Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A18620
|
The state of the now-Romane Church Discussed by way of vindication of the Right Reuerend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of Exceter, from the weake cauills of Henry Burton. By H.C.
|
Cholmley, Hugh, ca. 1574-1641.
|
1629
(1629)
|
STC 5144; ESTC S107813
|
40,972
|
128
|
hate all he deceiues himselfe and others with his old fallacie à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter And if he say their preaching cannot breed true sauing faith I pitie him BVRTON As if a Papist though neuer so simple could be humble there can be no greater pride then that which hee takes in his ignorance and can he be peaceable whose chiefe article of his Creed is to beleeue the Pope to be supreme â—uer all Kings and princes c. Answer If the thinke all Papists to bee such as he speakes of hee is not onely vncharitable but foolish Those simple and silly ignorants of which the Author speaketh both may be and 〈◊〉 humble and peaceable notwithstanding the pride and rebellion of the Po 〈…〉 orants and besides how doth their 〈◊〉 perie hinder them froâ— humilitie and peaceablenesse when their Kings and Princes themselues will haue them so to beleeue and hold BVRTON This is the beasts marke which who so receiueth shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God Reuel 14. 9. No Papist then as a Papist can be saued Answer That the beleefe of the Popes supremacie in all spirituall things and causes is the Beasts marke is Petitio principij And that all Papists doe receiue the Beasts marke is false vnlesse hee will say none of them all are written in the Lambes booke of life A Reuel 13. 8. Which I 〈…〉 not say The Conclusion iâ— altogether without premisse 〈…〉 if hee will-conclude any thing 〈…〉 That 〈◊〉 apist can be saued and not that No Papist 〈…〉 Papistoan be saued For the Ang 〈…〉 〈…〉 No 〈…〉 marke Ergo No papist can be saued BVRTON And of Babylon saith God Come out of her my people left ye be partakers of her sinnes Reuel 18. Babylon the dominion and religion of the beast of Antichrist Nothing then therein to be expected but the punishment of Babels sinnes Answer Babylon doth not alwayes signifie the dominion and religion of the beast sometimes it is taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the very Citie that is the seate of his dominion the Citie of Rome and so is it to be vnderstood Reuel 18. And for the Conclusion I say the same I said of the former that it hath no premisses for all that can well be concluded is this That God calleth his people out of the â—itie of Rome when 〈◊〉 is vpon the point of destrsction that they may not bodily perish with the wicked 〈◊〉 I hope hee will noisay that Gods people may 〈…〉 ingly pelish with them though for a time they pa 〈…〉 with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinnes and temporall punishments as often and ordinarily they doe So much for the first question and for the first Author The second question and Author May not a simple Papist miss-led by education or long custome or ouer-valuing the soueraigntie of the Romane Church Io in the simplicitie of his heart imbracing them find mercy at Gods hands by a general repentance and faith in the merit of Christ attended with charitie and other vertues BVRTON Here the state of the former question is quite altered by Faith and Repontance no doubt not onely an ignorant Papist but euen an Infidell may finde mercy c. Answere It is not true the state it still the same for the humble 〈…〉 able obedience of the former question implyeth the Faith and Repentence required in this question for without true faith and repentance there can be no humble and peaceable obedience And so it is true which I said before that hee diuideth one question into two and maketh his Authors differ which agree in one Besides I would desire him to tell why there hee denyed humilitie and peaceable behauiour to all Papists and yet here affords them Faith Repentance to saluation To this he answereth BVRTON But withall this silly Papist beleeuing and repenting must necessarily repent him of all his Idolatry as well as of all his other sinnes yes saith the Author by a generall repentance and faith what a strange doctrine is this for a learned Doctor to teach Surely Bellarmine himselfe with the whole rabble of Pontificians could doe no more c. Answer See here how Sarcastically hee writeth of the most wholsome and Catholike doctrine of generall Faith and Repentance and of the Author for teaching it who if hee be a Doctor of the Church of England his fault is the greater for why should this be Popish doctrine in his mouth which in Perkinses is sound and orthodoxe Doth not he say plainly in his Treatise of Repentance cap. 1. § Neither is this to trouble any That as God requires particular repentance for knowne sinnes so he accepts a generall repentance for such as be vnknowne And doth he not say also in the same place That sound Repentance for one speciall sinne brings with it Repentance for all sinnes And doth hee not say elsewhere Booke of Cases lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 3. paragraph But some may say That The greater this simple ignorance is the lesser is the sinne and that if we be carefull to obey God according to our knowledge hauing withall a care and desire to increase in the knowledge of God and his will God will haue vs excused And is not this the selfe-same mutatis mutandis which this Author or Doctor hath deliuered If the Pope and Bellarmine and the whole rabble of Pontificians would say no worse then so it would be the best daies worke wee did these seuenty yeares to be reconciled BVRTON But doth this generall repentance include Idolatry with all popish trumpery as things to bee repented of If not such repentance shall neuer bring him to saluation Answer Wee grant all This Repentance includeth all vnknowne sinnes and so all Idolatry and all other popish trumperie BVRTON If it doe include them then by faith in Christs merits he comes to be saued not as a Papist but as a true beleeuer renouncing Popery and then no Godamercy to his popery or to his silly ignorance Answer Loc here is the vpshot of all this is his strong hold wherein hee puts his whole trust in this question And yet God knowes it is but a meere starting hole as poore a shift and euasion as euer man can vse Here then let it be obserued that hee vseth two points of Sophistry and one of Folly of Sophistry first in the word Papist secondly in the word renouncing The word Papist is ambiguous sometime it is vsed sensu composito as the Schoolemen speake or largely sometimes sensu diviso or strictly In the compound sense it signifieth to inuert the words of Perkins an vnreformed Catholike that is one that holds the same necessary heads of Religion with the Protestant Churches yet so as he retaines all errours in doctrine whereby the said religion is corrupted in the Church of Rome ignorantly supposing them to bee the truth of God In the diuided sense it fignifies one that holds the errours of the Church of
BVRTON And for the essentiall principles of Christianity the Iewes at this day hold the Old Testament and if it bee said They deny Christ expressely the Papists doe so too implicitely and by their owne expresse doctrines of Trent haue no more communion with Christ then the Iewes haue Nay Papists doe expresly abiure the doctrine of Christ as wee shewed before in the Popes owne Bull. Answer The tongue that lyeth slayeth the soule Such comparisons are not onely odious but damnable If this zeale do not transport you to sinne I doubt not but euill-speakers raylers and slanderers may finde an easie passage into the kingdome of heauen Author Grant the Romanists to be but Christians how corrupt soeuer and wee cannot deny them the name of a Church BVRTON But why should we grant them that which neuer a Papist is able to demonstrate to vs or yet vndoubtedly to perswade himselfe of Answer This fond conceit is sufficiently answered already BVRTON Although for the bare name of Christians and of a Church wee will not much stand with them so they do not hereupon or any for them incroach and challenge the beeing and realitie yea or the very visibility of a true Church Answer You are very liberall of that which is none of your owne Can you bee content to afford the precious name of a Christian and of a Church of Christ to them which in mans iudgement not partially affected are not so The Iews would neuer doe it neither will the Papists doe it neither will the Reformed Churches doe it neither will any well informed Christian doe it But you will not much stand vpon it Author We are all the same Church by vertue of our outward vocation whosoeuer all the world ouer worship Iesus Christ the onely Sonne of God the Sauiour of the world and professe the same common Creed BVRTON Doth the Church of Rome worship Iesus Christ who for Christ worship the Beast and his Image bearing his mark Answer Doe all in the Church of Rome doe so what they whose names are written in the Lambs booke of life Reu. 13. 8. or are you sure that none of the Church of Rome liuing and dying professed members thereof are written therein BVRTON Doc they hold the same Creed that deny the faith without which they cannot say the first words of the Creed I beleeue in God Answer And dare you say that all and euery one in the Church of Rome doth so Author Rome doth both hold the foundation and destroy it she holds it directly destroyes it by consequent BVRTON What foundation doe they hold directly with vs wee shewed before that they haue nothing of Christ but the shell the shadow the Pope is the kernell if any Answer You said so indeed but you shewed it not yet if they haue the shell that is the outward profession of the foundation directly it is enough to make them be said to hold the foundation directly BVRTON Nay doe they hâ—ld more of Christ directly then the very society of Deuils doe yea or so much as they Answer They doe if your selfe say true for you say that To hold the foundation directly is to hold Iesus Christ so to be come in the slesh as therein to suffer and satisfie for our saluation becomming our Christ our Iesus redeeming vs from our sinnes by imputing his merits to vs that our sins might not be imputed to vs which were imputed to him by whose stripes wee are healed by whose righteousnesse imputed wee are perfectly iustified in the sight of God And all and euery point of this the Church of Rome directly holdeth BVRTON Nothing lesse yea she directly not by consequence onely directly I say shee denieth and destroyeth this foundation How and where in the Councell of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 10. Siquis dixerit homines per ipsam Christi iustitiam formaliter iustos esse Anathema sit Is not this a direct and flat expresse denyall of the foundation Answer Is this an expresse flat and direct denial of the foundatioÌ„ then Melancthon Caluin Illyricus and all sound and good Protestants doe expresly flatly and directly deny the Foundation for all of them doe and must hold this doctrine for accursed and all the Ministers of the Church of England haue cause to be ashamed of your ignorance boldnesse Mr. Burton who dare challenge the Church of Rome to denie the foundation directly in that wherein she holdeth and confirmeth the truth of the Gospel you must know therefore that in these words is condemned the damnable doctrine of Andrew Osiander and his followers who taught and held that a man is formally iustified by the very Righteousnesse by which Christ himselfe is essentially iust and righteous being partakers thereof by inhabitation This allegation therefore is a notable abuse not only of the Councel but of your selfe and the Reader See Bellarmine de Iustif. lib. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 2. His verbis though himselfe offend therein also afterwards BVRTON And in the 11th Canon If any shall say that men are iustified by the sole imputation of Christs righteousness or by sole remission of sins otherwise then by inherent righteousnesse by vs obtained thereby or also that the grace of God whereby wee are iustified is onely the fauour of God let him bee accursed What more direct deniall of the foundation Answer I might here challenge you for altering and changing the words of the Councell but I will not take all aduantages I answer therefore that it seems you know not the true meaning of the Councell for taking the word Iustification in the Councels owne sense this Canon containes very sound and Christian doctrine What then doth it mean by Iustification A compound of Protestant Iustification and Sanctification for so it defines Iustification cap. 7. of this Session in the first words Iustificatia est non sola peccatorum remissio sed sanctificatio renouatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae donorum and so the true sense and meaning of the Canon is this If any man shall say that men are so iustified by the sole imputation of Christs righteousnesse or by sole remission of sinnes that they are also sanctified thereby without inherent grace and charity or also that the grace whereby wee are so iustified is onely the fauour of God Let him bee accursed and let him be so indeed for me You will say this is nothing but meere iugling I grant it but it is not direct denyall of the foundation for here as Chemnitius acknowledgeth is both remission of sinnes and imputation of Christs righteousnesse included which though it be sufficient to iustification in the Protestant sense yet in the popish sense wherein sanctification is also required it is not sufficient BVRTON Is not this the foundation That Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners and how who his owne selfe bare our sinnes in his owne bodie on the tree that we being dead to sins should liue