Iesu neither do they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute and ordeyne them that now they may seeme to be converted into a new guise Therefore the present Romish Church is not the true Church The Homilie takes the proposition to be a discription of the Church so rgreeable to the Scriptures and Auncient Fathers that none may iustly find fault therewith So likewise it takes the Assumption as a confessed truth by all such as haue any light of Gods word and insight into their liues and examples Whereupon it is confident of the conclusion Though this Argument wanteth not strength to inferre the conclusion so as it needeth not our further labour yet before I passe from it I will vnfold the termes By Christ and his seruants not their persons but their Preaching and Revelation is vnderstood The sacred Revelation is called the Churches foundation because by the profession therof the Church is made to be that which it is and is differenced from all other Societies in the world and good reason because by the profession of the divine Revelation the Church is ordered vnto heaven which befalleth no Societie else whatsoever the Homilie speaks of the foundation of the Church as one intire individuall whole that is of one complete being vndivided into parts or kinds and it attributes the same in the Proposition to the true Church as adequate thereunto and convertible therewith and it denyes it in the Assumption vnto the present Romish Church vniuersally or totally So as the Church of Rome and the Sacred Revelation in the intent of the Homilie are divided as things really and essentially distinct and different as if our Church had said the Romish Church sitteth besides the foundation of the Divine Revelation And thus our Church must be vnderstood because this sence agrees with the Scriptures with the 39 Article and with true reason all other sences are violent and inforced as we shall see in the prosecution of this Argument According to this interpretation the Argument may be framed in these termes The true Church professeth the Preaching or Reuelation of Christ and his Apostles The present Romish Church professeth not the preaching or Revelation of Christ and his Apostles Therefore the present Romish Church is not the true Church Our opponent B. against this Argument proceedeth thus he denyes not but after a sort confesseth that this Argument is our Churches pa. 83. and so fareth it with his partner our opponent C. pag 21. our opponent B in his English Epistle denyes the conclusion of this Argument to bee our Churches but the opponent C saith nothing I answer how can the opponent B. say our Church holds not the conclusion who confessed even now that our Church made the Argument vnlesse he will say that the conclusion of an Argument is no part thereof If that be his iudgement he must teach Aristotle for he thinketh otherwise Prior. lib. 1. cap. 1. Top lib. 1. cap. 1. For this time the conclusion shall goe for none of hers that we may see what they will say to it Opponent B. in his Latine Epistle sayes He that thinks the Church of Rome to be no Church thinks nothing His partner C. in his Epistle Dedicatory professeth that he trembles at the very hearing of this Proposition the present Romish Church is no Church I aâ— sure these parties are ill matched because they â—rosse one the other The one thinks the present conclusion to be nothing the other esteemes it a monster and that is more then some thing but let vs for this time thinke so too because if that be so then the premises which inferre that conclusion are monstrous likewise if the premises bee monstrous then will these opponents make them to appeare to be so And thus much for their answers to this Argument in generall CHAP. 3. Of the same Argument and their answer thereunto THe Reader must remember our Argument in the true and plainest termes standeth thus The true Church is founded vpon that is professeth the sacred truth revealed by Christ and his Apostles But the present Romish Church is not so founded Therefore the present Romish Church is not the true Church Our opponent C. answereth hereunto pag 21 22. with these very words These words must receiue this construction First they must be vnderstood of the accidentall truth of the Church in regard of soundnes and not of essentiall truth in regard of Gods Covenant Secondly they must be vnderstood even of soundnes comparatiuely and not simply that is in regard of the Primitiue Church and not otherwise Thus farre he and not one word further touching this matter I reply In this answer we must looke for the meaning of his words and the application of the matter to our Argument His meaning is further to seeke then Sampsons Riddle or more senselesse then becomes a reasonable man He seemes thus to distinguish 1. The truth of the Church is Accidentall in regard of soundnesse Essentiall in regard of Gods Couenant 2. Soundnes is taken Comparatiuely in regard of the Primitiue Church Simply For thus lyes his words directly but who shall vnderstand him The Rules of Logicke cannot help vs for according to them these distributions are no wayes to be allowed According to Art every distribution conteineth a whole and part So Aristotle Top. lib 6. cap. 1. Rursus vtrumque c. cap. 2. Idem contingens so Ramus lib. 1. cap. 25. But here is no whole and part for a whole is no more but a gathering together of the parts so as they all doe make one certaine thing Thus Arist Physico lib. 1. tex 17. lib. 4. tex 43. meta lib. 5. cap. 25. tex 31. Thus Th. 1. q. 76. art 8. in cor so Ramus lib. 1. cap. 25. But in these distributions there is no whole and parts Moreover in the first distinction truth is the thing divided and that is set out by the terme Church that is the adiunct or accident is set out by a first substance or individuall subiect If that be good then Aristotle must come to him to learne Logick for according to him all other things are attributed to a singular being and that attributed to none Categor cap. 4. 5. Prior. lib. 1. cap. 27. post lib. 1. cap. 22. Againe in that distribution essentiall and accidentall are made parts of truth but that is impossible for truth is no more but the adequation of the thing and the apprehension of our vnderstanding in the Iudgement of Aristotle de interpre cap. 9. meta lib. 4. cap. 7. text 27. Thomas 1. p. q. 21. art 2. in cor 1. Dist 46. q. 1. art 2. ad 1m. But accidentall and essentiall truth makes no such adequation for those termes import no more but a necessary and contingent predication which belongs to the manner of predicating Lastly he attributes soundnesse to accidentall truth and Gods covenant to essentiall truth but that is impossible
the Scriptures and of Christs comming to saue sinners by the voice of humane faith though it be in words never so plaine and expresse yet it giues not being to the Church for the Church subsisteth in it selfe and differeth from all other societies by supernaturall not by naturall or humane endowments and this I take as granted In the second sense the Proposition is true namely The profession even in so many words of these fundamentall truthes There be Scriptures Christ came to saue sinners by the voice of divine faith is the very soule of the Church and so essentiall therto that without it there can be no Christian Church and where that is the Church is also because it is so operatiue wheresoever it doth encline that all other things requisite to a Christian Church does follow according as this Opponent writeth pag. 21.29.34 CHAP. 12. The Romish Church directly denies salvation by Christ BVt in this sense the Assumption is false the present Romish Church does in words and professedly deny the being of the Scriptures and the comming of Christ to saue sinners according vnto the voice of divine faith and I proue it thus They that doe not confesse Christs comming to saue sinners doe professedly deny his comming to saue sinners for in this case a not confession is a professed negation and so accounted by our Saviour who saith he that is not with me is against me he that gathereth not scattereth Matth. 12.30 And good reason hee should so esteeme it for such a not confession is a voluntary omission of our duty This is the will of my heavenly Father that yee beleeue on him whom hee hath sent Ioh. 6.29 Even all men whatsoever because the earth is his inheritance and the vttermost ends thereof is his possession Psal 2.8 Wee see the truth hereof in the omission of any duty Hee that withheld his tythes is held professedly to deny the paying of tythes Mal. 3.8 He that honoureth not his parents is reckoned professedly to dishonour his Parents Matth. 15.6 This Proposition then being very evident I thus assume But the Romish Church doth not confesse Christs comming to saue sinners by the voice of divine faith because the faith of that Church by meanes of the foundation thereof is humane and not divine as hath beene manifestly proved cap. 4. num 7. c. He thinks to shrowd himselfe vnder the authority of our Church which hee vrgeth negatiuely thus Our Church does charge her to erre in matter of faith Art 19 but not with direct deniall of salvation by Christ Therefore the Romish Church is not so to bee charged I answer 1. he takes the authority of our Church to be of moment I demand then why he disputes against her all this while yea against her doctrine subscribed by himselfe 2. The consequence is nought our Churches silence argues not the Romish Church to be innocent for this question of denying or not denying was not in being when her faith was published This was done Anno 1562. that began Anno 1588. or neere thereupon for any thing I can yet learne or this Opponent proue 3. The Antecedent is false for two reasons 1. Errours in matters of faith may be a direct deniall of salvation by Christ for he that so denies errs in matter of faith and we must thinke our Church meant so because her words will beare it and this Opponent cannot shew the contrary 2. Our Church in the second Homily for Whitsontide often times already alledged does deny her to be built vpon Christ the corner stone in that foundation and that importeth a direct deniall of salvation by Christ because he that sits besides that foundation shall goe without salvation This proofe and defence being considered we may safely rest in this conclusion The Romish Church according to the voice of divine faith professedly denies Christs comming to saue sinners and accordingly we haue the victory and ours is the day according to this Opponents offer and our acceptation num 4. chap. 11. I might proceed to proue their professed deniall of the Scriptures vpon the same ground but I forbeare to doe it because the Reader may see this Argument serues for both that and this by changing the termes This Opponent seemeth to qualifie his former recited promise and calleth vs as he thinkes to a new reckoning pag. 22 23. wherein hee writeth thus They overthrow the foundation directly to whom Christ is an execration And to tread vnder foot the sonne of God to count the blood of the covenant wherewith all wee are sanctified an vnholy thing and to doe despite vnto the spirit of grace Heb. 10.29 is directly to deny the foundation And then he assumes in these words Of which crime whosoever is able let him indict the Church of Rome producing sufficient evidence thereof and whosoever shall open his mouth to plead for them let him be guilty of all the dishonour that ever hath beene done to the Sonne of God and lyable to the Apostles curse 1 Cor. 16.22 I answere this is his last refuge if therefore he failes in this he is gone for ever In true forme he reasoneth thus They that directly deny salvation by Christ are guilty as aforesaid But the Romish Church are not so guilty Therefore the Romish Church denies not directly salvation by Christ I may except against the Assumption with better reason then he can argue for it wherefore this I say The Romish Church is so guilty for They that know and belieue Christs comming to saue sinners onely by naturall reason and humane faith They tread him vnder foote account his blood vnholy and doe despite vnto the spirit of grace Heb. 10.29 because the naturall man perceiveth or receiveth not the things of God as they are the things of God forasmuch as they are spiritually discerned 1 Cor. 2.14 The very wisedome of the flesh is enmitie vnto God Rom. 8.7 But the Romish Church does know and beleiue Christs comming to saue sinners only by naturall reason and humaine faith for all their knowledge and beleiving ariseth vpon the teaching of the Pastors of their Church which is meerly humaine because they haue no Commission for such teaching as appeareth Cap. 4. num 7. c. If any man doe iudge that the place alledged Heb. 10.29 mean no more but thus then I rest here as in a sufficient answer to this argument and claim this Opponents finall promise last mentioned and so we are at an end for this cause the day is ours we must carry the victory and the signes thereof leading these Opponents in tryumph If the Apostle be vnderstood to speake of more then this then I deny the Proposition as wanting the very shew of truth I say some men directly deny salvation by Christ who are not guiltie as aforesaid and I haue two reasons for it the first is this Iewes and Pagans are not guilty as aforesaid for the parties so guilty haue received the knowledge of the truth
of Ordination that is the imposing of hands by one that hath Diocesan Authority which we enioy and doe exercise came from them so farre for this time we yeeld that is that such Ministers of ours as first led the way vnto our seperation from them were ordeined or admitted into the worke of the Ministery by such authority of theirs But this proues not that our Ordination and theirs is the same for ours ariseth from and is exercised about divine faith so is not theirs Our Ordination as it ariseth from and is exercised about divine faith is not received from them because amongst them that divine faith is wholly wanting If then any desire to know how they and we doe agree in the outward ceremony and disagree in the in the inward and Spirituall life of Ordinaâ—ion or the power of Iurisdiction left by Christ vnto his Church I answere the providence of God hath made that difference They are given vp to beleeue lyes wee are preserved in the truth and faith once delivered to the Saints The second proofe of his Assumption is contained in these words Wee doe not ordeine them anew which haue taken Orders from that Sea when they become converts I answere 1. This proofe hath the same fault with the former Orders cannot argue the Ministeriall function Ephes 4.8 because that comprehends more then then this yea this seemes to be but the entrance into the function and not the essence thereof 2. I answere The inference is also naught Their ordination may not be repeated when they turne to vs yet ours and theirs may be essentially different as an empty vessell may not be reiected and yet differs from that which is full and indeed soe stands the case betweene their ordination and ours They haue the outward ceremony taken vp by tradition from the precedent and pure ages of the Church wee haue that and the substance also because divine faith goes with ours but is wanting to theirs His third proofe conteineth these words They receiue commission to teach the Scripture not the Popes Legends I answer This branch came out of his owne braine He never found it in any records of their faith Moreover the records of their faith are against him as I haue partly alledged Num. 3. and may further appeare by the 4. Sess of the Councell of Trent formerly reported wherein the iudgment of the true sence of the Scriptures is attributed to the Church that is as themselues expound it vnto the Pope If then their preists must each the Scriptures in the Popes sense then the Scriptures are no better then the Popes Legends and consequently when they teach the Scriptures they teach the Popes Legends To conclude if Commission to teach the Popes Legends be a Ministery differing from the Ministery Ephes 4.8 as this Opponent implyes then the Popish Priesthood is not that Ministery Ephes 4.8 because it teaches the Popes Legends And thus in stead of confirming he overthrowes his Assumption CHAP. 17. The conclusion of the whole claiming our Opponents promise NOw we haue fully finished the body of the disputation we are to come vnto both our Opponents conclusions lest something be left vntouched to the hurt of the cause and offence to the Reader Our elder Opponent concludeth his booke pag. 115. with these words I desire to stand but so right as I am in all honest Iudgements I beseech all Readers to Iudge wisely and vprightly of what I haue written And in his second Epistle he promiseth after this sort If you can soundly and substantially Convince mee of vntruth I professe before God and the world that I will yeeld vnto you without any more adoe being already willing to be overcome of the trueth in this case The younger Opponent pag. 132. ioynes with his partner in the same promise If I haue erred I shall thank those that will bring mee into the way againe If I haue favoured any vnsound opinion yea or haue spoken suspitiously let me suffer as an Heretick but let no man condemne me till he hath first shewed me better and found me obstinate I answere the whole summe of their promise makes vp this conditionall Proposition If we haue erred we will revoke that errour Whereunto I will adde this Assumption But you haue erred And accordingly every must make this conclusion Therefore you must revoke your errour The consequence of the proposition may not be questioned because then selues haue made it and the one hath professed before God to performe it The other craueth the punnishment due to an heritick if he breakes it Wherefore so farr our ground worke is certaine If they doubt of the assumption they haue offred faire and I accept it They are content to stand to the iudgement of of such readers as be wise honest and do feare God I desire noe better arbitratours They require to be shewed better by sound and substantiall conviction and I say it is the best issue If therefore such Readers finde such conviction these Opponents must grant the assumption and execute the conclusion for every honest man performes his promise when he hath received the condition FINIS