his voice servants of his houshold and obey his will In this sense the Proposition is false but the Assumption is true wee willingly grant that the Romish Church consisteth of parties Baptised according vnto mans devising but this gains them nothing the Proposition being false the conclusion is so too By way of reply to this answere he averreth pag. 45. and 46 that Popish Baptisme is true Baptisme holy good and the ordinance of God But I know not what law will tye mee to ioyne thereunto because himselfe is vncertaine and resteth not in it one while hee saith he will not trouble himselfe to proue it till he knowes who denies it another while he takes it to be out of all question and so doth contradict himselfe for if at another time hee will proue it then it needes proofe and consequently it is not without all question If it be without all question then it needes no proofe for according to Aristotle Nothing must be proved but things that may be doubted of Top. lib. 1. cap. 11. and he esteemes him mad who puts that for a question that all men grants Top. lib. 1. cap. 10. In both the pages last mentioned hee disputes thus He that calls the Sacrament of Baptisme a shell and relique of Baptisme was not guided by Gods Spirit disgraceth Christ and the Sacrament But our adversaries in this cause so call the Sacranent of Baptisme pag. 35.47 Therefore our adversaries in this cause were not guided by Gods Spirit and disgrace Christ and the Sacrament I answere in the prosecution of the last Argument we promised him two paire of new Sizors vpon a faire condition we will now increase his wages so as if he can proue and apply this present Argument that it may serue in any part of this question he shall haue three paire so desirous are we to make vse of stuffe so precious Let him doe his labour and his wages are ready It may be he will say he amplifies the conclusion and it may be so too but is he so good an Oratour that he amplifies before he proues I hope he forgets not himselfe and his owne rule Will he one while affirme another while ceny the same thing Now answere then argue by and by declaime Surely this is altogether without his owne appointed order pag 77. it is meet the Reader should be put in minde of these things least he mistake the matter and the learning of the disputer His mind cannot be at quiet the Popish Baptisme is so great a more in his eye and therefore pag. 87. hee falls into it againe and avoucheth thus much The indecent rites and erronious opinions of the Romish Church cannot make nullities and evacuate the force of the Sacraments Their Baptisme for the substance of it is holy and good and effectuall no doubt to them that recetue it as ours I answere the second branch is a meere repetition of his former answere and imposeth a conceit vpon vs viz. that The Popish erronious opinions and indecent rites make void the being and efficacy of the Sacraments To the first branch I will say nothing because I haue done enough for that already In the second he is mistaken or a false accuser if hee will excuse himselfe let him shew the
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
with that society where he knowes the essence or nature of Christs Church is wanting seeing in such a society salvation cannot be had It is a rule case in nature No man will come to his losse and 't is as true in the state of grace no man will venture where he shall lose heaven But because we finde not this they must giue vs leaue to oppose them as enemies not receiue them as friends lest their friendship turnes to bitternesse at the last end They would persuade vs that Their opinion of the Romish Church is burtfull vnto her because therein they quit her with mercy in stead of her cruelty she condemneth vs wholly we condemne her but in part But this commends their cause but little for according to our common Proverbe Foolish pitty spoiles a whole City and this is their case Foolish is their pity because Gods word and true reason does abhorre it at least does not avow it Spoile it doth yea the whole City of God at least so farre as it is able because it opens I will not say a wicket but the widest doore to Popery and standeth also in that doore and in the high wayes like the strumpet to call in adulterous lovers as I haue already shewed but let this pitty condemne them of cruelty as for this time I am content it shall yet the Romish Church hath no hurt by it for it condemnes them of a fault in the practise of good manners wherein the nature of the Church consisteth not it meddles not with their faith wherein the Church consisteth The truth is their opinion of the Romish Church is not loue nor pitty for if it be their due because they haue indeed that essence and nature wherewith Christs Church is formed then it is Iustice which consisteth in giving every man his due If it be not their due because they want that essence or nature wherewith Christs Church is formed then it is a lye which alwayes is committed when a man pronounceth of a thing otherwise then it is in it selfe They plead That we mistake them indeed and in the thing they agree with vs because there is one truth naturall and another morall they holde the question in the first sense and we in the second but vpon advisement and a true vnderstanding of thins we say as they doe and they as we both concurring in this that the Romish Church hath the essence or being of Christs Church but defiled with heresy and idolatry The case stands not thus we vnderstand them to say The Romish Church hath that essence and nature wherewith the Church of Christ is constituted and formed And vnto this the Church of England and all her right bred children say the contradictory as shall evidently appeare in the disputation it selfe when we propound explicate and agree vpon the state of the question wherefore let not our Opponents shrowd themselues vnder our ignorant mistaking of their meaning in the present question for we shall depriue them thereof and leaue them naked vnto the wide world when we come to the place aforesaid where the Reader shall finde that we accept the question even in their owne termes and as themselues doe explicate and vnfold it wherein we doe no new thing for our Church had vsed the like explication before them as the Reader shall perceiue in the place forenamed These things being true as they are most true it was a poore shift to cast vpon vs the shamefull reproach of mistaking their meaning as if we were ignorant and could not or malicious and would not or over zealous and did not vnderstand their writing we vse to say Better a bad shift then none at all all we may answere it with the like A shamelesse shift is worse then none at all and this is the present case when all meanes faile we must be ignorant malicious or over zealous mistakers of their meaning rather then they will be seene to meane falsely their doings severeth friends asunder reconcileth not nor bring them together Hitherto we haue taken as granted that these Opponents doe maintaine a position contradictory to our Church It may be they will deny it and plead thus for themselues The Church of England saith thus The Romish Church hath not the nature of the true Church We say thus The Romish Church hath not the nature of a true Church She saith The Church we say A Church I haue not found this exception made as yet by any yet it is very needfull that I propound it and giue answere herevnto Some man perhaps will attempt his escape by it for vntruthes of this nature must creepe into the poorest corner rather then remaine without shelter If there be no differrence betweene The nature of a true Church and the nature of the true Church then both these sentences are the same and accordingly they deny what our Church doth affirme but they are the same for Christs Church howsoever it be taken and with what word soever it be donoted and set out is form'd and constituted by one and the same formall essence and being otherwise there should be two Churches of Christ specifically form'd and differenced which yet God never revealed we never haue read and no man therefore may avouch If the word A and the word The import one specificall thing then the Propositions in question are contradictorie because the same predicate is affirmed of the same subiect in the one and so denied in the other but both these words import the same thing for a perticular Church is called A Church in the common vse of men and so it is called The Church by the Apostle The Church that is in thy house Moreover though the words A Church did make a difference from the words The Church yet the predicate part of both these propositions are still the same for that difference can be no more then generall or vniuersall and perticuler which in this place makes no difference in the predicates which consisteth cheisly in the terme nature or essence and that is the same in the Church taken as a Catholick or vniuersall comprehension of all the members wherof the Church consisteth or conceiued in perticuler as it is bounded and limited within one Nation This I say the Church Catholick and the Church Nationall or O Econumicall is formed and constituted by one and the same formall essence and being they only differ materially whose propertie it is to individuate the forme materiated And sence it selfe doth teach it vs every singuler man and every distinct Nation and all men without exception haue one and the same specificall and formall being Intelligibillitie and Ellectuallitie is the same in one man in all men herin only they differ the one is a comprehension of many individuall bodies the other a comprehension of a few individuall bodies so is it with Christs Church the same thing that makes that whole societie to be Christs Church specifically and formally the very same
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 second distribution is as fond if not worse then the first but I will not mispend mine owne and the Readers time about it It was meet for mee to let this opponent see his weaknesse in Logick because he vaunteth so much of his skill that waies in his Epistle and throughout his whole booke We should now come to the application of this answer to some part of our argument that we might know what he denies and what he grants and why but I am altogether to seeke for that because he brings nothing that leades vs thereunto Wherefore I come to himselfe and say in his owne words pag. 3. _____ Apply Iohn Barber and thou shalt haue a new paire of Sâ—zors When he hath done so he shall haue further answer and in the meane time I will set downe and examine what his partner B. saith to our argument now in hand therein I will take onely the summe of his answer and no more to saue mine owne labour and the Readers following the example of the schooles who alwayes run that course He beginneth his answer at p. 84. at these words We professe that we esteem c. And continues the same vnto pag. 88. As his partners answer was so is his intricate perplexed vnapplyed but with this difference he was briefer as liking Logick and not Rethorick this larger as loving Rethorick and not Logick nothing could be made of his Something as I conceiue may be made of this wherefore I will set downe that something with the best warrant of his owne discourse Thus then he seemes to answere The doctrine of Christ and his Apostles purely taught without mixture of error is the genuine marke of the true Church So as where that is there followes the appellation of a true Church and from thence we may argue thus Wheresoever Gods word is purely preached and the Sacraments duly administred there is a true Church And so farre the Proposition is true and agreeable to the intent of our Church and the Assumption is so also that severeth the doctrine of Christ from the present Romish Church but then the conclusion importeth no more but that she is not an orthodox Church which is not in question The doctrine of Christ and his Apostles taught purely without mixture of errour is not so essentiall to the true Church that so soone as vnsound doctrine is mingled with the truth of Gods word and the Sacraments vnduely administred that which was a Church should cease to be one In this sense the Proposition is false for such doctrine belongs vnto the perfection and glory of the Church and she may be without them as the children of Israel were many dayes without a Sacrifice and an Ephod Hosea 3.4 yet still they were Gods Church It may fall out that they may be corrupted as in the times of blindnesse and superstition or intermitted as in persecution In this sense the PropositioÌ„ is not according to the intent of our Church which meant not so strictly to tye Gods Church to these signes as if all were excluded from the Church which doe not rightly participate of the word and Sacraments in the Iudgement of Mr. Rogers in his Commentary vpon 19. art propo 8. Lastly in this sense the Assumption is false that makes a reall totall division between the present Romish Church all revealed truth we say she hath not abolished all truth but retaineth some in their disputations and as we thinke more in their Sermons Thus I hope I haue exactly expressed his intent if I haue missed in any thing the fault is his not mine he may thanke me for my paines because I haue done for him what he could not at least what he hath not done for himselfe that I may vse his partners words pag. 5. Now we will take it into severall peeces and examine them in severall chapters following CHAP. 4. Prooving this sentence The present Romish faith is erronius THe examination of his last answer to our Assumption wherin he does attribute some purity of Christs doctrine vnto the Church of Rome is sufficient to determine the worth of our argument now in hand and the whole question it selfe for if the Romish Church be all errour and Antichristian that is if her faith be erronious then without doubt she is none of Gods Church The Church of England in her Assumption now in question meant to say so as I haue already said cap. 2. n. 1. and will now prooue by Gods assistance If the Romish Church retaine some of Christs doctrine pure without mixture of errour then 1. Christs doctrine cannot be denied her in termes without limitation 2. She is not changed into a new guise nor hath forsaken the commandements of God to set vp her owne constitutions 3. She is not without the holy Ghost But according to our Church 1. Christs doctrine is denied her in terms without limitation for thus lye the words of her Assumption The present Romish Church is not built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets retaining the sound and pure doctrine of Christ Iesu neither doe they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute and ordaine them 2. She is changed into a new guise by chopping and changing by adding and plucking away They haue forsaken the commandements of God to set vp their owne constitutions 3. They are without the Spirit of God Therefore according to our Church in her Assumption the present Romish Church does not retaine some part of Christs doctrine pure without mixture of errour but she is all errour and her faith erronious Many learned amongst vs haue so vnderstood our Church and I will name some in stead of all Bishop Iewell in the defence of his Apology pag. 4. cap. 11. divis 1. chargeth her in absolute termes that she had departed from Gods ward and more plainly pag. 5. cap. 13. divis He saith the same thing in these words Thâ—se men haue brâ—ken in pecces all the popes and conduits they haue stopped all the springs and choaked vp the fountaine of living water with dirt and myre He repeates the same thing in other termes cap. 15. divis 2. thus In the Romish Church we cannot home the word of God sinetrely taught nor the Sacraments rightly administred nor the name of God duely called vpon and wherein was nothing able to stay any wise man or one that hath consideration of his own safety I will conclude with his words in the same Apologie part 6. cap. 22. divis 2. where he saith that the present Church of Rome hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith Doct. Reynolds in his 5. Conclusions Preface at the 6. doth charge the present Romish Church to be distempered not with a sicknesse that hindreth the functions of life but with such a one as for it selfe makes her past hope of recouery and namely she serues not God with a holy worship nor beleeved God with a holy faith as he hath commanded
but stained the faith of Christ with reproaches creatures with the Lords honour Gods service with Idolatry Doct. Whitakers in his second controversie of the Church q. 6. cap. 1. adiudgeth the present Romish Church to be nothing else but a deepe pit of heresie and errour and thereby argueth her no wayes to be or to belong vnto the true Church Mr. Perkins in the Preface to his Reformed Catholike saith The whole Religion of the present Romish Church is hereticall and schismaticall and the cup of abomination in the Whores hand Revel 17.4 And Doctor Abbot Bishop of Salisbury in his defence of this place in Mr. Perkins doth iustifie and avow the same thing against bishop the Papist Bishop Careton in his directions to know the true Church prooues at large that the present Romish Church holas not vnitie with the true Church neither in the head nor in the body nor in the spirit nor in the faith If that be true she is all errour her faith is erronious Now I haue proved our Assumption against his exception thereto by the authority of our Church and a cloud of her most learned and renowned children I will make the same good by the testimony of God himselfe But I am prevented in that by Mr. Wotton who hath done it already in his booke called Runne from Rome where he beginnes this poynt pag 14. num 4. whereunto I might refer the Reader as vnto a most pious learned author a worke that admitteth not any reall essentiall or substantiall addition but I will make bold to take out of him so much as belongs to this cause not word for word but so much as will be sutable to the buisinesse First I will set downe how he vnfoldeth the terme and then come to his proofes of the question The word Faith importeth a singular thing vndevided into either members or kindes with warrant from the Apostle who speakes so of it Eph. 4.5 There is one faith saith he one Baptisme one Mediator between God and man 1 Tim. 2.5 In what manner the Mediator is one and Baptisme is one so Faith is once for one phrase of speech is common to them all but they are one without division into members or kinds therefore so is faith The thing it selfe sayes no lesse for this word Faith importeth a coÌ„prehension of many sentences made one body by a common band namely the divine authority For in every article a part and in all of them together we find the same authority which draweth vs to consent to them as true and accordingly the beleefe of one is the beleefe of all the deniall of one the deniall of all Every Engular sentence pronounced by the Church of Rome as a thing revealed by God is in this question the Romish faith An Article of faith is then erronious when it agrees not with the sacred Revelation and this wee say with warrant from the Councell of Trent Sess 14. cap 8. of the necessitie of Satisfaction And afterwards in the Decree touching the Sacrament of pennance Canon 6. And the thing it selfe doth avowe the same for the varying from the rule is the very nature of error therefore every article of faith must needs be erronious that agrees not with Gods word because that word is the rule thereof By it our faith was revealed vnto vs and by the recorde thereof it is reserved for vs. And so much for Mr. Wottons explication We haue his proofe pag 15. nu 6. thus set forth That faith which hath a faâ—se and erronious foundation is false and erronions But the foundation of the Romish saith is false and erronious Therefore the Romish faith is false and erronious In the Proposition two things are taken as granted viz. 1 Faith hath a foundation without it 2 Different foundations causeth different faithes Both of them are cleere and evident therefore they stand not in need of my proofe if the termes be opened they will be out of question By foundation wee meane the next and formall reason why we assent to this or that proposition in Divinity that is why we iudge this predicate to bee truly and rightly attributed to that subiect now this is without the Article it selfe because it is no more but the authority of him that pronounceth the sentence In the second sentence we meane to say Every distinct faith followes the next and formall reason of our beleeving as when wee beleeue this or that report to be true vpon the authority of him that reports it this is humane saith because it followes humane authority and accordingly the faith of Turks and Heathens is accompted humane because the next reason of their beleeving is mans authority accordingly that is Divine faith when we esteeme this or that sentence to be true because God hath pronounced it And thus haue we cleered the Proposition Mr. Wotton prooues the Assumption by these two sentences 1. The foundation of their faith is the authority of the Pastors of their Church No. 7. 2. This foundation of faith is false and erronious No. 10. And this proofe is manifest and without exception if both these sentences be true But they are true he prooues the first num 8. by this argument They that haue the office to determine what is the true faith that is what is revealed what is not revealed their authority is the foundation of faith But the Romish Church that is the Pastors of their Church hath that office Therefore the authority of their Church that is the Pastors of their Church is the foundation of their faith The Proposition needs no reliefe for that office of shewing what is revealed and what is not is the next and formall reason of their beleefe as by their doctrine and practise we shall see hereafter num 8. c. The Assumption needes our helpe as little for every man that is acquainted with their faith knowes that they giue their Church that office yet for further explication I will shew the same by the Councel of Trent Sess 4. praeterea c. saith It is the office of the Church to iudge of the true meaning and sense of the Scriptures By Church they vnderstand the Pastors of the Church and we know it by their practise and the Iudgement of their learned No man inioyeth a share in the voice of deciding Iudgement in any Councel but their Bishops who onely according to them are the Pastors of the Church By Iudging is meant an inforcing power compelling their sentence to be obeyed and received By sense of the Scriptures is vnderstood every Article or sentence of faith for an Article of faith is a sentence held according to the true sense of Gods word By Scriptures they vnderstand every particular sentence contained in the Scriptures for if they meant some places onely there could be no certainty in this decree because they doe not determine the particular places subiected to the Churches sentence and when they subiect the sense of
worshipped with a peculiar festiuall celebritie and divine worship yea externall also solemnly and publickly to be caryed about that it may be worshipped by the people Can. 6. 38 Water is to be mingled with wine in the Chalice that is to be offred Sess 22. Cap. 7. 39 No man that knowes himselfe to be guiltie of mortall sinne how contrite soever he seemes to himselfe to be may come to the holy Encharist without Sacramentall Confession going before Sess 13. Cap. 7. Can. 11. that is vnill he haue confessed all and every one of his mortall sinnes and also those circumstances which change the kinde of the sinne Sess 14. Cap. 5. and that to a Priestan secret Can. 6.7 40 Our Saviour Christ when hee sayd doe this in remembrance of me did institute his Apostles Priests and ordained that themselues and other Priests should offer his body and blood Sess 22 Can. 2. 41 No man vnlesse he doth Consecrate is bound by Gods Law to receiue vnder both kinds Sess 21. Cap. 1 but all such must receiue vnder one kinde only Cap. 5. 42 Wee may make satisfaction to God through Iesus Christ by temporall afflictions layd on vs by God and borne patiently by vs. Sess 14. Cap. 9. and Can. 15. 43 By the Sacrament of Pennance the grace of Instification which was lost is recovered Sess 6. Cap. 14. 44 Matrymony contracted not consummated is dissolued by the solemne profession of Religion by either partie Sess 24. Can. 6. 45 Power was given to the Apostles and their lawfull successors to remit and retaine sinnes for the reconciling of such of the faithfull as fall after Baptisme Sess 14. de sacra peniten Cap. 1. But these are Articles of the Romish faith Therefore some Articles of the Romish faith be erronious None of ours will deny either part of this Argument vnlesse he be very ill advised If any except against any branch of the Proposition let him assigne the particular and he shall see by our answeres and arguments that it agrees not with Gods word and therefore it is erronious If it be answered some of theirs doe not agree to the Councell in the particulars assigned and therefore their faith is not recorded therein and so our Opponent seemes to argue pag. 108. and 130. I reply the Antecedent is false no man can name a member of their Church that bids defiance to the authority of that Councell nor can for such a party is accursed by the Councell and thereby made an heretick and none of theirs as we finde in the decree thereof touching the receiving and observing of the decrees of that Councell Sess 25. and the acclamation of the Fathers at the end of that Councell whereupon we may rest assured that some Articles of their faith be erronious and which they be in particular Having hitherto discussed the first principall question propounded cap. 1. num 1. I now descend to the second wherein I may be the more briefe because I haue insisted so long vpon the first CHAP. 8. Prooveth this sentence No Papist as a Papist can be saved THis position speakes not of salvation actually and in the event but of the meanes and possibility of attaining salvation by their faith By Papist is meant such a man as does communicate in the Romish faith So as in plaine English this sentence ought to be pronounced thus The Romish faith disposeth or leadeth not vnto salvation It belongs not to vs to iudge of the event heaven and hell are in the hands of God and to send men thither it is a right so peculiar to God that he will not account with vs for it His sacred Revelation shewes vs the way to obtaine the one and avoid the other wherefore about this may we contend and must about that we doe not striue nor may lest we seeke to be wise beyond sobriety against the Apostles rule Rom. 12.3 Thus haue we propounded the point and vnfoulded the sense It remaineth that in the next place wee see what our adversaries say to it The Opponent B. pag. 6. writeth thereof in this manner The state of the Church of Rome both now and many yeares past is and hath beene such that plagues were due vnto them even from the greatest to the least even to all without exception as well to authours as receivers from the Idiot and Handicrafts man to the Pope and the Colledge of Cardinalls because their religion in many parts of it hath beene hereticall and erronious for opinion and practise I answere so farre as these words doe guide vs we must say that this Opponent opposeth not vs in this point for if their religion made them guilty of and lyable vnto punishment then doubtlesse their faith leads not to eternall life for it is impossible it should tend to two ends of adverse nature so as now we will take him for a friend not as an enemy for we think him so honest that his heart and hand doe agree In the next page hee layeth out the way for their escape from the said danger of punishment and assigneth Repentance to bee the meanes namely repentance either actuall or generall By the first he would haue all such to avoid that danger and be saved which indeed haue builded themselues vpon the rock which is the foundation of the Church though through ignorance they hold the same but weakly frame many base vnsutable things therupon but he thinks that actuall repentance is necessary for all knowne faults I answere he professeth in his margin that he borrowed this discourse from Mr. Hooker of purpose as I conceiue for his further grace but it availes him little If he will be our debtor we will grant him all his writing who will not say that by repentance the greatest sinner may avoid hell and goe to heaven seeing that God hath promised to put all our sinnes out of his remembrance whensoever we repent Ezek. 18. Yet notwithstanding we need not feare his strength in this cause for two reasons 1. This is nothing to the present businesse for we enquire after the end vnto which the Romish faith doth tend and he sheweth the fruit profit or end of repentance how farre then repentance or turning away from the Popish faith is different or distant from the Popish faith so farre is hee wide from the cause in hand 2. This discourse makes strongly for our assertion thus If a man must repent of the Popish religion that is he must turne himselfe from it before he can avoid hell and obtaine heaven then doubtlesse the Romish faith leads not to heaven for the way thither stands not in need of repentance Now let who else will grace his answere seeing the more glory it hath the more glorious is our cause which is so strongly confirmed by it His partner Opponent C. rambleth about this matter and scattereth in divers places some words tending to the same purpose but I will not trouble my selfe and the Reader with them
onely it is meet that we obserue in his Epistle Dedicatory that he maketh the point now in hand one of those whereat he trembles when he does but heare it If there be any cause why it will shew it selfe by his arguments and answeres for it if he be naked in them we may conclude that he feares without a cause and runnes when none pursues Enough hath bin said already to driue this conclusion to the head we haue proved that the Romish faith is erronious by arguments that are not nor can be refelled and who would require more to argue her faith to be vnable and altogether vnfit to lead a man to heaven Can an erronious faith shew a man the way to heaven Surely it can not because it sits beside the divine Revelation which is the onely record wherein the way to life is referved for vs. I say heaven and eternall happinesse is only to be found in Gods Revelation and who will not beleiue me for where the end is aboue nature the meanes thereto must needes be so also What need I then to trouble my selfe and the Reader with more arguments But seeing it will not saue our labour some are so contentious and will not rest in truthes apparent therefore such must be met withall and their endeavours prevented as the frugall man weedes his feild that his grayne may be the better vnto sight and service CHAP. 9. Our Opponent B. his first Argument WEe are now come to the second part of this Discourse wherein the Arguments for the contrary party are propounded and refuted and I will begin with our Opponent B. who brings his first Argument pag. 31. to this effect The seat of Antichaist is the true Church for hee sitts in Gods Temple 2 Thess 2.4 But the present Romish Church is the seate of Antichrist Therefore the present Romish Church is the true Church The Proposition of this Argument is set forth pag 36. The conclusion is implyed in the title of Chap 8 pag 31 The assumption is wanting I answere he is confident that no man can deny the Proposition pag. 38. but sayes nothing of the Assumption and no maruaile for that beggs the question by presuming that the Pope is Antichrist a point to many more doubtfull then the present conclusion But that fault though it spoiles all for this time shall goe for nothing The Proposition is not onely false but it is impossible to be true for the seat of Antichrist is a certaine space or place that receiveth the person of Antichrist and where he governes Reuel 16.19.17.9.18 â—0 The true Church is a society of men professing the revealed truth If then this profession be that place or necessarily flowes from the internall being thereof which is impossible then his Proposition may be true The Assumption hath the same fault the Romish Church is a society professing their religion now it is not possible for the person of Antichrist to be contained in the profession of religion as in a space or place To conclude if we put this Syllogisme into its true and naturall termes these will be the words thereof The space containing the person of Antichrist is that society of men which professeth the revealed verities But that society which professeth the Romish religion is the space containing Antichrist Therefore that society which profess eth the Romish religion is that society which professeth the revealed verities But every child that knowes chalke from cheese will laugh at this therefore it shall passe as ridiculous He does imagine that we will say in answere to this Argument that Antichristianity cannot argue the Church to be Christian being the bane and plaine overthrow of Christianity Pag. 36. I answer we doe not thus answer to this Argument neither need we vnlesse our answer should be as fond as his proofe and experience will now iustifie the same we haue answered otherwayes and yet his reason is refelled Keep your kindnesse for your friend and answer for vs when wee need it wee know Sophocles said true The guift of an enemy is no guift In the rest of this 8. chapter he hunts the wild goose chase but all his long discourse and many words amounteth in the totall vnto thus much The Iewes Church in their worst estate was the true Church of God Some of Gods people are in Babylon Therefore many heretofore and some at this day being outwardly of the Church of Rome wee may iustly notwithstanding challenge to our selves The Opponent C. shall answer him pag. 3. Prooue and apply Iohn Barber and thou shalt haue two new paire of Sizors A recompence too great for such a workeman yet let me tell you the Iewes Church at no time was equall or stood in the same termes or condition with the present Romish Church for they alwayes retained the true and vndoubted foundation of faith they relied onely vpon Gods authority the revealer of sacred things so as what ever they believed they so believed because God revealed it they thrust not in the authority of man between the sacred revelation and their faith and credence so as still they enioyed at least the meanes for getting of divine faith and consequently salvation it selfe but so it is not with the Romish Church as manifestly appeareth in former passages cap. 4. num 7. c. whereupon we may conclude Though the Iewish Church was the true Church of God yet that will not inferre the Romish Church to be so also Moreover the Iewes defection was in matter of practise rather then of precept when they failed in doctrine it was peculiar to some not vniversall and common to all that Church their errour was matter of opinion not of faith for no publick authority of theirs did command that opinion or misbeliefe to bee vniversally received as being divinely revealed But with the Church of Rome the matter is altogether otherwise Their errour is first in precept and then in practise this errour is common to all in that Church no man can be exempted therefrom vnlesse he will professe himselfe to be none of theirs Againe that errour of the Romish Church is adiudged to be revealed by God and commaunded to be received by all the members of that Church by an authority that pretendeth freedome from erring and power of enioying so as whatsoever is so commanded must be obeyed without delay or inquiring as is shewed cap. 4. num 7. c. wherefore we need not doubt to say the one lost not the truth of a Church the other hath not the truth of a Church We may allow God a share in some that dwell in Babylon but what is that share Even persons elected but not yet called and vnto such God commandeth that they Come out of Babylon and they shall heare and obey in their appointed time But what is this to vs Elected persons not called are such members of the Church as are vnknowne to vs and therefore are reckoned to appertaine to the Church invisible but
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
the Scriptures and of Christs comming to saue sinners by the voice of humane faith though it be in words never so plaine and expresse yet it giues not being to the Church for the Church subsisteth in it selfe and differeth from all other societies by supernaturall not by naturall or humane endowments and this I take as granted In the second sense the Proposition is true namely The profession even in so many words of these fundamentall truthes There be Scriptures Christ came to saue sinners by the voice of divine faith is the very soule of the Church and so essentiall therto that without it there can be no Christian Church and where that is the Church is also because it is so operatiue wheresoever it doth encline that all other things requisite to a Christian Church does follow according as this Opponent writeth pag. 21.29.34 CHAP. 12. The Romish Church directly denies salvation by Christ BVt in this sense the Assumption is false the present Romish Church does in words and professedly deny the being of the Scriptures and the comming of Christ to saue sinners according vnto the voice of divine faith and I proue it thus They that doe not confesse Christs comming to saue sinners doe professedly deny his comming to saue sinners for in this case a not confession is a professed negation and so accounted by our Saviour who saith he that is not with me is against me he that gathereth not scattereth Matth. 12.30 And good reason hee should so esteeme it for such a not confession is a voluntary omission of our duty This is the will of my heavenly Father that yee beleeue on him whom hee hath sent Ioh. 6.29 Even all men whatsoever because the earth is his inheritance and the vttermost ends thereof is his possession Psal 2.8 Wee see the truth hereof in the omission of any duty Hee that withheld his tythes is held professedly to deny the paying of tythes Mal. 3.8 He that honoureth not his parents is reckoned professedly to dishonour his Parents Matth. 15.6 This Proposition then being very evident I thus assume But the Romish Church doth not confesse Christs comming to saue sinners by the voice of divine faith because the faith of that Church by meanes of the foundation thereof is humane and not divine as hath beene manifestly proved cap. 4. num 7. c. He thinks to shrowd himselfe vnder the authority of our Church which hee vrgeth negatiuely thus Our Church does charge her to erre in matter of faith Art 19 but not with direct deniall of salvation by Christ Therefore the Romish Church is not so to bee charged I answer 1. he takes the authority of our Church to be of moment I demand then why he disputes against her all this while yea against her doctrine subscribed by himselfe 2. The consequence is nought our Churches silence argues not the Romish Church to be innocent for this question of denying or not denying was not in being when her faith was published This was done Anno 1562. that began Anno 1588. or neere thereupon for any thing I can yet learne or this Opponent proue 3. The Antecedent is false for two reasons 1. Errours in matters of faith may be a direct deniall of salvation by Christ for he that so denies errs in matter of faith and we must thinke our Church meant so because her words will beare it and this Opponent cannot shew the contrary 2. Our Church in the second Homily for Whitsontide often times already alledged does deny her to be built vpon Christ the corner stone in that foundation and that importeth a direct deniall of salvation by Christ because he that sits besides that foundation shall goe without salvation This proofe and defence being considered we may safely rest in this conclusion The Romish Church according to the voice of divine faith professedly denies Christs comming to saue sinners and accordingly we haue the victory and ours is the day according to this Opponents offer and our acceptation num 4. chap. 11. I might proceed to proue their professed deniall of the Scriptures vpon the same ground but I forbeare to doe it because the Reader may see this Argument serues for both that and this by changing the termes This Opponent seemeth to qualifie his former recited promise and calleth vs as he thinkes to a new reckoning pag. 22 23. wherein hee writeth thus They overthrow the foundation directly to whom Christ is an execration And to tread vnder foot the sonne of God to count the blood of the covenant wherewith all wee are sanctified an vnholy thing and to doe despite vnto the spirit of grace Heb. 10.29 is directly to deny the foundation And then he assumes in these words Of which crime whosoever is able let him indict the Church of Rome producing sufficient evidence thereof and whosoever shall open his mouth to plead for them let him be guilty of all the dishonour that ever hath beene done to the Sonne of God and lyable to the Apostles curse 1 Cor. 16.22 I answere this is his last refuge if therefore he failes in this he is gone for ever In true forme he reasoneth thus They that directly deny salvation by Christ are guilty as aforesaid But the Romish Church are not so guilty Therefore the Romish Church denies not directly salvation by Christ I may except against the Assumption with better reason then he can argue for it wherefore this I say The Romish Church is so guilty for They that know and belieue Christs comming to saue sinners onely by naturall reason and humane faith They tread him vnder foote account his blood vnholy and doe despite vnto the spirit of grace Heb. 10.29 because the naturall man perceiveth or receiveth not the things of God as they are the things of God forasmuch as they are spiritually discerned 1 Cor. 2.14 The very wisedome of the flesh is enmitie vnto God Rom. 8.7 But the Romish Church does know and beleiue Christs comming to saue sinners only by naturall reason and humaine faith for all their knowledge and beleiving ariseth vpon the teaching of the Pastors of their Church which is meerly humaine because they haue no Commission for such teaching as appeareth Cap. 4. num 7. c. If any man doe iudge that the place alledged Heb. 10.29 mean no more but thus then I rest here as in a sufficient answer to this argument and claim this Opponents finall promise last mentioned and so we are at an end for this cause the day is ours we must carry the victory and the signes thereof leading these Opponents in tryumph If the Apostle be vnderstood to speake of more then this then I deny the Proposition as wanting the very shew of truth I say some men directly deny salvation by Christ who are not guiltie as aforesaid and I haue two reasons for it the first is this Iewes and Pagans are not guilty as aforesaid for the parties so guilty haue received the knowledge of the truth
the Reader iudge of our cause and the present Opponent CHAP. 14. They that deny salvation by Christ by consequence are not the true Church THe Argument propounded Chap. 11. num 1. presumes the contradictory to this position and this our present Opponent pag. 25. and 26. does expressely teach it in these words Whole Churches haue denied and yet doe deny by consequence that salvaton is by Christ yet we doe and must hold them Christian All this while we haue let that supposition passe vntouched as if it were true because the weaknesse of that proofe should be the more apparent but now and in all good time we say he supposeth falsely and therefore he is a begger no prover We proue against him with this Argument Vnto the true Church Christ may bee profitable Vnto such as deny by consequence that salvation is by Christ Christ cannot be profitable for vnto the Gallatians Christ could not be profitable Gallat 5.2 3 4. But all such as deny by consequence that salvation is by Christ are the Gallatians 5.2 3 4. I say they are the same with them not by name Nation singular persons or doctrine but in their deniall they are the same that is the one denies salvation by Christ by illation inference and consecution and so doe all other The Gallatians held something for true viz. Salvation is by the Law This being granted then must we deny that Salvation is by Christ So standeth it with all others that by consequence deny him to bring salvation Whereupon we may conclude All such as by consequence denie salvation by Christ Christ can profit them nothing and consequently such as deny by consequence that salvation is by Christ are not the true Church I conceiue in pag. 24. he meant at least he might with the matter there contained dispute with this Argument The Gallatians by consequence denied salvation by Christ Gallat 5.2 c. The Gallatians Gallat 5.2 c. were a true Church Therefore some true Church by consequence denies salvation by Christ I answere those Gallatians whereof we reade Gallat 5.2 3 4. by consequence denied salvation by Christ therefore the Proposition is true but that the Apostle writes there of the whole Church of Gallatia may not reasonably be affirmed nor can possibly be proved because no part of Gods word doth say so or leade vs to thinke so The Apostle in the 5. Chapter reproues the Gallatians for biting and devouring one another verse 15. and for vaine glory and envie verse 26. Now the parties thus reproved were particular persons not generally the whole Church for it is not likely that every singular man in Gallatia was so guilty if therfore singular persons were reproved here then there also for the same phrase and manner of reproofe is vsed both there and here If any man be desirous to haue vs vnderstand the Apostle of the whole Church of Gallatia vers 2 3 4. we may doe it without profit to this Argument For then I grant them of Gallatia were a true Church because the Apostle cap. 1. verse 2. terms them a Church and saluteth them with grace and peace from God and Christ verse 3. and does acknowledge them to haue received libertie and freeaome by Christ cap. 5. verse 1. We may continue that they ioyned Circumcision and the keeping of Moses Law vnto Christ in opinion not as matter of faith At that time they began to grow in liking with that conceit but they were not confirmed and setled in their iudgement that God had revealed it nor professed it to the world as such If they did so indeed then I may grant the whole reason without losse because the conclusion vrgeth not vs we willingly acknowledge that the true Church is subiect to errour in opinion in things very important vnto salvation we onely deny that erring in matter of faith can befall the true Church whilest it is so I say we may thus iudge of that Church vntill we see good reason for the contrary because charity thinketh not evill nor is suspitious Nay the Apostles phrase leadeth vs to thinke so for if that had beene a matter of faith with them hee would haue charged them with the fact as a thing perfectly done but he does not so yea rather the contrary for verse 1. he wills them to stand fast in their Christian libertie and verse 2. he puts the matter to an If saying If yee be circumcised c verse 7. he tells them yee did runne well and demands who it was that did let them c. and verse 10. and 12. he threatneth and intreateth for their punishment that did trouble them and finally verse 10. he shewes himselfe confident that they would shake off and forsake the present doctrine and continue in the same minde vnto which he had brought them and in which he had left them wherein it is very apparent he speakes of them as men wavering not as parties confirmed in their iudgement These things considered we may vndoubtedly resolue that the Church of Gallatia is no example wherein we finde that deniall of salvation by Christ by consequence which is the thing we seeke for and deny to the Church And thus much shall suffice in refutation of his great and important argument propounded cap. num CHAP. 15. Of the same Opponents third Argument HItherto we haue discussed all that he hath to say touching the Romish Churches acknowledgement and publike profession of the Scriptures and of salvation by Christ and haue insisted therein to the vttermost lest some should be deceiued by those glorious and beautifull titles In this place we must examine what good their Baptisme does them wherein we may say thus much aforehand If their profession of the Scriptures and salvation by Christ does not grace them but notwithstanding such profession they remaine still destitute of the nature of Christs Church then doubtlesse Baptisme cannot helpe them to it even in this Opponents iudgement for pag. 85. he delivers it for a ruled case that The Church of God may want Baptisme for a time and yet remaine a true Church But he will not say so of professing the Scriptures and salvation by Christ which we belieue and he affirmes is the soule of the Church From their Baptisme hee frameth this Argument That society which consisteth of persons Baptized that is the true Church But the Romish Church consisteth of persons Baptized Therefore the Romish Church is a true Church The Assumption and conclusion is plainly enough set forth in the title of chap. 10. pag. 42. and in pag. 45. The Proposition is wanting but all the rest of the Chapter containes no more but a proofe thereof I answere The Sacraments duely administred according to Christs ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same is of the internall and formall being of the Church I willingly grant with our Church of England which giues the Sacraments in this sense a place in the
MASCHIL VNMASKED JN A TREATISE DEFENDING this sentence of our Church Vidz The present Romish Church hath not the nature of the true Church Against the publick opposition of Mr. Cholmley and Mr. Butterfield two children revolted in opinion from their owne subscription and the faith of their Mother the Church of ENGLAND BY THOMAS SPENCER Who is this that darkeneth Counsell by words without knowledge Iob. 38.2 My wrath is kindled against thee and thy two friends for you haue not spoken of mee the thing that is right Iob. 42.7 LONDON Printed by WILLIAM IONES dwelling in Red-crosse-streete TO THE COMMONS HOVSE OF PARLIAMENT Most graue and honourable Senate WHen children are pressed with the want of good or feare of ill they resort vnto their Parents This is our present case The sute which wee present vnto your graue iudgements and Paternall care is no lesse then a matter of Religion and State For so it is that two revolted children of this our English Church and Common-wealth are risen vp in hostile manner against their Mother She hath decreed even in so many words that The Romish Church is so farre wide from the nature of the true Church as nothing can be more They vndertake to maintaine that The present Romish Church hath the true and formall essence of a Church This then is our request that your Wisedomes will be pleased to take this deed of theirs into your fatherly consideration and to procure such redresse therein as standeth with your place and power Herein wee doubt not to be heard because according to the law of God and instinct of nature Fathers lay vp for their Children and most willingly expend their store vpon them when need requires Our confidence herein is the more increased by two reasons to wit Our perpetuall experience of your willing ready providence for this our Church Common-wealth the greatnesse of the matter wherein we are your humble Petitioners If our Church had said nothing or spake doubtfully of the point then we had not put it to their account as a fault because in all ages and in the present Romish Church such Divinity disputations haue beene and are allowed And there is good reason for it for thereby the trueth in all doubtfull things at last hath beene cleerd and hath had the victory in the end and for this very cause the present Romish Church doth voluntarily of choise giue leaue to their schooles to dispute the points of the concurrence of actuall grace and mans will in every supernaturall action And of the kinde of worship to be given to the Images of Christ the Virgin Mary and the Saints because it now appeares that the words of the Trent Councell touching them both are doubtfull and ambiguous But this is not our case our Church hath delivered her Judgement in a single Proposition consisting of termes wherein there can be no doubt or question and the attribution is vniuersall and without limitation so as no reasonable man can make a question of her meaning Now beholde she hath not rested content with this which indeede is enough but to prevent the ignorant obstinacy of all Opponents she hath declared by a comparison of equallity the extent and amplitude of her predication and saith The Church of Rome is so farre wide from the nature of the true Church as nothing can be more Whereby we vnderstand that shee conceiues the present Romish Church to bee wholly destitute of every the least jot or tittle of the nature and essence of the true Church for so it is with every Society which is so farre wide from the nature of the true Church as nothing can bee more Now what title shall we giue to this deed vnder what head shall hee ranke this offence what punishment or degree of punishment doe they deserue Surely it is not within the power of my vnderstanding nor in the nature of my place and condition finally to determine vnto you and to your most deepe and profound Iudgement must I appeale for that Yet I humbly craue leaue to shew my opinion lest I seeme causlesly to complaine The deed of these men can deserue no lesse then to be branded with the name of contention for from a roote of bitternesse and the spirit of contention it did originally grow and arise J say it sprang from hence because the tree and all the branches thereof savours of such a root and cannot be conceiv'd to grow from other soile Contention it is and nothing else because it opposeth things ordeined and setled solemnly and with great authority and so continued for many yeares together no man daring publickly and professedly to say against it But which is most of all subscribed it is as the faith of our Church by these very Opponents Yea a high degree of contention it must be accounted because the minde from whence it did flow seemes altogether vnquiet and restlesse Who would not content himselfe with that faith that is thus established I say thus because the parties that collected it vsed all possible diligence and faithfulnesse they were learned and of exceeding gravity and staydnesse all ages with vs haue agreed vnto their iudgements yea even these Opponents haue had their share in it and not in words onely that passe away but vnder their owne hand writing that remaines for ever Can the gainsaying of things thus adorned and commended to these Opponents proceed from any ground but the spirit that can finde no place to rest in Surely no and J presume that every advised man will say so with me These Opponents doe tell vs and we must say so too if wee will beleeue them that It is charity towards the Romish Church that hatched this deed but we must not trust them the father and the childe are so vnlike What does charity bid them hate their friend Loues he indeed that pulleth out his Mothers heart to giue life to her vowed foe These Opponents may say so because this their deed sorts with it but he that hath his eyes in his head will reckon them amongst that number who casteth about firebrands and deadly things and saith I am in jest Prov. 26.19 Jf then their charity was vnfeigned they would loue their Mother first and others after and in relation vnto her seeing then these Opponents doe not so but the contrary we must conclude not their charity but their contention formed this deed This deed can be no lesse a sinne against God and I thinke others will say so with me though I giue no other reason for it but the odious account which the Apostle makes of such as are contentious 1 Cor. 11.16 An offence it is against our State because the continuance in things well ordered is a fundamentall law in every Common-wealth So is it an offence hainous and grievous for he that severs and pulâ—s asunder the limbes of the body destroyes the person and he that doth so must be reckoned a maine and principall
destroyer thereof and thus doe these Opponents the life of our Church and all the members thereof is made and vnited together into one body by the Articles of her faith he then that overthrowes and destroyes those Articles discipates and haleth in peeces her whole body and being and thus doe these Opponents in their deed in question Punishment is due vnto them so much J hope J may say without offence vnto your high and honourable authority because the thing it selfe is so apparent Very reason it selfe doth tell vs The subversion of every being that is good makes guilty of punishment Now the deed in question being a subversion of the faith of our Church of England by the same rule must needs likewise make so guilty The degree of this punishment J dare not name J may not thinke vpon seeing the cause now in hand is presented before your sacred Tribunall whose office it is to discerne determine and adiudge the same Yet with all submission J craue a word or two of that matter If any vnder the command of Rome should oppose the very words of the Trent Councell especially where the thing is decreed explorately so as no question can bee made of her sense meaning such a one J say should bee held worthy of no small punishment and we certainly know it because such persons are pronounced accursed by that Councell pursued with fire and all extremity as perpetuall experience doth shew If these Opponents lived in that Church should defend this sentence The office of judging the sense meaning of the Scriptures belongs not to the Church we might easily guesse at their punishment Jf then hat Church esteemeth such opposition vnto her faith to demerit so highly how can we esteeme to deserue but little seeing what their faith is to them the same our faith is to vs but with this difference their faith is erronious so is not ours as the ensuing discourse will evidently shew how much then an opposition to an erronious faith is lesse hurtfull then an opposition to a true faith so much more punishment doto be deserue that opposeth ours more then he that opposeth theirs thus much is all wherewith I will trouble you touching the deed in question Now J hope J may also without reproofe shew some other reason whereupon to moue you If this deed be let passe without controle see what will follow 1. Our enemies of the Romish Church will triumph over vs and thus they will argue With you is not the true Church for where that is there is vnity and a meanes of vnity in all matters of faith but these are not with you for see your Church beleeveth that the Romish Church hath not the nature of the true Church yet two of yours yea after their subscription doe out face her with the contradictory carry it away when they haue done no man sayes black is their eye 2. The salvation of the vnstable vnwise will be really hindred such a man will say vnto our Church if you taught mee the way to life doubtlesse you would agree in it or suppresse the gainsayers seeing therefore you doe neither the one nor the other wee must conclude that the way to life is not with you consequently it is no where for in your iudgement the Romish Church hath it not or at least men of good parts might say if you agree not vpon the way to heaven then 't is hopelesse for vs to finde it because with you are the aged in yeeres great in experience abundant in learning considerate in resolving in the office of governing if our hopes to finde heaven be vaine idle why shall we bestow our paines that wayes who would labour without profit who would lay out his silver to fill his belly with the East winde Surely no man wherefore here is our rest seeing there is no profit in the service of God we will determine with our selves say We care not for the knowledge of the most high let vs cast his lawes behind our back let vs eate and drink for to morrow wee shall die 3. The glory of our Church at least is abated nay I may truly say her beauty is stayned with an eye-sore too vgly to be looked vpon He that casteth dirt in his Mothers face wherein nothing is wanting for feature or complexion shall haue little thankes for his labour what then shall bee bee accounted that scratcheth her till shee bleedes Nay more that pulleth off treadeth vnder foote all the ornaments of her countenance If our Opponents gaue the lye to a man of honest reputation hee should disgrace him not a little but if hee charged him with that lye to the losse of his credit for ever we know he should burt him finally for ever But thus J say if no better then on this manner deale these Opponents with their Mother the Church of England shee hath determined what must bee held in certaine points of religion in that her countenance exceeds in beauty because she did so determine for the avoiding of contention and setling of Peace Peace yea Peace that visage of Peace the most louely delightfull and acceptable countenance of all countenances yet beholde cease not to wonder our two Opponents will not keepe this peace they haue broken downe the walls of that fortresse what shee intended for vnity concord they divert to fraction and discord so haue robbed her of her goodly beautious feature complexion Nay which is more they haue given her that lye which will stick to her ribbs for ever without the exemplary punishment of these offendours for if she be false in her greatest children for learning gravity wisedome piety all met together when they gaue that witnesse then who will trust her for if her word can be true at any time it would be true then Now those each one of them are so inconvenient that J conceiue they must be esteem'd so intollerable if that be so wee haue good reason to bemoane our selues vnto you seeke for redresse at your hands Can wee imagine that our Church and the soules of her children onely shall bee losers by this deed in question Surely no man can bee so much mistaken for marke if they scape with this deed who will not thus argue If Opposers in matters of faith bee not reck ned offedours then Opposers in matters of State must be held innocent seeing the first is of more dangerous consequence then the second If wee may oppose the State who vvill obey seeing liberty is better fancied then subiection Jf vvee are freed from obedience then farevvell government seeing to governe to obey are such relatiues as doe stand fall together If then governing obeying be taken avvay all things come to confusion As then vvee vvill a void destruction to our Church Common-vvealth so must vve open our selues before you eraue your
deale not against our betters for to say the least we are in the roome and behalfe of our Church which wee dare preferre before all her Opponents for they haue subscribed vnto her and thereby they haue acknowledged and done homage vnto her Lordship and Dominion Wee quarrell the persons of men in enuy to their aduancement and honours because he that said thus now said so long and often before with the approbation of our whole Church representatiue and without blame of them that doo now accuse him But is this true our Opponents say so but their proofe is insusficient because in it selfe 't is vntrue and nought in the inference perhaps their party avouched thus much before and yet not seene or not regarded for who would suspect or misdoubt such a friend as he seemed and was accounted If we were glasiers or the sonnes of a glasier perhaps he might see our secret thoughts and intentions but because we are not we must not be laughed out nor aâ—sâ—ised because we oppose not vnto any mans honour and adnancement We cast a stone that hitteth our Mother If that be so if wee haue done it and still avow the deed let vs be laughed out or despised choose them whether but this is impossible wee cast no stones at all by our office we hold vp our Buckler to defend our Mother and to beare of such stones as are cast by others if any stone hits our Mother it is that which is cast at the Church of Rome for that is the thing in question If that stone hit our Mother these Opponents must laugh her out or dispise her for her labour for 't is shee that cast it we doe no more but iustifie her casting If these Opponents will laugh her out or dispise her let them do so to vs also for good reason the Mother Child should share alike stand or fall together We cause our Church to suffer because we father a strange and vntrue tenant vpon her Now we know we shall not be laughed out nor dispised for this because we say of her no more no not one word lesse or more then she hath said vnto vs. If thus to impose deserues laughter and dispite then to deny her to say what indeed she hath said deserues laughter and dispite for the case is the same in both It that be so then our present Opponents must be laughed out and dispised for they deny her to say what she hath said so much the more they deserve to bee laughed out and dispised because they deny the thing wherein sence it selfe even their owne eyes doth avow and cannot be deceived thus far touching the thing which concernes our selues They meane not to speake a word in behalfe of the impure Church of Rome but rather if it were not done already they would vncouer her nakednesse and abhomination And we are content to admit their pretence because such deepe protestations and serious cravings goes with it but notwithstanding they gaine nothing for two reasons 1. because their deed cries loud and inforceth strongly to bring vs backe againe to Rome I say to Rome even vnto that Rome which they call impure for if they haue writen truly no man can deny to enter commons with them even in those things which these Opponents call impure because from them we may argue thus the Romish Church can yeild salvation to her members therfore it is the safest way to ioyn to her seeing all sides agree in the Antecedent but vnsafe it is to ioyn with other Churches for 't is doubtfull and in question whether salvation can there be had or no and thus some of that Church haue reasoned against vs if any say with vs is perfection and puritie of doctrine with them is heresie and defection he saith Nothing sufficient to keepe vs from Rome because if there were any power herein for that end it is because their heresie and defection in the event is able to hinder salvation but the Romish heresie and defection according to these Opponents is not able in the event to hinder salvation because with them The foundation is held which hath the property of that wine which will not mingle with poyson though a great quantity thereof be put vnto it yea such an Antidote it is and a thing so soveraigne that it will destroy much poyson and at last quite overcome it If all this be true who would not be a Papist seeing with them we finde enough to persuade vs for who would not yeeld to tread the way to heaven and nothing to disswade vs for no wise man will be afraid of the thing that cannot hurt him and this is the case betweene the Romish Church and vs if these Opponents may be believed if they say They did not perceiue the issue of their doctrine then must we blame them as heedlesse and inconsiderate what will they be our Iustructers Shall their I reatises serue to giue vs Instruction Shall Cato be compelled to come in and see and censure and yet such fowle and grosse faults bee committed Moreover if salvation may be had in the Romish Church and their heresies cannot hinder it then doubtlesse there is absoIntely nothing sufficient to bar vs their communion seeing they doe as strongly avouch their doctrine to be pure as these Opponents doe condemne it as impure In this case what shall most men living doe if they be seduced to Popery If a Priest should say with vs thou maist goe to heaven as your owne side confesse with vs is nothing to presse thee downe to hell for though we were as bad as you make vs yet by the confession of yours we haue an Antidote that in the event will preserue thee from the evill and reserue thee for the good Lastly it can not appeare that we are blamed iustly for how much you say against vs so much if not more we can say for vs we haue the Records of all ages for vs Councels Fathers history are strongly on our side we haue alledged them and you cannot gainsay vs so as now either satisfie this last or yeeld to ioyne wich vs for your selues doe teach the two first and you may not deny them now in this case what can a reasonable man doe He sees nothing but doubtfull and difficult questions to keepe him from Popery and himselfe not able to determine those doubts I say who would not resolue thus I will ioyne with them not with you seeing I haue nothing to debarr me but some doubtfull questions that may be true and may not be true yet howsoever they cannot hurt me If these Opponents would haue vs belieue as they greatlydesire that they are enemies to Rome and friends to vs they must haue esteemed the Church of Rome to want the nature of that Church whereof Christ is the head for that makes all sure that barrs the doore and shutteth vp all entrance vnto her no man will be so mad to joyn
thing makes a Nation or a fewer number to be Christs Church specifically and formally by reason whereof when we deny The Romish Church to haue the nature of the Church we deny it to haue the nature of A Church And contrariwise when we say The Romish Church hath the nature of a true Church we giue her the nature of the true Church and thus I hope I haue prevented all men that would doubt whether these Opponents doe contradict our Church or not and haue made it manifest that they doe contradict her indeed and accordingly we haue heretofore and may hereafter rightly and iustly presume it as true and take it as certeine and thus am I well neere at an end in my answere to all their passages in common Two onely remaines I will speak breifely vnto them and then finish this matter Amongst the rest of their hard measure offered vnto vs I find one heape which may not be concealed in 15. short lines thus are we stiled Your mindes are prepossessed with preiudiced They content themselues only to take vp opinions vpon trust and will hold them because they know where they had them Whole volumes are nothing vnto them Anuiles they are in vaine should I spend my selfe in beating vpon them Christians they are not ingenuous They haue no care open for Iustice and truth Doubtlesse this Opponent meant to infer something from this rabble for a man of wisdome and learning will not speak words that serue to no purpose I conceiue he would conclude thus Therefore our adversaries cause is naught This was once Bishop Iewels case when he had to doe with rayling Harding to whom he answered thus I pray thee good Reader thinke not our cause the worse though these mens tongues are so ready to speake ill content thy selfe a while and thou shalt see all this smoake blowne away even with one blast In whose words I answer too These ignominious termes are nothing to inferr such a conclusion for evill men may speake the truth and defend a good cause Wherefore the naughtinesse of a person inferreth not badnesse vpon a cause or question The Antecedent is also false we deny our selues to be guilty as he doth charge vs he brings no proofe for his indictment and therefore we must be pronounced Rectius in Curia and so every honest man who hath his eyes in his head will say of vs for if accusation can make guilty who shall be innocent Thus these pleaders Argument is come to nothing like smoake carryed vp with the ayre But let vs reason the case with him a little Is this Authour bitter by custome Is his nature addicted to sharpnesse My selfe am not able to resolue the doubt if he be we willingly pardon the offence we must beare one anothers burthen according to the Apostles rule Nay we will pray in the words of the first Christian Martyr and say O Lord forgiue him for he knowes not what he does his passion was at this time his master but if this ill language be acted if it be taken vp to serue a turn the case is worse for him his account before Gods Tribunall is the greater and heavier but for vs the better his impatience shall commend our patience his bitternesse our meeknesse his crying in the streets our silence best it is to be like him that as a lambe dumbe before the shearer so was he and opened not his mouth And thus much is enough for this passage The last thing which comes in our way is our Opponents insulting and vaunting termes conteined in the title of of his booke and the end of his English Epistle which I haue reported in this Preface num 3. and these they are He is an Instructer His Treatise serues to giue instruction With him is the Spirit The inspiration of the Almighty giues him vnderstanding and him onely for sometimes great men want wâ—sâ—dâ—me and the aged vnderstanding and iudgement therefore you must heare him For his writings they are such as he may let Cato come in and see and censure We haue now the head but we want the tayle he presenteth vs with an Antecdent but his pocket holds the conclusion a consequent Is he wise in that Surely a wise Logician I grant for no man would doe thus but he that excells in that art But what say I Doe I commend him for Logick I doe but 't is my fault and I craue his pardon when he disputes I must extoll him for his Rethorick for with him that art is the queene of arts to serue a Disputers terme and no doubt she was his queene and he followed her lawes when he would thus extoll himselfe Doubtlesse hereby he meant to abase vs and our cause else it had beene vaine thus to elevate himselfe and we will confesse for our owne parts that we must come vnder his see and hide our selues vnder him from the weather shore if all be true that he avoucheth but I doubt of that and so must till I heare Caâ—â— his sentence for he commits the cause to him and so will we too because â—ato amongst all Philosophers is held the wisest and gravest Statesman and Law-maker therefore we will present his particular braggs and attend the sentence of Cato He appeales to Cato nay he invites yea provokes Cato to the search and censure of his writings Even he this Authour a youth as him elfe professeth and all the world knowes he is a yoncker and but a yoncker in age and stadies what will Cato say to this The excellentest of many must rise from his graue to censure the meanest of thousands Let him 〈…〉 An instructer he is but will you know what degree he beares in that office his title will tell you even nothing inferior to God himselfe for he borrowed his whole title from Psal 32 1. onely God calls his worke a Psalme this Opponent names his a treatise but one thing he comes short in that word MASCHIL in the Hebrew is written two severall waies in the one it fignifies to vnderstand or things fit to be vnderstood If it be written the second way it signifies lightnesse folly or to be mad as the learned in that tongue haue observed Thus much I baue beene informed by men of credit in that language for my selfe am wholly ignorant that way things standing thus I say if he had written that word with the Hebrew Character we should haue vnderstood his meaning we might haue knowne the full value of his stile and title of honour but because he hath not we can onely guesse at it wherefore thus we say if we take it to signifie things fit to giue vnderstanding then in this office he giues God the mate what will Cato say to this that a Youth not 30. yeares of age becomes an instructer equall to God himselfe No marvell though he dares Cato to his face seeing he dare set his foote to Gods and instruct in things divine equall to him if he
writes the word the second way then folly is his name and madnesse is with him But who is it that he offers to instruct Not schollers in a Grammar schoole no no these are to meane for him to worke vpon It is his Mother whome he must deale withall his Mother I say that bred him and nourisheth him must be subiect now to his rod and ferula O happy Mother may she well say that hath such a Child so ripe that in so few yeares can instruct his Mother and thrice happy Sonne that is growne vp with such speed that so soone as he can but crawle he presently can sustaine and succour his Mother I know this will be Catoes sentence therefore Cato speake and spare not wee know thou wilt say as we doe therefore we will heare and feare not He telleth vs Gods Spirit dwels with him and by the inspiration thereof he hath vnderstanding Therefore he must speake you you must not â—eare them If he proue the Antecedent I grant the consequent but that he cannot nay 't is impossible Gods spirit is fish of temperance humility meeknesse kindenesse loue so as he that is taught by that Maister hath learned these lessons His schollers are not proud vaine bosters of themselues their minds are not lifted vâ—â—n them but they esteeme others better then themselue If we lay our present Opponent to this rule in what case shall we find him agrees he with it Does he notswarue from it Let this title and conclusion of his Epistle giue Iudgement I say no more though I know Cato would say no lesse yea we are sure he would exceed us much and thus am I come to an end of my answere to such things as concerne the disputation in common and therefore I will proceed in the next place to a formall dispute of the question it selfe CHAP. 1. Of the question and parties to the disputation IN the following discourse we inquire after these two questions 1 Whether the present Romish Church be the true Church or not 2 Whether the professors of the present Romish faith can be saved or not These two doe mutually imply each other So as we may truely say if she be a Church then is there saluation in her if salvation then a Church and contrarywise wherefore the proofe of the first confirmes the latter The parties to the present disputation are our Church and all her true and lawfull children vpon the one part And two of her vnnatutall children make the other part Which of them hath the truth I hope by Gods grace openly to discover before we end this Treatise Our Church holds the negatiue in the first question and hath set her sentences downe in the second Homilie for whitsontide in these words 1 The state of the present Church of Rome is so far wide from the nature of the true Church that nothing can be more 2 The Bishops of Rome and their adherents are not the true Church of Christ 3 The true Church is not at Rome The first and second of the alledged sentences are expressely found barely set downe as I haue alledged them and they are sufficient to let vs know the faith of our Church in the matter in hand The third is necessarily implyed by our Church at these words If it be possâ—ble for Gods spirit to be there where the true Church is not then is it at Rome In this latter sentence our Church presumes that the true Church is not at Rome otherwise the inference would be fond and ridiculous and indeed the Disputation in that place being framed according to Art standeth thus Where the holy Ghost is there is the true Church But at Rome there is not the true Church Therefore the holy Ghost is not at Rome The Proposition is pursued after the words last alledged the Assumption is confirmed by arguments going before Thus our Church by repeating the same conclusion often sheweth vs how serious she is in the matter and by often varying her manner of speaking we cleerely vnderstand her meaning The foresaid two opponents doe hold the affirmatiue against our Church namely The Church of Rome as she is at this present is a true Church As page 30 in the one and page 18. in the other Before we enter vpon the discussion hereof we must first vnderstand the termes wherein this question is delivered By Romish Church we meane the Bishops of Rome and their adherents that is to say all such both Clergie and Laytie which liue in the Romish Religion and communicate in her faith and make vp one society or body By true Church we vnderstand a Society or congregation which hath these essentiall qualities that concurre vnto the being and forme of a Church And herein all sides agree as the Reader may finde in the Homilie alledged and in both our opponents in page 13 of the one and page 15 17. and 100. of the other We must also further knowe that the Râ—mish faith consisteth either in the Vniversall consent of their learned or in the Decrees of their Councels or in both The first is their Catholick the second is their divine faith So as he that professeth their religion and communicates in their faith beleeues as they doe in the manner aforesaid Hitherto I haue alledged the Homilie as the doctrine of our Church and I presume none will reproue me for it because all that booke is solemnly confirmed as such by our State It is to be read in all our Churches by publike appointment and is subscribed vnto by all our Ministers as conteining Doctrine godly wholesome and necessary I say it is so subscribed vnto because the 36 Canon requireth that no person shal be received into the Ministry nor suffered to exercise any part of the Ministeriall function in any place within this Realme except he shall first subscribe amongst other things vnto the 39 Articles of Religion agreed vpon by the whole Clergy Anno 1562. Now the 36 Canon in commanding subscription to the said 39 Articles doth also consequently command subscription to the bookes of Homilies because the 35 Article doth no more but ratifie confirme the former and second booke of Homilies Now if the present Homilie be the doctrine of our Church then the sentences alledged out of the same can be no lesse for they are such a maine and principall part thereof that the Homilie cannot subsist without them And thus I hope every Reader hath direction enough touching the state of the question and the parties to the Disputation CHAP. 2. Of our first Argument for the maine question and of their generall answer thereunto OVr Church in the Homilie already recited hath an argument expresly thus The true Church is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ himselfe being the head corner stone But the present Romish Church is not built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets for they reteyne not the sound and pure doctrine of Christ
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
it wherefore in both their Epistles Dedicatory they propound it and blame it as a thorne in their eyes that may not be indured Our opponent B. disputeth against this at large but according as I haue done before so will I doe now his long and tedious discourse shall be contracted into a narrow roome least the reader be wearied with the length and pusled with the matter yet still his owne words and true intent shal be followed Thus then he sayes 1 In the Church of Rome is some good 2 They teach well touching the Trinity 3 The Dominicans maintaine Gods free grace against mans freewill 4 Much good is in the twelue bookes of Alvarez and in the interpretations and Commentaries of Maldonat Lorynus and the rest of the Iesuites pag 90. 5 Wee agree on both sides in these poynts following 1 That the bookes of the old Testament written in Hebrew are Canonicall 2 That we are instified by faith 3 That God hath made heaven and hell for mens soules after death 4 That God may be worshipped in Spirit without an Image 5 That wee are to pray vnto God by Christ 6 That there be two Sacraments 7 That Christ is really received in the Lords Supper 8 That Christ hath made one oblation of himselfe vpon the Crosse for the redemption and satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole world 9 Vnder the Papacy is much good nay all yea the very kernell of Christianity pag. 39. 40. 41. I answer our Opponent C. pag. 4. and 5. blames the man that affirmes without pooofe and makes it a Law that such an affirmation is as soone denyed as made This is the case of this opponent He telleth vs a tale of their agreement with vs in diverse particulars but he alledgeth no author book or chapter whereby we may try whether he sayes true or not if then we deny that they and wee doe thus agree all his building falls to the ground according to his partners sentence pag 4. Thus soundly he answers to the thing that doth most vrge him but for this time I am content to say they and we doe thus agree yet behold his case from himselfe pag. 82. Wee heare of a great cry and little woll pag. 83. of a man whose skill in Logick was so good that hee prooued what was granted and being granted was to no purpose Now I commend him for so doing because I perceiue he spake the very truth but himselfe gaines nothing thereby for of him it is verified to the full and that in this present answer wherein he spends the greatest part of 7 pages before he ends it viz. 39. 40. 41. 86. 87. 90. 91. yet ten words had served the turn as well as all this stâ—r If he had said no more but thus The Romish Church agrees with vs in many divine sentences he had beene as neere his purpose as now therefore we haue a great cry and little woll If he reply that all the rest prooues that sentence I reioynd I am content it shall be so because that shewes his great skill in Logick for then he prooues the thing that none will deny and being granted serues not his purpose which none will doe but the good Logician which his partner describeth If we frame this answer with the present question according to art and all the parts thereof be true then it is to the purpose else not thus then it must be framed They that agree with vs in the particulars recited their faith is not erronious But the Romish Church agrees with vs in the particulars recited Therefore their faith is not erronious But no part of this Argument is good The Proposition is not true and why may I not say so seeing in it selfe and by it selfe it is not manifest neither does he offer any proofe for it and now I haue denied it his whole building is come to ruine according to his partners-rule pag. 4. even now recited To the Proposition I answer that it presumes that the forenamed Articles are true and every way the same thing with the Romish faith and therevpon giues one state or condition to those Articles and that faith attributing truth to the second from the truth of the first These Articles in some sense are true and so farre the Proposition is true also but those Articles and the Romish faith are not the same thing but this extends further then them and himselfe even he that now answeres being iudge pag. 40. He writes thus To the Scriptures they adde Traditions to the Hebrew Canon the Apocrypha to faith workes to Heaven and Hell Purgatory and so forth in the rest whereupon his Proposition beggs the question and therefore it hath no force to inferre the conclusion His partner C. pag. 2. cannot abide beggery but this doth loue it wee le but in the meane time he is a goodly Disputer that can prooue nothing vnlesse we grant him what himselfe denies this is enough to satisfie this Argument because this feigned surmise is the first and originall foundation thereof But out of our store of exceptions hereunto for this time we will forgiue him this fault and proceed to the rest We agree with the Romish Church in the recited Articles as they are Propositions that is they and we pronounce the same thing as true so farr the Assumption is granted but the Proposition is denied because faith and a true Proposition really differs the one is no more but a subiect and predicate rightly ioyned together whereupon truth in all Propositions is the same namely the adequation of the thing and the Proposition but in faith there is also the foundation wherevpon wee beleeue from whence it comes to passe that faith is of different kindes some divine and some humane as I haue shewed In the recited Articles wee agree not with the Romish as they are Articles of faith For in them wee doe really and essentially differ They pronounce them to bee true vpon the authority of their Church which is indeed humane we vpon the authority of Christ the Revealer which by joynt consent is divine These things being true as they are most true his Assumption at num 4. cannot be true and consequently there is no meanes to excuse the Româ—sh faith from error nor cause to giue her the name and nature of a true Church which is the thing we seeke for CHAP. 6. Defendeth this sentence The faith of the Church is not right and pure false and erronious together viz. in different Articles WE must now goe back againe to the rest of opponent B. his answere left vnsatisfied in cap. 3. num 8. The first branch whereof we are now to deale withall hath these words The doctrine of Christ and his Apostles taught purely without mixture of errour is not so essentiall to the true Church that so soone as an vnsound doctrine is mingled with the truth of Gods word and the Sacraments vnduely administred that which was a Church
Authour and place of that opinion This we say and haue said it already They haue no Sacraments because they haue no divine faith And we thinke this consequence is good because the Sacraments haue no being nor vse but in order vnto and in presupposall of the divine faith and I suppose our strictest Opponent will say no lesse for if the Sacraments might be inioyed in their true and reall being and naturall efficacy where divine faith is wanting then Turks and Heathen men might haue them which I know this Opponent at least will deny because The Sacraments are peculiars to the Church making men Christians and Christianity makes the Church for thus he writeth pag. 117. and 119. Hee promised to forbeare his proofes till hee found his position denied but the heate within him whereof we reade in his English Epistle would not giue way to that wherefore pag. 118. he alledgeth two and I will report them in true forme that the Reader may see their soundnesse In the first he concludes thus If they Baptise with water in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost then their Baptisme is good for here is water and the words of Christs Institution the one the matter and the other the forme and both essentiall to Baptisme I answere I deny the consequence as naught in it selfe and as ill proved the reason of my deniall is given already so as I might be silent here but repetition will bee vsefull often practise makes things and men more expert and facile This proofe supposeth that Nothing is essentiall to Baptisme that is nothing by Christs institution is of necessity requisite vnto the Sacrament of Baptisme but water and the words of Institution I answere In the Sacrament of Baptisme administred according to Christs ordinance wee conceiue a being or entitie comprehended vnder certaine limits as all vnite and individuall things are taking that Sacrament as an individuall being made by motion there is nothing required to the being thereof but the water and words of institution and so farre this Argument supposeth rightly but nothing against vs for we doe not deny an entitie or being vnto Popish Baptisme we know when water is powred on and the words pronounced there is a motion and a thing made by motion which was not before and is distinct from all other motions or things made by motion In the Sacrament so truly administred there is likewise besides the said individuall entity or being a certaine connotation or essentiall relation and that three wayes 1. Of man to God 2. Of the Sacrament it selfe 3. Of God vnto man In the first relation man shewes his obedience to God In the second and third man is ordered vnto heaven so farre as the Sacrament can man being thereby confirmed in the expectation of Gods loue and the receit of inherent grace Now vnto this relation or ordering to heaven more things are essentiall then water and the words of institution namely the sacred revelation believed by a divine faith which I say doth so order vs to heaven by commanding their vse and promising Gods favour and working grace to such as vse them rightly from the first ariseth our obedience from the second our assured expectation of his favour and grace and thus much this Opponent himselfe will confesse I doubt not Nothing I presume will be questioned in this answere but this distinction but I suppose no such thing will bee because the matter is cleere in it selfe the name Sacrament importeth that there is this connotation or relation over and aboue the vnite and individuall entitie thereof for it signifieth at least that the vnite and individuall thing is sacred and holy and that is more then the individuall entity it selfe but howsoever it be with others this Opponent must not oppose the latter branch of the distinction for himselfe doth teach it expressely if not more fully then I haue set forth thus he writeth pag. 47. The very being and nature of the Sacraments consisteth altogether in relation to some such gift and grace supernaturall as God onely can bestow These things are sufficient as I conceiue to satisfie his first argument in behalfe of Popish Baptisme His second followeth in this forme If the Baptisme in the Romish Church bee not true then it must be iterated when they turne to vs. But the Romish Baptisme may not be iterated when they turne to vs. Therefore the Baptisme in the Romish Church is true Baptisme I answere if by true Baptisme he vnderstandeth all things of necessitie requyred vnto Baptisme then this conclusion serues our purpose in the present question for we inquyre and search after such a Baptisme otherwise not In that sence the consequence of the Proposition is vnsound and he brings nothing to proue it wherefore it stands refelled for in this case our negation is better then his affirmation he that alledgeth must proue or loose his action by the course of all courts in the world Yet for this time I will depart from mine owne right and giue a reason for my denyall because I desire to satisfie the Reader and this I say Although their Baptisme want some things which of necessitie are requyred thereunto by the institution of Christ yet from hence will it not follow that it ought to be repeated because where Baptisme is repeated there all things essentiall thereunto by Christs institution must be wantting for repetition argues a nullitie But in the Romish Baptisme some things essentiall thereunto by Christs institution are present namely 1 the water 2 The words of institution 3 An outward profession of Christianitie The first and second are essentiall to Baptisme as it is an individuall being and the third is one vse and end thereof So as thus the case stands betweene vs Their Baptisme is refused because the sacreed revelation beleived by a divine faith goes not with it It is retained because the water the words of institution and the outward profession of Christianitie goes with it and herein we doe well because for want of the first it cannot order vs to heaven and by the presence of the rest wee follow the institution of Christ when they come vs we cannot giue them of the water of the words of institution and of outward Christian profession more then they haue already All that we doe when they come to vs is to perfect what is begun and supply what is wanting I answere moreover Though I will not deny the Assumption yet if any should this Opponents proofe could not rescue it for thus he argues Papists with us may not bee baptized againe because such as former hereticks baptized were not to be baptized againe This consequence I say is naught because the Popish Church and former hereticks doe really differ for these are farre worse then they as Bishop Carleton hath abundantly proved in his Direction to know the true Church and here ends my answere to his third Argument He concludes this present