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
but stained the faith of Christ with reproaches creatures with the Lords honour Gods service with Idolatry Doct. Whitakers in his second controversie of the Church q. 6. cap. 1. adiudgeth the present Romish Church to be nothing else but a deepe pit of heresie and errour and thereby argueth her no wayes to be or to belong vnto the true Church Mr. Perkins in the Preface to his Reformed Catholike saith The whole Religion of the present Romish Church is hereticall and schismaticall and the cup of abomination in the Whores hand Revel 17.4 And Doctor Abbot Bishop of Salisbury in his defence of this place in Mr. Perkins doth iustifie and avow the same thing against bishop the Papist Bishop Careton in his directions to know the true Church prooues at large that the present Romish Church holas not vnitie 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 errour her faith is erronious Now I haue 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 himselfe But I am prevented in that by Mr. Wotton who hath done it already in his booke called Runne from Rome where he beginnes this poynt pag 14. num 4. whereunto I might refer the Reader as vnto a most pious learned author a worke that admitteth not any reall essentiall or substantiall 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 sutable to the buisinesse First I will set downe how he vnfoldeth the terme and then come to his proofes of the question The word Faith importeth a singular thing vndevided into either members or kindes with warrant from the Apostle who speakes so of it Eph. 4.5 There is one faith saith he one Baptisme one Mediator between God and man 1 Tim. 2.5 In what manner the Mediator is one and Baptisme 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 it selfe sayes no lesse for this word Faith importeth a coÌ„prehension 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 vs to consent to them as true and accordingly the beleefe of one is the beleefe of all the deniall of one the deniall 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 erronious when it agrees not with the sacred Revelation and this wee say with warrant from the Councell of Trent Sess 14. cap 8. of the necessitie of Satisfaction And afterwards in the Decree touching the Sacrament of pennance Canon 6. And the thing it selfe doth avowe the same for the varying from the rule is the very nature of error therefore every article of faith must needs be erronious that agrees not with Gods word because that word is the rule thereof By it our faith was revealed vnto vs and by the recorde thereof it is reserved for vs. And so much for Mr. Wottons explication We haue his proofe pag 15. nu 6. thus set forth That faith which hath a faâ—se and erronious foundation is false and erronions But the foundation of the Romish saith is false and erronious Therefore the Romish faith is false and erronious In the Proposition two things are taken as granted viz. 1 Faith hath a foundation without it 2 Different foundations causeth different faithes Both of them are cleere and evident therefore they stand not in need of my proofe if the termes be opened they will be out of question By foundation wee meane the next and formall reason why we assent to this or that proposition in Divinity that is why we iudge this predicate to bee truly and rightly attributed to that subiect now this is without the Article it selfe because it is no more but the authority of him that pronounceth the sentence In the second sentence we meane to say Every distinct faith followes the next and formall reason of our beleeving as when wee beleeue this or that report to be true vpon the authority of him that reports it this is humane saith because it followes humane authority and accordingly the faith of Turks and Heathens is accompted humane because the next reason of their beleeving is mans authority accordingly that is Divine faith when we esteeme this or that sentence to be true because God hath pronounced it And thus haue we cleered the Proposition Mr. Wotton prooues 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 erronious No. 10. And this proofe is manifest and without exception if both these sentences be true But they are true he prooues the first num 8. by this argument They that haue 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 reliefe for that office of shewing what is revealed and what is not is the next and formall reason of their beleefe as by their doctrine and practise we shall see hereafter num 8. c. The Assumption needes our helpe as little for every man that is acquainted with their faith knowes that they giue their Church that office yet for further explication I will shew the same by the Councel of Trent Sess 4. praeterea c. saith It is the office of the Church to iudge of the true meaning and sense of the Scriptures By Church they vnderstand the Pastors of the Church and we know it by their practise and the Iudgement of their learned No man inioyeth a share in the voice of deciding Iudgement in any Councel but their Bishops who onely according to them are the Pastors of the Church By Iudging is meant an inforcing power compelling their sentence to be obeyed and received By sense of the Scriptures is vnderstood every Article or sentence of faith for an Article of faith is a sentence held according to the true sense of Gods word By Scriptures they vnderstand every particular sentence contained in the Scriptures for if they meant some places onely there could be no certainty in this decree because they doe not determine the particular places subiected to the Churches sentence and when they subiect the sense of
the Scriptures vnto the Churches Iudgement they would haue vs beleeue that the Church must tell vs which be the Scriptures and which be not else we can haue no divine faith of them for reason tells vs they must haue authority in all points of faith or none at all This decree of the Councel thus vnderstood is followed by all their Divines and Suarez giues it vs in this one sentence A generall Councell in which the Pope is present either in his owne person or by his Legats and confirmed by the Pope is an infallible rule of Faith And this is a matter of Faith De Fide c. Tracta 1. Disp 5. Sect. 7. No. 6. 9. Bellarmine delivereth the selfe same matter in a most ample large manner in divers places in his third booke of Gods word and I will report them in order as they stand and thus he begins Cap. 3. Tota igitur The Church that is the Pope with his Councell of other Pastors is the Iudge of the true sense of the Scriptures in which all Catholikes agree and the Councell of Trent hath it expresly Sess 4. It is committed singularly to Peter and his Successours that they should teach all men what is to be held concerning the doctrine of Faith Cap. 5. Ex his c. The Councels and Popes execute the office of a Iudge committed to them by God a Iudge delivereth his sentence as a thing that necessarily must be followed Cap. 10. Respond aliud est Christians are bound to receiue 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 grosse and not vnfoulded wherefore we must seeke for that also and we shall finde the same in the said 10. Chapter and first he giveth vs a reason why the Church should haue this office committed to her in these words The Scripture for it selfe needs not the witnesse of men for it is most true in it selfe whether it be vnderstood or not but for our sake it needs the witnesse of the Church because otherwise we are not certaine what bookes are sacred and divine or what is the true and proper meaning Cap. 10. Respondeo Christus Hitherto wee finde these authors concurring with the Councell 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 expresly in the place alledged and the thing it selfe doth say no lesse of them both for they agree with the Councell and all on their side agree with them none of theirs doe deny what they affirme If any man think not so he must shew the contrary which yet I never found Wherefore we need not doubt of the conclusion wherein we maintaine That their Church is the foundation of their faith being the thing we vndertooke to prooue num 7. Though this be enough to manifest the matter yet I will adde some other proofe from the testimony of their Church to iustifie the same conclusion because I would haue the thing made easie to our vnderstanding as well as proved to be true by force of argument Now Bellarmine doth all this in most plaine 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 beleeve whatsoever we beleeue because God hath revealed it by his Prophets and Apostles but wee adde that besides this first foundation there is another secondary foundation needfull 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 practise he does that also after this sort Wee are to know that a Proposition or Article of faith is concluded in such a Syllogisme 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 certaine truth amongst all Catholiks for it is grounded vpon 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 prooued foure wayes 1. By expresse testimony of Scripture with a declaration of the Church 2. By euident deduction out of expresse Scripture with a declaration of the Church being added thereunto 3. Out of Gods word not written by the Apostles but deliuered from hand to hand 4. By eutdent deduction out of the word of God deliuered from hand to hand De Purga lib. 1. cap. 15. Haec sive Neither is this doctrine Bellarmines 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 Councell already recited n. 8. for when it giues the Church the office to Iudge 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 onely of the Scriptures to the iudgement of the Church it giues 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 formall reason of their faith and beleeving and that is the thing wee seeke for Now we should prooue that this foundation of their Faith is false and erronious 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 conceiue will call it into question besides if any do Mr. Wotton in the book recited even now hath made it manifest against all opposers pag. 21. num 5. c. If therefore any man desires to see it I referre him thither because it fitteth not this businesse to transcribe it And thus much may suffice in proofe of our Assumption propounded cap. 3. num 1. CHAP. 5. Defendeth this sentence The Romish faith is erronius 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 thorne in their eyes that may not be indured Our opponent B. disputeth against this at large but according as I haue done before so will I doe now his long and tedious discourse shall be contracted into a narrow roome least the reader be wearied with the length and pusled with the matter yet still his owne words and true intent shal be followed Thus then he sayes 1 In the Church of Rome is some good 2 They teach well touching the Trinity 3 The Dominicans maintaine Gods free grace against mans freewill 4 Much good is in the twelue bookes of Alvarez and in the interpretations and Commentaries of Maldonat Lorynus and the rest of the Iesuites pag 90. 5 Wee agree on both sides in these poynts following 1 That the bookes of the old Testament written in Hebrew are Canonicall 2 That we are instified by faith 3 That God hath made heaven and hell for mens soules after death 4 That God may be worshipped in Spirit without an Image 5 That wee are to pray vnto God by Christ 6 That there be two Sacraments 7 That Christ is really received in the Lords Supper 8 That Christ hath made one oblation of himselfe vpon the Crosse for the redemption and satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole world 9 Vnder the Papacy is much good nay all yea the very kernell of Christianity pag. 39. 40. 41. I answer our Opponent C. pag. 4. and 5. blames the man that affirmes without pooofe and makes it a Law that such an affirmation is as soone denyed as made This is the case of this opponent He telleth vs a tale of their agreement with vs in diverse particulars but he alledgeth no author book or chapter whereby we may try whether he sayes true or not if then we deny that they and wee doe thus agree all his building falls to the ground according to his partners sentence pag 4. Thus soundly he answers to the thing that doth most vrge him but for this time I am content to say they and we doe thus agree yet behold his case from himselfe pag. 82. Wee heare of a great cry and little woll pag. 83. of a man whose skill in Logick was so good that hee prooued what was granted and being granted was to no purpose Now I commend him for so doing because I perceiue he spake the very truth but himselfe gaines nothing thereby for of him it is verified to the full and that in this present answer wherein he spends the greatest part of 7 pages before he ends it viz. 39. 40. 41. 86. 87. 90. 91. yet ten words had served the turn as well as all this stâ—r If he had said no more but thus The Romish Church agrees with vs in many divine sentences he had beene as neere his purpose as now therefore we haue a great cry and little woll If he reply that all the rest prooues that sentence I reioynd I am content it shall be so because that shewes his great skill in Logick for then he prooues the thing that none will deny and being granted serues not his purpose which none will doe but the good Logician which his partner describeth If we frame this answer with the present question according to art and all the parts thereof be true then it is to the purpose else not thus then it must be framed They that agree with vs in the particulars recited their faith is not erronious But the Romish Church agrees with vs in the particulars recited Therefore their faith is not erronious But no part of this Argument is good The Proposition is not true and why may I not say so seeing in it selfe and by it selfe it is not manifest neither does he offer any proofe for it and now I haue denied it his whole building is come to ruine according to his partners-rule pag. 4. even now recited To the Proposition I answer that it presumes that the forenamed Articles are true and every way the same thing with the Romish faith and therevpon giues one state or condition to those Articles and that faith attributing truth to the second from the truth of the first These Articles in some sense are true and so farre the Proposition is true also but those Articles and the Romish faith are not the same thing but this extends further then them and himselfe even he that now answeres being iudge pag. 40. He writes thus To the Scriptures they adde Traditions to the Hebrew Canon the Apocrypha to faith workes to Heaven and Hell Purgatory and so forth in the rest whereupon his Proposition beggs the question and therefore it hath no force to inferre the conclusion His partner C. pag. 2. cannot abide beggery but this doth loue it wee le but in the meane time he is a goodly Disputer that can prooue nothing vnlesse we grant him what himselfe denies this is enough to satisfie this Argument because this feigned surmise is the first and originall foundation thereof But out of our store of exceptions hereunto for this time we will forgiue him this fault and proceed to the rest We agree with the Romish Church in the recited Articles as they are Propositions that is they and we pronounce the same thing as true so farr the Assumption is granted but the Proposition is denied because faith and a true Proposition really differs the one is no more but a subiect and predicate rightly ioyned together whereupon truth in all Propositions is the same namely the adequation of the thing and the Proposition but in faith there is also the foundation wherevpon wee beleeue from whence it comes to passe that faith is of different kindes some divine and some humane as I haue shewed In the recited Articles wee agree not with the Romish as they are Articles of faith For in them wee doe really and essentially differ They pronounce them to bee true vpon the authority of their Church which is indeed humane we vpon the authority of Christ the Revealer which by joynt consent is divine These things being true as they are most true his Assumption at num 4. cannot be true and consequently there is no meanes to excuse the Româ—sh faith from error nor cause to giue her the name and nature of a true Church which is the thing we seeke for CHAP. 6. Defendeth this sentence The faith of the Church is not right and pure false and erronious together viz. in different Articles WE must now goe back againe to the rest of opponent B. his answere left vnsatisfied in cap. 3. num 8. The first branch whereof we are now to deale withall hath these words The doctrine of Christ and his Apostles taught purely without mixture of errour is not so essentiall to the true Church that so soone as an vnsound doctrine is mingled with the truth of Gods word and the Sacraments vnduely administred that which was a Church
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
destroyer thereof and thus doe these Opponents the life of our Church and all the members thereof is made and vnited together into one body by the Articles of her faith he then that overthrowes and destroyes those Articles discipates and haleth in peeces her whole body and being and thus doe these Opponents in their deed in question Punishment is due vnto them so much J hope J may say without offence vnto your high and honourable authority because the thing it selfe is so apparent Very reason it selfe doth tell vs 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 J dare not name J may not thinke vpon seeing the cause now in hand is presented before your sacred Tribunall whose office it is to discerne determine and adiudge the same Yet with all submission J craue a word or two of that matter If any vnder the command of Rome should oppose the very words of the Trent Councell especially where the thing is decreed explorately so as no question can bee made of her sense meaning such a one J say should bee held worthy of no small punishment and we certainly know it because such persons are pronounced accursed by that Councell pursued with fire and all extremity as perpetuall experience doth shew 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 guesse at their punishment Jf then hat Church esteemeth such opposition vnto her faith to demerit so highly how can we esteeme to deserue but little seeing what their faith is to them the same our faith is to vs but with this difference their faith is erronious so is not ours as the ensuing discourse will evidently shew how much then an opposition to an erronious faith is lesse hurtfull then an opposition to a true faith so much more punishment doto be deserue that opposeth ours more then he that opposeth theirs thus much is all wherewith I will trouble you touching the deed in question Now J hope J may also without reproofe shew some other reason whereupon to moue you If this deed be let passe without controle see what will follow 1. Our enemies of the Romish Church will triumph over vs and thus they will argue With you is not the true Church for where that is there is vnity and a meanes of vnity in all matters of faith but these are not with you for see your Church beleeveth that the Romish Church hath not the nature of the true Church yet two of yours yea after their subscription doe out face her with the contradictory carry it away when they haue done no man sayes black is their eye 2. The salvation of the vnstable vnwise will be really hindred such a man will say vnto our Church if you taught mee the way to life doubtlesse you would agree in it or suppresse the gainsayers seeing therefore you doe neither the one nor the other wee must conclude that the way to life is not with you consequently it is no where for in your iudgement the Romish Church hath it not or at least men of good parts might say if you agree not vpon the way to heaven then 't is hopelesse for vs to finde it because with you are the aged in yeeres great in experience abundant in learning considerate in resolving in the office of governing if our hopes to finde heaven be vaine idle why shall we bestow our paines that wayes who would labour without profit who would lay out his silver to fill his belly with the East winde Surely no man wherefore here is our rest seeing there is no profit in the service of God we will determine with our selves say We care not for the knowledge of the most high let vs cast his lawes behind our back let vs eate and drink for to morrow wee shall die 3. The glory of our Church at least is abated nay I may truly say her beauty is stayned with an eye-sore too vgly to be looked vpon He that casteth dirt in his Mothers face wherein nothing is wanting for feature or complexion shall haue little thankes for his labour what then shall bee bee accounted that scratcheth her till shee bleedes Nay more that pulleth off treadeth vnder foote all the ornaments of her countenance If our Opponents gaue the lye to a man of honest reputation hee should disgrace him not a little but if hee charged him with that lye to the losse of his credit for ever we know he should burt him finally for ever But thus J say if no better then on this manner deale these Opponents with their Mother the Church of England shee hath determined what must bee held in certaine points of religion in that her countenance exceeds in beauty because she did so determine for the avoiding of contention and setling of Peace Peace yea Peace that visage of Peace the most louely delightfull and acceptable countenance of all countenances yet beholde cease not to wonder our two Opponents will not keepe this peace they haue broken downe the walls of that fortresse what shee intended for vnity concord they divert to fraction and discord so haue robbed her of her goodly beautious feature complexion Nay which is more they haue given her that lye which will stick to her ribbs for ever without the exemplary punishment of these offendours for if she be false in her greatest children for learning gravity wisedome piety all met together when they gaue that witnesse 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 J conceiue they must be esteem'd so intollerable if that be so wee haue good reason to bemoane our selues vnto you seeke for redresse at your hands Can wee imagine that our Church and the soules of her children onely shall bee losers by this deed in question Surely no man can bee so much mistaken for marke if they scape with this deed who will not thus argue If Opposers in matters of faith bee not reck ned offedours then Opposers in matters of State must be held innocent seeing the first is of more dangerous consequence then the second If wee may oppose the State who vvill obey seeing liberty is better fancied then subiection Jf vvee are freed from obedience then farevvell government seeing to governe to obey are such relatiues as doe stand fall together If then governing obeying be taken avvay all things come to confusion As then vvee vvill a void destruction to our Church Common-vvealth so must vve open our selues before you eraue your
with that society where he knowes the essence or nature of Christs Church is wanting seeing in such a society salvation cannot be had It is a rule case in nature No man will come to his losse and 't is as true in the state of grace no man will venture where he shall lose heaven But because we finde not this they must giue vs leaue to oppose them as enemies not receiue them as friends lest their friendship turnes to bitternesse at the last end They would persuade vs that Their opinion of the Romish Church is burtfull vnto her because therein they quit her with mercy in stead of her cruelty she condemneth vs wholly we condemne her but in part But this commends their cause but little for according to our common Proverbe Foolish pitty spoiles a whole City and this is their case Foolish is their pity because Gods word and true reason does abhorre it at least does not avow it Spoile it doth yea the whole City of God at least so farre as it is able because it opens I will not say a wicket but the widest doore to Popery and standeth also in that doore and in the high wayes like the strumpet to call in adulterous lovers as I haue already shewed but let this pitty condemne them of cruelty as for this time I am content it shall yet the Romish Church hath no hurt by it for it condemnes them of a fault in the practise of good manners wherein the nature of the Church consisteth not it meddles not with their faith wherein the Church consisteth The truth is their opinion of the Romish Church is not loue nor pitty for if it be their due because they haue indeed that essence and nature wherewith Christs Church is formed then it is Iustice which consisteth in giving every man his due If it be not their due because they want that essence or nature wherewith Christs Church is formed then it is a lye which alwayes is committed when a man pronounceth of a thing otherwise then it is in it selfe They plead That we mistake them indeed and in the thing they agree with vs because there is one truth naturall and another morall they holde the question in the first sense and we in the second but vpon advisement and a true vnderstanding of thins we say as they doe and they as we both concurring in this that the Romish Church hath the essence or being of Christs Church but defiled with heresy and idolatry The case stands not thus we vnderstand them to say The Romish Church hath that essence and nature wherewith the Church of Christ is constituted and formed And vnto this the Church of England and all her right bred children say the contradictory as shall evidently appeare in the disputation it selfe when we propound explicate and agree vpon the state of the question wherefore let not our Opponents shrowd themselues vnder our ignorant mistaking of their meaning in the present question for we shall depriue them thereof and leaue them naked vnto the wide world when we come to the place aforesaid where the Reader shall finde that we accept the question even in their owne termes and as themselues doe explicate and vnfold it wherein we doe no new thing for our Church had vsed the like explication before them as the Reader shall perceiue in the place forenamed These things being true as they are most true it was a poore shift to cast vpon vs the shamefull reproach of mistaking their meaning as if we were ignorant and could not or malicious and would not or over zealous and did not vnderstand their writing we vse to say Better a bad shift then none at all all we may answere it with the like A shamelesse shift is worse then none at all and this is the present case when all meanes faile we must be ignorant malicious or over zealous mistakers of their meaning rather then they will be seene to meane falsely their doings severeth friends asunder reconcileth not nor bring them together Hitherto we haue taken as granted that these Opponents doe maintaine a position contradictory to our Church It may be they will deny it and plead thus for themselues The Church of England saith thus The Romish Church hath not the nature of the true Church We say thus The Romish Church hath not the nature of a true Church She saith The Church we say A Church I haue not found this exception made as yet by any yet it is very needfull that I propound it and giue answere herevnto Some man perhaps will attempt his escape by it for vntruthes of this nature must creepe into the poorest corner rather then remaine without shelter If there be no differrence betweene The nature of a true Church and the nature of the true Church then both these sentences are the same and accordingly they deny what our Church doth affirme but they are the same for Christs Church howsoever it be taken and with what word soever it be donoted and set out is form'd and constituted by one and the same formall essence and being otherwise there should be two Churches of Christ specifically form'd and differenced which yet God never revealed we never haue read and no man therefore may avouch If the word A and the word The import one specificall thing then the Propositions in question are contradictorie because the same predicate is affirmed of the same subiect in the one and so denied in the other but both these words import the same thing for a perticular Church is called A Church in the common vse of men and so it is called The Church by the Apostle The Church that is in thy house Moreover though the words A Church did make a difference from the words The Church yet the predicate part of both these propositions are still the same for that difference can be no more then generall or vniuersall and perticuler which in this place makes no difference in the predicates which consisteth cheisly in the terme nature or essence and that is the same in the Church taken as a Catholick or vniuersall comprehension of all the members wherof the Church consisteth or conceiued in perticuler as it is bounded and limited within one Nation This I say the Church Catholick and the Church Nationall or O Econumicall is formed and constituted by one and the same formall essence and being they only differ materially whose propertie it is to individuate the forme materiated And sence it selfe doth teach it vs every singuler man and every distinct Nation and all men without exception haue one and the same specificall and formall being Intelligibillitie and Ellectuallitie is the same in one man in all men herin only they differ the one is a comprehension of many individuall bodies the other a comprehension of a few individuall bodies so is it with Christs Church the same thing that makes that whole societie to be Christs Church specifically and formally the very same
The second distribution is as fond if not worse then the first but I will not mispend mine owne and the Readers time about it It was meet for mee to let this opponent see his weaknesse in Logick because he vaunteth so much of his skill that waies in his Epistle and throughout his whole booke 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 seeke for that because he brings nothing that leades vs thereunto Wherefore I come to himselfe and say in his owne words pag. 3. _____ Apply Iohn Barber and thou shalt haue a new paire of Sâ—zors When he hath done so he shall haue further answer and in the meane time I will set downe and examine what his partner B. saith to our argument now in hand therein I will take onely the summe of his answer and no more to saue mine owne labour and the Readers following the example of the schooles who alwayes run that course He beginneth his answer at p. 84. at these words We professe that we esteem c. And continues the same vnto pag. 88. As his partners answer was so is his intricate perplexed vnapplyed but with this difference he was briefer as liking Logick and not Rethorick this larger as loving Rethorick and not Logick nothing could be made of his Something as I conceiue may be made of this wherefore I will set downe that something with the best warrant of his owne discourse Thus then he seemes to answere The doctrine of Christ and his Apostles purely taught without mixture of error is the genuine marke of the true Church So as where that is there followes the appellation of a true Church and from thence we may argue thus Wheresoever Gods word is purely preached and the Sacraments duly administred there is a true Church And so farre 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 errour is not so essentiall to the true Church that so soone as vnsound doctrine is mingled with the truth of Gods word and the Sacraments vnduely administred that which was a Church should cease to be one In this sense the Proposition is false for such doctrine belongs vnto the perfection and glory of the Church and she may be without them as the children of Israel were many dayes without a Sacrifice and an Ephod Hosea 3.4 yet still they were Gods Church It may fall out that they may be corrupted as in the times of blindnesse and superstition or intermitted as in persecution In this sense the PropositioÌ„ is not according to the intent of our Church which meant not so strictly to tye Gods Church to these signes as if all were excluded from the Church which doe not rightly participate of the word and Sacraments in the Iudgement of Mr. Rogers in his Commentary vpon 19. art propo 8. Lastly in this sense the Assumption is false that makes a reall totall 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 thinke more in their Sermons Thus I hope I haue exactly expressed his intent if I haue missed in any thing the fault is his not mine he may thanke me for my paines because I haue done for him what he could not at least what he hath not done for himselfe that I may vse his partners words pag. 5. Now we will take it into severall peeces and examine them in severall chapters following CHAP. 4. Prooving this sentence The present Romish faith is erronius THe examination of his last answer to our Assumption wherin he does attribute some purity of Christs doctrine vnto the Church of Rome is sufficient to determine the worth of our argument now in hand and the whole question it selfe for if the Romish Church be all errour and Antichristian that is if her faith be erronious then without doubt she is none of Gods Church The Church of England in her Assumption now in question meant to say so as I haue already said cap. 2. n. 1. and will now prooue by Gods assistance If the Romish Church retaine some of Christs doctrine pure without mixture of errour then 1. Christs doctrine cannot be denied her in termes without limitation 2. She is not changed into a new guise nor hath forsaken the commandements of God to set vp her owne constitutions 3. She is not without the holy Ghost But according to our Church 1. Christs doctrine is denied her in terms without limitation for thus lye the words of her Assumption The present Romish Church is not built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets retaining the sound and pure doctrine of Christ Iesu neither doe they order the Sacraments in such sort as he did first institute and ordaine them 2. She is changed into a new guise by chopping and changing by adding and plucking away They haue forsaken the commandements of God to set vp their owne constitutions 3. They are without the Spirit of God Therefore according to our Church in her Assumption the present Romish Church does not retaine some part of Christs doctrine pure without mixture of errour but she is all errour and her faith erronious Many learned amongst vs haue so vnderstood our Church and I will name some in stead of all Bishop Iewell in the defence of his Apology pag. 4. cap. 11. divis 1. chargeth her in absolute termes that she had departed from Gods ward and more plainly pag. 5. cap. 13. divis He saith the same thing in these words Thâ—se men haue brâ—ken in pecces all the popes and conduits they haue stopped all the springs and choaked vp the fountaine of living water with dirt and myre He repeates the same thing in other termes cap. 15. divis 2. thus In the Romish Church we cannot home the word of God sinetrely taught nor the Sacraments rightly administred nor the name of God duely called vpon 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 Apologie part 6. cap. 22. divis 2. where he saith that the present Church of Rome hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith Doct. Reynolds in his 5. Conclusions Preface at the 6. doth charge the present Romish Church to be distempered not with a sicknesse that hindreth the functions of life but with such a one as for it selfe makes her past hope of recouery and namely she serues not God with a holy worship nor beleeved God with a holy faith as he hath commanded
Christs Church whereof we speak is of ripe age and full growth Their Sacrifice Ephod and Circumcision is nothing like to the faith of Christs Church Their want of Sacrifice Ephod and Circumcision is a meere privation and a not being Errour in faith is some position for it comprehendeth an inconformable Iudgement or opinion His third and last proofe stands on this fashion The word and Sacraments may be corrupted in the time of blindnesse and superstition or intermitted as in the the time of persecution Therefore the faith of the Church is subiect to errour I answer the farther the worse he must vnderstand the word and Sacraments to be every way the same thing with the faith of the Church so also he must vnderstand the termes corrupted and intermitted to be every way the same with these termes subiect to errour else here is not the least shew of consequence but how he will doe that I doe not yet see and I presume I never shall hee brings no proofes for the Antecedent therefore at the best we haue but his owne word The last argument which I can finde belonging vnto this matter is in the Opponent B. his English Epistle a little after the beginning in these words If an Heretick were put to death for his Christian profession sake wee could not deny him the name of a Martyr And we may apply it to the present purpose in this forme Every Martyr is a member of the true Church Some Heretick is a Martyr viz. such a one as suffers death for his Christian profession sake Therefore some Heretick 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 farre the Proposition is true but the Assumption is false no Heretick is or can be such a Martyr This Opponent may presume it and does but prooue it he neither does nor can because the same holy Ghost willeth vs to avoid an Heretick as a party condemned of his owne conscience Tit. 3.10 and therefore of God who is greater then the heart 1 Iohn 3.21 If God condemnes an heretick he esteemes 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 Martyrdome In this sence I grant the Assumption namely some heretick may bee a Martyr in the account of man but not of God The proofe of his Assumption supposeth that an heretick may professe Christianity and I say so too If he meanes that he may so professe according to humane faith and naturall reason then we are agreed because heresie is a worke of the flesh Gal. 5.20 and is exercised about the Christian faith importing errour in faith but then his Assumption is vnprooved because no man that is such a Christian can be a Martyr Revel 20.4 for Gods Martyrs goe to heaven but so does not such Christians flesh and blood inherit not the Kingdome of heaven 1 Cor. 15.50 If he thinks some hereticks professe Christianity that is salvation by Christ according vnto divine faith he begs the question viz. That the faith of the Church may be true and false right and erronious orthodox and hereticall together which we deny and he vndertakes by this very Argument to prooue O acute ô admirable Disputer Bring the conclusion to prooue the conclusion who would desire better Doubtlesse his Rethorick not his Logick 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 prooues nothing if Aristotle may be Iudge Top. l. 8. cap. 11. and this begging of all others is the most beggerly for it is a womans reason they vse to say It is so because it is so and iust so does he This is answere 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 Churches Argument Cap. 3. num 1. and therewithall I haue finished a full defence of that whole Argument The Reader must now iudge whether the Mother or the rebellious childe hath the better CHAP. 7. Containeth a second proofe that The Romish faith is false and erronious Mr. Wotton hath saved me a labour in this passage also pag. 46. hee bringeth this Argument If some Articles of the Romish faith be false and erronious then the Romish faith is false and erronious But some Articles of the Romish faith be false and erronious Therefore the Romish faith is false and erronious Perhaps I may seeme vnto some to argue very loosely because it is a ruled case some parts cannot argue the whole because all the parts together doe make vp 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 doe not belong to the whole I reply such a man mistakes this reason I doe not argue the whole to be so because some parts are so the rest being free but I prooue the whole is to be held erronious because there is an infection of errour in the whole If any man desire to know how errour in some Articles onely is errour in the whole faith I answere he may satisfie himselfe in that demand cap. 4. num 5. where it is prooved That Faith is such an vnite and continued thing that though it is made of many ingredients yet it admitteth no division into members or kindes Now this being true as it is most true then the faith of the Church can no wayes be said to be erronious in any one Article but presently the whole is erronious This Argument and manner of reasoning is shadowed out in a leprous man who is accounted and dealt withall as wholly leprous though the seat of the disease be in the flesh onely the reason is because though in a divided sense and in our apprehension man consisteth and is compounded of distinct beings viz. soule and body flesh and spirit yet take him an individuall man he is so compacted that he is made one Hypostecis or continued subsistency limited by one terme onely Wherefore when the Priest in Moses Law gaue sentence of a leprous man the whole man was comprehended vnder that sentence If a leprous man was shut out of the host the whole man not some part onely was thrust out and this was not against reason for the soule gaue life sense and vigitation to the flesh and thereby it became subiect to discase and defection and consequently the soule was indeed leprous though by reflection and at second hand so is it with the Christian faith errour may be seated
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
the Reader iudge 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 expressely teach it in these words Whole Churches haue denied and yet doe deny by consequence that salvaton is by Christ yet we doe and must hold them Christian All this while we haue let that supposition passe vntouched as if it were true because the weaknesse of that proofe should be the more apparent but now and in all good time we say he supposeth falsely and therefore he is a begger no prover We proue against him with this Argument Vnto the true Church Christ may bee profitable Vnto such as deny by consequence that salvation is by Christ Christ cannot be profitable for vnto 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 deniall they are the same that is the one denies salvation by Christ by illation inference and consecution and so doe 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 denie 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 conceiue 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 c. The Gallatians Gallat 5.2 c. were a true Church Therefore some true Church by consequence denies salvation by Christ I answere those Gallatians whereof we reade 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 Gods word doth say so or leade vs to thinke so The Apostle in the 5. Chapter reproues the Gallatians for biting and devouring one another verse 15. and for vaine glory and envie 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 therfore singular persons were reproved here then there also for the same phrase and manner of reproofe is vsed both there and here If any man be desirous to haue vs vnderstand the Apostle of the whole Church of Gallatia vers 2 3 4. we may doe 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 haue received libertie and freeaome by Christ cap. 5. verse 1. We may continue that they ioyned Circumcision and the keeping of Moses Law vnto 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 setled in their iudgement that God had revealed it nor professed it to the world as such If they did so indeed then I may grant the whole reason without losse because the conclusion vrgeth not vs we willingly acknowledge that the true Church is subiect to errour in opinion in things very important vnto salvation we onely deny that erring in matter of faith can befall the true Church whilest it is so I say we may thus iudge of that Church vntill we see good reason for the contrary because charity thinketh not evill nor is suspitious Nay the Apostles phrase leadeth vs to thinke so for if that had beene a matter of faith with them hee would haue 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 libertie and verse 2. he puts the matter to an If saying If yee be circumcised c verse 7. he tells them yee did runne well and demands who it was that did let them c. and verse 10. and 12. he threatneth and intreateth for their punishment that did trouble them and finally verse 10. he shewes himselfe confident that they would shake off and forsake the present doctrine and continue in the same minde vnto which he had brought them and in which he had left them wherein it is very apparent he speakes of them as men wavering not as parties confirmed in their iudgement These things considered we may vndoubtedly resolue that the Church of Gallatia is no example wherein we finde that deniall of salvation by Christ by consequence which is the thing we seeke 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 haue discussed all that he hath to say touching the Romish Churches acknowledgement and publike profession of the Scriptures and of salvation by Christ and haue insisted therein to the vttermost lest some should be deceiued by those glorious and beautifull titles In this place we must examine what good their Baptisme 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 remaine still destitute of the nature of Christs Church then doubtlesse Baptisme cannot helpe them to it even in this Opponents iudgement for pag. 85. he delivers it for a ruled case that The Church of God may want Baptisme for a time and yet remaine a true Church But he will not say so of professing the Scriptures and salvation by Christ which we belieue and he affirmes is the soule of the Church From their Baptisme hee frameth this Argument That society which consisteth of persons Baptized that is the true Church But the Romish Church consisteth of persons Baptized 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 containes no more but a proofe thereof I answere The Sacraments duely administred according to Christs ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same is of the internall and formall being of the Church I willingly grant with our Church of England which giues 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 Baptisme is thus administred and consisteth of parties thus Baptized that is a true Church and he may saue his labour to proue it because all Christians will confesse that such Sacraments are peculiars to the Church Testimonies of Gods gracious dignation and favour Pledges of his invisible grace seales of the agreement betweene him and his Church and badges to distinguish the same from all others because no society else does carry the like vnto them in the things themselves and the loue of the Church as this Opponent setteth forth pag 33. But I deny the Assumption and say The Romish Baptisme is the shell and relique of Baptisme and I will now make it appeare though this Opponent of ours seemes to be tragically mooved and in a pelting fume thereat insomuch that hee confesseth himselfe to make good vse 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 missed of the true marke The Romish Baptisme is the shell and relique of Baptisme no Baptisme duly administred as aforesaid I proue it by the authoritie of our Church in the second Homilie for Whitsontide oftentimes already quoted which expressely saith the Church of Rome does not order the Sacraments and therefore this of Baptisme in such sort as Christ did first institute and ordaine them but haue so intermingled their owne traditions and inventions by chopping and changing by adding and plucking away that now they may seeme to bee converted into a new guise Will our present Opponent thinke this insufficient to proue the Romish Baptisme a shell and relique of Baptisme I hope not if he does oppose it as not sufficient his partners words pag. 17. shall serue him O mouth ô forehead and he well deserues it what One man instruct a whole Church yea his Mother that bred him whose Articles of faith gaue him his first life and confirmed him in it ever since Nay will he afront himselfe yea himselfe not in transient words but in manent letters his subscription made with his owne hand for he hath subscribed this Homily Perhaps he will say his latter thoughts are better then his first and to returne to the better is more decent then to remaine in the worser wherefore I will confirm the same thing by other proofe which I frame thus The Articles doctrine of divine faith of necessitie are requisite to Baptisme I say requisite previally by antecession not really and vnto constitution such doctrine must precede the Sacrament though formally it makes not the Sacrament I proue it Gods covenant and agreement with man of necessity must precede Baptisme for according to this Opponent Baptisme is the seale thereof But the Articles of divine faith are Gods covenant and agreement with man Therefore the Articles of divine saith of necessitie must precede Baptisme If they must so precede then the Romish Baptisme is not administred according to Christs ordinance in all things of necessity requisite vnto the same for the Articles of their faith are the Popes and humane not Gods and divine as I haue proved already If their Baptisme be not so administred then it is erronious and none of Christs ordination If that be so it is a shell and relique of Baptisme retaining the outward ceremony and materiall forme but wanting the inward life and true intention I answere further That society which consisteth of persons Baptised according to mans invention that is not the true Church for Christs Church and all the members thereof are sheep of his fold and heare his voice servants of his houshold and obey his will In this sense the Proposition is false but the Assumption is true wee willingly grant that the Romish Church consisteth of parties Baptised according vnto mans devising but this gains them nothing the Proposition being false the conclusion is so too By way of reply to this answere he averreth pag. 45. and 46 that Popish Baptisme is true Baptisme holy good and the ordinance of God But I know not what law will tye mee to ioyne thereunto because himselfe is vncertaine and resteth not in it one while hee saith he will not trouble himselfe to proue it till he knowes who denies it another while he takes it to be out of all question and so doth contradict himselfe for if at another time hee will proue it then it needes proofe and consequently it is not without all question If it be without all question then it needes no proofe for according to Aristotle Nothing must be proved but things that may be doubted of Top. lib. 1. cap. 11. and he esteemes him mad who puts that for a question that all men grants Top. lib. 1. cap. 10. In both the pages last mentioned hee disputes thus He that calls the Sacrament of Baptisme a shell and relique of Baptisme was not guided by Gods Spirit disgraceth Christ and the Sacrament But our adversaries in this cause so call the Sacranent of Baptisme pag. 35.47 Therefore our adversaries in this cause were not guided by Gods Spirit and disgrace Christ and the Sacrament I answere in the prosecution of the last Argument we promised him two paire of new Sizors vpon a faire condition we will now increase his wages so as if he can proue and apply this present Argument that it may serue in any part of this question he shall haue three paire so desirous are we to make vse of stuffe so precious Let him doe 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 Oratour that he amplifies before he proues I hope he forgets not himselfe and his owne rule Will he one while affirme another while ceny the same thing Now answere then argue by and by declaime Surely this is altogether without his owne appointed order pag 77. it is meet the Reader should be put in minde of these things least he mistake the matter and the learning of the disputer His mind cannot be at quiet the Popish Baptisme is so great a more in his eye and therefore pag. 87. hee falls into it againe and avoucheth thus much The indecent rites and erronious opinions of the Romish Church cannot make nullities and evacuate the force of the Sacraments Their Baptisme for the substance of it is holy and good and effectuall no doubt to them that recetue it as ours I answere the second branch is a meere repetition of his former answere and imposeth a conceit vpon vs viz. that The Popish erronious opinions and indecent rites make void the being and efficacy of the Sacraments To the first branch I will say nothing because I haue done enough for that already In the second he is mistaken or a false accuser if hee will excuse himselfe let him shew the
Authour and place of that opinion This we say and haue said it already They haue no Sacraments because they haue no divine faith And we thinke this consequence is good because the Sacraments haue no being nor vse but in order vnto and in presupposall of the divine faith and I suppose our strictest Opponent will say no lesse for if the Sacraments might be inioyed in their true and reall being and naturall efficacy where divine faith is wanting then Turks and Heathen men might haue 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. Hee promised to forbeare his proofes till hee found his position denied but the heate within him whereof we reade in his English Epistle would not giue way to that wherefore pag. 118. he alledgeth two and I will report them in true forme that the Reader may see their soundnesse In the first he concludes thus If they Baptise with water in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost then their Baptisme is good for here is water and the words of Christs Institution the one the matter and the other the forme and both essentiall to Baptisme I answere I deny the consequence as naught in it selfe and as ill proved the reason of my deniall is given already so as I might be silent here but repetition will bee vsefull often practise makes things and men more expert and facile This proofe supposeth that Nothing is essentiall to Baptisme that is nothing by Christs institution is of necessity requisite vnto the Sacrament of Baptisme but water and the words of Institution I answere In the Sacrament of Baptisme administred according to Christs ordinance wee conceiue a being or entitie comprehended vnder certaine limits as all vnite and individuall things are taking that Sacrament as an individuall being made by motion there is nothing required to the being thereof but the water and words of institution and so farre this Argument supposeth rightly but nothing against vs for we doe not deny an entitie or being vnto Popish Baptisme we know when water is powred 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 administred there is likewise besides the said individuall entity or being a certaine connotation or essentiall relation and that three wayes 1. Of man to God 2. Of the Sacrament it selfe 3. Of God vnto man In the first relation man shewes his obedience to God In the second and third man is ordered vnto heaven so farre as the Sacrament can man being thereby confirmed in the expectation of Gods loue and the receit of inherent grace Now vnto this relation or ordering to heaven more things are essentiall then water and the words of institution namely the sacred revelation believed by a divine faith which I say doth so order vs to heaven by commanding their vse and promising Gods favour and working grace to such as vse them rightly from the first ariseth our obedience from the second our assured expectation of his favour and grace and thus much this Opponent himselfe will confesse I doubt not Nothing I presume will be questioned in this answere but this distinction but I suppose no such thing will bee because the matter is cleere in it selfe the name Sacrament importeth that there is this connotation or relation over and aboue the vnite and individuall entitie thereof for it signifieth at least that the vnite and individuall thing is sacred and holy and that is more then the individuall entity it selfe but howsoever it be with others this Opponent must not oppose the latter branch of the distinction for himselfe doth teach it expressely if not more fully then I haue 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 supernaturall as God onely can bestow These things are sufficient as I conceiue to satisfie his first argument in behalfe of Popish Baptisme His second followeth in this forme If the Baptisme in the Romish Church bee not true then it must be iterated when they turne to vs. But the Romish Baptisme may not be iterated when they turne to vs. Therefore the Baptisme in the Romish Church is true Baptisme I answere if by true Baptisme he vnderstandeth all things of necessitie requyred vnto Baptisme then this conclusion serues our purpose in the present question for we inquyre and search after such a Baptisme otherwise not In that sence the consequence of the Proposition is vnsound and he brings nothing to proue it wherefore it stands refelled for in this case our negation is better then his affirmation he that alledgeth must proue or loose his action by the course of all courts in the world Yet for this time I will depart from mine owne right and giue a reason for my denyall because I desire to satisfie the Reader and this I say Although their Baptisme want some things which of necessitie are requyred thereunto by the institution of Christ yet from hence will it not follow that it ought to be repeated because where Baptisme is repeated there all things essentiall thereunto by Christs institution must be wantting for repetition argues a nullitie But in the Romish Baptisme some things essentiall thereunto by Christs institution are present namely 1 the water 2 The words of institution 3 An outward profession of Christianitie The first and second are essentiall to Baptisme as it is an individuall being and the third is one vse and end thereof So as thus the case stands betweene vs Their Baptisme is refused because the sacreed revelation beleived by a divine faith goes not with it It is retained because the water the words of institution and the outward profession of Christianitie goes with it and herein we doe well because for want of the first it cannot order vs to heaven and by the presence of the rest wee follow the institution of Christ when they come vs we cannot giue them of the water of the words of institution and of outward Christian profession more then they haue already All that we doe when they come to vs is to perfect what is begun and supply what is wanting I answere moreover Though I will not deny the Assumption yet if any should this Opponents proofe could not rescue it for thus he argues Papists with us may not bee baptized againe because such as former hereticks baptized were not to be baptized againe This consequence I say is naught because the Popish Church and former hereticks doe really differ for these are farre worse then they as Bishop Carleton hath abundantly proved in his Direction to know the true Church and here ends my answere to his third Argument He concludes this present