Iesu neither do they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute and ordeyne them that now they may seeme to be converted into a new guise Therefore the present Romish Church is not the true Church The Homilie takes the proposition to be a discription of the Church so rgreeable to the Scriptures and Auncient Fathers that none may iustly find fault therewith So likewise it takes the Assumption as a confessed truth by all such as haue any light of Gods word and insight into their liues and examples Whereupon it is confident of the conclusion Though this Argument wanteth not strength to inferre the conclusion so as it needeth not our further labour yet before I passe from it I will vnfold the termes By Christ and his seruants not their persons but their Preaching and Revelation is vnderstood The sacred Revelation is called the Churches foundation because by the profession therof the Church is made to be that which it is and is differenced from all other Societies in the world and good reason because by the profession of the divine Revelation the Church is ordered vnto heaven which befalleth no Societie else whatsoever the Homilie speaks of the foundation of the Church as one intire individuall whole that is of one complete being vndivided into parts or kinds and it attributes the same in the Proposition to the true Church as adequate thereunto and convertible therewith and it denyes it in the Assumption vnto the present Romish Church vniuersally or totally So as the Church of Rome and the Sacred Revelation in the intent of the Homilie are divided as things really and essentially distinct and different as if our Church had said the Romish Church sitteth besides the foundation of the Divine Revelation And thus our Church must be vnderstood because this sence agrees with the Scriptures with the 39 Article and with true reason all other sences are violent and inforced as we shall see in the prosecution of this Argument According to this interpretation the Argument may be framed in these termes The true Church professeth the Preaching or Reuelation of Christ and his Apostles The present Romish Church professeth not the preaching or Revelation of Christ and his Apostles Therefore the present Romish Church is not the true Church Our opponent B. against this Argument proceedeth thus he denyes not but after a sort confesseth that this Argument is our Churches pa. 83. and so fareth it with his partner our opponent C. pag 21. our opponent B in his English Epistle denyes the conclusion of this Argument to bee our Churches but the opponent C saith nothing I answer how can the opponent B. say our Church holds not the conclusion who confessed even now that our Church made the Argument vnlesse he will say that the conclusion of an Argument is no part thereof If that be his iudgement he must teach Aristotle for he thinketh otherwise Prior. lib. 1. cap. 1. Top lib. 1. cap. 1. For this time the conclusion shall goe for none of hers that we may see what they will say to it Opponent B. in his Latine Epistle sayes He that thinks the Church of Rome to be no Church thinks nothing His partner C. in his Epistle Dedicatory professeth that he trembles at the very hearing of this Proposition the present Romish Church is no Church I aâ— sure these parties are ill matched because they â—rosse one the other The one thinks the present conclusion to be nothing the other esteemes it a monster and that is more then some thing but let vs for this time thinke so too because if that be so then the premises which inferre that conclusion are monstrous likewise if the premises bee monstrous then will these opponents make them to appeare to be so And thus much for their answers to this Argument in generall CHAP. 3. Of the same Argument and their answer thereunto THe Reader must remember our Argument in the true and plainest termes standeth thus The true Church is founded vpon that is professeth the sacred truth revealed by Christ and his Apostles But the present Romish Church is not so founded Therefore the present Romish Church is not the true Church Our opponent C. answereth hereunto pag 21 22. with these very words These words must receiue this construction First they must be vnderstood of the accidentall truth of the Church in regard of soundnes and not of essentiall truth in regard of Gods Covenant Secondly they must be vnderstood even of soundnes comparatiuely and not simply that is in regard of the Primitiue Church and not otherwise Thus farre he and not one word further touching this matter I reply In this answer we must looke for the meaning of his words and the application of the matter to our Argument His meaning is further to seeke then Sampsons Riddle or more senselesse then becomes a reasonable man He seemes thus to distinguish 1. The truth of the Church is Accidentall in regard of soundnesse Essentiall in regard of Gods Couenant 2. Soundnes is taken Comparatiuely in regard of the Primitiue Church Simply For thus lyes his words directly but who shall vnderstand him The Rules of Logicke cannot help vs for according to them these distributions are no wayes to be allowed According to Art every distribution conteineth a whole and part So Aristotle Top. lib 6. cap. 1. Rursus vtrumque c. cap. 2. Idem contingens so Ramus lib. 1. cap. 25. But here is no whole and part for a whole is no more but a gathering together of the parts so as they all doe make one certaine thing Thus Arist Physico lib. 1. tex 17. lib. 4. tex 43. meta lib. 5. cap. 25. tex 31. Thus Th. 1. q. 76. art 8. in cor so Ramus lib. 1. cap. 25. But in these distributions there is no whole and parts Moreover in the first distinction truth is the thing divided and that is set out by the terme Church that is the adiunct or accident is set out by a first substance or individuall subiect If that be good then Aristotle must come to him to learne Logick for according to him all other things are attributed to a singular being and that attributed to none Categor cap. 4. 5. Prior. lib. 1. cap. 27. post lib. 1. cap. 22. Againe in that distribution essentiall and accidentall are made parts of truth but that is impossible for truth is no more but the adequation of the thing and the apprehension of our vnderstanding in the Iudgement of Aristotle de interpre cap. 9. meta lib. 4. cap. 7. text 27. Thomas 1. p. q. 21. art 2. in cor 1. Dist 46. q. 1. art 2. ad 1m. But accidentall and essentiall truth makes no such adequation for those termes import no more but a necessary and contingent predication which belongs to the manner of predicating Lastly he attributes soundnesse to accidentall truth and Gods covenant to essentiall truth but that is impossible
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
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
writes the word the second way then folly is his name and madnesse is with him But who is it that he offers to instruct Not schollers in a Grammar schoole no no these are to meane for him to worke vpon It is his Mother whome he must deale withall his Mother I say that bred him and nourisheth him must be subiect now to his rod and ferula O happy Mother may she well say that hath such a Child so ripe that in so few yeares can instruct his Mother and thrice happy Sonne that is growne vp with such speed that so soone as he can but crawle he presently can sustaine and succour his Mother I know this will be Catoes sentence therefore Cato speake and spare not wee know thou wilt say as we doe therefore we will heare and feare not He telleth vs Gods Spirit dwels with him and by the inspiration thereof he hath vnderstanding Therefore he must speake you you must not â—eare them If he proue the Antecedent I grant the consequent but that he cannot nay 't is impossible Gods spirit is fish of temperance humility meeknesse kindenesse loue so as he that is taught by that Maister hath learned these lessons His schollers are not proud vaine bosters of themselues their minds are not lifted vâ—â—n them but they esteeme others better then themselue If we lay our present Opponent to this rule in what case shall we find him agrees he with it Does he notswarue from it Let this title and conclusion of his Epistle giue Iudgement I say no more though I know Cato would say no lesse yea we are sure he would exceed us much and thus am I come to an end of my answere to such things as concerne the disputation in common and therefore I will proceed in the next place to a formall dispute of the question it selfe CHAP. 1. Of the question and parties to the disputation IN the following discourse we inquire after these two questions 1 Whether the present Romish Church be the true Church or not 2 Whether the professors of the present Romish faith can be saved or not These two doe mutually imply each other So as we may truely say if she be a Church then is there saluation in her if salvation then a Church and contrarywise wherefore the proofe of the first confirmes the latter The parties to the present disputation are our Church and all her true and lawfull children vpon the one part And two of her vnnatutall children make the other part Which of them hath the truth I hope by Gods grace openly to discover before we end this Treatise Our Church holds the negatiue in the first question and hath set her sentences downe in the second Homilie for whitsontide in these words 1 The state of the present Church of Rome is so far wide from the nature of the true Church that nothing can be more 2 The Bishops of Rome and their adherents are not the true Church of Christ 3 The true Church is not at Rome The first and second of the alledged sentences are expressely found barely set downe as I haue alledged them and they are sufficient to let vs know the faith of our Church in the matter in hand The third is necessarily implyed by our Church at these words If it be possâ—ble for Gods spirit to be there where the true Church is not then is it at Rome In this latter sentence our Church presumes that the true Church is not at Rome otherwise the inference would be fond and ridiculous and indeed the Disputation in that place being framed according to Art standeth thus Where the holy Ghost is there is the true Church But at Rome there is not the true Church Therefore the holy Ghost is not at Rome The Proposition is pursued after the words last alledged the Assumption is confirmed by arguments going before Thus our Church by repeating the same conclusion often sheweth vs how serious she is in the matter and by often varying her manner of speaking we cleerely vnderstand her meaning The foresaid two opponents doe hold the affirmatiue against our Church namely The Church of Rome as she is at this present is a true Church As page 30 in the one and page 18. in the other Before we enter vpon the discussion hereof we must first vnderstand the termes wherein this question is delivered By Romish Church we meane the Bishops of Rome and their adherents that is to say all such both Clergie and Laytie which liue in the Romish Religion and communicate in her faith and make vp one society or body By true Church we vnderstand a Society or congregation which hath these essentiall qualities that concurre vnto the being and forme of a Church And herein all sides agree as the Reader may finde in the Homilie alledged and in both our opponents in page 13 of the one and page 15 17. and 100. of the other We must also further knowe that the Râ—mish faith consisteth either in the Vniversall consent of their learned or in the Decrees of their Councels or in both The first is their Catholick the second is their divine faith So as he that professeth their religion and communicates in their faith beleeues as they doe in the manner aforesaid Hitherto I haue alledged the Homilie as the doctrine of our Church and I presume none will reproue me for it because all that booke is solemnly confirmed as such by our State It is to be read in all our Churches by publike appointment and is subscribed vnto by all our Ministers as conteining Doctrine godly wholesome and necessary I say it is so subscribed vnto because the 36 Canon requireth that no person shal be received into the Ministry nor suffered to exercise any part of the Ministeriall function in any place within this Realme except he shall first subscribe amongst other things vnto the 39 Articles of Religion agreed vpon by the whole Clergy Anno 1562. Now the 36 Canon in commanding subscription to the said 39 Articles doth also consequently command subscription to the bookes of Homilies because the 35 Article doth no more but ratifie confirme the former and second booke of Homilies Now if the present Homilie be the doctrine of our Church then the sentences alledged out of the same can be no lesse for they are such a maine and principall part thereof that the Homilie cannot subsist without them And thus I hope every Reader hath direction enough touching the state of the question and the parties to the Disputation CHAP. 2. Of our first Argument for the maine question and of their generall answer thereunto OVr Church in the Homilie already recited hath an argument expresly thus The true Church is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ himselfe being the head corner stone But the present Romish Church is not built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets for they reteyne not the sound and pure doctrine of Christ
The second distribution is as fond if not worse then the first but I will not mispend mine owne and the Readers time about it It was meet for mee to let this opponent see his weaknesse in Logick because he vaunteth so much of his skill that waies in his Epistle and throughout his whole booke We should now come to the application of this answer to some part of our argument that we might know what he denies and what he grants and why but I am altogether to seeke for that because he brings nothing that leades vs thereunto Wherefore I come to himselfe and say in his owne words pag. 3. _____ Apply Iohn Barber and thou shalt haue a new paire of Sâ—zors When he hath done so he shall haue further answer and in the meane time I will set downe and examine what his partner B. saith to our argument now in hand therein I will take onely the summe of his answer and no more to saue mine owne labour and the Readers following the example of the schooles who alwayes run that course He beginneth his answer at p. 84. at these words We professe that we esteem c. And continues the same vnto pag. 88. As his partners answer was so is his intricate perplexed vnapplyed but with this difference he was briefer as liking Logick and not Rethorick this larger as loving Rethorick and not Logick nothing could be made of his Something as I conceiue may be made of this wherefore I will set downe that something with the best warrant of his owne discourse Thus then he seemes to answere The doctrine of Christ and his Apostles purely taught without mixture of error is the genuine marke of the true Church So as where that is there followes the appellation of a true Church and from thence we may argue thus Wheresoever Gods word is purely preached and the Sacraments duly administred there is a true Church And so farre the Proposition is true and agreeable to the intent of our Church and the Assumption is so also that severeth the doctrine of Christ from the present Romish Church but then the conclusion importeth no more but that she is not an orthodox Church which is not in question The doctrine of Christ and his Apostles taught purely without mixture of errour is not so essentiall to the true Church that so soone as vnsound doctrine is mingled with the truth of Gods word and the Sacraments vnduely administred that which was a Church should cease to be one In this sense the Proposition is false for such doctrine belongs vnto the perfection and glory of the Church and she may be without them as the children of Israel were many dayes without a Sacrifice and an Ephod Hosea 3.4 yet still they were Gods Church It may fall out that they may be corrupted as in the times of blindnesse and superstition or intermitted as in persecution In this sense the PropositioÌ„ is not according to the intent of our Church which meant not so strictly to tye Gods Church to these signes as if all were excluded from the Church which doe not rightly participate of the word and Sacraments in the Iudgement of Mr. Rogers in his Commentary vpon 19. art propo 8. Lastly in this sense the Assumption is false that makes a reall totall division between the present Romish Church all revealed truth we say she hath not abolished all truth but retaineth some in their disputations and as we thinke more in their Sermons Thus I hope I haue exactly expressed his intent if I haue missed in any thing the fault is his not mine he may thanke me for my paines because I haue done for him what he could not at least what he hath not done for himselfe that I may vse his partners words pag. 5. Now we will take it into severall peeces and examine them in severall chapters following CHAP. 4. Prooving this sentence The present Romish faith is erronius THe examination of his last answer to our Assumption wherin he does attribute some purity of Christs doctrine vnto the Church of Rome is sufficient to determine the worth of our argument now in hand and the whole question it selfe for if the Romish Church be all errour and Antichristian that is if her faith be erronious then without doubt she is none of Gods Church The Church of England in her Assumption now in question meant to say so as I haue already said cap. 2. n. 1. and will now prooue by Gods assistance If the Romish Church retaine some of Christs doctrine pure without mixture of errour then 1. Christs doctrine cannot be denied her in termes without limitation 2. She is not changed into a new guise nor hath forsaken the commandements of God to set vp her owne constitutions 3. She is not without the holy Ghost But according to our Church 1. Christs doctrine is denied her in terms without limitation for thus lye the words of her Assumption The present Romish Church is not built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets retaining the sound and pure doctrine of Christ Iesu neither doe they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute and ordaine them 2. She is changed into a new guise by chopping and changing by adding and plucking away They haue forsaken the commandements of God to set vp their owne constitutions 3. They are without the Spirit of God Therefore according to our Church in her Assumption the present Romish Church does not retaine some part of Christs doctrine pure without mixture of errour but she is all errour and her faith erronious Many learned amongst vs haue so vnderstood our Church and I will name some in stead of all Bishop Iewell in the defence of his Apology pag. 4. cap. 11. divis 1. chargeth her in absolute termes that she had departed from Gods ward and more plainly pag. 5. cap. 13. divis He saith the same thing in these words Thâ—se men haue brâ—ken in pecces all the popes and conduits they haue stopped all the springs and choaked vp the fountaine of living water with dirt and myre He repeates the same thing in other termes cap. 15. divis 2. thus In the Romish Church we cannot home the word of God sinetrely taught nor the Sacraments rightly administred nor the name of God duely called vpon and wherein was nothing able to stay any wise man or one that hath consideration of his own safety I will conclude with his words in the same Apologie part 6. cap. 22. divis 2. where he saith that the present Church of Rome hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith Doct. Reynolds in his 5. Conclusions Preface at the 6. doth charge the present Romish Church to be distempered not with a sicknesse that hindreth the functions of life but with such a one as for it selfe makes her past hope of recouery and namely she serues not God with a holy worship nor beleeved God with a holy faith as he hath commanded
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
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