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
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
of Ordination that is the imposing of hands by one that hath Diocesan Authority which we enioy and doe exercise came from them so farre for this time we yeeld that is that such Ministers of ours as first led the way vnto our seperation from them were ordeined or admitted into the worke of the Ministery by such authority of theirs But this proues not that our Ordination and theirs is the same for ours ariseth from and is exercised about divine faith so is not theirs Our Ordination as it ariseth from and is exercised about divine faith is not received from them because amongst them that divine faith is wholly wanting If then any desire to know how they and we doe agree in the outward ceremony and disagree in the in the inward and Spirituall life of Ordinaâ—ion or the power of Iurisdiction left by Christ vnto his Church I answere the providence of God hath made that difference They are given vp to beleeue lyes wee are preserved in the truth and faith once delivered to the Saints The second proofe of his Assumption is contained in these words Wee doe not ordeine them anew which haue taken Orders from that Sea when they become converts I answere 1. This proofe hath the same fault with the former Orders cannot argue the Ministeriall function Ephes 4.8 because that comprehends more then then this yea this seemes to be but the entrance into the function and not the essence thereof 2. I answere The inference is also naught Their ordination may not be repeated when they turne to vs yet ours and theirs may be essentially different as an empty vessell may not be reiected and yet differs from that which is full and indeed soe stands the case betweene their ordination and ours They haue the outward ceremony taken vp by tradition from the precedent and pure ages of the Church wee haue that and the substance also because divine faith goes with ours but is wanting to theirs His third proofe conteineth these words They receiue commission to teach the Scripture not the Popes Legends I answer This branch came out of his owne braine He never found it in any records of their faith Moreover the records of their faith are against him as I haue partly alledged Num. 3. and may further appeare by the 4. Sess of the Councell of Trent formerly reported wherein the iudgment of the true sence of the Scriptures is attributed to the Church that is as themselues expound it vnto the Pope If then their preists must each the Scriptures in the Popes sense then the Scriptures are no better then the Popes Legends and consequently when they teach the Scriptures they teach the Popes Legends To conclude if Commission to teach the Popes Legends be a Ministery differing from the Ministery Ephes 4.8 as this Opponent implyes then the Popish Priesthood is not that Ministery Ephes 4.8 because it teaches the Popes Legends And thus in stead of confirming he overthrowes his Assumption CHAP. 17. The conclusion of the whole claiming our Opponents promise NOw we haue fully finished the body of the disputation we are to come vnto both our Opponents conclusions lest something be left vntouched to the hurt of the cause and offence to the Reader Our elder Opponent concludeth his booke pag. 115. with these words I desire to stand but so right as I am in all honest Iudgements I beseech all Readers to Iudge wisely and vprightly of what I haue written And in his second Epistle he promiseth after this sort If you can soundly and substantially Convince mee of vntruth I professe before God and the world that I will yeeld vnto you without any more adoe being already willing to be overcome of the trueth in this case The younger Opponent pag. 132. ioynes with his partner in the same promise If I haue erred I shall thank those that will bring mee into the way againe If I haue favoured any vnsound opinion yea or haue spoken suspitiously let me suffer as an Heretick but let no man condemne me till he hath first shewed me better and found me obstinate I answere the whole summe of their promise makes vp this conditionall Proposition If we haue erred we will revoke that errour Whereunto I will adde this Assumption But you haue erred And accordingly every must make this conclusion Therefore you must revoke your errour The consequence of the proposition may not be questioned because then selues haue made it and the one hath professed before God to performe it The other craueth the punnishment due to an heritick if he breakes it Wherefore so farr our ground worke is certaine If they doubt of the assumption they haue offred faire and I accept it They are content to stand to the iudgement of of such readers as be wise honest and do feare God I desire noe better arbitratours They require to be shewed better by sound and substantiall conviction and I say it is the best issue If therefore such Readers finde such conviction these Opponents must grant the assumption and execute the conclusion for every honest man performes his promise when he hath received the condition FINIS