MASCHIL UNMASKED. IN A TREATISE DEFENDING this sentence of our Church: Vidz. The present Romish Church hath not the nature of the true Church. Against the public opposition of Mr. Cholmley, and Mr. Butterfield, two children revolted in opinion from their own subscription, and the faith of their Mother the Church of ENGLAND. BY THOMAS SPENCER. Who is this that darkeneth Counsel by words without knowledge. job. 38.2. My wrath is kindled against thee and thy two friends, for you have not spoken of me the thing that is right. job. 42.7. LONDON, Printed by WILLIAM JONES, dwelling in Red-crosse-streete. TO THE COMMONS HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT. Most grave, and honourable Senate: WHen children are pressed with the want of good, or fear of ill, they resort unto their Parents. This is our present case. The suit which we present unto your grave judgements, and Paternal care, is no less than a matter of Religion and State. For so it is, that two revolted children of this our English Church and Commonwealth, are risen up in hostile manner against their Mother. She hath decreed (even in so many words) that, The Romish Church, is so fare wide from the nature of the true Church, as nothing can be more. They undertake to maintain, that, The present Romish Church, hath the true, and formal essence of a Church. This then is our request, that, your Wisdoms will be pleased to take this deed of theirs into your fatherly consideration, and to procure such redress therein, as standeth with your place, and power: Herein we doubt not to be heard; because, (according to the law of God, and instinct of nature) Fathers lay up for their Children, and most willingly expend their store upon them, when need requires. Our confidence herein is the more increased, by two reasons; to wit, Our perpetual experience of your willing, & ready providence for this our Church & Commonwealth, & the greatness of the matter wherein we are your humble Petitioners. If our Church had said nothing, or spoke doubtfully of the point, than we had not put it to their account as a fault, because, in all ages, and in the present Romish Church such Divinity disputations have been and are allowed: And there is good reason for it, for thereby the truth (in all doubtful things at last) hath been cleared: and hath had the victory in the end: and, for this very cause, the present Romish Church doth voluntarily, (& of choice) give leave to their schools, to dispute the points of the concurrence of actual grace, and man's will in every supernatural action. And of the kind of worship to be given to the Images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints: because, it now appears, that the words of the Trent Council, touching them both, are doubtful and ambiguous. But this is not our case; our Church hath delivered her Judgement in a single Proposition, consisting of terms wherein there can be no doubt, or question; and the attribution is universal, and without limitation: so as, no reasonable man can make a question of her meaning. Now (behold) she hath not rested content with this, (which indeed is enough) but, (to prevent the ignorant obstinacy of all Opponents) she hath declared, by a comparison of equality, the extent and amplitude of her predication: and saith, The Church of Rome is so fare wide from the nature of the true Church, as nothing can be more. Whereby we understand, that, she conceives the present Romish Church to be 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 fare wide from the nature of the true Church, as nothing can be more. Now, what title shall we give to this deed? under what head shall he rank this offence? what punishment or degree of punishment do they deserve? Surely it is not within the power of my understanding, nor in the nature of my place, and condition, (finally) to determine: unto you, and to your most deep and profound judgement, must I appeal for that: Yet I humbly crave leave to show my opinion, lest I seem causelessly to complain. The deed of these men, can deserve no less then to be branded with the name of contention: for, from a root of bitterness, and the spirit of contention, it did originally grow and arise; I say it sprang from hence: because the tree and all the branches thereof, savours of such a root, and cannot be conceived to grow from other soil. Contention it is, and nothing else: because it opposeth things ordained, and settled solemnly and with great authority, and so continued for many years together, no man daring publicly, 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 mind from whence it did flow, seems altogether unquiet, and restless. Who would not content himself with that faith that is thus established. I say thus, because the parties that collected it, used all possible diligence, and faithfulness: they were learned, and of exceeding gravity, and staidness: all ages (with us) have agreed unto their judgements: yea, even these Opponents have had their share in it, and not in words, only, that pass away: but under their own hand writing, that remains for ever. Can the gainsaying of things thus adorned, and commended to these Opponents, proceed from any ground but the spirit that can find no place to rest in? Surely no: and I presume, that every advised man will say so with me. These Opponents do tell us, (and we must say so too, if we will believe them) that, It is charity towards the Romish Church that hatched this deed: but we must not trust them, the father and the child are so unlike. What does charity bid them hate their friend? Love's he indeed, that pulleth out his Mother's heart to give 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. If then their charity was unfeigned, they would love their Mother first, and others after, and in relation unto her: seeing then, these Opponents do not so, but the contrary, we must conclude, not their charity, but, their contention, form this deed. This deed can be no less a sin against God, and I think others will say so with me: though I give 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 fundamental law, in every Commonwealth. So is it an offence heinous and grievous: for he that severs and pul●s asunder the limbs of the body, destroys the person, and he that doth so, must be reckoned a main and principal destroyer thereof; and thus do these Opponents: the life of our Church, and all the members thereof is made, and united together, into one body by the Articles of her faith: he then, that, overthrows, and destroys those Articles; discipates, and haileth in pieces her whole body, and being: and thus do these Opponents in their deed in question. Punishment is due unto them, & so much (I hope) I may say without offence, unto your high, and honourable authority: because, the thing itself is so apparent. Very reason itself doth tell us, The subversion of every being that is good, makes guilty of punishment. Now the deed in question being a subversion of the faith of our Church of England, by the same rule, must needs likewise make so guilty. The degree of this punishment, I dare not name, I may not think upon, seeing the cause now in hand is presented before your sacred Tribunal, whose office it is to discern, determine, and adjudge the same. Yet (with all submission) I crave a word or two of that matter. If any under the command of Rome, should oppose the very words of the Trent Council, especially where the thing is decreed explorately, so as no question can be made of her sense & meaning; such a one, I say, should be held worthy of no small punishment, and we certainly know it, because such persons are pronounced accursed by that Council; & pursued with fire, and all extremity, as perpetual experience doth show. If these Opponents lived in that Church, & should defend this sentence, [The office of judging the sense & meaning of the Scriptures belongs not to the Church] we might easily guess at their punishment. If then) hat Church esteemeth such opposition unto her faith to demerit so highly, how can we esteem to deserve but little, seeing what their faith is to them, the same our faith is to us: but with this difference, their faith is erroneous, so is not ours; as the ensuing discourse will evidently show: how much (than an opposition to an erroneous faith is less hurtful, than an opposition to a true faith, so much more punishment doto be deserve, that opposeth ours, more than he that opposeth theirs: & thus much is all wherewith I will trouble you touching the deed in question. Now, I hope I may also without reproof, show some other reason whereupon to move you. If this deed be let pass without control, see what will follow. 1. Our enemies of the Romish Church will triumph over us, and thus they will argue: With you is not the true Church, for where that is, there is unity, and a means of unity in all matters of faith: but these are not with you: for see, your Church believeth that the Romish Church hath not the nature of the true Church, yet two of yours, yea & after their subscription, do out face her with the contradictory, & carry it away when they have done, no man says black is their eye. 2. The salvation of the unstable, & unwise will be really hindered: such a man will say unto our Church; if you taught me the way to life, doubtless you would agree in it, or suppress the gainsayers: seeing therefore you do neither the one, nor the other; we must conclude, that the way to life is not with you, & consequently it is no where, for in your judgement, the Romish Church hath it not; or (at least) men of good parts might say; if you agree not upon the way to heaven, then 'tis hopeless for us to find it; because, with you are the aged in years, great in experience, abundant in learning, considerate in resolving, & in the office of governing: if our hopes to find heaven be vain, & idle, why shall we bestow our pains that ways? who would labour without profit? who would lay out his silver to fill his belly with the East wind? Surely no man: wherefore here is our rest, seeing there is no profit in the service of God, we will determine with ourselves & say, We care not for the knowledge of the most high, let us cast his laws behind our back; let us eat, and drink, for to morrow we shall die. 3. The glory of our Church (at least) is abated, nay, I may truly say, her beauty is stained with an eyesore, too ugly to be looked upon. He that casteth dirt in his Mother's face, wherein nothing is wanting for feature, or complexion, shall have little thankes for his labour: what then shall be be accounted, that scratcheth her, till she bleeds? Nay more, that pulleth off, & treadeth under foot, all the ornaments of her countenance? If our Opponents gave the lie to a man of honest reputation, he should disgrace him not a little; but if he charged him with that lie, to the loss of his credit for ever, we know he should burt him finally, & for ever. But thus (I say) if no better than on this manner, deal these Opponents with their Mother the Church of England: she hath determined what must be held in certain points of religion, & in that her countenance exceeds in beauty; because she did so determine, for the avoiding of contention, and settling of Peace: Peace, (yea Peace) that visage of Peace, the most lovely, delightful, and acceptable countenance, of all countenances: yet behold, & cease not to wonder, our two Opponents will not keep this peace, they have broken down the walls of that fortress, what she intended for unity, & concord they divert to fraction, and discord, & so have rob her, of her goodly, & beauteous feature, & complexion. Nay, which is more, they have given her that lie, which will stick to her ribs for ever, without the exemplary punishment of these offenders: for, if she be false in her greatest children, for learning, gravity, wisdom, & piety, all met together, when they gave that witness; then who will trust her? for, if her word can be true at any time, it would be true then. Now, those, & each one of them, are so inconvenient that, I conceive, they must be esteemed so intolerable, if that be so, we have good reason to bemoan ourselves unto you, & seek for redress at your hands. Can we imagine, that, our Church and the souls of her children, only, shall be losers by this deed in question? Surely no man can be so much mistaken: for mark, if they scape with this deed, who will not thus argue? If Opposers in matters of faith be not reck ned offedours, than Opposers in matters of State must be held innocent, seeing the first is of more dangerous consequence than the second. If we may oppose the State, who will obey? seeing liberty is better fancied than subjection, If we are freed from obedience, then farewell government: seeing, to govern, & to obey, are such relatives as do stand, & fall together. If then, governing & obeying be taken away, all things come to confusion. As than we will a void destruction to our Church, & Commonwealth, so must we open ourselves before you, & erave your assistance. Hither to I have opened our cause, & the reason of our request, it remaineth, (as some men would conceive) that I move you also to the manner wherein to proceed in the cause: but, I altogether decline that, such assurance have I of the abundant wisdom judgement, learning, & providence which dwelleth amongst you, that in myself I blush to think of that deed. Some perhaps would encourage me to provoke you to redress this evil by force of Argument, but that pleaseth me as little: because I know the truth of God remaineth with you, & therewithal the love of the truth; so as, you cannot be negligent in this business: seeing the love of the truth causeth such as have it, to do nothing against the truth, but for it, I am assured, the voice of Christ when he comes to judge the world, does perpetually sound in your ears; even as if by lively & personal voice, you heard him say: Thou good Steward, and faithful, thou hast been faithful in a little, I will make thee Ruler over much, enter into your Master's joy. Shall I tell you, no hindrance lieth in your way, that may discourage you from this work? No, no: that is altogether needless. Wherefore I have no more to say, but (in the words of God himself:) Go on in this thy strength, thou mighty man: for God is with you. And we, for our parts, do live in a joyful expectation, of a good, & a happy issue, because we know, God is the author of truth, and his eye lids preserve pure knowledge, at whose arising all his enemies, (even the maintainers of error) shall be scattered: And you most grave & honourable Senators are worthy, watchful, & provident instruments unto his sacred Majesty our dread Sovereign, in procuring the welfare of all the true members of this our English Church & Commonwealth, among which members I rest, To your Worthiness an humble suppliant, not the least devoted: THOMAS SPENCER. A PREFACE TO THE FOLLOWING DISCOURSE, answering unto some points, which concern the matter in Common. REader, I am compelled to make a Preface to the following disputation, by a double law. The one is, perpetual custom used in this case, from which I may not vary; the other is, the matter itself: some things (in our present Opponents) are transcendent, and belong unto the whole matter, in such an universe, and common manner, that I could not answer them in any one particular passage: yet, it behoved me to give thee satisfaction in them. Our present Opponents do seem to triumph, as if the cause in question were clearly theirs, so as, even we ourselves at the first sight might seem unreasonable, if we thought not so too. They lead us with huge mountains of contumelious reproaches, and in conclusion, they esteem us no better then to be Either laughed, out or despised: So as, they account Their depracation and defence, a thing condescended unto in courtesy: for themselves they have another note, Instructers they are, and their Treatises are to give Instruction. If you will know the reason why, they tell us also: In them, There is a spirit, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Wherefore, they dare and do provoke, even Cato himself, to come in, and see, and censure, what they have written and done. If you desire to know why they challenge to themselves these high prerogatives, as belonging only unto them, they will not let you be ignorant. Great men (say they) are not always wise, neither do the aged understand judgement, therefore I said, hearken to me. Which reason is utterly naught, unless all are fools but themselves. Wise men do use both their ears, and I hope thou wilt do so too, especially in a cause of this high nature, and consequence. If thou wilt do so indeed, I dare assure thee, that, thou shalt find, that they have not uttered one true word, to their profit, or our hurt: for the matter itself, I must refer thee to the body of the disputation, for things common thereunto, I will in this Preface perform my promise: and I will begin with the matter that concerns ourselves. We defend the faith of our Church, subscribed unto by all ours, yea, even by these our present Opponents, and will they laugh us out, and aespise us for that? Is it their courtesy to deprecate, and defend themselves against her. We propound the question in her terms, and in a single, simple or categorical Proposition. We explicate the terms of that question, in the words wherein our Church hath done it before us, and whereto these our Opponents do consent and agree. We conclude that question, in the same full syllogism wherein our Church hath concluded it, and not varied, come short, or exceeded any one of her words. We further prove every part of that Argument, that is, or may be questioned; by the express word of God, or by a necessary application of the express word of God. We defend that Argument of hers, against all opposers: and finally, we reduce every Argument brought against her into true form, and show what part we deny, and give the reason of such denial, and that in true form of art: and must we needs be laughed out, and despised for t●a●? If they say, we must be laughed out, and despised for any thing, it must be for these: for herein consisteth our greatest folly. If they will have us laughed out for these, than I leave thee good Reader to be judge between us: if thou wilt say he is a fool that does thus, Theirs be the day for this time, because we now want fit opportunity to defend ourselves against them. All this while, we have concealed the main matter which they bring against us, We writ divirity without rhetoric, and that is (in us) either madness, or impudence, But whether will they laugh us out, or dispose us for this, we know not their mind as yet. Is our style horrid, and harsh, Is it not acquaint, and neat enough for our Opponents pallet? Can we not delight their ears with jigs, and tricks of wit? Surely then, we are content to be laughed out or despised by our Opponents: for that's their own case, the one confesseth his style to be such, and the style of the other is so indeed. Moreover these Opponents and ourselves may joy so to be used; because, all the schoolmen that have lived in the world join with us, and go hand in hand with us the business. We deal against persons better than ourselves: and therefore we want manners, and consequently we must be laughed out, and despised for that. But is this true? Do we oppose ourselves to men's persons, or qualities and condition; Nothing less: the question on foot is an Article of faith. A point in Divinity wherein the divine authority rules the case; the persons, and conditions of man can bear no sway, nor be admitted any room, or place, but for this time let the persons of men come in, and their qualities, honours, and conditions whatsoever. Yet we deal not against our betters, for (to say the least) we are in the room and behalf of our Church, which we dare prefer before all her Opponents, for they have subscribed unto her, and thereby they have acknowledged and done homage unto her Lordship, and Dominion. We quarrel the persons of men in envy to their advancement and honours: because he that said thus now, said so long, and often before, with the approbation of our whole Church representative, and without blame of them that do now accuse him. But is this true? our Opponents say so; but their proof is insusficient, because in itself 'tis untrue, and nought in the inference, perhaps their party avouched thus much before, and yet not seen, or not regarded: for, who would suspect or misdoubt such a friend as he seemed, and was accounted? If we were glasiers, or the sons of a glazier, perhaps he might see our secret thoughts and intentions: but, because we are not, we must not be laughed out, nor a●s●ised; because we oppose not unto any man's honour, and adnancement. We cast a stone that hitteth our Mother. If that be so: if we have done it, and still avow the deed; let us be laughed out or despised, choose them whether; but this is impossible, we cast no stones at all: by our office we hold up our Buckler to defend our Mother, and to bear of such stones as are cast by others, if any stone hits our Mother, it is that which is cast at the Church of Rome, for that is the thing in question. If that stone hit our Mother, these Opponents must laugh her out or despise her for her labour; for 'tis she that cast it, we do no more but justify her casting. If these Opponents will laugh her out, or despise her let them do so to us also, for good reason the Mother, & Child should share alike, & stand or fall together. We cause our Church to suffer, because we father a strange and untrue tenant upon her. Now we know we shall not be laughed out; nor despised; for this: because we say of her no more, no not one word less, or more than she hath said unto us. If thus to impose deserves laughter and despite, then to deny her to say what indeed she hath said deserves laughter and despite; for the case is the same in both. It that be so, than our present Opponents must be laughed out, and despised; for they deny her to say, what she hath said, & so much the more they deserve to be laughed out, and despised; because, they deny the thing wherein sense itself (even their own eyes) doth avow, and cannot be deceived, thus far touching the thing which concerns ourselves. They mean not to speak a word in behalf of the impure Church of Rome: but rather, if it were not done already they would uncover her nakedness, and abomination. And we are content to admit their pretence; because, such deep protestations, and serious cravings goes with it; but notwithstanding they gain nothing, for two reasons, 1. because, their deed cries loud, and enforceth strongly to bring us back again to Rome. I say to Rome, even unto that Rome, which they call impure; for, if they have written truly, no man can deny to enter commons with them, even in those things which these Opponents call impure; because from them we may argue thus, the Romish Church can yield salvation to her members, therefore it is the safest way to join to her, seeing all sides agree in the Antecedent, but, unsafe it is, to join with other Churches; for 'tis doubtful and in question, whether salvation can there be had or no; and thus some of that Church have reasoned against us; if any say, with us is perfection, and purity of doctrine; with them, is heresy, and defection, he saith Nothing sufficient to keep us from Rome; because, if there were any power herein for that end, it is, because, their heresy, and defection, (in the event) is able to hinder salvation: but the Romish heresy, and defection, (according to these Opponents) is not able (in the event) to hinder salvation; because, with them The foundation is held, which hath the property of that wine, which will not mingle with poison, though a great quantity thereof be put unto it, yea, such an Antidote it is and a thing so sovereign, that, it will destroy much poison, and at last quite overcome it. If all this be true, who would not be a Papist; seeing with them we find enough to persuade us; for who would not yield to tread the way to heaven? and nothing to dissuade us: for no wise man will be afraid of the thing that cannot hurt him: and this is the case between the Romish Church and us; if these Opponents may be believed: if they say, They did not perceive the issue of their doctrine, then must we blame them as heedless, and inconsiderate; what, will they be our justructers? Shall their I reatises serve to give us Instruction? Shall Cato be compelled to come in, and see, and censure: and yet such fowl, and gross faults be committed. Moreover, if salvation may be had in the Romish Church, and their heresies cannot hinder it, then doubtless, there is absoIntely nothing sufficient to bar us their communion: seeing they do as strongly avouch their doctrine to be pure, as these Opponents do condemn it as impure: In this case, what shall most men living do, if they be seduced to Popery? If a Priest should say, with us thou mayst go to heaven, (as your own side confess) with us is nothing to press thee down to hell: for, though we were as bad as you make us, yet by the confession of yours, we have an Antidote that in the event will preserve thee from the evil, and reserve thee for the good. Lastly, it can not appear that we are blamed justly: for, how much you say against us, so much (if not more) we can say for us; we have the Records of all ages for us, Counsels, Fathers, history, are strongly on our side; we have alleged them, and you cannot gainsay us: so as, now, either satisfy this last, or yield to join which us: for, yourselves do teach the two first, and you may not deny them; now, in this case, what can a reasonable man do? He sees nothing but doubtful, and difficult questions to keep him from Popery, and himself not able to determine those doubts; I say, who would not resolve thus? I will join with them, not with you; seeing I have nothing to debarr me, but some doubtful questions that may be true, and may not be true; yet howsoever they cannot hurt me. If these Opponents would have us believe, (as they greatlydesire) that, they are enemies to Rome, and friends to us, they must have esteemed the Church of Rome to want the nature of that Church whereof Christ is the head: for, that makes all sure, that bars the door, and shutteth up all entrance unto her, no man will be so mad to join with that society, where he knows the essence or nature of Christ's 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 loss; and 'tis as true in the state of grace, no man will venture where he shall lose heaven. But, because we find not this, they must give us leave to oppose them as enemies, not receive them as friends, lest their friendship turns to bitterness at the last end. They would persuade us, that, Their opinion of the Romish Church is burtfull unto her, because, therein they quit her with mercy, in stead of her cruelty: she condemneth us wholly, we condemn her but in part. But, this commends their cause but little: for according to our common Proverb, Foolish pity spoils a whole City: and this is their case: Foolish is their pity, because God's word, and true reason does abhor it, (at least) does not avow it. Spoil it doth, yea the whole City of God, (at least so fare as it is able) because it opens, I will not say a wicket, but the widest door to Popery; and standeth also in that door, and in the high ways like the strumpet, to call in, adulterous lovers; as I have already showed: but let this pity condemn them of cruelty, (as for this time I am content it shall) yet the Romish Church hath no hurt by it: for, it condemns them of a fault in the practice 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 love, nor pity: for, if it be their due, because they have indeed that essence, and nature wherewith Christ's Church is form, than it is justice, (which consisteth in giving every man his due:) If it be not their due, because they want that essence or nature wherewith Christ's Church is form, than it is a lie, which always is committed, when a man pronounceth of a thing otherwise than it is in itself. They plead, That, we mistake them indeed, and in the thing they agree with us; because, there is one truth natural, and another moral; they hold the question in the first sense, and we in the second: but, upon advisement, and a true understanding of thins, we say as they do, and they as we; both concurring in this, that, the Romish Church hath the essence or being of Christ's Church, but defiled with heresy, and idolatry. The case stands not thus, we understand them to say, The Romish Church hath that essence, and nature wherewith the Church of Christ is constituted and form. And unto this the Church of England, and all her right bred children say the contradictory, as shall evidently appear in the disputation itself, when we propound, explicate, and agree upon, the state of the question: wherefore, let not our Opponents shroud themselves under our ignorant mistaking of their meaning in the present question; for we shall deprive them thereof, and leave them naked unto the wide world, when we come to the place aforesaid, where the Reader shall find, that we accept the question, even in their own terms, and as themselves do explicate, and unfold it: wherein we do no new thing; for our Church had used the like explication before them, as the Reader shall perceive in the place forenamed. These things being true, (as they are most true) it was a poor shift, to cast upon us, the shameful reproach of mistaking their meaning, as if, we were ignorant, and could not, or malicious, and would not or over zealous and did not, understand their writing: we use to say, Better a bad shift, than none at all: all we may answer it with the like; A shameless shift, is worse than none at all: and this is the present case: when all means fail, we must be ignorant, malicious, or over zealous mistakers of their meaning, rather than they will be seen to mean falsely; their doings severeth friends asunder, reconcileth not, nor bring them together. Hitherto we have taken as granted, that, these Opponents do maintain a position contradictory to our Church. It may be, they will deny it, and plead thus for themselves. 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 have not found this exception made as yet by any, yet it is very needful, that I propound it, and give answer hereunto; Some man (perhaps) will attempt his escape by it; for, untruths of this nature, must creep into the poorest corner, rather than remain without shelter. If there be no difference between 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 affirm; but they are the same, for Christ's Church (howsoever it be taken, and with what word soever, it be donoted, and set out) is formed and constituted, by one and the same formal essence, and being, otherwise, there should be two Churches of Christ specifically formed, and differenced: which yet, God never revealed, we never have read, and no man therefore may avouch. If the word [A] and the word [The] import one specifical thing, than the Propositions in question are contradictory: because, the same predicate is affirmed of the same subject in the one, and so denied in the other: but, both these words import the same thing; for, a particular Church is called [A Church] in the common use 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 general or universal, and particular. which in this place makes no difference in the predicates, which consisteth (cheisly) in the term nature, or essence: and that is the same in the Church, taken as a Catholic, or universal comprehension of all the members, whereof the Church consisteth, or conceived in particular, as it is bounded and limited within one Nation. This I say, the Church Catholic, and the Church Nationall, or O Econumicall, is form and constituted by one and the same formal essence, and being, they only differ materially, whose property it is, to individuate the form materiated. And sense itself doth teach it us, every singular man, and every distinct Nation and all men without exception, have one and the same specifical, and formal being, Intelligibillitie, and Ellectuallitie, is the same in one man, & in all men, herein only they differ; the one is a comprehension of many individual bodies, the other a comprehension of a few individual bodies, so is it with Christ's Church, the same thing that makes that whole society to be Christ's Church specifically, and formally, the very same thing makes a Nation, or a fewer number, to be Christ's Church specifically, and formally: by reason whereof, when we deny, The Romish Church to have the nature of the Church, we deny it to have the nature of A Church. And contrariwise, when we say, The Romish Church hath the nature of a true Church, we give her the nature of the true Church, and thus (I hope) I have prevented all men that would doubt whether these Opponents do contradict our Church or not, and have made it manifest, that they do contradict her indeed, and accordingly we have heretofore, and may hereafter, rightly, and justly, presume it as true, and take it as certain, and thus am I well near at an end in my answer to all their passages in common: Two only remains, I will speak briefly unto them, and then finish this matter. Amongst the rest of their hard measure offered unto us, I find one heap which may not be concealed: in 15. short lines, thus are we styled. Your minds are prepossessed with prejudiced. They content themselves only to take up opinions upon trust, and will hold them, because they know where they had them. Whole volumes are nothing unto them, Anvils they are, & in vain should I spend myself in beating upon them. Christians they are not ingenuous. They have no care open for justice, and truth. Doubtless this Opponent meant to infer something from this rabble: for, a man of wisdom, and learning will not speak words that serve to no purpose. I conceive he would conclude thus. Therefore our adversaries cause is naught. This was once Bishop jewels case, when he had to do with railing Harding; to whom he answered thus: I pray thee good Reader, think not our cause the worse, though these men's tongues are so ready to speak ill, content thyself a while, and thou shalt see all this smoke blown away, even with one blast. In whose words I answer too. These ignominious terms are nothing to infer such a conclusion: for evil men may speak the truth, and defend a good cause: Wherefore the naughtiness of a person inferreth not badness upon a cause, or question. The Antecedent is also false, we deny ourselves to be guilty as he doth charge us, he brings no proof 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 us: for, if accusation can make guilty, who shall be innocent. Thus, these pleader's Argument is come to nothing, like smoke carried up with the air. But let us reason the case with him a little; Is this Author bitter by custom? Is his nature addicted to sharpness? Myself am not able to resolve the doubt: if he be, we willingly pardon the offence, we must bear one another's burden, according to the Apostles rule. Nay, we will pray in the words of the first Christian Martyr, and say, O Lord forgive him, for he knows not what he does: his passion was at this time his master: but if this ill language be acted, if it be taken up to serve a turn, the case is worse for him, his account (before God's Tribunal) is the greater and heavier; but for us the better, his impatience shall commend our patience, his bitterness our meekness; his crying in the streets, our silence; best it is to be like him, that as a lamb dumb 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 terms, contained in the title of of his book, and the end of his English Epistle; which I have reported in this Preface, num. 3. and these they are. He is an Instructor. His Treatise serves to give instruction. With him is the Spirit. The inspiration of the Almighty gives him understanding, and him only, for sometimes great men want w●s●d●me, and the aged understanding, and judgement; therefore you must hear him. For his writings, they are such, as he may let Cato come in, and see, and censure. We have now the head, but we want the tail: he presenteth us 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 do thus, but he that excels in that art. But what say I? Do I commend him for Logic? I do: but 'tis my fault, and I crave his pardon: when he disputes I must extol him, for his Rhetoric: for, with him, that art is the queen of arts to serve a Disputers term; and no doubt she was his queen and he followed her laws when he would thus extol himself. Doubtless, hereby he meant to abase us, and our cause, else it had been vain, thus to elevate himself: and we will confess (for our own parts) that we must come under his see, and hide ourselves under him from the weather shore; if all be true that he avoucheth: but I doubt of that, and so must, till I hear Ca●● his sentence; for, he commits the cause to him, and so will we too: because ●ato (amongst all Philosophers) is held, the wisest, and gravest Statesman and Lawmaker: therefore we will present his particular brags, and attend the sentence of Cato. He appeals to Cato, nay he invites yea provokes Cato to the search and censure of his writings. Even he, this Author, a youth, as him elf professeth, and all the world knows, he is a yoncker and but a yoncker in age, and stades: what will Cato say to this? The excellentest of many, must rise from his grave, to censure the meanest of thousands. Let him 〈…〉 An instructor he is, but will you know what degree he bears in that office; his title will tell you, even nothing inferior to God himself: for he borrowed his whole title from Psal. 32: 1. only God calls his work a Psalm, this Opponent names his, a treatise, but one thing he comes short in, that word MASCHIL in the Hebrew is written two several ways; in the one it signifies to understand, or things fit to be understood, If it be written the second way, it signifies lightness, folly, or to be mad, as the learned in that tongue, have observed. Thus much I haue been informed by men of credit in that language, for myself am wholly ignorant that way: things standing thus, I say if he had written that word with the Hebrew Character, we should have understood his meaning, we might have known the full value of his style, and title of honour, but because he hath not, we can only guess at it: wherefore thus we say, if we take it to signify things fit to give understanding, then in this office he gives God the mate, what will Cato say to this, that a Youth (not 30. years of age) becomes an instructor equal to God himself. No marvel though he dares Cato to his face, seeing he dare set his foot to Gods, and instruct in things divine equal to him: if he writes the word the second way, than folly is his name, and madness is with him. But, who is it that he offers to instruct? Not scholars in a Grammar school: no no: these are to mean for him to work upon; It is his Mother whom he must deal withal, his Mother (I say) that bred him, and nourisheth him, must be subject now to his rod, and ferula; O happy Mother may she well say, that hath such a Child: so ripe, that in so few years can instruct his Mother; and thrice happy Son, that is grown up with such speed, that so soon as he can but crawl, he presently can sustain and secure his Mother: I know this will be Cato's sentence, therefore Cato, speak and spare not, we know thou wilt say as we do, therefore we will hear and fear not. He telleth us: God's Spirit dwells with him and by the inspiration thereof, he hath understanding. Therefore he must speak, you you must not ●eare them; If he prove the Antecedent, I grant the consequent, but that he cannot; nay 'tis impossible. God's spirit is fish of temperance, humility, meekness, kindness love, so as, he that is taught by that Master, hath learned these lessons; His scholars are not proud, vain boasters of themselves, their minds are not lifted v●●n them: but they esteem others better than themselves: If we lay our present Opponent to this rule, in what case shall we find him: agrees he with it? Does he notswarue from it? Let this title and conclusion of his Epistle give judgement, I say no more: though I know Cato would say no less; yea we are sure, he would exceed us much, and thus am I come to an end of my answer to such things as concern the disputation in common, and therefore I will proceed in the next place, to a formal dispute of the question itself. CHAP. 1. Of the question and parties to the disputation. IN the following discourse we inquire after these two questions. 1 Whether the present Romish Church, be the true Church or not. 2 Whether the professors of the present Romish faith, can be saved or not. These two do mutually imply each other. So as we may truly say, if she be a Church, then is there salvation in her, if salvation, than a Church, and contrariwise, wherefore the proof of the first confirms the latter. The parties to the present disputation are, our Church and all her true and lawful children, upon the one part: And two of her unnatutall children make the other part. Which of them hath the truth, I hope (by God's grace) openly to discover, before we end this Treatise. Our Church holds the negative in the first question, and hath set her sentences down in the second Homily for whitsuntide in these words 1 The state of the present Church of Rome, is so far wide from the nature of the true Church, that nothing can be more. 2 The Bishops of Rome and their adherents, are not the true Church of Christ. 3 The true Church is not at Rome. The first and second of the alleged sentences, are expressly found barely set down as I have alleged them, and they are sufficient to let us know the faith of our Church in the matter in hand. The third, is necessarily employed by our Church at these words. If it be poss●ble for God's spirit to be there where the true Church is not then is it at Rome. In this latter sentence our Church presumes, that the true Church is not at Rome, otherwise the inference would be fond and ridiculous, and indeed the Disputation in that place being framed according to Art standeth thus. Where the holy Ghost is, there is the true Church. But at Rome, there is not the true Church. Therefore the holy Ghost is not at Rome, The Proposition is pursued after the words last alleged, the Assumption is confirmed by arguments going before. Thus our Church by repeating the same conclusion often, showeth us how serious she is in the matter, and by often varying her manner of speaking, we clearly understand her meaning. The foresaid two opponents do hold the affirmative against our Church, namely: The Church of Rome as she is at this present, is a true Church. As page 30 in the one, and page 18. in the other. Before we enter upon the discussion hereof, we must first understand the terms wherein this question is delivered. By Romish Church, we mean the Bishops of Rome and their adherents, (that is to say) all such both Clergy and Laiety, which live in the Romish Religion, and communicate in her faith, and make up one society or body. By true Church, we understand a Society or congregation, which hath these essential qualities that concur unto the being and form of a Church, And herein all sides agree as the Reader may find in the Homily alleged, and in both our opponents in page 13 of the one, and page 15, 17. and 100 of the other. We must also further know, that the R●mish faith consisteth, either in the Universal consent of their learned, or in the Decrees of their Counsels, or in both. The first is their Catholic, the second is their divine faith. So as he that professeth their religion, and communicates in their faith, believes as they do in the manner aforesaid. Hitherto I have alleged the Homily, as the doctrine of our Church, and I presume none will reprove me for it, because all that book, is solemnly confirmed as such by our State, It is to be read in all our Churches by public appointment, and is subscribed unto by all our Ministers, as containing Doctrine, godly, wholesome, and necessary, I say, it is so subscribed unto, because the 36 Canon requireth, that no person shallbe received into the Ministry; nor suffered to exercise any part of the Ministerial function in any place within this Realm, except he shall first subscribe (amongst other things) unto the 39 Articles of Religion, agreed upon by the whole Clergy Anno 1562. Now the 36 Canon in commanding subscription to the said 39 Articles, doth also consequently command subscription to the books of Homilies, because the 35 Article doth no more but ratify & confirm the former and second book of Homilies. Now if the present Homily be the doctrine of our Church, than the sentences alleged out of the same can be no less, for they are such a main and principal part thereof, that the Homily cannot subsist without them. And thus I hope every Reader hath direction enough, touching the state of the question and the parties to the Disputation. CHAP. 2. Of our first Argument for the main question, and of their general answer thereunto. Our Church in the Homily already recited, hath an argument expressly thus. The true Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles, and Prophets, jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone. But the present Romish Church, is not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, for they retain not the sound and pure doctrine of Christ jesus, neither do they order the Sacraments in such sort, as he did first institute and ordain them, that now they may seem to be converted into a new guise. Therefore the present Romish Church, is not the true Church. The Homily takes the proposition to be a description of the Church, so rgreeable to the Scriptures, and Ancient Fathers, that none may justly find fault therewith. So likewise it takes the Assumption, as a confessed truth by all such as have any light of God's word, and insight into their lives, and examples. Whereupon it is confident of the conclusion. Though this Argument wanteth not strength, to infer the conclusion, so as it needeth not our further labour, yet before I pass from it, I will unfold the terms. By Christ and his servants, not their persons, but their Preaching and Revelation is understood. The sacred Revelation, is called the Church's foundation, because by the profession thereof, 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 unto heaven, which befalleth no Society else whatsoever, the Homily speaks of the foundation of the Church, as one entire & individual whole, that is, of one complete being undivided into parts or kinds, and it attributes the same in the Proposition to the true Church, as adequate thereunto, and convertible therewith, and it denies it in the Assumption, unto the present Romish Church universally, or totally. So as the Church of Rome, and the Sacred Revelation in the intent of the Homily, are divided as things really, and essentially, distinct and different, as if our Church had said, the Romish Church sitteth beside the foundation of the Divine Revelation. And thus our Church must be understood, because this sense agrees with the Scriptures, with the 39 Article, and with true reason, all other senses are violent and enforced as we shall see in the prosecution of this Argument. According to this interpretation, the Argument may be framed in these terms. The true Church professeth the Preaching, or Revelation 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 denies 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, denies the conclusion of this Argument to be 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, unless he will say, that the conclusion of an Argument is no part thereof. If that be his judgement, he must teach Aristotle, for he thinketh otherwise. Prior. lib. 1. cap. 1. Top: lib. 1. cap. 1. For this time the conclusion shall go for none of hers, that we may see what they will say to it. Opponent B. in his Latin Epistle says, 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 a● sure, these parties are ill matched, because they ●rosse one the other. The one thinks the present conclusion to be nothing, the other esteems it a monster, and that is more than some thing, but let us for this time think so too, because if that be so, than the premises which infer that conclusion are monstrous likewise, if the premises be monstrous, then will these opponents make them to appear to be so. And thus much for their answers to this Argument in general. CHAP. 3. Of the same Argument and their answer thereunto. THe Reader must remember our Argument, in the true and plainest terms standeth thus. The true Church is founded upon (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 receive this construction. First they must be understood of the accidental truth of the Church, in regard of soundness, and not of essential truth, in regard of God's Covenant. Secondly they must be understood even of soundness, comparatively and not simply, that is in regard of the Primitive Church, and not otherwise. Thus fare he and not one word further touching this matter. I reply, In this answer we must look for the meaning of his words, and the application of the matter to our Argument. His meaning is further to seek then Sampsons' Riddle, or more senseless than becomes a reasonable man. He seems thus to distinguish. 1. The truth of the Church is Accidental in regard of soundness. Essential in regard of God's Covenant. 2. Soundness is taken Comparatively in regard of the Primitive Church. Simply. For thus lies his words directly: but who shall understand him? The Rules of Logic cannot help us, for according to them, these distributions are no ways to be allowed. According to Art, every distribution containeth a whole, and part. So Aristotle Top. lib: 6. cap. 1. Rursus utrumque etc. 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 do make one certain 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 term Church, (that is) the adjunct or accident is set out by a first substance or individual subject. If that be good, than Aristotle must come to him to learn Logic: 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. Again, in that distribution essential and accidental 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 understanding, in the judgement 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 accidental and essential truth makes no such adequation: for those terms import no more but a necessary and contingent predication which belongs to the manner of predicating. Lastly, he attributes soundness to accidental truth, and God's covenant to essential truth; but that is impossible. The second distribution is as fond, if not worse than the first, but I will not misspend mine own and the Readers time about it. It was meet for me to let this opponent see his weakness in Logic, because he vaunteth so much of his skill that ways in his Epistle, and throughout his whole book. 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 seek for that, because he brings nothing that leads us thereunto: Wherefore I come to himself and say in his own words, pag. 3. _____ Apply john Barber, and thou shalt have a new pair of Sizors. When he hath done so he shall have further answer, and in the mean time I will set down and examine what his partner B. saith to our argument now in hand; therein I will take only the sum of his answer and no more, to save mine own labour and the Readers, following the example of the schools, who always run that course. He beginneth his answer at p. 84. at these words. We profess that we esteem, etc. And continues the same unto pag. 88 As his partner's answer was, so is his, intricate, perplexed, unapplyed, but with this difference he was briefer, as liking Logic and not Rhetoric, this larger, as loving Rhetoric and not Logic, nothing could be made of his. Something as I conceive may be made of this, wherefore I will set down that something with the best warrant of his own discourse. Thus than he seems to answer. The doctrine of Christ and his Apostles purely taught without mixture of error is the genuine mark of the true Church: So as, where that is, there follows the appellation of a true Church, and from thence we may argue thus. Wheresoever God's word is purely preached, and the Sacraments duly administered, there is a true Church. And so fare 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 error is not so essential to the true Church that so soon as unsound doctrine is mingled with the truth of God's word and the Sacraments unduely administered that which was a Church should cease to be one. In this sense the Proposition is false, for such doctrine belongs unto the perfection and glory of the Church, and she may be without them as the children of Israel were many days without a Sacrifice and an Ephod. Hosea. 3.4. yet still they were God's Church. It may fall out that they may be corrupted as in the times of blindness and superstition, or intermitted as in persecution. In this sense the Proposition is not according to the intent of our Church which meant not so strictly to tie God's Church to these signs as if all were excluded from the Church which do not rightly participate of the word and Sacraments in the judgement of Mr. Rogers in his Commentary upon 19 art. propo. 8. Lastly, in this sense the Assumption is false that makes a real & total 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 think more in their Sermons. Thus I hope I have exactly expressed his intent, if I have miss in any thing the fault is his, not mine; he may thank me for my pains, because I have done for him what he could not, (at least) what he hath not done for himself: that I may use his partners words, pag. 5. Now we will take it into several pieces, and examine them in several chapters following. CHAP. 4. Proving this sentence, The present Romish faith is erroneous. THe examination of his last answer to our Assumption, (wherein he does attribute some purity of Christ's doctrine unto the Church of Rome) is sufficient to determine the worth of our argument now in hand, and the whole question itself: for if the Romish Church be all error and Antichristian, (that is) if her faith be erroneous, then without doubt she is none of God's Church. The Church of England in her Assumption (now in question) meant to say so, as I have already said, cap. 2. n. 1. and will now prove by God's assistance. If the Romish Church retain some of Christ's doctrine pure without mixture of error, then, 1. Christ's doctrine cannot be denied her in terms without limitation. 2. She is not changed into a new guise, nor hath forsaken the commandments of God to set up her own constitutions. 3. She is not without the holy Ghost. But (according to our Church) 1. Christ's doctrine is denied her in terms without limitation: for thus lie the words of her Assumption: The present Romish Church is not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, retaining the sound and pure doctrine of Christ jesus, neither do they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute and ordain them. 2. She is changed into a new guise by chopping and changing, by adding and plucking away. They have forsaken the commandments of God to set up their own constitutions. 3. They are without the Spirit of God. Therefore (according to our Church in her Assumption) the present Romish Church does not retain some part of Christ's doctrine pure without mixture of error, but she is all error, and her faith erroneous. Many learned amongst us have so understood our Church, and I will name some in stead of all. Bishop jewel in the defence of his Apology, pag. 4. cap. 11. divis. 1. chargeth her in absolute terms, that she had departed from God's ward: and more plainly, pag. 5. cap. 13. divis. He saith the same thing in these words. Th●se men have br●ken in pecces all the pope's and conduits, they have stopped all the springs and choked up the fountain of living water with dirt and mire. He repeats the same thing in other terms, cap. 15. divis. 2. thus. In the Romish Church we cannot home the word of God sinetrely taught, nor the Sacraments rightly administered, nor the name of God duly called upon, 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 Apology part 6. cap. 22. divis. 2. where he saith, that the present Church of Rome hath utterly forsaken the Catholic faith. Doct. Reynolds in his 5. Conclusions & Preface, at the 6. doth charge the present Romish Church to be distempered not with a sickness that hindereth the functions of life, but with such a one, as for itself makes her past hope of recovery; and namely she serves not God with a holy worship, nor believed God with a holy faith as he hath commanded, but stained the faith of Christ with reproaches, creatures with the Lords honour, God's service with Idolatry. Doct. whitaker's in his second controversy of the Church q. 6. cap. 1. adjudgeth the present Romish Church to be nothing else but a deep pit of heresy and error, and thereby argueth her no ways to be or to belong unto the true Church. Mr. Perkins in the Preface to his Reformed Catholic saith: The whole Religion of the present Romish Church is heretical and schismatical, and the cup of abomination in the Whore's hand, Revel. 17.4. And Doctor Abbot Bishop of Salisbury in his defence of this place in Mr. Perkins doth justify and avow the same thing against bishop the Papist. Bishop Careton in his directions to know the true Church proves at large that the present Romish Church holas not unity with the true Church, neither in the head, nor in the body, nor in the spirit, nor in the faith. If that be true she is all error, her faith is erroneous. Now I have proved our Assumption against his exception thereto, by the authority of our Church and a cloud of her most learned, and renowned children, I will make the same good by the testimony of God himself. But I am prevented in that by Mr. Wotton, who hath done it already in his book called Run from Rome, where he begins this point pag 14. num. 4. whereunto I might refer the Reader, as unto a most pious & learned author, & a work that admitteth not any real, essential, or substantial addition, but I will make bold to take out of him so much as belongs to this cause not word for word, but so much as will be suitable, to the business. First I will set down how he unfoldeth the term and then come to his proofs of the question. The word Faith importeth a singular thing, undevided into either members or kinds, with warrant from the Apostle, who speaks so of it. Eph. 4.5. There is one faith, (saith he) one Baptism, one Mediator between God and man. 1 Tim. 2.5. In what manner the Mediator is one, and Baptism is one, so Faith is once for one phrase of speech is common to them all, but they are one without division into members, or kinds: therefore so is faith. The thing itself says no less, for this word Faith, importeth a comprehension of many sentences made one body by a common band, namely the divine authority. For in every article a part, and in all of them together, we find the same authority, which draweth us to consent to them as true, and accordingly the belief of one, is the belief of all, the denial of one, the denial of all. Every Engular sentence pronounced by the Church of Rome, as a thing revealed by God is (in this question) the Romish faith. An Article of faith is then erroneous, when it agrees not with the sacred Revelation, and this we say, with warrant from the Council of Trent Sess. 14. cap: 8. of the necessity of Satisfaction. And afterwards in the Decree touching the Sacrament of penance Canon. 6. And the thing itself doth avow the same: for the varying from the rule, is the very nature of error, therefore every article of faith, must needs be erroneous that agrees not with God's word, because that word is the rule thereof. By it our faith was revealed unto us, and by the record thereof it is reserved for us. And so much for Mr. Wottons' explication. We have his proof pag 15. nu. 6. thus set forth. That faith which hath a fa●se and erroneous foundation is false and erronions, But the foundation of the Romish saith is false and erroneous: Therefore the Romish faith is false and erroneous. In the Proposition, two things are taken as granted. viz. 1 Faith hath a foundation without it. 2 Different foundations causeth different faiths. Both of them are clear and evident, therefore they stand not in need of my proof, if the terms be opened they will be out of question. By foundation we mean, the next and formal reason, why we assent to this or that proposition in Divinity, (that is) why we judge this predicate to be truly and rightly attributed to that subject: now this is without the Article itself, because it is no more but the authority of him that pronounceth the sentence. In the second sentence we mean to say, Every distinct faith, follows the next and formal reason of our believing; as when we believe this or that report to be true, upon the authority of him that reports it: this is humane saith, because it follows humane authority; and accordingly the faith of Turks and Heathens is accounted humane, because the next reason of their believing is man's authority: accordingly that is Divine faith, when we esteem this or that sentence to be true, because God hath pronounced it. And thus have we cleared the Proposition. Mr. Wotton proves the Assumption by these two sentences. 1. The foundation of their faith is the authority of the Pastors of their Church. No. 7. 2. This foundation of faith is false and erroneous. No. 10. And this proof is manifest and without exception, if both these sentences be true. But they are true: he proves the first num. 8. by this argument They that have the office to determine what is the true faith, (that is, what is revealed, & what is not revealed) their authority is the foundation of faith. But the Romish Church, (that is, the Pastors of their Church) hath that office. Therefore the authority of their Church, (that is, the Pastors of their Church) is the foundation of their faith. The Proposition needs no relief, for that office of showing what is revealed, and what is not, is the next and formal reason of their belief, as by their doctrine and practice we shall see hereafter, num. 8. etc. The Assumption needs our help as little, for every man that is acquainted with their faith knows that they give their Church that office: yet for further explication I will show the same by the Council of Trent. Sess. 4. praeterea, etc. saith. It is the office of the Church to judge of the true meaning and sense of the Scriptures. By Church, they understand the Pastors of the Church, and we know it by their practice, and the judgement of their learned. No man enjoyeth a share in the voice of deciding judgement in any Council, but their Bishops, who only according to them are the Pastors of the Church. By judging, is meant an enforcing power, compelling their sentence to be obeyed and received. By sense of the Scriptures, is understood every Article or sentence of faith, for an Article of faith is a sentence held according to the true sense of God's word. By Scriptures, they understand every particular sentence contained in the Scriptures, for if they meant some places only, there could be no certainty in this decree, because they do not determine the particular places subjected to the Church's sentence; and when they subject the sense of the Scriptures unto the Church's judgement, they would have us believe, that the Church must tell us which be the Scriptures, and which be not, else we can have no divine faith of them: for reason tells us they must have authority in all points of faith, or none at all. This decree of the Council thus understood, is followed by all their Divines, and Suarez gives it us in this one sentence. A general Council in which the Pope is present, either in his own person, or by his Legates, and confirmed by the Pope, is an infallible rule of Faith. And this is a matter of Faith. De Fide, etc. Tracta. 1. Disp. 5. Sect. 7. No. 6. & 9 Bellarmine delivereth the self same matter in a most ample & large manner in diverse places in his third book of God's word, and I will report them in order as they stand, and thus he gins, Cap. 3. Tota igitur. The Church, (that is) the Pope, with his Council of other Pastors, is the judge of the true sense of the Scriptures, in which all Catholics agree, and the Council of Trent hath it expressly Sess. 4. It is committed singularly to Peter, and his Successors, that they should teach all men what is to be held concerning the doctrine of Faith. Cap. 5. Ex his, etc. The Counsels and Popes execute the office of a judge, committed to them by God, a judge delivereth his sentence as a thing that necessarily must be followed. Cap. 10. Respond. aliud est. Christians are bound to receive the doctrine of the Church, when it setteth forth the matters of faith, and not to doubt whether those things be so or not, Cap. 10. sept. argumentum. Hitherto he setteth forth the matter in gross, and not unfolded, wherefore we must seek for that also, and we shall find the same in the said 10. Chapter, and first he giveth us a reason why the Church should have this office committed to her in these words. The Scripture for itself needs not the witness of men, for it is most true in itself whether it be understood or not: but for our sake it needs the witness of the Church, because otherwise we are not certain what books are sacred and divine, or what is the true and proper meaning. Cap. 10. Respondeo Christus. Hitherto we find these authors concurring with the Council in the sense aforesaid, and thereby our Assumption at num. 7. is confirmed, wherein we say, Their Church, (that is, the Pastors of their Church) hath an office to determine which is the true faith, (that is) what is revealed, and what is not revealed: and we must know that their judgement is not a private opinion, but the faith of their Church. Suarez saith so expressly in the place alleged, and the thing itself doth say no less of them both, for they agree with the Council, and all on their side agree with them; none of theirs do deny what they affirm. If any man think not so, he must show the contrary, which yet I never found. Wherefore we need not doubt of the conclusion, wherein we maintain, That their Church is the foundation of their faith, being the thing we undertook to prove, num. 7. Though this be enough to manifest the matter, yet I will add some other proof from the testimony of their Church to justify the same conclusion, because I would have the thing made easy to our understanding as well as proved to be true by force of argument. Now Bellarmine doth all this in most plain and evident manner in the place following. The word of God delivered by the Prophets and Apostles is the first foundation of our faith, for therefore we believe whatsoever we believe, because God hath revealed it by his Prophets and Apostles; but we add, that besides this first foundation there is another secondary foundation needful, to wit, the testimony of the Church, for we know not certainly what God hath revealed, but by the testimony of the Church. Therefore our faith cleaveth to Christ the first, truth revealing those mysteries as to the first foundation: It cleaves also to Peter, that is, to the Pope, propounding and expounding these mysteries, as to a second foundation. Cap. 10. Respondeo ad hoc. If any man desire to see this precept manifested by practice, he does that also after this sort. We are to know that a Proposition or Article of faith is concluded in such a Syllogism as this. Whatsoever God hath revealed is true. But this God hath revealed. Therefore this is true. Of the first of these Propositions no man makes any question. The second is held for certain truth amongst all Catholics, for it is grounded upon the testrmony of the Church, Cap. 10. Respondeo verbum. To conclude, I will report another testimony of his, whereby the whole frame of this building is brought to perfection, and for that end thus he writeth. A precept of faith is to be proved four ways. 1. By express testimony of Scripture with a declaration of the Church. 2. By evident deduction out of express Scripture, with a declaration of the Church being added thereunto. 3. Out of God's word, not written by the Apostles, but delivered from hand to hand. 4. By eutdent deduction out of the word of God, delivered from hand to hand. De Purga. lib. 1. cap. 15. Haec sive. Neither is this doctrine Bellarmine's fancy, but it is the Romish faith, for it is warranted by the testimony of all the learned in that Church, and the Decree of the Trent Council, already recited n. 8. for when it gives the Church the office to judge of the sense of the Scriptures, it grants that the Scriptures are in being already, and therefore that they are the revealers of the Sacred verities, and consequently the first foundation of our faith. When it subiecteth the sense only of the Scriptures to the judgement of the Church, it gives the Church authority, to propound, expound, and apply the Scriptures, and therefore it makes the Church a second foundation, and no more. By this time I hope it is evident enough, that the authority of the Church is the foundation, that is, the next and formal reason of their faith and believing, and that is the thing we seek for. Now we should prove, that this foundation of their Faith is false and erroneous, for that is the second thing propounded in this chapter num. 7. But I will spare that labour at this time, because none of ours as I conceive, will call it into question, beside, if any do. Mr. Wotton in the book recited even now, hath made it manifest against all opposers, pag. 21. num. 5. etc. If therefore any man desires to see it, I refer him thither, because it fitteth not this business to transcribe it. And thus much may suffice in proof of our Assumption propounded cap. 3. num. 1. CHAP. 5. Defendeth this sentence, The Romish faith is erroneous. BOth our opponents are mightily gravelled with this sentence, and all such as hold it; wherefore in both their Epistles Dedicatory they propound it, and blame it, as a thorn in their eyes that may not be endured. Our opponent B. disputeth against this at large: but (according as I have done before so will I do now) his long and tedious discourse shall be contracted into a narrow room, lest the reader be wearied with the length, and puzzled with the matter: yet still his own words and true intent shallbe followed. Thus than he says. 1 In the Church of Rome is some good. 2 They teach well touching the Trinity. 3 The Dominicans maintain God's free grace, against man's freewill. 4 Much good is in the twelve books of Alvarez, and in the interpretations and Commentaries of Maldonat, Lorynus, and the rest of the jesuites. pag 90. 5 We agree on both sides in these points following. 1 That the books of the old Testament written in Hebrew are Canonical. 2 That we are justified by faith. 3 That God hath made heaven and hell for men's souls after death. 4 That God may be worshipped in Spirit without an Image 5 That we are to pray unto God by Christ. 6 That there be two Sacraments. 7 That Christ is really received in the Lord's Supper. 8 That Christ hath made one oblation of himself upon the Cross for the redemption and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, 9 Under the Papacy is much good, nay all, yea the very kernel of Christianity pag. 39 40. 41. I answer, our Opponent C. pag. 4. and 5. blames the man that affirms without pooofe, and makes it a Law, that such an affirmation is as soon denied as made. This is the case of this opponent. He telleth us a tale of their agreement with us in divers particulars, but he allegeth no author, book, or chapter, whereby we may try, whether he says true or not; if then we deny, that they and we do thus agree, all his building falls to the ground, according to his partner's sentence, pag 4. Thus sound he answers to the thing that doth most urge him, but for this time I am content to say, they and we do thus agree, yet behold his case from himself pag. 82. We hear of a great cry and little will: & pag. 83. of a man whose skill in Logic was so good, that he proved what was granted, and being granted, was to no purpose. Now I commend him for so doing, because I perceive he spoke the very truth, but himself gains 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 st●r. If he had said no more but thus: The Romish Church agrees with us in many divine sentences, he had been as near his purpose as now: therefore we have a great cry and little will. If he reply that all the rest proves that sentence, I rejoind, I am content it shall be so, because that shows his great skill in Logic, for than he proves the thing that none will deny, and being granted, serves not his purpose, which none will do, 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, than it is to the purpose, else not; thus than it must be framed. They that agree with us in the particulars recited, their faith is not erroneous. But the Romish Church agrees with us in the particulars recited. Therefore their faith is not erroneous. But no part of this Argument is good. The Proposition is not true: and why may I not say so, seeing in itself, and by itself, it is not manifest, neither does he offer any proof for it; and now I have denied it, his whole building is come to ruin, 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 thereupon gives 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 fare the Proposition is true also: but those Articles and the Romish faith are not the same thing: but this extends further than them, and himself, even he that now answers being judge, pag. 40. He writes thus: To the Scriptures they add Traditions, to the Hebrew Canon the Apocrypha, to faith works, to Heaven and Hell Purgatory; and so forth in the rest: whereupon his Proposition begs the question, and therefore it hath no force to infer the conclusion. His partner C. pag. 2. cannot abide beggary, but this doth love it we'll; but in the mean time he is a goodly Disputer, that can prove nothing, unless we grant him what himself denies: this is enough to satisfy this Argument, because this feigned surmise is the first and original foundation thereof. But out of our store of exceptions hereunto for this time, we will forgive 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 far the Assumption is granted; but the Proposition is denied, because faith and a true Proposition really differs: the one is no more but a subject, and predicate, rightly joined 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 whereupon we believe, from whence it comes to pass, that faith is of different kinds, some divine, and some humane, as I have showed. In the recited Articles we agree not with the Romish, as they are Articles of faith: For in them we do really and essentially differ. They pronounce them to be true, upon the authority of their Church, which is (indeed) humane, we upon the authority of Christ the Revealer, which by joint 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 means to excuse the Rom●sh faith from error; nor cause to give her the name, and nature of a true Church: which is the thing we seek for. CHAP. 6. Defendeth this sentence: The faith of the Church is not right and pure, false and erroneous together: viz. in different Articles. WE must now go back again to the rest of opponent B. his answer left unsatisfied, in cap. 3. num. 8. The first branch whereof (we are now to deal withal) hath these words. The doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, taught purely without mixture of error, is not so essential to the true Church, that so soon as an unsound doctrine is mingled with the truth of God's word, and the Sacraments unduely administered, 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 erroneous together: viz. in different Articles. And he does expressly avouch the same in diverse passages of his book; 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 fundamental truth: pag. 4. In the Pope's Arithmetic, Articles of faith are added: pag. 39 Such affirmatives of ours, as concern the foundation of Faith, are professed by the Church of Rome: pag. 41. And nothing is more frequent with him, than words to this effect. The Church of Rome, (that is all those which lying in that religion make up one body or society) 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 subject: we must distinguish betwixt the Church, and the Papacy: pag. 28, 29. We have learned to distinguish betwixt the Church, and the great Whore in the Church: we have communion with the Church, we separate from Babylon: pag. 101. This we deny, and will maintain the contradictory, (to wit) The faith of the Church, is not right and true, false and erroneous together: viz. in different Articles. But, If some Articles of Faith be false and erroneous, than the Faith of the Church it false and erroneous. I will not now give reason of this denial: but defer the same till we come to the 7. Chap. where it shall be disputed so much as is requisite. He brings proof 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 needful. Thus than he disputes: If the Faith of the Church cannot be true, and erroneous together, then where error in faith is, there cannot be a true Church. But where error in faith is, there may be a true Church: for first, our Church thinks so, Article 19 according to Mr. Rogers, in his Commentary upon the place, Propo. 8. 2 The children of Israel did abide many days without a Sacrifice and Ephod, etc. Hosea 3.4. and without Circumcision, the space of 40. years: Iosh: 5.6. yet then were they the Church of God. 3 The word and Sacraments may be corrupted, as in the times of blindness, and superstition; or intermitted as in persecution. I answer, the consequence of the Proposition we grant, as very necessary: But the Assumption is false. We say, that, error in faith, and the Church are incompatible: and, it is the Argument of our Church already alleged out of the Homily. To all his proofs jointly, I answer: They are far to weak to uphold this weighty matter, if this assumption be not true, than his whole cause falls to the ground. Himself confesseth (as we have heard) that the present Romish Church is guilty of heresy; and, therefore can be no true Church, unless error in faith may be in the Church: For heresy (at least) comprehends error in faith. Wherefore it stood him upon to gather his wits, and unite his forces together, to strengthen and maintain this business: we looked for pregnant proof out of God's word, (for doubtless) 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 guess at. So loving and wise was the Lord, when he appointed the means of man's salvation. But lo, no such thing is tendered, and therefore we may conclude, no such thing is in being, and consequently, we may set down our rest and say, doubtless the faith of the true Church cannot be stained with error: yet that the misery of this cause may the better appear, I will uncover the skirts of all his proofs, in particular, 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 judgement: but it will do little good to this opponent B. for he that slighteth, yea rejecteth, nay disputeth against her doctrine in things supreme, must not crave her aid in things belonging to the mean: and thus stands it with this opponent, who maintains the chief question in this business against her, and at this instant, laboureth all he can, to refel the Proposition of her argument. But how may it appear, that our Church makes for him? He brings nothing but the authority of Mr. Rogers, and that is no greater than his own, and consequently thus he says, our Church thought so, because I say she did think so: but what if our Church and this opponent says she thought not so, then (I hope) the matter thus far, will be at an end. From this Opponent I argue thus. He that saith all Gods revealed truth universally, 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 universally, essentially, and reciprically: because 1. The words themselves (in the common use of men) do lie 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 perfect definition does so: but this Author's sentence alleged, 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 she hath defined the Church, art. 19 just as he hath done in the sentence we alleged. If art. 19 subiecteth the faith of the Church unto error, than we must read 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 administered. But art. 19 must not be so read, lest the words of the Article (themselves) be perverted, and some man say, the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and establishing of consent touching true religion, was not thereby intended: contrary unto the protestation of our Church in the title to all the Articles in general. Therefore Art. 19 subiecteth not the faith of the Church unto error. His second proof lieth thus: The Israelites wanted Sacrifice and Circumcision: Therefore the faith of the Church is subject to error. I answer, this gear 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 Jews Church was an Infant, and not established: Christ's Church (whereof we speak) is of ripe age, and full growth. Their Sacrifice, Ephod, and Circumcision, is nothing like to the faith of Christ's Church. Their want of Sacrifice, Ephod, and Circumcision, is a mere privation, and a not being: Error in faith is some position, for it comprehendeth an inconformable judgement, or opinion. His third and last proof stands on this fashion. The word and Sacraments may be corrupted in the time of blindness, and superstition, or intermitted as in the the time of persecution. Therefore the faith of the Church is subject to error. I answer: the farther the worse, he must understand the word and Sacraments to be every way the same thing with the faith of the Church; so also he must understand the terms, corrupted, and intermitted, to be every way the same with these terms, subject to error: else, here is not the least show of consequence: but how he will do that, I do not yet see, and I presume I never shall: he brings no proofs for the Antecedent, therefore at the best, we have but his own word. The last argument, (which I can find) belonging unto this matter, is in the Opponent B. his English Epistle, a little after the beginning, in these words: If an Heretic were put to death for his Christian profession sake, we could not deny him the name of a Martyr. And we may apply it to the present purpose in this form. Every Martyr is a member of the true Church. Some Heretic is a Martyr, viz. such a one as suffers death for his Christian profession sake. Therefore some Heretic is a member of the true Church, and consequently, the faith of the Church may be true and false together. I answer: Every Martyr in the sense of the holy Ghost, Revel. 20.4. is a member of the true Church; and so fare the Proposition is true: but the Assumption is false, no Heretic is or can be such a Martyr. This Opponent may presume it, and does; but prove it, he neither does, nor can: because the same holy Ghost willeth us, to avoid an Heretic as a party condemned of his own conscience: Tit. 3.10. (and therefore of God who is greater than the heart. 1 john 3.21.) If God condemns an heretic, he esteems him not a Martyr. Reuel. 20.4. For such Martyrs are commended and saved. Revel. 20.4. If this opponent takes the word Martyr otherwise then God does, I deny the Proposition, and say, He that is no Martyr of Gods, is no member of the true Church, notwithstanding his name and tittle of Martyrdom. In this sense I grant the Assumption, namely, some heretic may be a Martyr in the account of man, but not of God. The proof of his Assumption supposeth, that an heretic may profess Christianity, and I say so too. If he means that he may so profess, according to humane faith, and natural reason, than we are agreed; because heresy is a work of the flesh, Gal. 5.20. and is exercised about the Christian faith, importing error in faith: but then his Assumption is unprooved, because, no man that is such a Christian, can be a Martyr, Revel. 20.4. for God's Martyrs go to heaven, but so does not such Christians: flesh and blood inherit not the Kingdom of heaven, 1 Cor. 15.50. If he thinks, some heretics profess Christianity, (that is salvation by Christ) according unto divine faith, he begs the question, viz. That the faith of the Church may be true and false, right and erroneous, orthodox and heretical together: which we deny, and he undertakes (by this very Argument) to prove: O acute! o admirable Disputer! Bring the conclusion to prove the conclusion, who would desire better? Doubtless his Rhetoric, not his Logic, wrought now; because, he prefers that (for disputation) before this: pag. 80, 81. But now, all the fat is in the fire: he that begs the question proves nothing, if Aristotle may be judge, Top. l. 8. cap. 11. and this begging, of all others, is the most beggarly: for, it is a woman's reason, they use to say, It is so, because it is so: and just so does he. This is answer enough for such petty trifles, and thus are we come to an end of all that which Opponent B. hath to say against the Proposition of our Church's Argument, Cap. 3. num. 1. and therewithal I have finished a full defence of that whole Argument: The Reader must now judge whether the Mother or the rebellious child hath the better. CHAP. 7. Containeth a second proof, that [The Romish faith is false and erroneous.] Mr. Wotton hath saved me a labour in this passage also, pag. 46. he bringeth this Argument. If some Articles of the Romish faith be false and erroneous, than the Romish faith is false and erroneous. But some Articles of the Romish faith be false and erroneous. Therefore the Romish faith is false and erroneous. Perhaps I may seem unto some to argue very loosely, because it is a ruled case, some parts cannot argue the whole, because all the parts together do make up the whole, and are adequate thereunto. If some parts be wanting, the whole is not obtained: from whence it falls out, the state, condition, and denomination, of some parts alone, do not belong to the whole. I reply, such a man mistakes this reason: I do not argue the whole to be so, because some parts are so, the rest being free: but I prove the whole is to be held erroneous, because there is an infection of error in the whole. If any man desire to know how error in some Articles only is error in the whole faith: I answer, he may satisfy himself in that demand, cap. 4. num. 5. where it is proved, That Faith is such an unite, and continued thing, that though it is made of many ingredients, yet it admitteth no division into members, or kinds. Now, this being true, (as it is most true) then the faith of the Church can no ways be said to be erroneous in any one Article, but presently the whole is erroneous. This Argument and manner of reasoning, is shadowed out in a leprous man, who is accounted and dealt withal as wholly leprous, though the seat of the disease be in the flesh only: the reason is, because, though in a divided sense, and in our apprehension, man consisteth, and is compounded of, distinct beings, viz. soul and body, flesh and spirit, yet take him an individual man, he is so compacted, that he is made one Hypostecis, or continued subsistency, limited by one term only. Wherefore when the Priest in Moses Law gave sentence of a leprous man, the whole man was comprehended under that sentence, If a leprous man was shut out of the host, the whole man, (not some part only) was thrust out: and this was not against reason, for the soul gave life, sense, and vigitation to the flesh, and thereby it became subject to disease and defection, and consequently the soul was indeed leprous, though by reflection, and at second hand: so is it with the Christian faith, error may be seated only in some Articles, yet the whole stand infected therewith; because the foundation of faith, which is the soul thereof, runs through the whole, as one continued stream without intermission, distinction, or limitation; by reason whereof, if some Articles only be charged with error, the foundation of faith cannot be free, if that be infected, the whole faith is subject thereunto; because, every Article or Proposition becomes an Article of faith by the force and efficacy of that foundation. I conceive by this time that the Proposition of this Argument is sufficiently proved, and explained: so as every man will believe, and understand it, and, accordingly, I may content myself, and save all further labour: yet because the Reader shall have full and ample satisfaction, I will proceed somewhat further. All ours do grant the Assumption, namely, that, some Articles of the Romish faith be erroneous: and amongst the rest both our Opponents are lavish enough in words of that kind, calling that Church (so fare as their faith is erroneous) Babel, and heretical, so as in rigour I am not bound to answer further: yet because our Opponent B. hath done it samely, and falsely, pag. 40.90.124. etc. to the shame of his own reading, and the sorrow and shame of our whole Nation, if I may speak in his partner's language, pag. 22. To mend the matter, and for the Readers sake, I will proceed and show, that some Articles of their faith be erroneous, by assigning the particulars which are so faulty, that it may be known we do them no wrong, when we charge them in that manner: besides this, every lover of truth, may the better be directed to sever truth from falsehood: for that purpose I frame this Argument. All the succeeding Articles are erroneous, viz. 1 The saving truth taught by Christ, and his Apostles, is contained also, in unwritten Traditions. Council Trent, Sess. 4. 2 Original sin is an uneleannesse within man's soul, and is a sin which is the death of the soul. Sess. 5. Decret. 2. & 3. 3 Grace doth take away, whatsoever hath the true, and proper nature of sin. Sess. 5. Decret. 5. 4 Concupiscence in the regenerate, is not truly, and properly sin. Sess. 5. Decret. 5. 5 He that receiveth the inspiration of grace, can [actually] reject the same, and [actually] descent therefrom, if he will. Sess. 6. Cap. 5. Can. 4. 6 The only formal cause of justification, is justice inherent. Sess. 6. Cap. 7. 7 Sin is mortal and venial. Cap. 11. & 14. 8 The just, in some actions, do not sinne venially. Cap. 11. 9 By every mortal sin, a man falleth away from the grace of justification, which he had received. cap. 14.15. 10 Gods Commandments are not impossible to be kept by him that is justified. Sess. 6. Cap. 11. 11 The grace of justification is bestowed upon them, also, which are not preaestinate. Sess. 6. Can: 17. 12 The whole temporal punishment, is not always remitted together with the fault. Sess: 6. Cap. 14. and Can. 30: Sess. 14. Cap. 8. Can. 12. 13 The works which be done in God, do, for the state of this life, fully satisfy the Law. Sess. 6. Cap. 16. 14 The just, in some actions, sinne not at all: and in no action do they deserve eternal punishment. Sess. 6. Cap. 11. 15 The good works of the just are their merits. Sess. 6. Cap. 16. Can. 32. 16 The justified, by their good works, do truly merit the obtaining of eternal life itself Sess. 6. Can. 32. 17 It is no sin to work in the intuition of the reward. Sess. 6. Cap. 11. Can. 31. 18 The Images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and other Saints. 1. Are to be had, and kept, chiefly in Churches. 2. Due honour, and worship, is to be given unto them. 3. Are of Sacred use, and yield much fruit. Sess: 25: Decret: de invocat. 19 The honour which we yield unto Images, is referred unto the thing which they represent, & whose likeness they bear. Sess. 25. 20 Worship and honour is due to be given, to the bodies of Saints departed. 21 The Monuments, and memories of the Saints departed, are to be frequented, and honoured. Sess: 25. 22 Feast days are to be kept, in honour and celebration of the Saints, and for visiting their Relics. 23 By visiting the Relics of Saints, we obtain their help. Sess. 25. 24 Prayers are to be made, for the faithful departed. 25 The Saints that reign with Christ, and enjoy eternal felicity in heaven, 1 are to be called upon. 2 they pray for us, even, singular men. 3 It is profitable for us, to fly to their prayers, help, and furtherance for benefits to be received from God. Sess. 25. 26 There is a Purgatory. Sess. 25. 27 Some temporal punishment remaineth to be satisfied for in purgatory, before the way to heaven can be opened. Sess. 6. Can. 30, 28 The power of granting Indulgences was committed by Christ to the Church, and the use of them is helpful to Christian people. Sess. 25. Decret. de Indul. 29 The whole choice of meats serveth unto the mortification of the flesh. 30 The devout celebration of feast days, causeth the increase of piety. Sess. 25. Decret: de delectu. 31 The Sacrifice of the Mass, prayers, alms giving, are suffrages of the faithful, that are alive, for other faithful that are dead. Sess: 25. Decret: de Purga. 32 The Sacraments of the new Testament, are neither more, nor fewer than seven: to wit, 1 Baptism. 2 Confirmation. 3 The Lords Supper. 4 Penance. 5 Extreme Unction. 6 Ordination. 7 Matrimony. And every one of these, is truly and properly a Sacrament. Sess: 7: Can. 1. 33 The Sacraments of the New Testament contain the things they signifis, and beslow it upon them which hindereth not. Can: 6. And upon all, as much as is required on God's part. Ca: 7. And that by the work wrought: Can: 8. Baptism, Confirmation, and Ordination, imprint in the soul, a character that cannot be blotted out: Can: 9, 34 After the Consecration of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, the Lord jesus Christ, true God and Man, is contained, truly, really, and substantially, under the shows of those sensible things. Sess: 13. de Sacra: Eucha: Cap: 1. Can: 1. 35 By the consecration of the bread and wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread, into the substance of Christ's body, and of the whole substance of the wine, into the substance of his blood: so as, in that Sacrament the substance of bread and wine remains not together with the body and blood of Christ. Which conversion, is properly called transubstantiation. Cap: 4. Can: 2. 36 In the Mass a true and proper Sacrifice is offered unto God, Propitiatory, and profitable unto others, also, besides such as receive it, and it ought to be offered for the quick and dead, for satisfaction of the punishment of sins, and other necessities. Sess: 22. Can. 3. 37 The holy Eucharist is to be reserved in the Chancel, and carried honourably to the sick. Sess. 13. Cap. 6. To be worshipped with a peculiar festival celebrity, and divine worship; yea external also: solemnly and publicly to be carried about, that it may be worshipped by the people. Can. 6. 38 Water is to be mingled with wine in the Chalice that is to be offered. Sess. 22. Cap. 7. 39 No man that knows himself to be guilty of mortal sin, how contrite soever he seems to himself to be, may come to the holy Encharist without Sacramental Confession going before. Sess. 13. Cap. 7. Can. 11. that is, unill he have confessed all, and every one of his mortal sins, and also those circumstances which change the kind of the sin. Sess. 14. Cap. 5. and that to a Priestan secret. Can. 6.7. 40 Our Saviour Christ when he said [do this in remembrance of me] did institute his Apostles Priests, and ordained that themselves and other Priests should offer his body, and blood: Sess: 22: Can. 2. 41 No man, unless he doth Consecrate, is bound by God's Law, to receive under both kinds. Sess: 21. Cap. 1: but all such must receive under one kind only. Cap. 5. 42 We may make satisfaction to God, through jesus Christ, by temporal afflictions, laid on us by God, and borne patiently by us. Sess. 14. Cap. 9 and Can. 15. 43 By the Sacrament of Penance, the grace of Instification which was lost is recovered. Sess: 6. Cap. 14. 44 Matrimony contracted, not consummated, is dissolved by the solemn profession of Religion, by either party. Sess. 24. Can. 6. 45 Power was given to the Apostles, and their lawful successors to remit, and retain sins, for the reconciling of such of the faithful as fall after Baptism. Sess. 14. de sacra peniten. Cap. 1. But these are Articles of the Romish faith. Therefore some Articles of the Romish faith be erroneous. None of ours will deny either part of this Argument, unless he be very ill advised. If any except against any branch of the Proposition, let him assign the particular, and he shall see by our answers and arguments, that it agrees not with God's word, and therefore it is erroneous. If it be answered some of theirs do not agree to the Council in the particulars assigned, and therefore their faith is not recorded therein, and so our Opponent seems to argue, pag. 108. and 130. I reply, the Antecedent is false, no man can name a member of their Church, that bids defiance to the authority of that Council, nor can: for such a party is accursed by the Council, and thereby made an heretic, and none of theirs as we find in the decree thereof, touching the receiving and observing of the decrees of that Council, Sess. 25. and the acclamation of the Fathers at the end of that Council: whereupon we may rest assured, that some Articles of their faith be erroneous, and which they be in particular. Having hitherto discussed the first principal question, propounded, cap. 1. num. 1. I now descend to the second, wherein I may be the more brief; because I have insisted so long upon the first. CHAP. 8. Prooveth this sentence, No Papist, (as a Papist) can be saved. THis position speaks not of salvation actually, and in the event; but of the means and possibility of attaining salvation by their faith. By Papist is meant, such a man as does communicate in the Romish faith. So as in plain English this sentence ought to be pronounced thus. The Romish faith disposeth or leadeth not unto salvation. It belongs not to us to judge of the event, heaven and hell are in the hands of God, and to send men thither it is a right so peculiar to God, that he will not account with us for it. His sacred Revelation shows us the way to obtain the one, and avoid the other; wherefore about this may we contend, and must: about that we do not strive, nor may: lest we seek to be wise beyond sobriety, against the Apostles rule, Rom. 12.3. Thus have we propounded the point, and unfolded the sense. It remaineth that in the next place we see what our adversaries say to it. The Opponent B. pag. 6. writeth thereof in this manner. The state of the Church of Rome, both now and many years past, is and hath been such, that plagues were due unto them, even from the greatest to the least, even to all without exception, as well to authors, as receivers, from the Idiot, and Handicrafts man, to the Pope, and the College of Cardinals: because their religion in many parts of it hath been heretical, and erroneous for opinion and practice. I answer, so fare as these words do guide us, we must say, that this Opponent opposeth not us in this point: for if their religion made them guilty of, and liable unto punishment, then doubtless their faith leads not to eternal life: for it is impossible it should tend to two ends of adverse nature: so as now we will take him for a friend, not as an enemy: for we think him so honest, that his heart and hand do agree. In the next page he layeth out the way for their escape from the said danger of punishment, and assigneth Repentance to be the means: namely repentance, either actual or general. By the first he would have all such to avoid that danger and be saved, which indeed have builded themselves upon the rock, which is the foundation of the Church; though through ignorance they hold the same but weakly, & frame many base & unsuitable things thereupon: but he thinks that actual repentance is necessary for all known faults. I answer, he professeth in his margin, that he borrowed this discourse from Mr. Hooker, (of purpose as I conceive for his further grace) but it avails him little. If he will be our debtor we will grant him all his writing, who will not say, that by repentance the greatest sinner may avoid hell, and go to heaven; seeing that, God hath promised to put all our sins out of his remembrance whensoever we repent: Ezek. 18. Yet notwithstanding we need not fear his strength in this cause, for two reasons. 1. This is nothing to the present business, for we inquire after the end unto which the Romish faith doth tend, and he showeth the fruit, profit, or end of repentance: how fare then repentance, or turning away from the Popish faith is different, or distant from the Popish faith, so fare is he wide from the cause in hand. 2. This discourse, makes strongly for our assertion, thus. If a man must repent of the Popish religion, that is he must turn himself from it, before he can avoid hell, and obtain heaven, then doubtless the Romish faith leads not to heaven: for the way thither stands not in need of repentance. Now, let who else will grace his answer, seeing the more glory it hath, the more glorious is our cause, which is so strongly confirmed by it. His partner Opponent C. rambleth about this matter, and scattereth (in diverse places) some words tending to the same purpose: but I will not trouble myself and the Reader with them, only it is meet that we observe, (in his Epistle Dedicatory) that he maketh the point now in hand one of those whereat he trembles when he does but hear it. If there be any cause why, it will show itself by his arguments and answers for it, if he be naked in them, we may conclude that he fears without a cause, and runs when none pursues. Enough hath been said already, to drive this conclusion to the head: we have proved that the Romish faith is erroneous: by arguments that are not, nor can be refelled, and who would require more, to argue her faith to be unable, and altogether unfit, to lead a man to heaven? Can an erroneous faith show a man the way to heaven? Surely it can not: because it sits beside the divine Revelation, which is the only record wherein the way to life is referved for us. I say heaven and eternal happiness, is only to be found in God's Revelation, and who will not believe me? for where the end is above nature, the means thereto must needs be so also. What need I then to trouble myself and the Reader with more arguments? But seeing it will not save our labour (some are so contentious, and will not rest in truths apparent) therefore such must be met withal, and their endeavours prevented: as the frugal man weeds his field, that his grain may be the better unto sight, and service. CHAP. 9 Our Opponent B. his first Argument. We 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 he sits in God's Temple. 2 Thess: 2.4. But the present Romish Church, is the seat of Antichrist: Therefore the present Romish Church is the true Church. The Proposition of this Argument, is set forth pag 36. The conclusion is employed in the title of Chap: 8, pag 31 The assumption is wanting. I answer: he is confident, that, no man can deny the Proposition, pag. 38. but says nothing of the Assumption: and no marvel, for that begs the question, by presuming that the Pope is Antichrist: a point (to many) more doubtful than the present conclusion. But that fault though it spoils all, (for this time) shall go for nothing. The Proposition is not only false, but it is impossible to be true: for the seat of Antichrist is a certain space, or place, that receiveth the person of Antichrist: and where he governs. Reuel. 16.19.17.9.18. ●0. The true Church is a society of men professing the revealed truth. If then this profession be that place, or necessarily flows from the internal being thereof, (which is impossible) than 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 Syllogism into its true and natural terms, 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 knows chalk from cheese will laugh at this: therefore it shall pass as ridiculous. He does imagine, that, we will say in answer to this Argument, that, Antichristianity cannot argue the Church to be Christian, being the bane and plain overthrow of Christianity. Pag. 36. I answer, we do not thus answer to this Argument, neither need we, unless our answer should be as fond as his proof, and experience will now justify the same: we have answered otherways, and yet his reason is refelled, Keep your kindness for your friend, and answer for us when we need it, we know Sophocles said true: The gift of an enemy is no gift. In the rest of this 8. chapter he hunts the wild goose chase: but all his long discourse, and many words amounteth in the total unto thus much. The jews Church in their worst estate was the true Church of God. Some of God's people are in Babylon. Therefore many heretofore, and some at this day being outwardly of the Church of Rome, we may justly, notwithstanding, challenge to ourselves. The Opponent C. shall answer him, pag. 3. Prove and apply john Barber, and thou shalt have two new pair of Sizors. A recompense too great for such a workman, yet let me tell you, the jews Church at no time, was equal, or stood in the same terms or condition with the present Romish Church: for they always retained the true, and undoubted foundation of faith, they relied only upon God's 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 enjoyed at least the means for getting of divine faith, and consequently salvation itself; but so it is not with the Romish Church, as manifestly appeareth in former passages, cap. 4. num. 7. etc. whereupon we may conclude: Though the jewish Church was the true Church of God: yet that will not infer the Romish Church to be so also. Moreover, the jews defection was in matter of practice rather than of precept: when they failed in doctrine, it was peculiar to some, not universal and common to all that Church: their error was matter of opinion, not of faith: for no public authority of theirs did command that opinion, or misbelief, to be universally received as being divinely revealed. But with the Church of Rome the matter is altogether otherwise, Their error is first in precept, and then in practice: this error is common to all in that Church, no man can be exempted therefrom, unless he will profess himself to be none of theirs. Again, that error of the Romish Church is adjudged to be revealed by God, and commanded to be received by all the members of that Church, by an authority that pretendeth freedom from erring, and power of enjoying: so as, whatsoever is so commanded must be obeyed without delay, or enquiring, as is showed, cap. 4. num. 7. etc. 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 unto such God commandeth that they Come out of Babylon, and they shall hear and obey in their appointed time. But what is this to us? Elected persons, (not called) are such members of the Church as are unknown to us, and therefore are reckoned to appertain to the Church invisible: but out question is of the Church visible. More than so, God may require us to come out of Babylon, even us that are not there, for such a command 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 therefore may he be carried to Babylon, because Babylon is heresy, or at least includes it; and heresy is a fruit of the flesh. By this time (I hope) his whole discourse, as well ●hat is to the purpose, as what is beside the purpose, is fully cleared and satisfied: wherein ●hine departed from the liberty of an answerer, of love and desire to satisfy the Reader. CHAP. 10. Our Opponent B. his second Argument. HE urgeth us, cap. 9 pag. 37. with a second Argument concluding after this manner. That Society which wanteth the nature of a true Church, denies fundamental truth, directly, not by consequence. But the present Romish Church, does not deny fundamental truth directly, but by consequence (at the most:) for the Pope's Arithmetic, which he useth 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 down 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) do bring the denial of the foundation of faith, as a medium to prove the Church of Rome to be no true Church. I answer, this man hath a fair gift of inventing: some while he can find an adversary that answers, another while one that disputes, and all is no more but his own shadow, or imagination. If he would have the Reader to think otherwise, let him name the Author that thus disputes, and the place where we may find it, till then this must go for false. None of ours would dispute so, for it presumes, that, some Articles of faith be fundamental, and some be not; and that is false: the whole divine revelation conduceth to eternal life, and accordingly it is the foundation thereof, and consoquently every Article of faith is fundamental. I answer further, This reason (as it lieth) doth admit many egregious exceptions, but because I am willing to interpret him with the uttermost favour, I will forbear to charge him with them. He confines fundamental truth unto the being of the Scriptures, and Christ's coming to save sinners: pag. 19 & 20. To deny fundamental truth (according to him) directly, is directly to deny that [jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners] as Pagans, Turks, and jews do: pag. 22. They deny it by consequent, which holding it directly, maintain any one assertion whatsoever whereupon the direct denial 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 unto this explication, this Argument will be freest from exception if it be framed in these terms. 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 Christ's coming to save sinners. But the present Romish Church does not in words, and professedly deny the Scriptures, and Christ's coming to save sinners. Therefore the present Romish Church, wants not the nature of a true Church. His proofs for this Assumption are two, the one, pag. 126. in these words: Offer the fundamental words to them of the Romish Church, and none amongst them will refuse to subscribe unto them. The other is his fifth Argument, pag. 59 &c: To prove the main question: so desirous he is to make shows of plenty, that one shall be divided into two, rather than he will be short in number. In that, he writeth thus: In our disputations with them, we do not prove that Christ came to save sinners, but we bring it in proof against them: pag. 62. And this says he is A 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 us that ever affirmed the Church of Rome to deny the foundation of Faith directly. The Church of England, hath not passed any such sentence upon her. Some of ours, touching this matter, have written thus: The Church of Rome denyeth Christ jesus directly, not by consequence only. At this our Opponent B. pag. 122. grows very angry, and craves pardon for breaking his long patience, and doth challenge him for an egregious contradiction, in avouching a denial direct, and by consequence: and why? Because, The foundation cannot be overthrown both by consequence, and directly too. None can overthrow by consequence, unless they hold directly, and no man can both hold directly, and deny directly: And in conclusion, he does gravely reprehend that Author, because he labour to prove, that, the Church of Rome is guilty of such denial, both directly, and by consequence; seeing such proof makes the whole fall to the ground, being nothing worth: and lest something should be wanting pertaining to the honour of a learned Disputer, he gives his word for all this, esteeming the least proof his great disgrace. I answer, If I prove that the Church of Rome directly denies the being of the Scriptures and the coming of Christ to save sinners, I do enough to satisfy this Argument, even by the confession of this Opponent: for, pag. 124. he writes thus: If you can prove the Church of Rome directly to deny salvation by Christ, alone, we bind ourselves to grant you the victory, and yours be the day. If I prove the Church of Rome by consequence, also, so to deny, than that Author hath made no contradiction by this Opponents own rule: namely, because both of them may be true together. This Opponent demandeth how, or where that proof shall be had, and made, pag. 124. I answer, I will have that proof out of the Council 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 answer: to deny and affirm is made by voice, and accordingly to deny and affirm 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 profess, 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 coming of Christ, by the voice of humane reason: and so fare we are content to go along with this Opponent: but the Proposition is false. This we say, The profession of the Scriptures, and of Christ's coming to save sinners, by the voice of humane faith, though it be in words never so plain and express, yet it gives not being to the Church, for the Church subsisteth in itself, and differeth from all other societies, by supernatural, not by natural, 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 fundamental truths: [There be Scriptures] [Christ came to save sinners] by the voice of divine faith is the very soul of the Church, and so essential thereto, that without it there can be no Christian Church, and where that is, the Church is also: because it is so operative wheresoever it doth incline, 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. But in this sense the Assumption is false, the present Romish Church does in words, and professedly deny the being of the Scriptures, and the coming of Christ to save sinners, according unto the voice of divine faith: and I prove it thus. They that do not confess Christ's coming to save sinners, do professedly deny his coming to save 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 he should so esteem it: for such a not confession, is a voluntary omission of our duty; This is the will of my heavenly Father, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. joh. 6.29. Even all men whatsoever, because the earth is his inheritance, and the uttermost ends thereof is his possession. Psal. 2.8. We see the truth hereof in the omission of any duty. He that withheld his tithes, is held professedly to deny the paying of tithes. 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 confess Christ's coming to save sinners, by the voice of divine faith: because the faith of that Church (by means of the foundation thereof) is humane, and not divine, as hath been manifestly proved, cap. 4. num. 7. etc. He thinks to shroud himself under the authority of our Church, which he urgeth negatively thus. Our Church does charge her to err in matter of faith, Art. 19 but not with direct denial of salvation by Christ. Therefore the Romish Church is not so to be 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 himself? 2. The consequence is nought, our Church's 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 near thereupon, for any thing I can yet learn, or this Opponent prove. 3. The Antecedent is false; for two reasons. 1. Errors in matters of faith may be a direct denial of salvation by Christ; for he that so denies, errs in matter of faith; and we must think our Church meant so: because her words will bear it, and this Opponent cannot show the contrary. 2. Our Church in the second Homily for Whitsuntide (often times already alleged) does deny her to be built upon Christ the corner stone in that foundation, and that importeth a direct denial of salvation by Christ: because he that sits beside that foundation, shall go without salvation. This proof and defence being considered, we may safely rest in this conclusion. The Romish Church according to the voice of divine faith, professedly denies Christ's coming to save sinners, and accordingly we have the victory, and ours is the day: according to this Opponents offer and our acceptation, num. 4. chap. 11. I might proceed to prove their professed denial of the Scriptures upon the same ground, but I forbear to do it; because the Reader may see this Argument serves for both that, and this, by changing the terms. This Opponent seemeth to qualify his former recited promise, and calleth us, as he thinks, to a new reckoning, pag. 22, 23. wherein he writeth thus: They overthrow the foundation directly, to whom Christ is an execration, And to tread under foot the son of God, to count the blood of the covenant wherewith all we are sanctified, an unholy thing, and to do despite unto 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 been done to the Son of God, and liable to the Apostles curse: 1 Cor. 16.22. I answer, this is his last refuge: if therefore he fails in this, he is gone for ever. In true form 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 than he can argue for it: wherefore this I say, The Romish Church is so guilty for, They that know and believe Christ's coming to save sinners only by natural reason, and humane faith, They tread him under foot, account his blood unholy, and do despite unto the spirit of grace. Heb. 10.29. because, the natural 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 wisdom of the flesh is enmity unto God. Rom. 8.7. But the Romish Church does know and believe Christ's coming to save sinners; only by natural reason, and humane faith: for all their knowledge, and believing, ariseth upon the teaching of the Pastors of their Church, which is merely humane, because they have no Commission for such teaching, as appeareth Cap. 4. num. 7. etc. If any man do judge that the place alleged, Heb. 10.29. mean no more but thus, than I rest here as in a sufficient answer to this argument, and claim this Opponents final promise last mentioned, and so we are at an end for this cause: the day is ours, we must carry the victory, and the signs thereof, leading these Opponents in triumph. If the Apostle be understood to speak of more than this, than I deny the Proposition, as wanting the very show of truth. I say, some men directly deny salvation by Christ, who are not guilty as aforesaid; and, I have two reasons for it, the first is this: jews and Pagans are not guilty as aforesaid: for the parties so guilty, have received the knowledge of the truth, and afterwards sin wilfully, ver. 26. by forsaking the Assembly of the faithful, verse. 25. and therefore are certainly subjected unto God's fiery devouring indignation and judgement, ver. 27. But jews and Pagans deny salvation by Christ, (in the judgement of this Opponent pag 22.) Secondly, if all that directly deny salvation by Christ are thus guilty, than this guiltiness in the Apostles intent is the total, and adequate nature of that denial, otherwise the Proposition containeth not an universal truth. But this guiltiness (in the Apostles intent) is not the total and adequate nature of that denial: but 〈◊〉 denial in one special kind, viz. Apostasy, and wilful backsliding: for thus lies the Apostles reason. If wilful forsakers of their profession, and the society of the Saints, shall certainly be punished with God's fiery devouring indignation, and judgement, then let us hold fast the profession of our faith, and the assembly of the Saints without wavering. But such shall be so punished: for their sin deserves it, inasmuch as, thereby they tread under foot the Son of God, etc. The Proposition and Assumption is set forth from verse 23. to the end of verse 27. and the proof of the Assumption verse 29. (being the place which we have now in hand) whereupon we may conclude: Some that directly deny salvation by Christ, are not thus guilty; and so his Proposition is false, that maketh all such deniers to be so guilty, and consequently, our Mother the Church of England hath the day of victory, and so shall hold it. These Opponents are under the hatches, and there we will keep them. This Opponent telleth us, pag. 123. that we shall not need to prove, that, The Romish Church denies salvation by Christ by consequence: he will pardon us that labour, to the end that the Reader should see, & we confess him to be a fair adversary. I answer, and why does he account this pardon a favour done us, seeing himself does confess the thing itself, so often: does he think, himself can do what we cannot? Surely then, what differs he from the Bold Braggadochiaes' in the Camp, whereof we read in his partner Opponents Epistle. It may be he will say, he that makes that proof must grant, that they directly hold salvation by Christ, which he does, and we do not. I reply, he is deceived, we do say, they directly hold salvation by Christ, according to the voice of humane faith, as I have answered, chap. 11. num. 5. therefore if any thing makes the difference between his power to prove, and ours, It is not his affirmation, and our negation; but he hath skill and we have none, well, let him vaunt that hath the vain, To the present matter, we say, we despise his pardon, we crave no favour, let him do his worst, we know whose faith we maintain, and will now prove. CHAP. 13. The Romish Church by consequence denies salvation by Christ. IN proof of this sentence, I will content myself with an Argument in this form. They that directly hold salvation by Christ, and other things which cannot stand therewith, they by consequence deny salvation by Christ: because from the second, the direct dental of the first may be necessarily concluded. But the Romish Church directly holds salvation by Christ, and other things that cannot stand therewith. Therefore the Romish Church by consequence denies salvation by Christ. This Opponent may not deny any part of this Argument: because the Proposition & the proof thereof is his own, pag 23. & 24. so is the Assumption, pag. 26. The conclusion is gathered out of them both, who therefore (on this man's behalf) can except against any part thereof. It may be some man may say, In all the former passages we have charged the Romish Church, with a direct denial of salvation by Christ, and in this argument we free that Church, from such denial, and consequently we contradict ourselves, so as the proof of the one, doth equally overthrow the proof of the other, and thus our opponent seems to argue, as I have reported, Cap. 11. num. 3. I answer, this exception may be taken off with ease: for we charge them and discharge them as is aforesaid, indifferent respects, we say they deny salvation by Christ according unto, or in respect of divine faith, we grant them the contradictory according unto, or in respect of natural reason or humane faith, as the Reader may find, cap. 11. num. 5. In regard whereof, both sentences and their proofs may equally stand together, without damage the one to the other. If any man thinks otherwise, he must show it by the rules of Art, else no man is bound to believe him. I answer further, this direct holding of salvation by Christ, which we grant unto them, is inducement & foundation enough, whereupon we may charge them with the denial of the same thing by consequence? For that holding is a real confession, and accordingly doth put the thing confessed in a being sufficient, whereupon it may be denied, or avoided by inference, and therefore our Proposition is true, that supposeth the same. And thus our Argument is sufficiently fenced, against the claws of this Opponent: and therefore here I must end the matter of their denial of salvation by Christ by consequence: for none of our Opponents brings more than thus touching the same. Some man perhaps would account it a thing worth our labour, if we rested not in these Opponents confession for the truth of our Assumption: but avowed the same thing by the Records of the Romish faith. To whom I answer: that desire is not unmeet, nor the thing hard to to be done, but the present business, and my office must not be forgotten. If I entered upon that, we rush into another question. I am now to answer, but he that does that, must prove. This Assumption is confessed by all parties, therefore it is a principle, and accordingly it may make an Argument in this question, & therefore it must pass as a thing certain. Accordingly here we would rest, but our present Opponent is not so contented: for he denies, that, the Romish Church may be ranked with the old Heretics, because they go not the same way to work with them; They (saith he) struck nearer the head then the Church of Rome does. She indeed is wandered from God, and her doctrine is injurious and contumelious to God and our Redeemer: It doth gainsay the foundation of our faith: but yet it is removed a great distance therefrom: raze it, it doth: but by a circle of consequence (at the most) thus he writes pag 3. 18. 24. 25. 38. 41. 127. 128. Yet he does not varnish over their opinion, nor help the best foot of a lame cause forward; if you will believe his words pag 127. For this cause therefore, I will prove the Romish Church to deny salvation by Christ, by consequence, direct and immediate, not by a circle, or means that comes between that proof and that salvation: and then we shall know, whether that Church ranks with the old heretics or not, and whether this Opponent is not a faithful advocate unto her or not. I frame my proof thus. If some Articles of the Romish faith in themselves be opposite to this sentence. [Salvation is by Christ] then that Church denies salvation by Christ, by a consequence that is direct & immediate, not by circle and the interposing of others: for such is the nature of opposites, that both of them cannot befall the same subject, in the same respect, part and time, by reason whereof, the affirmation or presence of the one, is a denial & absence of the other, as Aliaco doth truly teach. 1. sent. q. 2. lit: H. But some Articles of the Romish faith, in themselves, be opposite to this sentence [Salvation is by Christ] Therefore the Romish Church, denies Salvation by Christ, by a consequence that is direct & immediate, not circular by the interposing of others. In the avowry of my Assumption, I will prove three things. 1. According to the Romish Church. Inherent grace, merits and satisfaction of man's work, is the next and formal reason of our title unto, and the possession of heaven. 2. According to the Scriptures. jesus Christ is the next and formal reason of our title unto, and the possession of heaven. 3. These two Articles are opposite in themselves. When I have manifested these three, our Argument standeth firm of all four, (as we say) It is sound in all parts, and crazed in nothing. Touching the first; The Council of Trent hath decreed thus: Christ is the Author of our salvation. Sess. 6. Cap. 11. By Christ we have grace. Can. 2. He merits grace for us. Cap. 7. & 16. From him grace flows unto us, as the sap into the branches. Cap. 16. In him, (that is he working with us) we merit, and satisfy. Sess. 14. Cap. 8. de satisfact. His grace makes our works meritorious. Sess. 6. Cap. 16. God's will makes them our merits. Cap. 16. Can. 32. Thus far Christ hath share (according to them) in our salvation, we will see now what place they assign unto inherent grace, with the merit and satisfaction of our works. Eternal life is propounded as the grace of sons, and wages unto works. Sess. 6. Cap. 16. By grace received we are made just of unjust, that we might be heirs of eternal life according to hope. Cap. 7. Inherent grace is a fountain in him that hath it, springing unto eternal life. Cap. 16. The just do carry their grace before God's Tribunal, and enjoy heaven. Cap. 7. The works of the justified, wrought in God, do truly inherit the obtaining of eternal life in due time, if they continue therein unto the end. Cap. 16. The just aught to expect and hope for eternal retribution from God for their works done in God, if they continue in his law to the end. Can. 26. The justified by their works done in grace, do truly merit eternal life, the increase of grace, glory, and eternal life itself: if they die in grace. Can. 32. Now (I presume) I have made it very manifest, that they attribute unto Christ no other part in our salvation, but the office of giving us grace, and therefore we are beholden to him for no more, but the beginning and the possibility of salvation; but unto inherent grace, and the merit of work, they assign the next and formal reason of our salvation, in hope while we live here, and in possession when we are gone from hence. In this place we must inquire what office is assigned to the satisfaction of good works, and for that we read these Decrees in the Council. By the grace of justification received, the fault is remitted, and the guiltiness of eternal punishment is blotted out: yet sometimes remaineth a guiltiness of temporal punishment, to be satisfied for, either in this world, or in Purgatory in the world to come, before the way to God's Kingdom can be opened. Sess. 6. Can. 30. We are able to satisfy before God, not only by those punishments, which we willingly under go for the revenge of sin, or imposed by the priest according to the measure of our fault: but also, even by such temporal afflictions, which God layeth upon us, and we bear with patience. Sess. 14. cap. 9 de operibus, etc. We are able to satisfy God, and do so, for our sins. By jesus Christ, he working together with us, we are able to do all things: from whom our good works receive force, of whom they are offered to the Father, and by whom they are accepted of the Father. Sess: 14. cap. 8. de satisfact. cap. 9 de operibus. As in the former, so here, they make the satisfaction of our works, the key to open heaven gates, and the recompense for injury done to God, but Christ, he shall have no more part in the business, but to make us able to turn the key, if he help us we need no more of him, we do the rest ourselves. We no sooner turn the Key, but in we go: If we make recompense we are discharged, and consequently, the satisfaction of our own works, is the next and formal reason of our release from Purgatory, and the opening of heaven gates. I have done enough in proof of the first, and now come to the second. For that I have less labour, because the Scriptures are full and plain for it: as followeth. If the Son make you free, you shall be free indeed. Ioh: 8.36. He that beletueth in the Son, is passed from death unto life. Ioh: 5.24. and 3.26. We shall be saved by his life. Rom. 5. We are joint heirs with him. Rom: 8.17. He brings many children to glory. Heb. 2.10. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ. Rom. 8.1. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and he shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Heb 9.28. Christ's takes away the sins of the world. Io. 1.29. Christ once in the end of the world appeared to put away sin, by the Sacrifice of himself. Heb. 9.26. and is entered into heaven itself, to appear in the presence of God for us. ibidem v. 24. If any man doubt whether these places do make Christ the next & formal reason of our salvation, he may satisfy himself by the phrase, which the holy Ghost useth: for he makes an immediate connexion between Christ and heaven, which he would not do so often, if some thing else came between Christ and heaven: for to set forth a remote and mediate cause, by a next & immediate, is an improper, and borrowed speech, which is an undecent thing to be so often (and more often then thus) in the pen of the holy Ghost: If then we dare not charge him so, we must conceive he meant to make Christ the next and formal reason of our salvation. I need not prove Christ and man's merits to be opposite next and formal reasons of our salvation, for it is manifest by itself: so as, now our Assumption num. 4. is sufficiently confirmed, let the Reader judge of our cause, and the present Opponent. CHAP. 14. They that deny salvation by Christ by consequence are not the true Church. THe Argument propounded, Chap. 11. num. 1. presumes the contradictory to this position, and this our present Opponent, pag. 25. and 26. does expressly teach it, in these words: Whole Churches have denied, (and yet do) deny by consequence, that salvaton is by Christ: yet we do, and must hold them Christian. All this while we have let that supposition pass untouched, as if it were true: because the weakness of that proof should be the more apparent: but now (and in all good time) we say, he supposeth falsely, and therefore he is a beggar, no prover. We prove against him with this Argument. Unto the true Church Christ may be profitable, Unto such as deny by consequence that salvation is by Christ, Christ cannot be profitable: for unto the Gallatians Christ could not be profitable. Gallat. 5.2, 3, 4. But all such as deny by consequence, that salvation is by Christ, are the Gallatians. 5.2, 3, 4. I say they are the same with them, not by name, Nation, singular persons, or doctrine: but in their denial they are the same, (that is) the one denies salvation by Christ by illation inference and consecution, and so do all other. The Gallatians held something for true: viz. [Salvation is by the Law] This being granted, then must we deny that Salvation is by Christ. So standeth it with all others that by consequence deny him to bring salvation. Whereupon we may conclude: All such as by consequence deny salvation by Christ, Christ can profit them nothing, and consequently, such as deny by consequence that salvation is by Christ, are not the true Church. I conceive, in pag. 24. he meant (at least he might with the matter there contained) dispute with this Argument. The Gallatians by consequence denied salvation by Christ. Gallat. 5.2. etc. The Gallatians, Gallat. 5.2. etc. were a true Church. Therefore some true Church, by consequence denies salvation by Christ. I answer, those Gallatians whereof we read, Gallat. 5.2, 3, 4. by consequence denied salvation by Christ, & therefore the Proposition is true: but that the Apostle writes there, of the whole Church of Gallatia, may not reasonably be affirmed, nor can possibly be proved; because, no part of God's word doth say so, or lead us to think so. The Apostle in the 5. Chapter, reproves the Gallatians, for biting, and devouring one another, verse 15. and for vain glory, and envy, verse 26. Now the parties thus reproved were particular persons, not generally the whole Church: for, it is not likely, that every singular man in Gallatia was so guilty: if therefore, singular persons were reproved here, then there also: for the same phrase and manner of reproof, is used both there and here. If any man be desirous, to have us understand the Apostle of the whole Church of Gallatia, vers. 2, 3, 4. we may do it without profit to this Argument. For then, I grant, them of Gallatia were a true Church: because the Apostle, cap. 1. verse 2. terms them a Church, and saluteth them with grace and peace from God and Christ, verse 3. and does acknowledge them to have received liberty, and freeaome by Christ, cap. 5. verse 1. We may continue, that, they joined Circumcision, and the keeping of Moses Law, unto Christ, in opinion, not as matter of faith. At that time they began to grow in liking with that conceit; but they were not confirmed, and settled in their judgement that God had revealed it, nor professed it to the world as such. If they did so indeed, than I may grant the whole reason without loss; because, the conclusion urgeth not us: we willingly acknowledge, that the true Church is subject to error, in opinion, in things very important unto salvation: we only deny that erring in matter of faith can befall the true Church, whilst it is so. I say we may thus judge of that Church, until we see good reason for the contrary: because, charity thinketh not evil, nor is suspicious. Nay, the Apostles phrase leadeth us to think so: for, if that had been a matter of faith with them, he would have charged them with the fact as a thing perfectly done: but he does not so, yea rather the contrary: for, verse 1. he wills them to stand fast in their Christian liberty: and, verse 2. he puts the matter to an If, saying, If ye be circumcised, &c: verse 7. he tells them, ye did run well, and demands who it was that did let them, etc. and verse 10. and 12. he threatneth, and intreateth for their punishment that did trouble them: and finally, verse 10. he shows himself confident, that they would shake off, and forsake the present doctrine, and continue in the same mind, unto which he had brought them, and in which he had left them: wherein it is very apparent, he speaks of them as men wavering, not as parties confirmed in their judgement. These things considered, we may undoubtedly resolve, that, the Church of Gallatia, is no example, wherein we find that denial of salvation by Christ by consequence, which is the thing we seek for, and deny to the Church. And thus much shall suffice in refutation of his great, and important argument, propounded, cap. num. CHAP. 15. Of the same Opponents third Argument. HItherto we have discussed, all that he hath to say, touching the Romish Churches acknowledgement, and public profession of the Scriptures, and of salvation by Christ, and have insisted therein to the uttermost, lest some should be deceived by those glorious and beautiful titles. In this place we must examine, what good their Baptism does them, wherein we may say thus much (aforehand) If their profession of the Scriptures, and salvation by Christ, does not grace them: but notwithstanding such profession, they remain still destitute of the nature of Christ's Church, then doubtless Baptism cannot help them to it, even in this Opponents judgement; for pag. 85. he delivers it for a ruled case, that, The Church of God may want Baptism for a time, and yet remain a true Church: But he will not say so of professing the Scriptures and salvation by Christ; which we believe, and he affirms, is the soul of the Church. From their Baptism he frameth this Argument. That society which consisteth of persons Baptised, that is the true Church. But the Romish Church consisteth of persons Baptised. Therefore the Romish Church, is a true Church. The Assumption, and conclusion, is plainly (enough) set forth in the title of chap. 10. pag. 42. and in pag. 45. The Proposition is wanting, but all the rest of the Chapter contains no more, but a proof thereof. I answer: The Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same, is of the internal, and formal being of the Church, I willingly grant with our Church of England, which gives the Sacraments (in this sense) a place in the definition of a Church, Artic. 19 and accordingly, in this sense, I grant the Proposition, and say, that, That society wherein Baptism is thus administered, and consisteth of parties thus Baptised, that is a true Church: and he may save his labour to prove it, because all Christians will confess, that such Sacraments are peculiars to the Church; Testimonies of Gods gracious dignation, and favour, Pledges of his invisible grace, seals of the agreement between him, and his Church, and badges to distinguish the same from all others: because, no society else, does carry the like unto them, in the things themselves, and the love of the Church: as this Opponent setteth forth, pag, 33. But I deny the Assumption, and say, The Romish Baptism is the shell and relic of Baptism: and I will now make it appear, though this Opponent of ours seems to be tragically moved, and in a pelting fume thereat; insomuch that he confesseth himself to make good use of a bridle, pag. 46. and 47. and it is well, so good an instrument was present; for the further he had roved, the more he had miss of the true mark. The Romish Baptism is the shell, and relic of Baptism, no Baptism duly administered, as aforesaid, I prove it by the authority of our Church, in the second Homily for Whitsuntide (oftentimes already quoted) which expressly saith, the Church of Rome does not order the Sacraments (and therefore this of Baptism) in such sort as Christ did first institute, and ordain them: but, have so intermingled their own traditions, and inventions by chopping, and changing, by adding, and plucking away, that now, they may seem to be converted into a new guise. Will our present Opponent think this insufficient, to prove the Romish Baptism a shell and relic of Baptism? I hope not: if he does oppose it as not sufficient, his partners words, pag. 17. shall serve him, O mouth! o forehead! and he well deserves it: what? One man instruct a whole Church, yea his Mother that bred him, whose Articles of faith gave him his first life, and confirmed him in it, ever since? Nay will he affront himself, (yea himself) not in transient words, but in manent letters, his subscription made with his own hand, for he hath subscribed this Homily. Perhaps he will say, his latter thoughts are better than his first, and to return to the better, is more decent, then to remain in the worse: wherefore, I will confirm the same thing by other proof: which I frame thus: The Articles, & doctrine of divine faith, of necessity are requisite to Baptism, I say requisite, previally, & by antecession, not really, and unto constitution: such doctrine must precede the Sacrament, though formally it makes not the Sacrament. I prove it: God's covenant, and agreement with man, of necessity must precede Baptism, for (according to this Opponent) Baptism is the seal thereof. But the Articles of divine faith, are God's covenant, and agreement with man. Therefore the Articles of divine saith, of necessity must precede Baptism. If they must so precede, than the Romish Baptism is not administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all things of necessity requisite unto the same; for the Articles of their faith, are the Popes, and humane; not Gods, and divine; as I have proved already. If their Baptism be not so administered, than it is erroneous, and none of Christ's ordination. If that be so, it is a shell, and relic of Baptism, retaining the outward ceremony, and material form; but wanting the inward life, and true intention. I answer further, That society which consisteth of persons Baptised, according to man's invention, that is not the true Church: for, Christ's Church, and all the members thereof, are sheep of his fold, and hear his voice; servants of his household, and obey his will. In this sense the Proposition is false; but the Assumption is true: we willingly grant, that, the Romish Church consisteth of parties Baptised according unto man's devising: but this gains them nothing, the Proposition being false, the conclusion is so too. By way of reply to this answer, he averreth, pag. 45. and 46, that, Popish Baptism is true Baptism, holy, good, and the ordinance of God. But I know not what law will tie me to join thereunto; because, himself is uncertain, and resteth not in it, one while he saith, he will not trouble himself to prove it till he knows who denies it: another while, he takes it to be out of all question, and so doth contradict himself: for, if at another time he will prove it, than it needs proof, and consequently it is not without all question. If it be without all question, than it needs no proof, for, according to Aristotle, Nothing must be proved, but things that may be doubted of Top. lib. 1. cap. 11. and he esteems him mad, who puts that for a question, that all men grants. Top. lib. 1. cap. 10. In both the pages last mentioned, he disputes thus: He that calls the Sacrament of Baptism a shell, and relic of Baptism, was not guided by God's Spirit, disgraceth Christ, and the Sacrament. But our adversaries in this cause, so call the Sacranent of Baptism: pag. 35.47. Therefore our adversaries in this cause, were not guided by God's Spirit, and disgrace Christ, and the Sacrament. I answer, in the prosecution of the last Argument, we promised him two pair of new Sizors: upon a fair condition we will now increase his wages, so as, if he can prove, and apply, this present Argument, that it may serve in any part of this question, he shall have three pair: so desirous are we to make use of stuff so precious: Let him do his labour, and his wages are ready. It may be he will say, he amplifies the conclusion, and it may be so too: but, is he so good an Orator, that, he amplifies before he proves, I hope he forgets not himself, and his own rule. Will he one while affirm, another while ceny the same thing? Now answer, then argue, by and by declaim? Surely, this is altogether without his own appointed order pag 77. it is meet the Reader should be put in mind of these things, lest he mistake the matter, and the learning of the disputer. His mind cannot be at quiet, the Popish Baptism is so great a more in his eye, and therefore, pag. 87. he falls into it again, and avoucheth thus much: The indecent rites, and erroneous opinions of the Romish Church, cannot make nullities, and evacuate the force of the Sacraments. Their Baptism (for the substance of it) is holy, and good, and effectual (no doubt) to them that recetue it, as ours. I answer, the second branch is a mere repetition of his former answer, and imposeth a conceit upon us, viz. that, The Popish erroneous opinions, and indecent rites, make void the being and efficacy of the Sacraments. To the first branch I will say nothing, because I have done enough for that already. In the second he is mistaken, or a false accuser: if he will excuse himself, let him show the Author, and place of that opinion. This we say, and have said it already, They have no Sacraments, because they have no divine faith. And we think this consequence is good: because, the Sacraments have no being, nor use, but in order unto, and in presupposal of, the divine faith: and I suppose, our strictest Opponent will say no less; for if the Sacraments might be enjoyed, in their true and real being, and natural efficacy, where divine faith is wanting, than Turks, and Heathen men might have them, which I know this Opponent (at least) will deny: because, The Sacraments are peculiars to the Church, making men Christians, and Christianity makes the Church: for thus he writeth, pag. 117. and 119. He promised to forbear his proofs till he found his position denied, but the heat within him, whereof we read in his English Epistle, would not give way to that: wherefore, pag. 118. he allegeth two, and I will report them in true form, that the Reader may see their soundness. In the first he concludes thus. If they Baptism with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, than their Baptism is good, for here is water, and the words of Christ's Institution, the one the matter, and the other the form; and both essential to Baptism. I answer, I deny the consequence, as naught in itself, and as ill proved: the reason of my denial is given already, so as, I might be silent here, but repetition will be useful: often practice makes things, and men more expert, and facile. This proof supposeth, that, Nothing is essential to Baptism, (that is nothing by Christ's institution is of necessity requisite unto the Sacrament of Baptism) but water, and the words of Institution. I answer: In the Sacrament of Baptism administered according to Christ's ordinance, we conceive a being; or entity, comprehended under certain limits, as all unite, and individual things are; taking that Sacrament as an individual being, made by motion, there is nothing required to the being thereof, but the water, and words of institution: and so fare this Argument supposeth rightly; but nothing against us; for we do not deny an entity, or being unto Popish Baptism: we know, when water is poured on, and the words pronounced, there is a motion, and a thing made by motion, which was not before, and is distinct from all other motions, or things made by motion. In the Sacrament (so truly administered) there is likewise, besides the said individual entity, or being; a certain connotation, or essential relation, and that three ways. 1. Of man to God. 2. Of the Sacrament itself. 3. Of God unto man. In the first relation man shows his obedience to God. In the second and third man is ordered unto heaven, so fare as the Sacrament can: man being thereby confirmed in the expectation of God's love, and the receipt of inherent grace. Now, unto this relation, or ordering to heaven, more things are essential then water, and the words of institution: namely the sacred revelation, believed by a divine faith: which (I say) doth so order us to heaven, by commanding their use, and promising God's favour, and working grace, to such as use them rightly: from the first ariseth our obedience, from the second our assured expectation of his favour, and grace: and thus much this Opponent himself will confess I doubt not. Nothing (I presume) will be questioned in this answer, but this distinction: but I suppose no such thing will be: because the matter is clear in it self, the name Sacrament importeth, that there is this connotation, or relation, over and above the unite, and individual entity thereof: for, it signifieth (at least) that the unite, and individual thing is sacred, and holy; and that is more than the individual entity itself: but howsoever it be with others, this Opponent must not oppose the latter branch of the distinction; for himself doth teach it; expressly, if not more fully, than I have set forth: thus he writeth, pag. 47. The very being, and nature of the Sacraments, consisteth altogether in relation to some such gift, and grace supernatural, as God only can bestow. These things are sufficient (as I conceive to satisfy his first argument, in behalf of Popish Baptism. His second followeth in this form. If the Baptism in the Romish Church be not true; than it must be iterated when they turn to us. But the Romish Baptism may not be iterated, when they turn to us. Therefore the Baptism in the Romish Church is true Baptism. I answer, if by true Baptism he understandeth, all things of necessity required unto Baptism, than this conclusion serves our purpose in the present question: for, we inquire and search after such a Baptism, otherwise not. In that sense the consequence of the Proposition is unsound, and he brings nothing to prove it: wherefore it stands refelled, for in this case, our negation is better than his affirmation: he that allegeth must prove, or lose his action, by the course of all courts in the world. Yet (for this time) I will departed from mine own right, and give a reason for my denial: because, I desire to satisfy the Reader, and this I say: Although their Baptism want some things which of necessity are required thereunto, by the institution of Christ: yet, from hence will it not follow, that it ought to be repeated: because where Baptism is repeated, there all things essential thereunto (by Christ's institution) must be wantting: for repetition argues a nullity. But in the Romish Baptism, some things essential thereunto (by Christ's institution) are present, namely, 1 the water. 2 The words of institution. 3 An outward profession of Christianity. The first and second are essential to Baptism, as it is an individual being, and the third is one use, and end thereof. So as, thus the case stands between us: Their Baptism is refused, because the sacreed revelation, believed by a divine faith goes not with it. It is retained, because the water, the words of institution, and the outward profession of Christianity goes with it: and herein we do well, because, for want of the first, it cannot order us to heaven: and by the presence of the rest, we follow the institution of Christ: when they come us we cannot give them of the water, of the words of institution, and of outward Christian profession more than they have already. All that we do when they come to us, is, to perfect what is begun, and supply what is wanting. I answer moreover, Though I will not deny the Assumption, yet if any should, this Opponents proof could not rescue it: for, thus he argues: Papists, with us, may not be baptised again; because, such as former heretics baptised, were not to be baptised again. This consequence (I say) is naught, because the Popish Church, and former heretics do really differ: for these are fare worse than they, (as Bishop Carleton hath abundantly proved, in his Direction to know the true Church) and here ends my answer to his third Argument. He concludes this present matter more solemnly than any other passage in this business: wherefore, I will lose a little time to show it to the Reader, and put my answer thereunto. These are his words. Our adversaries, in this cause, must give us leave, till we hear further from them, to think this our third Argument, (drawn from the lawful Baptism of the Church of Rome) to be unanswerable. I answer: It seemeth, when you hear from us, and find we join not with you, your mind will change: are you so variable, that you are one thing when the stream goes with you, and another when it is against you? Well, we now know your mind, you would not say nay, till you had heard us say so before you. Now you have so much as you expected, see you perform whatsoever you have promised: and so I pass from this third Argument. CHAP. 16. The fourth Argument for the same purpose. HIs fourth Argument, himself setteth out in this sort. Wheresoever there be persons retaining the Ministerial function and office, Ephes. 4.8. There is the true Church, because such persons have the tutelage of the Church, Cant. 8.11. and the promise of Christ's presence to the world's end. Mat. 28.20. But in the Church of Rome there be such persons. Therefore the Romish Church is a true Church. This Argument is employed in the title of chap. 11. pag. 48. The Proposition is expressly delivered, pag. 50. and the proof thereof, pag. 49. the Assumption and the proof thereof is employed in these words: There is lawful ordination in the Church of Rome, pag. 56. In the Church of Rome there is true, and lawful or dination, wherein they receive commission, and do promise to teach the people, not the Pope's Legends, but out of the holy Scriptures: so that, both Pastor and Flock are ours, by admission, promise, and engagement: theirs, by abuse and practise: pag. 58. The conclusion is also employed in these words: She hath not wholly lost the face of a Church: pag. 58. I answer, a short business will satisfy this Argument, if we remember what hath been said touching the two former. The proposition cannot be denied, because where the ministerial function (mentioned Ephes. 4.8.) is present, there the word and Sacraments of Christ duly administered cannot be wanting, seeing this function presumeth that word, and those Sacraments; as a fountain from whence it flowed, and an object whereabout it is exercised, as our Saviour's words Mat. 28.19.20. do import. But the assumption is false, and impossible to be true. For, they have forsaken the fountains of living water. jer. 2.13. what life therefore can be in them? Shall we look for the ministerial function, mentioned Ephes. 4.8. where the words, and seals of Christ's charter are wanting? Surely, no wise man will, and he that does, shall lose his longing, and his eyes shall sooner fail, than the thing he looks for be found. This is enough in the strictest terms, to refel this argument. Yet more specially I answer: that function Ephes. 4.8. implieth a double power the one of jurisdiction, and the other of Order. The first doth exercise Church discipline for government; as imposing of hands unto ordination, etc. The other administereth the word and Sacraments, as Bellarmine truly hath it: De Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 22. At the beginning with the joint consent of all theirs, and ours. Now, neither of these powers (of jurisdiction or of Order, mentioned Ephes. 4.8.) can be found in the Romish Church: for, they serve to gather the Saints, and to build up the body of Christ verse. 12.13. But the Romish Church can have none such: seeing their faith is erroneous, and their Sacraments shadows, and without the true substance. Moreover, such as have the power of order, have commission Mat. 28.19. to teach divine faith, and administer Christ's Sacraments, but none amongst them, have such commission: for, they are admitted, and and ordained, to offer up the body, and blood of Christ, a propitiatory sacrifice, for the quick and dead, as we learn by the Council of Trent. Sess. 22. Can. 1.2.3. If any man think, that the Council hath not set out the adequate nature of their power of order, he must show some other Record (containing matter of their faith) wherein their order of Preisthood consisteth in more than this. But we know he cannot: because, perpetual experience shows, that so soon as a Priest is ordained, he is such a sacrificer, and as he is a Priest, he doth no other office, but offer that sacrifice, what everels they do, it is an addition to their Preisthood. They have the power of jurisdiction in some sort, namely so fare as humane reason leads them thereunto. They found that in the precedent ages of the Church; they saw it was comely, and profitable, and therefore they continue it still amongst them; But, as we said before, of the word and Sacraments, professed and adminnistred by them; so must we say of power of jurisdiction, according to divine faith, they have no such power: because, they receive it not from God by his authority as a Revealer of the sacred verities: (but, chief, and next of all) because, the Pastors of their Church command it, and accordingly they exercise and apply it. These things being true, (as they are certain) The Assumption is false: for they have not that power of jurisdiction whereof we read, Ephes. 4.8. for that is such a jurisdiction as is received from, and employed about, the word of divine faith. Noreover, this power of jurisdiction which we grant them, profits them nothing: because, their power to ordain Elders, & exercise Church Discipline, arising from humane reason, and serving to humane ends, hath no place, nor power, in constituting that Church, which is (indeed) the family of jesus. Now we have denied his Assumption, and given our reason for that denial: we must see, in the next place, what reason he can bring to confirm the same: and for that end we find three things: to which I answer jointly, that they come too short, because they serve not to take away the reason of our denial, and therefore are not sufficient to maintain his Assumption. The first, himself disposeth thus: If they have not lawful ordination, then have not we, for ours comes from them. I answer: this comes fare short of his Assumption: for in that, he attributes the Ministerial function, (whereof we read, Ephes. 4.8.) unto the Romish Church. In this he speaks only of ordination, which is but one part of that function: so as, if he would dispute from their ordination, as he does from their Ministerial function; his Argument, would prove their Church to be a true Church, very weakly and lamely: because, the being, and essence of Christ's Church, is not constituted by any power of ordination: and this is enough to satisfy this consequence of our Opponent B. But we will try him a little further. He saith, Our Ordination came from them, and thereby he endeavours to prove the foresaid consequence: But it comes short of that: The outward ceremony of Ordination, (that is) the imposing of hands by one that hath Diocesan Authority, which we enjoy and do exercise, came from them, so fare (for this time) we yield; that is, that, such Ministers of ours, as first led the way unto our separation from them, were ordained or admitted into the work of the Ministry by such authority of theirs. But this proves 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 do agree in the outward ceremony, and disagree in the in the inward, and Spiritual life of Ordination, or the power of jurisdiction, left by Christ unto his Church. I answer, the providence of God hath made that difference. They are given up to believe lies, we are preserved in the truth, and faith once delivered to the Saints. The second proof of his Assumption, is contained in these words: We do not ordain them anew which have taken Orders from that Sea, when they become converts. I answer, 1. This proof hath the same fault with the former: Orders cannot argue the Ministerial function, Ephes. 4.8. because that comprehends more than than this, yea, this seems to be but the entrance into the function, and not the essence thereof. 2. I answer, The inference is also naught. Their ordination may not be repeated when they turn to us: yet ours and theirs may be essentially different, as an empty vessel may not be rejected, and yet differs from that which is full: and indeed so stands the case between their ordination, and ours. They have the outward ceremony, taken up by tradition from the precedent and pure ages of the Church: we have that and the substance also, because divine faith goes with ours, but is wanting to theirs. His third proof containeth these words. They receive commission to teach the Scripture: not the Pope's Legends. I answer, This branch came out of his own brain. He never found it in any records of their faith. Moreover, the records of their faith are against him, as I have partly alleged, Num. 3. and may further appear by the 4. Sess. of the Council of Trent formerly reported, wherein the judgement of the true sense of the Scriptures, is attributed to the Church, that is, as themselves expound it unto the Pope. If then their priests must each the Scriptures in the Pope's sense, than the Scriptures are no better than the Pope's Legends, and consequently when they teach the Scriptures, they teach the Pope's Legends. To conclude, if Commission to teach the Pope's Legends be a Ministry differing from the Ministry, Ephes. 4.8. (as this Opponent implies) than the Popish Priesthood is not that Ministry, Ephes. 4.8, because it teaches the Pope's Legends. And thus in stead of confirming he overthrows his Assumption. CHAP. 17. The conclusion of the whole, claiming our Opponents promise. NOw we have fully finished the body of the disputation, we are to come unto, both our Opponents conclusions, lest something be left untouched, to the hurt of the cause, and offence to the Reader. Our elder Opponent, concludeth his book, pag. 115. with these words. I desire to stand, but so right as I am in all honest judgements, I beseech all Readers to judge wisely, and uprightly of what I have written. And in his second Epistle he promiseth after this sort. If you can sound and substantially Convince me of untruth, I profess, before God and the world, that, I will yield unto you without any more ado: being already willing to be overcome of the truth in this case. The younger Opponent, pag. 132. joins with his partner in the same promise. If I have erred, I shall thank those that will bring me into the way again. If I have favoured any unsound opinion, yea, or have spoken suspiciously, let me suffer as an Heretic: but, let no man condemn me till he hath first shown me better, and found me obstinate. I answer, the whole sum of their promise, makes up this conditional Proposition. If we have erred we will revoke that error. Whereunto I will add this Assumption. But you have erred. And accordingly every must make this conclusion. Therefore you must revoke your error. The consequence of the proposition may not be questioned, because then selves have made it, and the one hath professed (before God) to perform it. The other craveth the punishment due to an heritick, if he breaks it. Wherefore, so far, our ground work is certain. If they doubt of the assumption, they have offered fair, and I accept it. They are content to stand to the judgement of of such readers as be wise, honest, and do fear God. I desire no better arbitratours, They require to be showed better by sound, and substantial conviction, and I say it is the best issue. If therefore, such Readers find such conviction these Opponents must grant the assumption, and execute the conclusion; for every honest man performs his promise, when he hath received the condition. FINIS.