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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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