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
onely it is meet that we obserue in his Epistle Dedicatory that he maketh the point now in hand one of those whereat he trembles when he does but heare it If there be any cause why it will shew it selfe by his arguments and answeres for it if he be naked in them we may conclude that he feares without a cause and runnes when none pursues Enough hath bin said already to driue this conclusion to the head we haue proved that the Romish faith is erronious by arguments that are not nor can be refelled and who would require more to argue her faith to be vnable and altogether vnfit to lead a man to heaven Can an erronious faith shew a man the way to heaven Surely it can not because it sits beside the divine Revelation which is the onely record wherein the way to life is referved for vs. I say heaven and eternall happinesse is only to be found in Gods Revelation and who will not beleiue me for where the end is aboue nature the meanes thereto must needes be so also What need I then to trouble my selfe and the Reader with more arguments But seeing it will not saue our labour some are so contentious and will not rest in truthes apparent therefore such must be met withall and their endeavours prevented as the frugall man weedes his feild that his grayne may be the better vnto sight and service CHAP. 9. Our Opponent B. his first Argument WEe are now come to the second part of this Discourse wherein the Arguments for the contrary party are propounded and refuted and I will begin with our Opponent B. who brings his first Argument pag. 31. to this effect The seat of Antichaist is the true Church for hee sitts in Gods Temple 2 Thess 2.4 But the present Romish Church is the seate of Antichrist Therefore the present Romish Church is the true Church The Proposition of this Argument is set forth pag 36. The conclusion is implyed in the title of Chap 8 pag 31 The assumption is wanting I answere he is confident that no man can deny the Proposition pag. 38. but sayes nothing of the Assumption and no maruaile for that beggs the question by presuming that the Pope is Antichrist a point to many more doubtfull then the present conclusion But that fault though it spoiles all for this time shall goe for nothing The Proposition is not onely false but it is impossible to be true for the seat of Antichrist is a certaine space or place that receiveth the person of Antichrist and where he governes Reuel 16.19.17.9.18 â—0 The true Church is a society of men professing the revealed truth If then this profession be that place or necessarily flowes from the internall being thereof which is impossible then his Proposition may be true The Assumption hath the same fault the Romish Church is a society professing their religion now it is not possible for the person of Antichrist to be contained in the profession of religion as in a space or place To conclude if we put this Syllogisme into its true and naturall termes these will be the words thereof The space containing the person of Antichrist is that society of men which professeth the revealed verities But that society which professeth the Romish religion is the space containing Antichrist Therefore that society which profess eth the Romish religion is that society which professeth the revealed verities But every child that knowes chalke from cheese will laugh at this therefore it shall passe as ridiculous He does imagine that we will say in answere to this Argument that Antichristianity cannot argue the Church to be Christian being the bane and plaine overthrow of Christianity Pag. 36. I answer we doe not thus answer to this Argument neither need we vnlesse our answer should be as fond as his proofe and experience will now iustifie the same we haue answered otherwayes and yet his reason is refelled Keep your kindnesse for your friend and answer for vs when wee need it wee know Sophocles said true The guift of an enemy is no guift In the rest of this 8. chapter he hunts the wild goose chase but all his long discourse and many words amounteth in the totall vnto thus much The Iewes Church in their worst estate was the true Church of God Some of Gods people are in Babylon Therefore many heretofore and some at this day being outwardly of the Church of Rome wee may iustly notwithstanding challenge to our selves The Opponent C. shall answer him pag. 3. Prooue and apply Iohn Barber and thou shalt haue two new paire of Sizors A recompence too great for such a workeman yet let me tell you the Iewes Church at no time was equall or stood in the same termes or condition with the present Romish Church for they alwayes retained the true and vndoubted foundation of faith they relied onely vpon Gods authority the revealer of sacred things so as what ever they believed they so believed because God revealed it they thrust not in the authority of man between the sacred revelation and their faith and credence so as still they enioyed at least the meanes for getting of divine faith and consequently salvation it selfe but so it is not with the Romish Church as manifestly appeareth in former passages cap. 4. num 7. c. whereupon we may conclude Though the Iewish Church was the true Church of God yet that will not inferre the Romish Church to be so also Moreover the Iewes defection was in matter of practise rather then of precept when they failed in doctrine it was peculiar to some not vniversall and common to all that Church their errour was matter of opinion not of faith for no publick authority of theirs did command that opinion or misbeliefe to bee vniversally received as being divinely revealed But with the Church of Rome the matter is altogether otherwise Their errour is first in precept and then in practise this errour is common to all in that Church no man can be exempted therefrom vnlesse he will professe himselfe to be none of theirs Againe that errour of the Romish Church is adiudged to be revealed by God and commaunded to be received by all the members of that Church by an authority that pretendeth freedome from erring and power of enioying so as whatsoever is so commanded must be obeyed without delay or inquiring as is shewed cap. 4. num 7. c. wherefore we need not doubt to say the one lost not the truth of a Church the other hath not the truth of a Church We may allow God a share in some that dwell in Babylon but what is that share Even persons elected but not yet called and vnto such God commandeth that they Come out of Babylon and they shall heare and obey in their appointed time But what is this to vs Elected persons not called are such members of the Church as are vnknowne to vs and therefore are reckoned to appertaine to the Church invisible but
Iesu neither do they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute and ordeyne them that now they may seeme to be converted into a new guise Therefore the present Romish Church is not the true Church The Homilie takes the proposition to be a discription of the Church so rgreeable to the Scriptures and Auncient Fathers that none may iustly find fault therewith So likewise it takes the Assumption as a confessed truth by all such as haue any light of Gods word and insight into their liues and examples Whereupon it is confident of the conclusion Though this Argument wanteth not strength to inferre the conclusion so as it needeth not our further labour yet before I passe from it I will vnfold the termes By Christ and his seruants not their persons but their Preaching and Revelation is vnderstood The sacred Revelation is called the Churches foundation because by the profession therof the Church is made to be that which it is and is differenced from all other Societies in the world and good reason because by the profession of the divine Revelation the Church is ordered vnto heaven which befalleth no Societie else whatsoever the Homilie speaks of the foundation of the Church as one intire individuall whole that is of one complete being vndivided into parts or kinds and it attributes the same in the Proposition to the true Church as adequate thereunto and convertible therewith and it denyes it in the Assumption vnto the present Romish Church vniuersally or totally So as the Church of Rome and the Sacred Revelation in the intent of the Homilie are divided as things really and essentially distinct and different as if our Church had said the Romish Church sitteth besides the foundation of the Divine Revelation And thus our Church must be vnderstood because this sence agrees with the Scriptures with the 39 Article and with true reason all other sences are violent and inforced as we shall see in the prosecution of this Argument According to this interpretation the Argument may be framed in these termes The true Church professeth the Preaching or Reuelation of Christ and his Apostles The present Romish Church professeth not the preaching or Revelation of Christ and his Apostles Therefore the present Romish Church is not the true Church Our opponent B. against this Argument proceedeth thus he denyes not but after a sort confesseth that this Argument is our Churches pa. 83. and so fareth it with his partner our opponent C. pag 21. our opponent B in his English Epistle denyes the conclusion of this Argument to bee our Churches but the opponent C saith nothing I answer how can the opponent B. say our Church holds not the conclusion who confessed even now that our Church made the Argument vnlesse he will say that the conclusion of an Argument is no part thereof If that be his iudgement he must teach Aristotle for he thinketh otherwise Prior. lib. 1. cap. 1. Top lib. 1. cap. 1. For this time the conclusion shall goe for none of hers that we may see what they will say to it Opponent B. in his Latine Epistle sayes He that thinks the Church of Rome to be no Church thinks nothing His partner C. in his Epistle Dedicatory professeth that he trembles at the very hearing of this Proposition the present Romish Church is no Church I aâ— sure these parties are ill matched because they â—rosse one the other The one thinks the present conclusion to be nothing the other esteemes it a monster and that is more then some thing but let vs for this time thinke so too because if that be so then the premises which inferre that conclusion are monstrous likewise if the premises bee monstrous then will these opponents make them to appeare to be so And thus much for their answers to this Argument in generall CHAP. 3. Of the same Argument and their answer thereunto THe Reader must remember our Argument in the true and plainest termes standeth thus The true Church is founded vpon that is professeth the sacred truth revealed by Christ and his Apostles But the present Romish Church is not so founded Therefore the present Romish Church is not the true Church Our opponent C. answereth hereunto pag 21 22. with these very words These words must receiue this construction First they must be vnderstood of the accidentall truth of the Church in regard of soundnes and not of essentiall truth in regard of Gods Covenant Secondly they must be vnderstood even of soundnes comparatiuely and not simply that is in regard of the Primitiue Church and not otherwise Thus farre he and not one word further touching this matter I reply In this answer we must looke for the meaning of his words and the application of the matter to our Argument His meaning is further to seeke then Sampsons Riddle or more senselesse then becomes a reasonable man He seemes thus to distinguish 1. The truth of the Church is Accidentall in regard of soundnesse Essentiall in regard of Gods Couenant 2. Soundnes is taken Comparatiuely in regard of the Primitiue Church Simply For thus lyes his words directly but who shall vnderstand him The Rules of Logicke cannot help vs for according to them these distributions are no wayes to be allowed According to Art every distribution conteineth a whole and part So Aristotle Top. lib 6. cap. 1. Rursus vtrumque c. cap. 2. Idem contingens so Ramus lib. 1. cap. 25. But here is no whole and part for a whole is no more but a gathering together of the parts so as they all doe make one certaine thing Thus Arist Physico lib. 1. tex 17. lib. 4. tex 43. meta lib. 5. cap. 25. tex 31. Thus Th. 1. q. 76. art 8. in cor so Ramus lib. 1. cap. 25. But in these distributions there is no whole and parts Moreover in the first distinction truth is the thing divided and that is set out by the terme Church that is the adiunct or accident is set out by a first substance or individuall subiect If that be good then Aristotle must come to him to learne Logick for according to him all other things are attributed to a singular being and that attributed to none Categor cap. 4. 5. Prior. lib. 1. cap. 27. post lib. 1. cap. 22. Againe in that distribution essentiall and accidentall are made parts of truth but that is impossible for truth is no more but the adequation of the thing and the apprehension of our vnderstanding in the Iudgement of Aristotle de interpre cap. 9. meta lib. 4. cap. 7. text 27. Thomas 1. p. q. 21. art 2. in cor 1. Dist 46. q. 1. art 2. ad 1m. But accidentall and essentiall truth makes no such adequation for those termes import no more but a necessary and contingent predication which belongs to the manner of predicating Lastly he attributes soundnesse to accidentall truth and Gods covenant to essentiall truth but that is impossible
The second distribution is as fond if not worse then the first but I will not mispend mine owne and the Readers time about it It was meet for mee to let this opponent see his weaknesse in Logick because he vaunteth so much of his skill that waies in his Epistle and throughout his whole booke We should now come to the application of this answer to some part of our argument that we might know what he denies and what he grants and why but I am altogether to seeke for that because he brings nothing that leades vs thereunto Wherefore I come to himselfe and say in his owne words pag. 3. _____ Apply Iohn Barber and thou shalt haue a new paire of Sâ—zors When he hath done so he shall haue further answer and in the meane time I will set downe and examine what his partner B. saith to our argument now in hand therein I will take onely the summe of his answer and no more to saue mine owne labour and the Readers following the example of the schooles who alwayes run that course He beginneth his answer at p. 84. at these words We professe that we esteem c. And continues the same vnto pag. 88. As his partners answer was so is his intricate perplexed vnapplyed but with this difference he was briefer as liking Logick and not Rethorick this larger as loving Rethorick and not Logick nothing could be made of his Something as I conceiue may be made of this wherefore I will set downe that something with the best warrant of his owne discourse Thus then he seemes to answere The doctrine of Christ and his Apostles purely taught without mixture of error is the genuine marke of the true Church So as where that is there followes the appellation of a true Church and from thence we may argue thus Wheresoever Gods word is purely preached and the Sacraments duly administred there is a true Church And so farre the Proposition is true and agreeable to the intent of our Church and the Assumption is so also that severeth the doctrine of Christ from the present Romish Church but then the conclusion importeth no more but that she is not an orthodox Church which is not in question The doctrine of Christ and his Apostles taught purely without mixture of errour is not so essentiall to the true Church that so soone as vnsound doctrine is mingled with the truth of Gods word and the Sacraments vnduely administred that which was a Church should cease to be one In this sense the Proposition is false for such doctrine belongs vnto the perfection and glory of the Church and she may be without them as the children of Israel were many dayes without a Sacrifice and an Ephod Hosea 3.4 yet still they were Gods Church It may fall out that they may be corrupted as in the times of blindnesse and superstition or intermitted as in persecution In this sense the PropositioÌ„ is not according to the intent of our Church which meant not so strictly to tye Gods Church to these signes as if all were excluded from the Church which doe not rightly participate of the word and Sacraments in the Iudgement of Mr. Rogers in his Commentary vpon 19. art propo 8. Lastly in this sense the Assumption is false that makes a reall totall division between the present Romish Church all revealed truth we say she hath not abolished all truth but retaineth some in their disputations and as we thinke more in their Sermons Thus I hope I haue exactly expressed his intent if I haue missed in any thing the fault is his not mine he may thanke me for my paines because I haue done for him what he could not at least what he hath not done for himselfe that I may vse his partners words pag. 5. Now we will take it into severall peeces and examine them in severall chapters following CHAP. 4. Prooving this sentence The present Romish faith is erronius THe examination of his last answer to our Assumption wherin he does attribute some purity of Christs doctrine vnto the Church of Rome is sufficient to determine the worth of our argument now in hand and the whole question it selfe for if the Romish Church be all errour and Antichristian that is if her faith be erronious then without doubt she is none of Gods Church The Church of England in her Assumption now in question meant to say so as I haue already said cap. 2. n. 1. and will now prooue by Gods assistance If the Romish Church retaine some of Christs doctrine pure without mixture of errour then 1. Christs doctrine cannot be denied her in termes without limitation 2. She is not changed into a new guise nor hath forsaken the commandements of God to set vp her owne constitutions 3. She is not without the holy Ghost But according to our Church 1. Christs doctrine is denied her in terms without limitation for thus lye the words of her Assumption The present Romish Church is not built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets retaining the sound and pure doctrine of Christ Iesu neither doe they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute and ordaine them 2. She is changed into a new guise by chopping and changing by adding and plucking away They haue forsaken the commandements of God to set vp their owne constitutions 3. They are without the Spirit of God Therefore according to our Church in her Assumption the present Romish Church does not retaine some part of Christs doctrine pure without mixture of errour but she is all errour and her faith erronious Many learned amongst vs haue so vnderstood our Church and I will name some in stead of all Bishop Iewell in the defence of his Apology pag. 4. cap. 11. divis 1. chargeth her in absolute termes that she had departed from Gods ward and more plainly pag. 5. cap. 13. divis He saith the same thing in these words Thâ—se men haue brâ—ken in pecces all the popes and conduits they haue stopped all the springs and choaked vp the fountaine of living water with dirt and myre He repeates the same thing in other termes cap. 15. divis 2. thus In the Romish Church we cannot home the word of God sinetrely taught nor the Sacraments rightly administred nor the name of God duely called vpon and wherein was nothing able to stay any wise man or one that hath consideration of his own safety I will conclude with his words in the same Apologie part 6. cap. 22. divis 2. where he saith that the present Church of Rome hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith Doct. Reynolds in his 5. Conclusions Preface at the 6. doth charge the present Romish Church to be distempered not with a sicknesse that hindreth the functions of life but with such a one as for it selfe makes her past hope of recouery and namely she serues not God with a holy worship nor beleeved God with a holy faith as he hath commanded