writes the word the second way then folly is his name and madnesse is with him But who is it that he offers to instruct Not schollers in a Grammar schoole no no these are to meane for him to worke vpon It is his Mother whome he must deale withall his Mother I say that bred him and nourisheth him must be subiect now to his rod and ferula O happy Mother may she well say that hath such a Child so ripe that in so few yeares can instruct his Mother and thrice happy Sonne that is growne vp with such speed that so soone as he can but crawle he presently can sustaine and succour his Mother I know this will be Catoes sentence therefore Cato speake and spare not wee know thou wilt say as we doe therefore we will heare and feare not He telleth vs Gods Spirit dwels with him and by the inspiration thereof he hath vnderstanding Therefore he must speake you you must not â—eare them If he proue the Antecedent I grant the consequent but that he cannot nay 't is impossible Gods spirit is fish of temperance humility meeknesse kindenesse loue so as he that is taught by that Maister hath learned these lessons His schollers are not proud vaine bosters of themselues their minds are not lifted vâ—â—n them but they esteeme others better then themselue If we lay our present Opponent to this rule in what case shall we find him agrees he with it Does he notswarue from it Let this title and conclusion of his Epistle giue Iudgement I say no more though I know Cato would say no lesse yea we are sure he would exceed us much and thus am I come to an end of my answere to such things as concerne the disputation in common and therefore I will proceed in the next place to a formall dispute of the question it selfe CHAP. 1. Of the question and parties to the disputation IN the following discourse we inquire after these two questions 1 Whether the present Romish Church be the true Church or not 2 Whether the professors of the present Romish faith can be saved or not These two doe mutually imply each other So as we may truely say if she be a Church then is there saluation in her if salvation then a Church and contrarywise wherefore the proofe of the first confirmes the latter The parties to the present disputation are our Church and all her true and lawfull children vpon the one part And two of her vnnatutall children make the other part Which of them hath the truth I hope by Gods grace openly to discover before we end this Treatise Our Church holds the negatiue in the first question and hath set her sentences downe in the second Homilie for whitsontide in these words 1 The state of the present Church of Rome is so far wide from the nature of the true Church that nothing can be more 2 The Bishops of Rome and their adherents are not the true Church of Christ 3 The true Church is not at Rome The first and second of the alledged sentences are expressely found barely set downe as I haue alledged them and they are sufficient to let vs know the faith of our Church in the matter in hand The third is necessarily implyed by our Church at these words If it be possâ—ble for Gods spirit to be there where the true Church is not then is it at Rome In this latter sentence our Church presumes that the true Church is not at Rome otherwise the inference would be fond and ridiculous and indeed the Disputation in that place being framed according to Art standeth thus Where the holy Ghost is there is the true Church But at Rome there is not the true Church Therefore the holy Ghost is not at Rome The Proposition is pursued after the words last alledged the Assumption is confirmed by arguments going before Thus our Church by repeating the same conclusion often sheweth vs how serious she is in the matter and by often varying her manner of speaking we cleerely vnderstand her meaning The foresaid two opponents doe hold the affirmatiue against our Church namely The Church of Rome as she is at this present is a true Church As page 30 in the one and page 18. in the other Before we enter vpon the discussion hereof we must first vnderstand the termes wherein this question is delivered By Romish Church we meane the Bishops of Rome and their adherents that is to say all such both Clergie and Laytie which liue in the Romish Religion and communicate in her faith and make vp one society or body By true Church we vnderstand a Society or congregation which hath these essentiall qualities that concurre vnto the being and forme of a Church And herein all sides agree as the Reader may finde in the Homilie alledged and in both our opponents in page 13 of the one and page 15 17. and 100. of the other We must also further knowe that the Râ—mish faith consisteth either in the Vniversall consent of their learned or in the Decrees of their Councels or in both The first is their Catholick the second is their divine faith So as he that professeth their religion and communicates in their faith beleeues as they doe in the manner aforesaid Hitherto I haue alledged the Homilie as the doctrine of our Church and I presume none will reproue me for it because all that booke is solemnly confirmed as such by our State It is to be read in all our Churches by publike appointment and is subscribed vnto by all our Ministers as conteining Doctrine godly wholesome and necessary I say it is so subscribed vnto because the 36 Canon requireth that no person shal be received into the Ministry nor suffered to exercise any part of the Ministeriall function in any place within this Realme except he shall first subscribe amongst other things vnto the 39 Articles of Religion agreed vpon by the whole Clergy Anno 1562. Now the 36 Canon in commanding subscription to the said 39 Articles doth also consequently command subscription to the bookes of Homilies because the 35 Article doth no more but ratifie confirme the former and second booke of Homilies Now if the present Homilie be the doctrine of our Church then the sentences alledged out of the same can be no lesse for they are such a maine and principall part thereof that the Homilie cannot subsist without them And thus I hope every Reader hath direction enough touching the state of the question and the parties to the Disputation CHAP. 2. Of our first Argument for the maine question and of their generall answer thereunto OVr Church in the Homilie already recited hath an argument expresly thus The true Church is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ himselfe being the head corner stone But the present Romish Church is not built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets for they reteyne not the sound and pure doctrine of Christ
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
out question is of the Church visible More then so God may require vs to come out of Babylon even vs that are not there for such a commaund is no more but to prevent our going thither forasmuch as the same person that is furthest from Babylon in this present estate is there even there already in possibility because the holiest man that liveth liveth in the flesh or humane nature and therfore may he be carried to Babylon because Babylon is heresie or at least includes it and herefie is a fruit of the flesh By this time I hope his whole discourse as well â—hat is to the purpose as what is beside the purpose is fully cleered and satisfied wherein â—hine departed from the liberty of an answerer of loue and desire to satisfie the Reader CHAP. 10. Our Opponent B. his second Argument HE vrgeth vs cap. 9. pag. 37. with a second Argument concluding after this manner That Society which wanteth the nature of a true Church denyes fundamentall truth directly not by consequence But the present Romish Church does not deny fundamentall truth directly but by consequence at the most for the Popes Arithmetick which he vseth in calculating the Articles of faith is not subrstaction but addition Therefore the present Romish Church wanteth not the nature of a true Church The Assumption and conclusion is set downe pag 41. and the title of the Chapter pag 37. The Proposition is wanting In pag. 21 22. he writeth thus Our adversaries in this cause doe bring the deniall of the foundation of faith as a medium to proue the Church of Rome to be no true Church I answere this man hath a faire gift of inventing some while he can finde an adversary that answers another while one that disputes and all is no more but his owne shadow or imagination If he would haue the Reader to thinke otherwise let him name the Authour that thus disputes and the place where we may finde it till then this must goe for false None of ours would dispute so for it presumes that some Articles of faith be fundamentall and some be not and that is false the whole divine revelation conduceth to eternall life and accordingly it is the foundation thereof and consoquently every Article of faith is fundamentall I answere further This reason as it lyeth doth admit many egregious exceptions but because I am willing to interpret him with the vttermost favour I will forbeare to charge him with them He confines fundamentall trueth vnto the being of the Scriptures and Christs comming to saue sinners pag. 19. 20. To deny fundamentall trueth according to him directly is directly to deny that Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners as Pagans Turkes and Iewes doe pag. 22. They deny it by consequent which holding it directly maintaine any one assertion whatsoever whereupon the direct deniall thereof may be necessarily concluded Thus the Galatians holding Circumcision did by consequence overthrow salvation by Christ inasmuch as it was impossible that they should stand together pag. 23 24. According vnto this explication this Argument will be freest from exception if it bee framed in these termes CHAP. 11. Of the same Argument new framed THat society which wants the nature of a true Church does in words and professedly deny the Scriptures and Christs comming to saue sinners But the present Romish Church does not in words and professedly deny the Scriptures and Christs comming to saue sinners Therefore the present Romish Church wants not the nature of a true Church His proofes for this Assumption are two the one pag. 126. in these words Offer the fundamentall words to them of the Romish Church and none amongst them will refuse to subscribe vnto them The other is his fifth Argument pag. 59. c To proue the maine question so desirous he is to make shewes of plenty that one shall be divided into two rather then he will be short in number In that he writeth thus In our disputations with them we doe not proue that Christ came to saue sinners but we bring it in proofe against them pag. 62. And this sayes he is A tacite consent of all ours that the Church of Rome does not directly deny the foundation pag. 61. In pag 70. he writeth thus I would gladly see the testimony of but one in estimation for his learning amongst vs that ever affirmed the Church of Rome to deny the foundation of Faith directly The Church of England hath not passed any such sentence vpon her Some of ours touching this matter haue written thus The Church of Rome denyeth Christ Iesus directly not by consequence onely At this our Opponent B. pag. 122. growes very angry and craues pardon for breaking his long patience and doth challenge him for an egregious contradiction in avouching a deniall direct and by consequence and why Because The foundation cannot be overthrowne both by consequence and directly too None can overthrow by consequence vnlesse they hold directly and no man can both hold directly and deny directly And in conclusion he does grauely reprehend that Author because he labour to proue that the Church of Rome is guilty of such deniall both directly and by consequence seeing such proofe makes the whole fall to the ground being nothing worth and least something should be wanting pertaining to the honour of a learned Disputer he giues his word for all this esteeming the least proofe his great disgrace I answere If I proue that the Church of Rome directly denies the being of the Scriptures and the comming of Christ to saue sinners I doe enough to satisfie this Argument even by the confession of this Opponent for pag. 124. he writes thus If you can proue the Church of Rome directly to deny salvation by Christ alone we binde our selves to grant you the victory and yours be the day If I proue the Church of Rome by consequence also so to deny then that Authour hath made no contradiction by this Opponents owne rule namely because both of them may be true together This Opponent demandeth how or where that proofe shall be had and made pag. 124. I answere I will haue that proofe out of the Councel of Trent and frame it according to art and the rules of answering for that is my office at this time Touching the first I answere to deny and affirme is made by voice and accordingly to deny and affirme may be by the voice of humane reason or divine faith This I take as granted else there can be no difference between the Heathen Philosophers Turks and Christians when they all professe even in so many words That there is a God In the first sense I grant the Assumption that is The Romish Church professeth even in so many words the being of the Scriptures and the comming of Christ by the voice of humane reason and so farre we are content to goe along with this Opponent but the Proposition is false This we say The profession 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
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 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