assistance Hither to I haue opened our cause the reason of our request it remaineth as some men vvould conceiue that I moue you also to the manner vvherein to proceed in the cause but I altogether decline that such assurance haue I of the abundant wisdome iudgement learning providence vvhich dvvelleth amongst you that in my selfe I blush to thinke of that deed Some perhaps would incourage mee to provoke you to redresse this evill by force of Argument but that pleaseth me as little because I know the trueth of God remaineth with you therewithall the loue of the trueth so as you cannot be negligent in this businesse seeing the loue of the trueth causeth such as haue it to doe nothing against the trueth but for it I am assured the voice of Christ when he comes to Iudge the world does perpetually sound in your eares even as if by liuely personall voice you heard him say Thou good Steward and faithfull thou hast beene faithfull in a little I will make thee Ruler over much enter into your Masters joy Shall I tell you no hindrance lyeth in your way that may discourage you from this worke No no that is altogether needlesse Wherefore J haue no more to say but in the words of God himselfe Goe on in this thy strength thou mighty man for God is with you And we for our parts doe liue in a ioyfull expectation of a good a happy issue because we know God is the authour of trueth and his eye lids preserue pure knowledge at whose arising all his enemies even the maintainers of errour shall be scattered And you most graue honourable Senatours are worthy watchfull provident instruments vnto his sacred Maiesty our dread Soveraigne in procuring the welfare of all the true members of this our English Church Common-wealth among which members I rest To your Worthinesse an humble suppliant not the least devoted THOMAS SPENCER A PREFACE TO THE FOLLOWING DISCOVRSE answering vnto some points which concerne the matter in Common REader I am compelled to make a Preface to the following disputation by a double law The one is perpetuall custome vsed in this case from which I may not vary the other is the matter it selfe some things in our present Opponents are transcendent and belong vnto the whole matter in such an vniverse and common manner that I could not answere them in any one particular passage yet it behooved me to giue thee satisfaction in them Our present Opponents doe seeme to triumph as if the cause in question were cleerly theirs so as even we our selves at the first sight might seeme vnreasonable if we thought not so too They leade vs with huge mountaines of contumelious reproaches and in conclusion they esteem vs no better then to be Either laught out or despised So as they account Their depracation and defence a thing condiscended vnto in courtesie for themselues they haue another note Instructers they are and their Treatises are to giue Instruction If you will know the reason why they tell vs also In them There is a spirit and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them vnderstanding Wherefore they dare and doe provoke even Cato himselfe to come in and see and censure what they haue written and done If you desire to know why they challenge to themselues these high prerogatiues as belonging onely vnto them they will not let you bee ignorant Great men say they are not alwayes wise neither doe the aged vnderstand Iudgement therefore I said bearken to mee Which reason is vtterly naught vnlesse all are fooles but themselues Wise men doe vse both their eares and I hope thou wilt doe so too especially in a cause of this high nature and consequence If thou wilt doe so indeed I dare assure thee that thou shalt finde that they haue not vttered one true word to their profit or our hurt for the matter it selfe I must referre thee to the body of the disputation for things common thereunto I will in this Preface performe my promise and I will begin with the matter that concernes our selues We defend the faith of our Church subscribed vnto by all ours yea even by these our present Opponents and will they laugh vs out and aespise vs for that Is it their curtesie to deprecâ—te and defend themselues against her We propound the question in her termes and in a single simple or categoricall Proposition We explicate the termes of that question in the words wherein our Church hath done it before vs and whereto these our Opponents doe consent and agree We conclude that question in the same full syllogisme wherein our Church hath concluded it and not varied come short or exceeded any one of her words We further proue every part of that Argument that is or may be questioned by the expresse word of God or by a necessary application of the expresse word of God We defend that Argument of hers against all opposers and finally we reduce every Argument brought against her into true forme and shew what part we deny and giue the reason of such deniall and that in true forme of art and must we needs be laught out and despised for tâ—aâ— If they say wee must be laughed out and despised for any thing it must be for these for herin consisteth our greatest folly If they will haue vs laughed out for these then I leaue thee good Reader to be Iudge betweene vs if thou wilt say he is a foole that does thus Theirs be the day for this time because we now want fit opportunity to defend our selues against them All this while we haue concealed the maine matter which they bring against vs We write divirity without rethorick and that is in vs either madnes or impudency But whether will they laugh vs out or dispose vs for this wee know not their mind as yet Is our stile horrid and harsh Is it not quaint and neate enough for our Opponents pallet Can we not delight their eares with iiggs and tricks of wit Surely then we are content to be laughed out or despised by our Opponents for that 's their owne case the one confesseth his stile to be such and the stile of the other is so indeed Moreouer these Opponents and our selues may ioy so to be vsed because all the schoole-men that haue liued in the world ioyne with vs and goe hand in hand with vs the busines We deale against persons better then our selues and therefore we want maners and consequently we must be laughed out and despised for that But is this true Doe we oppose our selues to mens persons or qualities and condition Nothing lesse the question on foote is an Article of faith A point in Divinity wherein the divine authority rules the case the persons and conditions of man can beare no sway nor be admitted any roome or place but for this time let the persons of men come in and their qualities honours and conditions whatsoever Yet we
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