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
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 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
should cease to be one In these words this sentence is implied The faith of the Church may be right and true false and erronious together viz. in different Articles And he does expressely avouch the same in divers passages of his booke viz. The present Church of Rome is corrupted and deformed yet hath the true essence of a Church pag. 30. The Church of Rome hath a religion more after Homer then after the Scriptures and yet holdeth fundamentall truth pag. 4. In the Popes Arithmetick Articles of faith are added pag. 39. Such affirmatiues of ours as concerne the foundation of Faith are professed by the Church of Rome pag 41. And nothing is more frequent with him then words to this effect The Church of Rome that is all those which lying in that religion make vp one body or societie is not Babylon in the Revelation but that Babylon is a faction in that Church pag. 100. The Papacy is not the Church but the disease of the Church The Papacy is in the Church as an accident in the subiect we must distinguish betwixt the Church and the Papacy pag. 28 29. Wee haue learned to distinguish betwixt the Church and the great Whore in the Church we haue communion with the Church wee seperate from Babylon pag. 101. This we deny and will maintaine the contradictory to wit The faith of the Church is not right and true false and erronious together viz. in different Articles But If some Articles of Faith be false and erronious then the Faith of the Church it false and erronious I will not now giue reason of this denyall but deferr the same till we come to the 7. Chap. where it shall be disputed so much as is requisite He brings proofe for his opinion in the words which immediately follow in the foresaid Cap. 3. n. 8. I will first dispose them according to Art and then frame my answer as shall be needfull Thus then he disputes If the Faith of the Church cannot be true and erronious together then where error in faith is there cannot be a true Church But where error in faith is there may bee a true Church for first our Church thinks so Article 19. according to Mr. Rogers in his Commentary vpon the place Propo. 8. 2 The children of Israell did abide many dayes without a Sacrifice and Ephod c. Hosea 3.4 and without Circumcision the space of 40. yeares Iosh 5.6 yet then were they the Church of God 3 The word and Sacraments may be corrupted as in the times of blindnesse and superstition or intermitted as in persecution I answer the consequence of the Proposition we grant as very necessary But the Assumption is false Wee say that errour in faith and the Church are incompatible and it is the Argument of our Church already alledged out of the Homily To all his proofes ioyntly I answere They are farr to weake to vphold this waighty matter if this assumption be not true then his whole cause falles to the ground Himselfe confesseth as wee haue heard that the present Romish Church is guiltie of heresy and therefore can be no true Church vnlesse error in faith may be in the Church For herefie at least comprehends error in faith Wherefore it stood him vpon to gather his witts and vnite his forces together to strengthen and mainteyne this businesse we looked for pregnant proofe out of Gods word for doubtlesse if this were true we should find a manifest record for it because God hath not left matters of this importance for man to grope and guesse at So loving and wise was the Lord when he appoynted the meanes of mans salvation But loe no such thing is tendred and therefore wee may conclude no such thing is in being and consequently wee may set downe our rest and say doubtlesse the faith of the true Church cannot be stained with error yet that the misery of this cause may the better appeare I will vncover the skirts of all his proofes in perticular and single out the one from the other The authority of our Church prevaileth much with me so as that alone would silence my tongue and suspend my iudgement but it will doe little good to this opponent B. for he that slighteth yea reiecteth nay disputeth against her doctrine in things supreame must not craue her ayde in things belonging to the mean and thus stands it with this opponent who mainteynes the cheife question in this businesse against her and at this instant laboureth all he can to refell the Proposition of her argument But how may it appeare that our Church makes for him He brings nothing but the authority of Mr. Rogers and that is no greater then his owne and consequently thus he sayes our Church thought so because I say she did thinke so but what if our Church and this opponent sayes shee thought not so then I hope the matter thus farr will be at an end From this Opponent I argue thus He that saith all Gods revealed truth vniuersally essentially and reciprically belongs to the Church frees the faith of the Church from error But this opponent doth so for thus he writes pag 13. The true Church is a company of men professing Gods revealed truth now in this sentence he makes all Gods revealed truth to belong to the Church vniuersally essentially and reciprically because 1. The words themselues in the common vse of men doe lye so 2. According to Aristotle Poster lib. 1. cap 44 33. lib. 2. cap. 3. Top. lib. 6. cap 1. Thom. 2. dist 27. q. 1. art 2. ad 9m. Aliaco quest de resumpt lit q Richardus de Trin. lib. 4. cap. 21. fol. 108. Every exact or perfite definition does so but this Authors sentence alledged is an exact definition pag. 13. Therefore this opponent frees the faith of the Church from error and consequently according to him our Church doth so too for shee hath defined the Church art 19. iust as he hath done in the sentence we alledged If art 19. subiecteth the faith of the Church vnto error then wee must reade it thus The visible Church is a Congregation in which some part of the pure word of God is preached and the Sacraments in some things be only administred But art 19. must not be so read least the words of the Article themselues be perverted and some man say the avoiding of diversities of opinions and establishing of consent touching true religion was not thereby intended contrary vnto the protestation of our Church in the title to all the Articles in generall Therefore Art 19. subiecteth not the faith of the Church vnto errour His second proofe lyeth thus The Israelites wanted Sacrifice and Circumcision Therefore the faith of the Church is subiect to errour I answere this geere hangs not together so well as Harp and Harrow for they sound alike in something because both of them begin with a letter but here is nothing like The lewes Church was an Infant and not established
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
and afterwards sinne wilfully ver 26. by forsâ—king the Assembly of the faithfull vers 25. and therefore are certeinely subiected vnto Gods fiery devouring indignation and iudgment ver 27. But Iewes and Pagans deny salvation by Christ in the iudgement of this Opponent pag 22. Secondly if all that directly deny salvation by Christ are thus guiltie then this guiltines in the Apostles intent is the totall and adaequate nature of that denyall otherwise the Proposition conteineth not an vniversall truth But this guiltines in the Apostles intent is not the totall and adaequate nature of that denyall but 〈◊〉 denyall in one speciall kinde viz. Apostacy and wilfull backsliding for thus lyes the Apostles reason If wilfull forsakers of their profession and the society of the Saints shall certainly bee punished with Gods fiery devouring indignation and judgement then let vs hold fast the profession of our faith and the assembly of the Saints without wavering But such shall be so punished for their sinne deserues it inasmuch as thereby they tread vnder foote the Sonne of God c. The Proposition and Assumption is set forth from verse 23. to the end of verse 27. and the proofe of the Assumption verse 29. being the place which we haue now in hand whereupon we may conclude Some that directly deny salvation by Christ are not thus guilty and so his Proposition is false that maketh all such deniers to be so guilty and consequently our Mother the Church of England hath the day of victory and so shall hold it These Opponents are vnder the hatches and there we will keepe them This Opponent telleth vs pag. 123. that we shall not need to proue that The Romish Church denies salvation by Christ by consequence he will pardon vs that labour to the end that the Reader should see we confesse him to be a fair adversary I answere and why does he account this pardon a favour done vs seeing himselfe does confesse the thing it selfe so often does he thinke himselfe can doe what we cannot Surely then what differs he from the Bold Braggadochiaes in the Campe whereof wee reade in his partner Opponents Epistle It may be he will say he that makes that proofe must grant that they directly hold salvation by Christ which he does and we doe not I reply he is deceived we doe say they directly hold salvation by Christ according to the voice of humane faith as I haue answered chap. 11. num 5. therefore if any thing makes the difference between his power to proue and ours It is not his affirmation and our negation but he hath skill and we haue none well let him vaunt that hath the vayne To the present matter we say we despise his pardon we craue no favour let him doe his worst wee know whose faith we maintaine and will now proue CHAP. 13. The Romish Church by consequence denies salvation by Christ IN proofe of this sentence I will content my selfe with an Argument in this forme They that directly hold salvation by Christ and other things which cannot stand therewith they by consequence deny salvation by Christ because from the second the direct dentall of the first may be necessarily concluded But the Romish Church directly holds salvation by Christ and other things that cannot stand therewith Therefore the Romish Church by consequence denies salvation by Christ This Opponent may not deny any part of this Argument because the Proposition the proofe thereof is his owne pag 23. 24. so is the Assumption pag. 26. The conclusion is gathered out of them both who therefore on this mans behalfe can except against any part thereof It may be some man may say In all the former passages we haue charged the Romish Church with a direct deniall of salvation by Christ and in this argument we free that Church from such denyall and consequently we contradict our selues so as the proofe of the one doth equally overthrow the proofe of the other and thus our opponent seemes to argue as I haue reported Cap. 11. num 3. I answer this exception may be taken off with ease for we charge them and discharge them as is aforesaid indifferent respects we say they deny salvation by Christ according vnto or in respect of divine faith we grant them the contradictory according vnto or in respect of naturall reason or humaine faith as the Reader may finde cap. 11. num 5. In regard whereof both sentences and their proofes may equally stand together without domage the one to the other If any man thinkes otherwise he must shew it by the rules of Art else no man is bound to beleiue him I answer further this direct holding of salvation by Christ which wee grant vnto them is inducement foundation enough whervpon we may charge them with the denyall of the same thing by consequence For that holding is a reall confession and accordingly doth put the thing confessed in a being sufficient whereupon it may be denyed or avoyded by inference and therefore our Proposition is true that supposeth the same And thus our Argument is sufficiently fenced against the clawes of this Opponent and therefore here I must end the matter of their denyall of salvation by Christ by consequence for none of our Opponents brings more then thus touching the same Some man perhaps would accompt it a thing worth our labour if we rested not in these Opponents confession for the truth of our Assumption but avowed the same thing by the Records of the Romish faith To whom I answer that desire is not vnmeet nor the thing hard to to be done but the present businesse and my office must not be forgotten If I entred vpon that wee rush into another question I am now to answere but hee that does that must proue This Assumption is confessed by all parties therefore it is a principle and accordingly it may make an Argument in this question therfore it must passe as a thing certain Accordingly here we would rest but our present Opponent is not so contented for hee denyes that the Romish Church may be ranked with the old Hereticks because they goe not the same way to worke with them They saith he struck neerer the head then the Church of Rome does She indeed is wandred from God and her doctrine is iniurous and contumelious to God and our Redeemer It doth gainsay the foundation of our faith but yet it is remooued a great distance therefrom raze it it doth but by a circle of consequence at the most thus he writes pag 3. 18. 24. 25. 38. 41. 127. 128. Yet he does not varnish over their opinion nor help the best foote of a lame cause forward if you will beleiue his words pag 127. For this cause therefore I will prooue the Romish Church to deny salvation by Christ by consequence direct and immediate not by a circle or meanes that comes betweene that proofe and that salvation and then wee shall know whether that Church