Iesus Christ All the blessings that Abraham the Father of the faithfull could make any claime to were to be held by guift vpon promise Therefore if we wil be his children as we must be if we be faithfull we haue nothing to trust to but Gods promise in Iesus Christ Faith then is the ground of Hope and according to the measure of true beleeuing so is the measure of all true hoping Let vs exemplifie it a little Do I hope for euerlasting life What reason haue I to hope for it the promise of God that proclaimeth pardon of sinne and inheritance of Glory to all that beleeue in his sonne Iesus Christ But how doth that concerne me by reason of my faith in Christ So that if I beleeue not in Christ I doe but deceiue my selfe with a shadowe of hope for true Christian hope I haue none But I hope I beleeue in Christ But that will not serue thy turne For so dooth euery man that hath heard of Christ and beleeueth the truth of the Gospell and yet he is farre from true hope and from that which the Papists themselues require of euery Christian Who teach that euery man by receauing the Sacrament of Baptisme is actually purged from all his sinnes before committed which he must certainely be perswaded and assured of The like they say of their sacraments of penance and of extreame vnction Which he that receaueth dying hauing a generall Catholicke faith shall surely go to heauen though perhaps through Purgatory In somuch that if he which is thus prepared should doubt whether he were saued or no he should sinne mortally Therefore to conclude this point which I haue hit vpon this by the waie I say it is plaine that faith limits hope and that there is no true hope or reason of hoping but proportionably to the measure of beleeuing Which will easilier be acknowledged of vs if we remember that hope in the Scriptures is applied to those things which we must of necessitie beleeue by faith And in deed the true difference betwixt faith and hope is not in the diuersitie of assurance but in the circumstance of time Faith reaching to all times past present and to come hope being restrained onely to the future time A Christian man beleeueth by faith that God will blesse him in all things of this life so farre forth as it shall make for his owne glory and the beleeuers saluation Therefore also he hopeth for this blessing from God not absolutely but with those conditions which faith obserues in beleeuing The same man beleeues by faith that because he trusts in Christ he is now in the fauour of God and shall so continue for euer Therefore accordingly he hopes for saluation without any other condition Of the truth of these things I dispute not but only bring them to shew the nature of hope which is alwayes fitted according to the nature of the promises which faith rests vpon Where we beleeue conditionally we hope conditionally where our faith is absolute our hope is so too That the proposition is false it appeares by the example B. To the proposition of Dauid Who praies to God for the pardon of those sinnes which he beleeued by faith were forgiuen for so was he assured from the Lord by the prophet Nathan vnlesse we shall charge him with infidelity for not beleeuing the prophet since the speech was so plaine that hee could not but vnderstand it I haue sinned against the Lord. A plaine and 2. Sam. 12. 13. true Confession The Lord also hath put away thy sinne thou shalt not dye As plaine and certaine an absolution Will you come in here with your vaine distinctions of guilt and punishment of temporall and eternall If you do it is to no purpose For whatsoeuer the respects were in which Dauid praied for the forgiuenes of sinnes once this is cleere that he praied for it and then what remaines but that you condemne him of sinning greeuously in asking God pardon for those sinnes which he beleeued by faith were forgiuen or of infidelitie for not beleeuing But if Dauid in some regard might craue pardon when it was already graunted and beleeued by him to be so be thinke your selfe what will become of your proposition and how wisely you haue charged vs with sinning greeuously for doing that which in some respect may be lawfully done Now for your distinctions I will not wast time nor blot paper to refute them but onely shew that in this case they cannot helpe you Which of the former is apparant because the Prophet precisely mentions both parts The Lord hath taken awaie thy sinne There is the guilt wipt away Thou shalt not die There is the punishment forgiuen Yea you will say the eternall punishment but not the temporall I pray you whether of the two is it that God threatens Adam Gen. 2. 18. withall The day thou eatest thou shalt die the death The punishment yea the whole penaltie of the statute concerning sinne is Thou shalt die See how God for the comfort of Dauid proclaimes this pardon in the very contrary words Thou shalt not die Who shall perswade vs now that the pardon is lesse generall then the penalty But is the eternall punishment indeed forgiuen I thinke you mistake your selfe or els popish doctrine hanges but ill fauoredly togeather For what is that which you say is changed from eternall to temporall Is it not the punishment due to sinne how is it then forgiuen vnles forgiuenes of sinnes be nothing els but a changing of the punishment which if we grant then Christ hath not obteyned any more for vs but the altering of the punishment then God hath not pardoned our sin but remitted somwhat of the penalty Speake not here of the effect of baptisme for if by forgiuenesse of sinnes therein we are wholy acquitted from the guilt and punishment why should the same words after baptisme signifie a change of the punishment and not a full pardon Dauid therefore in praying for pardon of those sinnes which he beleeued by faith were already pardoned by his practise destroyed this popish reason long before it was hatcht Nor may you answere that this prayer was for any temporall Calamity which was layde vpon him for this sinne because the scriptures make these requests diuers Hee was threatned by the prophet that the child borne in adultery 2. Sam. 12. 18. Psa 32. 3. 4 51. 1. 2. should surely dye For the life of the childe he prayes fastes and weepes but those 2. Psalmes I spake of are of another nature not once mentioning nor once glancing at any temporall or outward affliction And if there be in deede any such dictinction of guilt and punishment Dauid intreats directly and principally for the former According to the multitude of thy mercies wash me throughly c. Euery verse expressing the anguish of a distressed soule for the conscience of sinne cōmitted against God And whereas he makes also request
righteous But we deny that eyther of these enforcements of such exhortation in any part weakens the doctrine of free iustification by onely resting vpon Iesus Christ Which he may easily conceaue that hath a sincere purpose to glorifie God by the saluation of his chosen For he knowes that as much as is giuen to man for iustifying himselfe is taken from God God and man after this reckoning may part stakes God may haue glory for affording meanes of saluation and abilitie to vse those meanes man may be proud of the well vsing of that abilitie and iustifying of himselfe by the meanes afforded Yet if all men that are inabled did so helpe themselues there were lesse cause of boasting more reason to giue God the glory of iustification For it might well seeme to proceed from the grace that God imparts to them that they are iustified But when some vse it well some ill and this difference of well or ill vsing it flowes from the free-will of men by their owne power what a small part of glory is left to God in the seuerall iustification of those that are saued Hence it follows that the doctrine of iustification by workes preparatorie before a man is at all iustified by workes meritorious after he is begun to be iustified is dishonorable to God the death of all goodnesse in those very workes that are done Because the intent which our Papists magnifie so much is directly derogatorie froÌ„ the glory of God without the true and sincere purpose whereof no workes of any man baptised are one iott better then the morall actions of heathen men But the sonnes of the bond-woman being of a seruile nature respecting themselues either only or principally being ignorant and without feeling of the affection of childreÌ„ can neuer be perswaded that any sonne of God will performe duties of kindnesse and thankfulnesse to his father but must needs doe that he doth like a hireling for loue of wages And by such meanes our Papists would procure and deserue the perfect reconciliation of their soules with God as if we were not perfectly reconciled in Christ in whom God reconciled the world to himselfe not imputing their sinnes What is it to be reconciled to God but to haue Gods displeasure remoued his fauor fatherly loue vouchsafed to vs This hath Christ procured by his death and bloud-shedding the increase of our sanctification in vs by the dayly dying vnto sinne and rising againe vnto newnesse of life restores more perfectly the image of God decayed in vs by naturall corruption and manifold actuall transgressions but reconciles vs neuer awhit the more to God When the Prodigall sonne Luc. 15. 20 came home to his father starued and euill coloured in his body ragged and torne in his apparrell who can doubt for all this but he was fully reconciled to his father when he fell on his neck kissed embraced and entertained him but as his flesh euery day came better and better as his colour mended and waxed more fresh when he was arrayed according to his estate he did more liuely represent the sonne of such a father The same is our case in Christ by his suffrings are we wholy reconciled vnto God For we are made his Children but we begin dayly more and more to resemble him as we Ioa. 1. 12. Gal. 4. 4. 5. growe in holinesse of nature and conuersation Therefore let the Papists imagine that they reconcile themselues to God by mortification of passions and I know not what supposed vertues It is sufficient for vs that Christ hath by his bloud made our peace and put vs in possession of his fathers loue and fauour If this be a false fantasticall apprehension of Christs death and passion to relie wholy vpon him for reconcilation with God by his bloud and propitiation then his dying the Apostles preaching and our beleeuing is all in vaine How then doth this Doctrine tend to loosenesse especially if it be remembred that we shut al men out from iustificatioÌ„ that are not sanctified by the spirit of Christ They tell vs saith hee that faith anâ— good workes can not be seuered Would you knowe what faith he meanes only a perswasion of the truth of the Scripture euen such an one as the Diuil is said to haue and that with a Popish preparatorie good worke namely Feare The diuills beleeue and tremble Iac. 2. 19. But if they would speake any thing to the purpose they should proue these 3. things 1. that to beleeue in Iesus Christ iâ— nothing els but to be perswaded that these points that the Scriptures teach of Christ are true Which will neuer be done as long as that famous distinction is retemed Credere Deum deo in deum To beleeue there is a God to beleeue that all that God sayes is true to beleeue or trust in God or to rest vpon him and as our Nor theme men speake very plainely and significantly to beleeue on God Secondly that a man thus relying vpon Christ to be saued by him for al this beleuing is not iustified contrary to the whole course of the Gospell Thirdly they must shew vs that a man may be iustified and yet not sanctified then which nothing is more repugnant to popery For the popish Doctors teach vs that to be iustified is To haue sinne abolisht and grace infused into vs whereby and for which wee are as they say truely and habitually iust in the sight of God If they answere that these maâ—ters haue bin already proued by their Diuins we reply that ours haue shewed the insufficiency of their proofes and that if either this accuser or any other Papist will vrge those scriptures that haue bin aledged to this end any further or bring any that yet haue not bin brought he shall receaue by the grace of God true and sufficient satisfaction if truth will satisfie him In the meane while it shall suffice to put this Author in minde that his experience failes him beeing made not of those that beleeue in Christ but of them that beleeue Christ or at the most geue credit to those things which are spoken of him in the Gospell Whereunto I ad that neither faith which hath force to remoue mountaines is so noble as that which makes a man heire of heauen nor because that faith can be without Charitie Therefore either he that beleeues in Christ can bee without iustification or he that is iustifyed without sanctification They assure vs saith he that faith once had can neuer be lost What then This vaine securitie saith he opens the gap to all libertine sensuality If he speake of the euent all experience refuts him because no men liue more soberly and Christianly then they that haue the greatest measure of this perswasion And indeed it cannot bee otherwise For this is no where but where the spirit of God is and where he is there only is true sanctification If he blame the doctrine in respect of
to God for deliuerance from the punishment make me to heare ioy c. It is manifest that this can no way v. â—1 aduantage the Papists because he intreats onely for the assurance of forgiuenes which was to be testified vnto his soule by the feeling of Gods loue and his owne reioycing therein but what makes this for popish Purgatory after death or proud satisfaction in this life for Dauid promised noe satisfaction but a contrite spirit and a broken heart which is no more then the first entrance into popish absolution neither by praying for the ioy of the spirit doth hee beg any exemption from purgatory because a man may haue that after diuers sinnes committed in some good measure and yet be lyable to the fire of purgatory by omitting some duties which he is enioyned by his ghostly father to performe Now the 32. psalme runs in the same maner Blessed is the man c. here is mention of hauing wickednes forgiuen sinne couered iniquity not imputed of punishmeÌ„t not releast not a word or letter Let vs go forward whence Psa 32. 1. v. 2. v 3. proceeded his roaring euen froÌ„ the guilt of his sinne not felt to be pardoned I acknowledged my sin c. I coÌ„fest my wickednes vnto thee thou forgauest the punishment of my sinne What punishment No doubt that which Dauid entreated for But the teÌ„porall punishmeÌ„ts were not forgiueÌ„ I cal theÌ„ as the Papists do for both the Child dyed and Absolon was raised vp out of Dauids owne house lay with his fathers wiues in the sight of the sonne What question can there be then whether Dauid 2. Sam. 12. 14. 18. 2. Sam. 12. 11. 16. 22. prayed for the forgiuenesse of his sinnes euen in respect of the eternall punishment for al he did beleeue that it was granted him according to the word of God by the prophet Nathan Whereupon it necessarily ensues that the proposition is vntrue which condemns euery one of sinning grieuously against God that askes forgiuenes of his sins being assured by faith that they are forgiuen But for the better cleering of this point let vs also shape a direct answer to his proofes and afterwards set downe what we maintaine concerning praying for pardoÌ„ of our sinnes His first proofe is taken from an argument of parity or equality in this sort or forme If none but an Infidell or a mad maÌ„ would demaund of God the creation of the world the incarnation of Christ the institution of the Sacraments all which he is assured by faith are performed already then none but such an one will demaund pardon of his synnes which he beleeues already by faith God hath forgiuen The consequence of this proposition is feeble because it presumes an equalitie where there is none For we haue not the like measure of assurance for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes as we haue of these other points here signified as I haue shewed already and must say againe by and by in answere to the assumption Therefore though we should sinne greeuously in crauing those things of God which without all doubt we are assured he hath already done because we should but mocke him yet do we not sinne in like sort by desiring that wherof our weake faith must needs make some question I graunt we sinne by doubting through the weaknesse of our faith but I deny we sinne by praying because of that doubting Further we are to consider that there is a great difference betwixt these things euen in respect of their being past for the three former are absolutely dispatcht the later after a sort is euery day a doing because howsoeuer in the euerlasting purpose of God the sinnes of all the elect are already from all eternitie forgiuen yet they are in respect of vs and the actuall being of them day by day actually remitted and therefore we may without grieuous sinne and must vnlesse we will sinne greeuously daily craue pardon of God because we haue new sinnes dayly to be forgiuen The point will be made more plaine in the explication of our opinion But none but a mad man or Infidell will demaund of God the creation of the world the incarnation of Christ the institution of the Sacraments all which he is assured by faith are already giueÌ„ If a man be fully assured that these things are already accomplisht he cannot without sinne demaund of God the accomplishing of them but if there arise in his minde some doubt concerning the certainety thereof he may and must entreate the Lord to reueale the truth vnto him and to confirme vnto him the assurance of it though his doubting indeed is sinne yet haue we no iust cause nor sufficient warrant to condemne this doubting faith of flatte infidelitie as this rigorous Papist doth who neuer felt it should seeme what conflicts there are betwixt faith and frailty Now the Proposition and assumption being both faulty how can the conclusion be without fault Therefore this former proofe not being able to abide the proofe let vs trie the latter which must thus be applyed to the Authors purpose for the proofe of the first proposition Whosoeuer demaunds that which he hopes not to obtaine sinnes grieuously in demaunding it By not hoping to obtaine that which is demanded there D. is no reproofe implyed of praying without hope as if it were his meaning to exhort vs to trust or hope in God for that indeed concernes not this reason but he signifies that a man ought not to pray for that of the obteyning whereof there can be no hope because we are already in possession of it which proposition of his is onely so farre true as it belongs to him that knowes he hath the thing he prayes for And that appeares by his proofe for that which a man sees wherefore doth he hope it That is a man hath no reason to hope for that which he is sure he hath For hope is of things to Rom. 8. 24 come as also the words immediatly before plainely shew Hope that is seene is not hope Therefore he onely sinnes grieuously in praying for that he possesses who knowes he doth possesse that he prayes for But he that stands in doubt whether he haue the thing or no which he is desirous of may without this blame make meanes to get it though he haue it already because he is not certaine that he hath it howsoeuer it may be he hath some perswasion of the possession thereof But whosoeuer is assured by faith that his sinnes are forgiuâ—â— him in asking God pardon demaunds that which he hath no hope to obtaine The former answer of the measure of the assurance argues this assumption of falshood because a man may by faith truly beleeue that his sinnes are forgiuen and yet not fully or certainly be resolued thereof in regarde whereof he may and ought to sue for pardon But all true Protestants are assured by faith that their sinnes Principall assumptioÌ„ are
so without warrant from him in euery matter contrary to his reuealed commaundements Blasphemous therefore and not be thought on by any christian much lesse vttered are these consequents and especially the last of them which inferres that God is worse then the diuill Because neither doth God as I haue often said impell or induce any man to sinne and though he should for causes knowne onely to himselfe incline as Austin saith the hearts of men to euill things yet were it still blasphemous to denie the iustice of his iudgement whatsoeuer prophane flesh and bloud imagines O man Rom. 9. 19. 20. what art thou that disputest with God! shall the clay c. Article 6. Papist That faith once had may be lost Protestant This point it should seeme stickes in this mans stomack he is so much troubled with it Art 5 in the extrauagant syllogisme Art 4. the third point and here it makes a whole article The principall syllogisme is thus to be framed If Dauid lâ—st his faith then faith once had may be lost But Dauid lost his faith Therefore faith once had may be lost The assumption of this syllogisme he offers to proue in this maner Papist Whosoeuer leeseth his charitie leeseth his faith A. But Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his charitie Ergo Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his faith The Maior is a principle vndoubted of in the Schooles of Protestants For they peremptorily affirme that true faith such as was in Dauid one of Gods elected can no more be seuered from charitie then heate from fire or light from the Sunne and therefore if Dauid killing Vrias lost his charitie no doubt but therewithall he lost his faith The Minor I proue for whosoeuer remaineth in death B. is without charitie But Dauid when he killed Vrias remained in death Ergo Dauid when he killed Vrias was without charitie If he was without that which once he had no doubt but then he lost it for he was depriued thereof for his sinne The Maior Proposition of this last Syllogisme thus I prooue For charity is the life of the soule and it is as impossible for a man to haue charity and remaine in death as it is impossible for a man to be dead in body and yet indewed with a reasonable soule The Minor cannot be denied to wit that Dauid by killing Vrias remained in death For it is the expresse word of God Qui non diligit manet in morte He that loâ—eth not his neighbour remaineth in death but certaine it is that Dauid loued not Vrias when he killed him Ergo likewise certaine it is that Dauid remained in death The same position might easily be proued out of Ezekiel Ezech. c. 18. ver 24. Si autem aâ—erterit se iustus a iusticia sua c. Protestant Whosoeuer looseth his Charity looseth his faith If by Charity A. Rom. 13. 10. you vnderstand an absolute being without sanctification which is signified by Charity because Loue is the fullfilling of the Law your proposition is true but your assumption is false If thereby you meane not performing some act of Charity or doing the contrary your proposition is false For not euery one that failes in the performance of some duties of loue or doth some thing contrary to the rule of Loue by such omission of good or committing of euill looseth nor in deed may truely bee said to loose his Charity though he sinne against the lawe of Charity in so doing Your proofe being grounded vpon a misconceauing of the Protestants principle which I expounded in the 4. Article is of no force True faith such as wee confesse Dauids was alwaies after his calling can no more be without loue then the sunne without light or the fire without heat But â—et he that hath this faith and loue may sometimes neglect some duties of this loue and do some works of hatred Because his sanctification being vnperfect his obedience also must needs be so But it neither falls out that such a man becomes againe wholy vnregenerate by which meanes onely and by none other sanctification or loue can bee altogeather lost But Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his Charity Nay rather if Charity can be lost he then lost it when he committed â— Adultery vnles we shall say that either Adultery is not against Charity or that murther only not Adultery procures a dâ—priuation of Charitie But Dauid did not loose his Charitie by either or both of them though in each he greuously sinned against the loue of his neighbour Which for murder this man grants for Adultery that parable that Nathan brings prooues vndoubtedly Whosoeuer remaines in death is without Charity Namely 2. Sam. 12. 1. 2. so farre as he is in death If he be altogeather in death he is wholy without Charity But a man may in respect of some sinnefull action be in death and yet for all that bee truely sanctified though not throughly In regard whereof he may must be takeÌ„ for a sanctified man as in truth he is howsoeuer hee doe some thing contrary to the grace of sanctification according to the lusts of his naturall corruption He that hath some of his members dead as his hands or his feete in respect of these parts is dead and yet may be aliue in all the other How much more may he then be truely said to haue liuing charity in him which failing in some one duty and that but of one part for a time brings forth notwithstanding many fruits of loue euen of the same kind of which that sinne against loue is What needs any further answere to your proofe then hath already bin geuen For in deed it is of no force Vnles that be granted which is the question that euery act contrary to loue drawes loue out of the soule so that a man thereby ceasses to haue any part of regeneration in hâ—m And this answere were sufficient though Charity were in deed the life of the soule Which is but an Idle popish fancy or rather a sudden conceipt of this quick disputer Rom. 1. 17. If there be any other life of the soule then God surely it is faith rather then loue by which the righteous man liueth Is it not inough for our Papists to make Loue the forme of faith but that they must haue it also the life of the soule Dauid when he killed Vrias remained in death In respect of that sinne yet was hee translated from death to life by beleeuing in the Messias to come and accordingly brought forth the fâ—â—its of sanctification in obeying both the other commaundements and that also oâ— not kilâ—ing which by the murther oâ— Vrias he brake So thaâ— the proofe which followes is vnsufficient Because that Dauid could not be charged simply with the want of loue though he did not loue Vrias in that action Which yet proceeded not somuch from the haâ—red of his person as from Dauids feare to haue his former sinne
The most points wherein the protestants dissent from Catholickes tend to loosnesse of life and carnall liberty If the 〈◊〉 points following tend to loosnesse of life carnall 〈◊〉 then the most points wherein the Protestants dissent from Catholicks do so But the seauen points following tend to loosenesse of life and carnall liberty Therfore the most points wherein the Protestants dissent from Catholicks tend to loosnesse of life and carnall liberty Protestant First I answere to the whole syllogisme that if the Protestants teach nothing in these points of dissent which is not warranted by the Scriptures then it skils not what in the corrupt iudgement of man may be argued to ensue Rom. 6. 1. 9. 19. therevpon Secondly I say the consequence of the proposition is false For these seauen points are not the seauenth part of those wherein we dissent from the papists Thirdly I deny that any of these points tends to loosenesse of life Papist If man haue not free-will to do good he may be negligent in preparing his soule to serue God But man hath not free-will as the protestants teach Therefore he may be negligent in preparing his soule to serue God Protestant I deny the consequence of the proposition For God that commaunds a man to be carefull in preparing his soule to serue him must be obeyed simply though we see not the particular reason of the commaundement But indeed wee deny not but men freely both prepare their soules and receaue Gods grace but we say that it is God which makes difference betwixt the beleeuers and vnbeleeuers yet not without their owne labour and willingnesse to which they are stirred vp in respect of the euent necessarily Papist The doctrine of Iustification by faith onely tends to loosenesse of life You would neuer say so if you knew that we beleeue and teach that no man is iustified but he that is also sanctified and no man is sanctified but he that walkes in obedience to God We hold a necessity of workes but not to iustification and we looke for a reward of workes but not vpon desert Wherein we dissent from the Papists without preaching carnall liberty Wherefore though faith once had can neuer be lost yet where there is no holinesse of life there neuer was faith and where there is not a conscience of refraining all sinne there is no holinesâ—e aâ— all Therefore he that is giuen to carnall liberty hath no faith to loose Neither doth our want of liberty to keepe the commaundements euer a whit discourage or withdraw vs from indeuouring to doe well since that God both accepts of our willingnesse and we acknowledge our selues bound to perfect obedience which we must striue to so much the more by how much the lesse we can attaine to it The sacrament of penance we refuse because it is a patch of Antichrist because it brings a sâ—auery and sâ—are vpon mens consciences because it makes men cease to trust in Christs satisfactions and trust to their owne because it breedes securitie in them that receaue Popish absolution Wee deny the carnall presence in the Sacrament because there is neither Scripture nor reason to prooue it because it is an occasion of most senslesse Idolatrie and surely it is so farre from restraining men from sinne that rather it encourages them to despise such a God as is crusht vp into a bagage Cake and whom if they should be afraid of him they might cast into the fire and burne as one of your Popes did Lastly wee neither haue coyned any Religion nor 7. haue a negatiue religion but we hold the truth of God reuealed in the scriptures and reiect your popish errors contrary thereto The Iewes by the same reason condemned our Sauiour Christ and the Gentils accused his Apostles for bringing in a new Religion whereby they denyed and abollished the heresies of the one and the Idolatry of the other Article 5. Papist The Protestants make God the author of synne the onely cause of synne that man synneth not that God is worse then the Diuil Whosoeuer defendeth that God commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth impelleth to sinne maketh God the author of synne But all protestants say that God commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth and impelleth to synne Ergo the Protestants make God the author of synne Protestant The proposition in the 3. latter points is altogeather true in the former thus it is to be conceiued of that if God commaund that which by some law of his owne is sinne as that Abraham should kill his sonne he is not the Authour of sinne but onely so farre as he commaunds that which of it selfe without that speciall dispensation of his were sinne but by that it ceaseth to be sinne The assumption is false no Protestant defends any such thinge howsoeuer we all acknowlege that it was Gods will that Iudas should betray Christ c. But we deny that either Iudas had any commaundement or warrant from God or that God put that wicked thought into his heart or that he inclined him to the liking of it Neither do wee deride any permissiue will in God but that which makes him an Idle beholder of things without any determination of their being or not being but onely such as dâ—pendâ—s wholly or principally vpon the creature We beleeue and professe that God workes otherwise by the wicked then by the godly in these by putting in good thoughtes and bringing theÌ„ to effect by their wil labour In the wicked he doth not worke but onely by them bringing his owne purpose to passe without commaunding perswading vrging or impelling to sinne this latter you may if you will call permission without feare of being derided by any Protestant yea with the good liking of all Protestants so you acknowledge a necessity of euent Article 6. Papist That faith once had may be lost Whosoeuer looseth his charity looseth his faith But Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his charity Ergo Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his faith Protestant As before so here also he leaues out the principall syllogisme which I thus supply If Dauid lâ—st his faith then faith once had may be lost But Dauid lost his faith Therefore faith once had may be lost The assumption is false which he labours to confirme notwithstanding by the reason afore rehearsed To the which I answere first by distinguishing on the proposition whosoeuer leeseth his charity altogeather that there remains no grace of sanctificatioÌ„ hath no faith but it is not true that whosoeuer commits some greeuous sinne against the law of Charity thereby leeseth his faith I deny your assumption Dauid lost not his charity because he was still sanctified though he fell grieâ—ously Papist Whosoeuer remaineth in death is without charity But Dauid when he killed Vrias remained in death Therefore Dauid when he killed Vrias was without charity Protestant I distinguish againe vpon your proposition hee that remaines in death is so farre without charity as he remaines in death But a man may in respect of some sinfull actions be in death and for all that be truely sanctified though not throughly as the hand may be dead to any motion towards the head and yet aliue to all motions downward The proofe is both false and absurd For if there be any life in the Heb. 10. 38. soule abiding in it as a quality that must be faith Some Papists call chairty the life of faith but none that euer I read or heard of the life of the soule The assumption not only may be but must be denyed because it is vntrue 1. Ioh. 3. 14. is to be expounded by the 17. where it is said He that shâ—â—s vp his bowels of compassion from his brethren that hath need hath not the loâ—e of God in him And yet no Papist wil say that a man is void of the loue oâ— God vpoÌ„ the refusal at somtimes to giue almes to him that stands in need He that is quite without loue that is he that hath not in him the loue of his neighbour is without sanctification and Iustification but this a man may haue and Dauid had in some good measure though he faile as he did in that one particular of loue towards Vriaâ— When you bring any proofe out of that place of Ezechiell 18. 24. you shall haue an answer to it In the meane while I say no more but this that conditionalis nihil pâ—â—it in esse a thing is not proued to be because if it be such or such an euent shall follow therupon Article 7. Papist The Protestants shall neuer haue life euerlasting Because they will haue no merits for which euerlasting life is giuen Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages is giuen for workes But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages Therefore the kingdomâ— of heauen is giuen for workes Protestant Any man may easily perceiue that the question is not concluded in this syllogisme But I will not in this short answer trouble my selfe with any more then answering to the point Papist Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages is giuen for workes But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages Ergo the kingdome of heauen is giuen for workes Protestant If we graunt him the whole syllogisme he gets nothing by it vnlesse he can proue that workes and merits are all one which is vtterly false I deny your assumption which none of these places you bring doth proue the first is a parable signifying that the Gentiles shall haue place in heauen aswell as the Iewes though they came later to the knowledge of the truth The other two mention reward but not wages and these two are your common â—rrors in most of your arguments concerning the question oâ— workes that you without all authority of Scripture or reason confound workes with merits and reward with wages Which you professing a schollerlike disputation should not haue done without some speciall proofe of their being all one especially since you can hardly be ignorant that we alwaies distinguish the one from the other not without reason as we surely perswade our selues FINIS