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
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
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
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
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
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