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
out question is of the Church visible More then so God may require vs to come out of Babylon even vs that are not there for such a commaund is no more but to prevent our going thither forasmuch as the same person that is furthest from Babylon in this present estate is there even there already in possibility because the holiest man that liveth liveth in the flesh or humane nature and therfore may he be carried to Babylon because Babylon is heresie or at least includes it and herefie is a fruit of the flesh By this time I hope his whole discourse as well â—hat is to the purpose as what is beside the purpose is fully cleered and satisfied wherein â—hine departed from the liberty of an answerer of loue and desire to satisfie the Reader CHAP. 10. Our Opponent B. his second Argument HE vrgeth vs cap. 9. pag. 37. with a second Argument concluding after this manner That Society which wanteth the nature of a true Church denyes fundamentall truth directly not by consequence But the present Romish Church does not deny fundamentall truth directly but by consequence at the most for the Popes Arithmetick which he vseth in calculating the Articles of faith is not subrstaction but addition Therefore the present Romish Church wanteth not the nature of a true Church The Assumption and conclusion is set downe pag 41. and the title of the Chapter pag 37. The Proposition is wanting In pag. 21 22. he writeth thus Our adversaries in this cause doe bring the deniall of the foundation of faith as a medium to proue the Church of Rome to be no true Church I answere this man hath a faire gift of inventing some while he can finde an adversary that answers another while one that disputes and all is no more but his owne shadow or imagination If he would haue the Reader to thinke otherwise let him name the Authour that thus disputes and the place where we may finde it till then this must goe for false None of ours would dispute so for it presumes that some Articles of faith be fundamentall and some be not and that is false the whole divine revelation conduceth to eternall life and accordingly it is the foundation thereof and consoquently every Article of faith is fundamentall I answere further This reason as it lyeth doth admit many egregious exceptions but because I am willing to interpret him with the vttermost favour I will forbeare to charge him with them He confines fundamentall trueth vnto the being of the Scriptures and Christs comming to saue sinners pag. 19. 20. To deny fundamentall trueth according to him directly is directly to deny that Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners as Pagans Turkes and Iewes doe pag. 22. They deny it by consequent which holding it directly maintaine any one assertion whatsoever whereupon the direct deniall thereof may be necessarily concluded Thus the Galatians holding Circumcision did by consequence overthrow salvation by Christ inasmuch as it was impossible that they should stand together pag. 23 24. According vnto this explication this Argument will be freest from exception if it bee framed in these termes CHAP. 11. Of the same Argument new framed THat society which wants the nature of a true Church does in words and professedly deny the Scriptures and Christs comming to saue sinners But the present Romish Church does not in words and professedly deny the Scriptures and Christs comming to saue sinners Therefore the present Romish Church wants not the nature of a true Church His proofes for this Assumption are two the one pag. 126. in these words Offer the fundamentall words to them of the Romish Church and none amongst them will refuse to subscribe vnto them The other is his fifth Argument pag. 59. c To proue the maine question so desirous he is to make shewes of plenty that one shall be divided into two rather then he will be short in number In that he writeth thus In our disputations with them we doe not proue that Christ came to saue sinners but we bring it in proofe against them pag. 62. And this sayes he is A tacite consent of all ours that the Church of Rome does not directly deny the foundation pag. 61. In pag 70. he writeth thus I would gladly see the testimony of but one in estimation for his learning amongst vs that ever affirmed the Church of Rome to deny the foundation of Faith directly The Church of England hath not passed any such sentence vpon her Some of ours touching this matter haue written thus The Church of Rome denyeth Christ Iesus directly not by consequence onely At this our Opponent B. pag. 122. growes very angry and craues pardon for breaking his long patience and doth challenge him for an egregious contradiction in avouching a deniall direct and by consequence and why Because The foundation cannot be overthrowne both by consequence and directly too None can overthrow by consequence vnlesse they hold directly and no man can both hold directly and deny directly And in conclusion he does grauely reprehend that Author because he labour to proue that the Church of Rome is guilty of such deniall both directly and by consequence seeing such proofe makes the whole fall to the ground being nothing worth and least something should be wanting pertaining to the honour of a learned Disputer he giues his word for all this esteeming the least proofe his great disgrace I answere If I proue that the Church of Rome directly denies the being of the Scriptures and the comming of Christ to saue sinners I doe enough to satisfie this Argument even by the confession of this Opponent for pag. 124. he writes thus If you can proue the Church of Rome directly to deny salvation by Christ alone we binde our selves to grant you the victory and yours be the day If I proue the Church of Rome by consequence also so to deny then that Authour hath made no contradiction by this Opponents owne rule namely because both of them may be true together This Opponent demandeth how or where that proofe shall be had and made pag. 124. I answere I will haue that proofe out of the Councel of Trent and frame it according to art and the rules of answering for that is my office at this time Touching the first I answere to deny and affirme is made by voice and accordingly to deny and affirme may be by the voice of humane reason or divine faith This I take as granted else there can be no difference between the Heathen Philosophers Turks and Christians when they all professe even in so many words That there is a God In the first sense I grant the Assumption that is The Romish Church professeth even in so many words the being of the Scriptures and the comming of Christ by the voice of humane reason and so farre we are content to goe along with this Opponent but the Proposition is false This we say The profession of
the Scriptures and of Christs comming to saue sinners by the voice of humane faith though it be in words never so plaine and expresse yet it giues not being to the Church for the Church subsisteth in it selfe and differeth from all other societies by supernaturall not by naturall or humane endowments and this I take as granted In the second sense the Proposition is true namely The profession even in so many words of these fundamentall truthes There be Scriptures Christ came to saue sinners by the voice of divine faith is the very soule of the Church and so essentiall therto that without it there can be no Christian Church and where that is the Church is also because it is so operatiue wheresoever it doth encline that all other things requisite to a Christian Church does follow according as this Opponent writeth pag. 21.29.34 CHAP. 12. The Romish Church directly denies salvation by Christ BVt in this sense the Assumption is false the present Romish Church does in words and professedly deny the being of the Scriptures and the comming of Christ to saue sinners according vnto the voice of divine faith and I proue it thus They that doe not confesse Christs comming to saue sinners doe professedly deny his comming to saue sinners for in this case a not confession is a professed negation and so accounted by our Saviour who saith he that is not with me is against me he that gathereth not scattereth Matth. 12.30 And good reason hee should so esteeme it for such a not confession is a voluntary omission of our duty This is the will of my heavenly Father that yee beleeue on him whom hee hath sent Ioh. 6.29 Even all men whatsoever because the earth is his inheritance and the vttermost ends thereof is his possession Psal 2.8 Wee see the truth hereof in the omission of any duty Hee that withheld his tythes is held professedly to deny the paying of tythes Mal. 3.8 He that honoureth not his parents is reckoned professedly to dishonour his Parents Matth. 15.6 This Proposition then being very evident I thus assume But the Romish Church doth not confesse Christs comming to saue sinners by the voice of divine faith because the faith of that Church by meanes of the foundation thereof is humane and not divine as hath beene manifestly proved cap. 4. num 7. c. He thinks to shrowd himselfe vnder the authority of our Church which hee vrgeth negatiuely thus Our Church does charge her to erre in matter of faith Art 19 but not with direct deniall of salvation by Christ Therefore the Romish Church is not so to bee charged I answer 1. he takes the authority of our Church to be of moment I demand then why he disputes against her all this while yea against her doctrine subscribed by himselfe 2. The consequence is nought our Churches silence argues not the Romish Church to be innocent for this question of denying or not denying was not in being when her faith was published This was done Anno 1562. that began Anno 1588. or neere thereupon for any thing I can yet learne or this Opponent proue 3. The Antecedent is false for two reasons 1. Errours in matters of faith may be a direct deniall of salvation by Christ for he that so denies errs in matter of faith and we must thinke our Church meant so because her words will beare it and this Opponent cannot shew the contrary 2. Our Church in the second Homily for Whitsontide often times already alledged does deny her to be built vpon Christ the corner stone in that foundation and that importeth a direct deniall of salvation by Christ because he that sits besides that foundation shall goe without salvation This proofe and defence being considered we may safely rest in this conclusion The Romish Church according to the voice of divine faith professedly denies Christs comming to saue sinners and accordingly we haue the victory and ours is the day according to this Opponents offer and our acceptation num 4. chap. 11. I might proceed to proue their professed deniall of the Scriptures vpon the same ground but I forbeare to doe it because the Reader may see this Argument serues for both that and this by changing the termes This Opponent seemeth to qualifie his former recited promise and calleth vs as he thinkes to a new reckoning pag. 22 23. wherein hee writeth thus They overthrow the foundation directly to whom Christ is an execration And to tread vnder foot the sonne of God to count the blood of the covenant wherewith all wee are sanctified an vnholy thing and to doe despite vnto the spirit of grace Heb. 10.29 is directly to deny the foundation And then he assumes in these words Of which crime whosoever is able let him indict the Church of Rome producing sufficient evidence thereof and whosoever shall open his mouth to plead for them let him be guilty of all the dishonour that ever hath beene done to the Sonne of God and lyable to the Apostles curse 1 Cor. 16.22 I answere this is his last refuge if therefore he failes in this he is gone for ever In true forme he reasoneth thus They that directly deny salvation by Christ are guilty as aforesaid But the Romish Church are not so guilty Therefore the Romish Church denies not directly salvation by Christ I may except against the Assumption with better reason then he can argue for it wherefore this I say The Romish Church is so guilty for They that know and belieue Christs comming to saue sinners onely by naturall reason and humane faith They tread him vnder foote account his blood vnholy and doe despite vnto the spirit of grace Heb. 10.29 because the naturall man perceiveth or receiveth not the things of God as they are the things of God forasmuch as they are spiritually discerned 1 Cor. 2.14 The very wisedome of the flesh is enmitie vnto God Rom. 8.7 But the Romish Church does know and beleiue Christs comming to saue sinners only by naturall reason and humaine faith for all their knowledge and beleiving ariseth vpon the teaching of the Pastors of their Church which is meerly humaine because they haue no Commission for such teaching as appeareth Cap. 4. num 7. c. If any man doe iudge that the place alledged Heb. 10.29 mean no more but thus then I rest here as in a sufficient answer to this argument and claim this Opponents finall promise last mentioned and so we are at an end for this cause the day is ours we must carry the victory and the signes thereof leading these Opponents in tryumph If the Apostle be vnderstood to speake of more then this then I deny the Proposition as wanting the very shew of truth I say some men directly deny salvation by Christ who are not guiltie as aforesaid and I haue two reasons for it the first is this Iewes and Pagans are not guilty as aforesaid for the parties so guilty haue received the knowledge of the truth
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
thing makes a Nation or a fewer number to be Christs Church specifically and formally by reason whereof when we deny The Romish Church to haue the nature of the Church we deny it to haue the nature of A Church And contrariwise when we say The Romish Church hath the nature of a true Church we giue her the nature of the true Church and thus I hope I haue prevented all men that would doubt whether these Opponents doe contradict our Church or not and haue made it manifest that they doe contradict her indeed and accordingly we haue heretofore and may hereafter rightly and iustly presume it as true and take it as certeine and thus am I well neere at an end in my answere to all their passages in common Two onely remaines I will speak breifely vnto them and then finish this matter Amongst the rest of their hard measure offered vnto vs I find one heape which may not be concealed in 15. short lines thus are we stiled Your mindes are prepossessed with preiudiced They content themselues only to take vp opinions vpon trust and will hold them because they know where they had them Whole volumes are nothing vnto them Anuiles they are in vaine should I spend my selfe in beating vpon them Christians they are not ingenuous They haue no care open for Iustice and truth Doubtlesse this Opponent meant to infer something from this rabble for a man of wisdome and learning will not speak words that serue to no purpose I conceiue he would conclude thus Therefore our adversaries cause is naught This was once Bishop Iewels case when he had to doe with rayling Harding to whom he answered thus I pray thee good Reader thinke not our cause the worse though these mens tongues are so ready to speake ill content thy selfe a while and thou shalt see all this smoake blowne away even with one blast In whose words I answer too These ignominious termes are nothing to inferr such a conclusion for evill men may speake the truth and defend a good cause Wherefore the naughtinesse of a person inferreth not badnesse vpon a cause or question The Antecedent is also false we deny our selues to be guilty as he doth charge vs he brings no proofe for his indictment and therefore we must be pronounced Rectius in Curia and so every honest man who hath his eyes in his head will say of vs for if accusation can make guilty who shall be innocent Thus these pleaders Argument is come to nothing like smoake carryed vp with the ayre But let vs reason the case with him a little Is this Authour bitter by custome Is his nature addicted to sharpnesse My selfe am not able to resolue the doubt if he be we willingly pardon the offence we must beare one anothers burthen according to the Apostles rule Nay we will pray in the words of the first Christian Martyr and say O Lord forgiue him for he knowes not what he does his passion was at this time his master but if this ill language be acted if it be taken vp to serue a turn the case is worse for him his account before Gods Tribunall is the greater and heavier but for vs the better his impatience shall commend our patience his bitternesse our meeknesse his crying in the streets our silence best it is to be like him that as a lambe dumbe before the shearer so was he and opened not his mouth And thus much is enough for this passage The last thing which comes in our way is our Opponents insulting and vaunting termes conteined in the title of of his booke and the end of his English Epistle which I haue reported in this Preface num 3. and these they are He is an Instructer His Treatise serues to giue instruction With him is the Spirit The inspiration of the Almighty giues him vnderstanding and him onely for sometimes great men want wâ—sâ—dâ—me and the aged vnderstanding and iudgement therefore you must heare him For his writings they are such as he may let Cato come in and see and censure We haue now the head but we want the tayle he presenteth vs with an Antecdent but his pocket holds the conclusion a consequent Is he wise in that Surely a wise Logician I grant for no man would doe thus but he that excells in that art But what say I Doe I commend him for Logick I doe but 't is my fault and I craue his pardon when he disputes I must extoll him for his Rethorick for with him that art is the queene of arts to serue a Disputers terme and no doubt she was his queene and he followed her lawes when he would thus extoll himselfe Doubtlesse hereby he meant to abase vs and our cause else it had beene vaine thus to elevate himselfe and we will confesse for our owne parts that we must come vnder his see and hide our selues vnder him from the weather shore if all be true that he avoucheth but I doubt of that and so must till I heare Caâ—â— his sentence for he commits the cause to him and so will we too because â—ato amongst all Philosophers is held the wisest and gravest Statesman and Law-maker therefore we will present his particular braggs and attend the sentence of Cato He appeales to Cato nay he invites yea provokes Cato to the search and censure of his writings Even he this Authour a youth as him elfe professeth and all the world knowes he is a yoncker and but a yoncker in age and stadies what will Cato say to this The excellentest of many must rise from his graue to censure the meanest of thousands Let him 〈…〉 An instructer he is but will you know what degree he beares in that office his title will tell you even nothing inferior to God himselfe for he borrowed his whole title from Psal 32 1. onely God calls his worke a Psalme this Opponent names his a treatise but one thing he comes short in that word MASCHIL in the Hebrew is written two severall waies in the one it fignifies to vnderstand or things fit to be vnderstood If it be written the second way it signifies lightnesse folly or to be mad as the learned in that tongue haue observed Thus much I baue beene informed by men of credit in that language for my selfe am wholly ignorant that way things standing thus I say if he had written that word with the Hebrew Character we should haue vnderstood his meaning we might haue knowne the full value of his stile and title of honour but because he hath not we can onely guesse at it wherefore thus we say if we take it to signifie things fit to giue vnderstanding then in this office he giues God the mate what will Cato say to this that a Youth not 30. yeares of age becomes an instructer equall to God himselfe No marvell though he dares Cato to his face seeing he dare set his foote to Gods and instruct in things divine equall to him if he
it wherefore in both their Epistles Dedicatory they propound it and blame it as a thorne in their eyes that may not be indured Our opponent B. disputeth against this at large but according as I haue done before so will I doe now his long and tedious discourse shall be contracted into a narrow roome least the reader be wearied with the length and pusled with the matter yet still his owne words and true intent shal be followed Thus then he sayes 1 In the Church of Rome is some good 2 They teach well touching the Trinity 3 The Dominicans maintaine Gods free grace against mans freewill 4 Much good is in the twelue bookes of Alvarez and in the interpretations and Commentaries of Maldonat Lorynus and the rest of the Iesuites pag 90. 5 Wee agree on both sides in these poynts following 1 That the bookes of the old Testament written in Hebrew are Canonicall 2 That we are instified by faith 3 That God hath made heaven and hell for mens soules after death 4 That God may be worshipped in Spirit without an Image 5 That wee are to pray vnto God by Christ 6 That there be two Sacraments 7 That Christ is really received in the Lords Supper 8 That Christ hath made one oblation of himselfe vpon the Crosse for the redemption and satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole world 9 Vnder the Papacy is much good nay all yea the very kernell of Christianity pag. 39. 40. 41. I answer our Opponent C. pag. 4. and 5. blames the man that affirmes without pooofe and makes it a Law that such an affirmation is as soone denyed as made This is the case of this opponent He telleth vs a tale of their agreement with vs in diverse particulars but he alledgeth no author book or chapter whereby we may try whether he sayes true or not if then we deny that they and wee doe thus agree all his building falls to the ground according to his partners sentence pag 4. Thus soundly he answers to the thing that doth most vrge him but for this time I am content to say they and we doe thus agree yet behold his case from himselfe pag. 82. Wee heare of a great cry and little woll pag. 83. of a man whose skill in Logick was so good that hee prooued what was granted and being granted was to no purpose Now I commend him for so doing because I perceiue he spake the very truth but himselfe gaines nothing thereby for of him it is verified to the full and that in this present answer wherein he spends the greatest part of 7 pages before he ends it viz. 39. 40. 41. 86. 87. 90. 91. yet ten words had served the turn as well as all this stâ—r If he had said no more but thus The Romish Church agrees with vs in many divine sentences he had beene as neere his purpose as now therefore we haue a great cry and little woll If he reply that all the rest prooues that sentence I reioynd I am content it shall be so because that shewes his great skill in Logick for then he prooues the thing that none will deny and being granted serues not his purpose which none will doe but the good Logician which his partner describeth If we frame this answer with the present question according to art and all the parts thereof be true then it is to the purpose else not thus then it must be framed They that agree with vs in the particulars recited their faith is not erronious But the Romish Church agrees with vs in the particulars recited Therefore their faith is not erronious But no part of this Argument is good The Proposition is not true and why may I not say so seeing in it selfe and by it selfe it is not manifest neither does he offer any proofe for it and now I haue denied it his whole building is come to ruine according to his partners-rule pag. 4. even now recited To the Proposition I answer that it presumes that the forenamed Articles are true and every way the same thing with the Romish faith and therevpon giues one state or condition to those Articles and that faith attributing truth to the second from the truth of the first These Articles in some sense are true and so farre the Proposition is true also but those Articles and the Romish faith are not the same thing but this extends further then them and himselfe even he that now answeres being iudge pag. 40. He writes thus To the Scriptures they adde Traditions to the Hebrew Canon the Apocrypha to faith workes to Heaven and Hell Purgatory and so forth in the rest whereupon his Proposition beggs the question and therefore it hath no force to inferre the conclusion His partner C. pag. 2. cannot abide beggery but this doth loue it wee le but in the meane time he is a goodly Disputer that can prooue nothing vnlesse we grant him what himselfe denies this is enough to satisfie this Argument because this feigned surmise is the first and originall foundation thereof But out of our store of exceptions hereunto for this time we will forgiue him this fault and proceed to the rest We agree with the Romish Church in the recited Articles as they are Propositions that is they and we pronounce the same thing as true so farr the Assumption is granted but the Proposition is denied because faith and a true Proposition really differs the one is no more but a subiect and predicate rightly ioyned together whereupon truth in all Propositions is the same namely the adequation of the thing and the Proposition but in faith there is also the foundation wherevpon wee beleeue from whence it comes to passe that faith is of different kindes some divine and some humane as I haue shewed In the recited Articles wee agree not with the Romish as they are Articles of faith For in them wee doe really and essentially differ They pronounce them to bee true vpon the authority of their Church which is indeed humane we vpon the authority of Christ the Revealer which by joynt consent is divine These things being true as they are most true his Assumption at num 4. cannot be true and consequently there is no meanes to excuse the Româ—sh faith from error nor cause to giue her the name and nature of a true Church which is the thing we seeke for CHAP. 6. Defendeth this sentence The faith of the Church is not right and pure false and erronious together viz. in different Articles WE must now goe back againe to the rest of opponent B. his answere left vnsatisfied in cap. 3. num 8. The first branch whereof we are now to deale withall hath these words The doctrine of Christ and his Apostles taught purely without mixture of errour is not so essentiall to the true Church that so soone as an vnsound doctrine is mingled with the truth of Gods word and the Sacraments vnduely administred that which was a Church