euen of as many as are indeed true Christians according to the practise of our doctrine But to come neerer to the point we are to vnderstand that the Protestants Doctrine of free wil is that no man hath power by nature either without the grace of Gods spirit to do any thing acceptable vnto God or to procure this grace to himselfe or to receaue it when it is offered For our present purpose it shal be ynough to speake a word or two of the last point not by way of proofe but declaration Whereas then we deny a man poâ—er to receaue the grace of God being offred we do not meane that this grace workes vpon him as on a stone or block but as on a reasonable creature No man beleeues but willingly onely the question is how it comes to pasle that when two men haue grace offred them the one beleeues the other doth nâ—t The Papist in this case fetcheth the difference frâ— the good vse of his free will that beleeues we ascribe it to the diuers working of Gods spirit in his heart not denying that he vseth his free will to speake as they doe better then the other but acknowledging that therefore he so vseth it because the spirit of God teacheth and inclines and ineuitably brings him so to vse it that the difference may be from God and not from man To what end saith he tends this doctrine If it be possible that any man should be so blinde as not to see I will venture the losse of so much time and labour as may serue to shew him You aske vs why we say that men are saued by Gods grace not by their owne freewill Forsooth because we would haue God reape the glory of their saluation the pride of mans nature beaten down theÌ„ more beholding to God then to themselues None of which can be if a man by his owne free will make difference betwixt himselfe and another to the receauing of faith For he may truly say to God that he is no more beholding to him then many a one that is euerlastingly damned nay then euery one might haue bene if he would For what did God for him that he was not as ready to doe for another how many haue had as much grace offred them as he and yet are not iustified No more had he bene if he had not by his owne free-will helpt himselfe in speciall maner wheras God failed him leauing all to his choise to be saued or not to be saued Is this to teach carnall libertie you will say yea because it maketh a man negligent in disposing and preparing his soule How so for the difference is made by God What then to what purpose is it forme to prepare my selfe I maruell you aske not to what purpose it is for you to beleeue Are you yet to learne that although the cause of all goodnesse be grace yet God requires our endeuours as meanes to the receauing of this grace Did you neuer heare that we holde it for a monstrous absurditie to promise our selues any thing from God without vsing the meanes to obtaine it The same also I answere to the doing of good workes after sanctification the successe and euent proceeds onely and certainly from the spirit of God who Phil. 2. 13. workes in vs both to will and to doe Yet are we bound to vse all good meanes for the stirring our selues vp to holynesse and freely and willingly doe we whatsoeuer good worke we do by the grace of Gods spirit Therefore this similitude of the sicke Asse sheweth the Authors dangerous sicknesse eyther of ignorance if he know not the truth we holde or of malice if against this knowledge he wilfully peruert it They defend say you that men are iustified by faith alone That is we defend that God requireth nothing of man to his iustification but only that by faith he rest vpon Iesus Christ to be iustified by his suffrings The generall ground of this opinion is the end of all things created viz. the glory of God that man may haue nothing to boast of but simply ascribe the praise of his iustification to God that iustified him Neither doth this doctrine scorne God in reiecting it as much as you list eyther flatly ouerthrow or in any part diminish true repentance sorrowe for sinnes mortification of passions and all other vertues which will plainely appeare both before and after iustification for what though we be iustified onely by faith who knowes not that it is vnpossible for any man ordinarily to cast of this naturall and Popish confidence which he hath in his owne righteousnesse and to feele necessitie of being iustified by Christ If first he discerne not his damnable estate and being moued with horror thereof she from himselfe to Christ for iustification by pardon of sinne Now after a man is iustified can the knowledge of the meanes by which he is iustified kill these vertues in him Let the meanes and cause of his iustification be what you will If he may beleeue he is iustified and the Papists graunt some men haue knowne and more may know it at least by reuelation by your reason this effect must ensue So that it ariseth not from the doctrine of the meanes but from that of knowledge or assurance But how should these vertues be abolisht by iustification by faith only when as euerie man that is iustified is also sanctified Whosoeuer hath his sinnes forgiuen him hath withall the power of sinne abated in him How shall we that are dead Rom. 6. 2. to sinne liue any longer therein No man hath any incouragement by free iustification through faith to continue in sinne For if he be not sanctified he is not iustified If he be sanctified he is dead to sinne and aliue to righteousnesse True it is that prophane wretches will obiect against the Gospell now as they did in the Apostles time But this was not then nor is now any sufficient reason why the truth of God should be denyed or supprest for wicked mens abusing it to their owne damnation Yet perhaps you will reply that it is a more likly meanes to stir meÌ„ vp to repentance mortification and the practise of all vertues to teach them that they must deserue the first iustification of congruitie by their good preparation and fully make vp the measure of their second iustification by deseruing of condignitie for their good workes euerlasting life First let vs suppose it be likely in our corrupt iudgment yet may we not gratifie God with a lye nor doe euill that good may come of it And why should not we follow the practise of the Apostles whose course is in all their Epistles still to vrge grace in iustification and good workes for thankfulnesse not for merit yet we deny not but it is both warranted by the Scriptures and most conuenient to adde an edge to the workes of sanctification by threatning condemnation to sinners and promising reward to the
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
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
part of the question that it may gaine-say the former Example If the Protestants haue any faith the world was without faith Art 1. par 1. 1500. yeares But the world was not without faith 1500. yeares Therefore the Protestants haue no faith This Papist affirmes that the Protestants haue no faith to proue it he brings this argument that the world was not without faith 1500. yeares The Syllogisme is of the later kind because the latter part of the proposition is gainesaid in the assumption and the former in the conclusion A Disiunctiue Syllogisme is when the Proposition is Disiunctiue whereof also there are two kinds The former gainsayes one and concludes the rest Example All Protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition Art 2. par 1. of the scripture or vpon the Churches exposition But they build not vpon the Churches exposition Therefore they build vpon their owne priuate exposition The point is that the Protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of scripture the proofe is that they build it not vpon the Churches exposition The Syllogisme is of the former kinde because in the proposition the one part is seuered from the other the one whereof is gainesaid in the assumption and the other affirmed in the conclusion The Latter when all parts of the Proposition being affirmatiue one is assumed and the rest gainesaid It is hard to finde examples of this latter kinde but I will frame one thus Example The Pope builds his faith either vpon his owne singular exposition or vpon the Churches But he doth build vpon his owne exposition Therefore not vpon the Churches To proue that the Pope builds not his faith vpon the Churches exposition I alledge this argument he builds vpon his owne My Syllogisme is of the second kinde because the proposition being wholy affirmatiue assumes the one and gainesayes the other It was very necessary that I should deliuer the Rules of a Syllogisme because without them my course of answering cannot be throughly vnderstood If they seeme hard to any man a little paines and vse will make them easye and pleasant His request of breuity I haue satisfied as neere as I could It is easier to tye a knot then to vntye it and one man hath greater dexterity in vttering shortly that which he hath conceiued then another For my part I had rather any man had answered that can do it with shortnesse then my selfe rather my selfe then no body but I hope this Papist will stand to his owne ground in his Preface and since he holds it hard or impossible to reply without prolixitie where there is no truth nor verity he will acknowledge truth where he cannot but acknowledge shortnesse His threatnings and reproches I doe willingly and wittingly passe ouer as the heate of an angry disputer and withall I protest to him and all men that I haue answered according to my small skill briefly orderly and seriously not least I should seeme ignorant by silence in saying nothing as he presumes in the end of his letter but as I thinke and beleeue in my conscience For what am I the meanest of many and most vnknowne not to the Papists only but to our owne Church also that I should feare the suspition of ignorance by silence when so many famous diuines sit still and say nothing If he that hath answered the first part had thought it worth his paines and found leasure to refute the second I cannot say I should haue wholie saued my labour for it is not vnknowne to some that I had finished all the 12. before his answere to the fiue first came forth but sure I should haue beene eased of some paines which I haue taken since especially in writing the abridgement and auoyded all danger of further trouble But the Lord who hath giuen me strength and will to dispatch this will I doubt not assist me in the defence of his trueth for euer To whose gracious blessing I commend the successe of this and all other my indeuours in Iesus Christ our Lord and onely Sauiour Amen THE FIRST ARTICLE concerning Knowledge and Faith THe Protestants haue no faith nor religion Answere For the better vnderstanding of this Article we are to know that the question is not Whether the Protestants haue any faith or Religion in their hearts but whether they make profession of any by their doctrine Papist The Protestants haue no faith no hope no charitie no A. Conclusion repentance no iustification no Church no Altar no Sacrifice no Priest no religion no Christ The reason is for if they haue then the world was without B. Proposition them for 1000. yeares as they themselues must needes confesse videl All that time their Church was eclipsed or for 1500. as we will proue by the testimony of all records of antiquity as Histories Councels monuments of ancient fathers Whereby it plainly appeareth that the Synagogue of C. Proofe of the Assumption Propositiō the Iewes was more constant in continuance and more ample for place then the Church of Christ for they haue had their synagogue visible in diuers countries euer since Christs death and passion euen vntill this day Which is the very path to lead men into Athiesme as D. Proofe of the Assumption a Isai 60. 11. b Mat. 16. 18. c Mat. 28. 20. though Christ were as yet not come into the world whose admirable promises are not accomplished whose assistance hath failed in preseruing his Church vnto the worldes end whose presence was absent many hundred yeares before the consummation and consequently they open the gap to all Machiuillians who say that our Sauiour was one of the deceiuers of the world promising so much concerning his Church and performing so little Protestant How can it be truely said that the Protestants haue no A. faith no hope no charitie no repentance no iustification no church no altar no sacrifice no Priest no religion no Christ when as they acknowledge Iesus Christ the naturall sonne of God and of the blessed Virgin Mary to be the Redeemer of mankind their Altar Sacrifice and Priest when as they beleeue in him for saluation both of soule and body If he meane we beleeue not these points truely and so haue them not in trueth true charitie should haue perswaded him to speake plainely and not to make no difference betweene Protestants Mahometans and Infidels It is at the best rather hyperbolicall Rhetorick then Logicall diuinitie whereof there is promise and shew made in this treatise To this figure belongs the heaping vp of all those particulars no faith no hope c. whereas the two points set downe in the title being proued all the rest must needs follow yet this shift is not the worst For besides this he mingles trueth and falshood together Altar Sacrifice propitiatorie and Priest except Christ himselfe we professe we haue none but what doth Chaffe with Wheate saue onely that
euery point that some of the Fathers endeuour to prooue by Scripture Neither will any Papist that knowes the writings of the Fathers giue them such allowance Nay it is ordinary with them in their controuersies to acknowledge that diuers texts brought by the Fathers in maine points of religioÌ„ are not rightly alleaged Looke what they proue by scriptures that we gladly receiue not because they say it but because the truth of God approueth it But then we make our selues iudges of the Fathers writings If we doe there is more reason that euery man should be made a iudge of a mans writing then any man of Gods But we do not for we desire not to haue any interpretation of Scripture allowed of contrary to the exposition of the Fathers but as I said before where euident reason taken from the Scriptures themselues doth necessarily require it As for our priuate exposition it is nothing else but a perswasion that euery man must haue of the interpretation deliuered according to the course of Scriptures generally and particularly to the context of the place expounded Which to deny Christians is to bring them into slauerie not obedience to depriue them of the spirit of God yea more to spoile them of all vse of reason by which enlightened by the holy Ghost the truth of God may be and is to be discerned Art 3. All Protestants who are ignorant of the Greeke and Latine tongues are Infidels Here is Latine put for Hebrew either by the Printers fault or the Authors craft who perhaps by this sleight would bring their vulgar Latine translation into credit and thereby iustle out the originall Hebrew but we will lay the blame vpon the Printer and so let it passe Papist Whosoeuer relyeth his faith vpon the Ministers credit and A. B. fidelitie hath no faith at all But all those in England who are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues relye their faith vpon the Ministers credit Ergo All those in England who are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues haue no faith at all The Maior is manifest because they themselues confesse C. Calu. lib. 4. instit cap. 9. § 3. Luther lib. de concil pag. 54. lib de concil par 1. q. D. b Wherein he desireth the lords of the Councill to procure speedily a new translatioÌ„ because that which now is in vse in England is full of errors E c â—n the conference at Hampâ—oÌ„ Court. that euery man may erre and doth erre neither haue they any warrant why the Ministers do not erre since they constantly doe defend that whole generall Councills yea and the vniuersall Catholick church may erre and hath erred The Minor I proue for all such Protestants ground their faith vpon the Bible translated into English the which translation they know not whether it be true or false whether the Minister Tindall for example erred or no either vpon ignorance as b Broughton one of the greatest Linguists among the Precisions affirmeth in an Epistle dedicated to the Lords of the Councel or vpon malice to induce the people to Protestancy and to cause them to leaue the Catholick religion as Gregorie Martin in his discouery most pregnantly proueth c And for that all the olde translations are false and the Geneuians the worst the Ministers are now in moulding a new one the which will haue as great immunitie from falsitie as the former were voide of veritie that is both be subiect to semblable vncertaintie These errors I say they know not and consequently cannot discerne a true translation from a false and therefore must needs relye their faith vpon the sillie Ministers faithlesse fidelitie which conuinceth that they haue no faith at all Protestants Iâ— there be any force in this reason it ouerthrowes Papists A. as well as Protestants because the very same thing may be concluded of them in this sort Whosoeuer builds his faith vpon a mans credit and fidelitie hath no faith at all But euery Papist builds his faith vpon a mans credit Therefore no Papist hath faith The difference betweene my Proposition and his stands onely in one word He disables the Minister in particular I euery man generally and perticularly but I keepe his sense whole and intire For the reason that he giueth in the proofe of his Maior doth shew that therefore ministers are not to be credited because being men they may erre And indeed whatsoeuer imperfection is in any Minister he hath it not as he is a minister but as he is a man and therefore if his proposition be true mine is The assumption needs no other proofe but that first Fathers Councils and Church are men without any speciall priuiledge of not erring 2. that at the least the particuler teachers which tell the Papists that such and such Councills haue allowed these bookes for scripture are men that may erre 3. And indeede what ground hath any learned Papist that there haue bene such Councils but the authority of men 4. Whereupon can any vnlearned Papist relie for the interpretation of the decrees of the Councils being written in Greeke or Latine as all are but the credit of men 5. Nay more then that who can tell what the signification of the Hebrew and Greeke words is euen in the Bible but by the report of men So that it may more truly be saide of the Papists then of the Protestants that they build their faith vpon the credit of men yea the Papists do properly and wholy rely vpon men viz. the Pope and his Priests because they beleeue not by their ministery as Christians but by their authority like Pythagoreans B. But shortely to make an answere to his reason if by relying vpon the ministers credit he meane that they haue no To the Assumption ground to build vpon but that I deny his Assumption For the vnlearned Protestant rests vpon the witnes of Gods spirit which perswadeth him of the generall truth contained in the translation and directeth him to and in the triall of particulars If to the credit of the minister he add the witnes To the PropositioÌ„ of the spirit I say the Proposition is false for he hath true faith that relies on the Credit of the minister being directed by the spirit of God so to do If this seeme strange to any papist let him remember that popish faith requires no lesse reuelation then the beleefe of Protestants for according to their doctrine no man is perswaded of the truth of the scripture either for the text or the interpretation but by the especiall grace of the spirit vsing as they say the argument of the Churches authority to beget faith in the heart only we say the spirit vseth not the authority but the ministry of the Church to perswade withall They affirme that men beleeue because of the Churches authority the spirit directing and inclining them to rest therevpon Our opinion is that the credit of the minister relies on his doctrine They
principally consist the satisfaction of Christ for the redemption of man from those eternall torments of hell And thinke you this is a trifle a rite or ceremonie This faith the Puritans professe this blasphemie the Protestants detest The descension of Christ to hell is no doubt but a trifle a ceremonie a matter of small importance It is but an article of our creed and yet this article the puritanes really deny the which al Protestants stedfastly beleeue That the second person in Trinitie receaued his diuinitie from his father is but a trifle a point not much materiall to our beleefe and yet if this bee denied the mysterie of the holy trinitie can not bee beleeued for it absolutely taketh away the nature of a sonne and consequently the admirable procession of the second person and so ouerthroweth all the mysterie of the Trinitie This principall part of Christianitie Protestants approue and Puritans improue I omit here many more petty differences in matters of faith the which were sufficient to make them condemne one another not onely in accidents and ceremonies but also in the substance and principall partes of religion As in that the Precisians denie that in Baptisme our sinnes bee remitted but onely take it for a seale of that grace God gaue them by his eternal election The Protestants confesse that in the sacrament we are washed by Gods spirite from originall sinne The Puritans condemne the Communion booke as irreligious and erroneous The Protestants commend it as orthodoxall and religious The Protestants vse the crosse in baptisme as a holy signe fitt for the profession of Christs faith and religion The Puritanes exclaime against it as a humane inuention and a point of superstition The Protestants defend that imposition of handes in confirmation is a signe of the fauour and goodnes of God towards them The Puritans auouch that this is a flat lie that they testifie therein that God doth that he neuer did The Protestants in fine will vse Vestments Musicke Organes surplisses and diuerse other ceremonies in diuine seruice and administration of sacraments all which the puritanes condemne as will worship and not being commaunded by God to bee superstitious All these I say I omitt and many more which are to bee seene in the Puritanes supplication to the Parliament where 32. differences are assigned and onely haue thought good to aduertise euery discreete Protestant to consider the 7. precedent differences For there is neuer a one of them which the Puritane defendeth not to bee a matter of faith and the Protestant is bound in conscience to condemne him for obstinatly maintayning the contrarie to bee an heretick and the reason is euident for the rule and square the Protestants and Puritanes both hould to know an heresie is this whatsoeuer is contrarie to Gods word is an heresie if it be obstinately defended but all the aforesaid 7. points in controuersie are by the one part proued contrary to Gods word and by the other auouched to bee grounded vpon the same Therefore we may well conclude that if one error in faith with obstinacy defended sufficeth to make an heretick what shall we iudge of the Puritan who so mainely defendeth so manie Surelie this I will auer that they differ in substance of religion and not only in accidents and ceremonies And finally they haue no argument to proue that they C. haue the true Church true religion true faith which al hereticks that euer were will not bring to condemne the Church of Christ as well as they For example they aledge scriptures so did the Arrians they contemne councills the Arrians did not regard them They challenge to themselues the true interpretation the same did all hereticks to this day And to conclude they call themselues the litle flock of Christ to whom God hath reuealed his truth and illuminated them from aboue all which the Donatists with as good reason and better arguments did arrogate vnto themselues The same I say of the Pelagians Nestorians Eutychians with all the rable of other damned hereticks And to conclude these articles of faith I say that if the D principles of the Protestants religion be true S. Paul himselfe exhorteth vs to infidelitie which I proue thus Whosoeuer exhorteth vs to doubt of that which we are bound to beleeue by faith exhorteth vs to infidelitie But S. Paule doth exhort vs to doubt of our saluation which we are bound to beleeue by faith according to the Protestants religion Ergo. S. Paule exhorteth vs to infidelitie The Maior is plaine for to doubt of matters in faith is manifest infidelitie because whosoeuer doubteth whether God hath reuealed that which indeed he hath reuealed being sufficiently proposed as reuealed virtuallie doubteth whether God saith trueth or lyeth The Minor is proued by the testimonie of S. Paule 1. Cor. 2. Cum timore tremore salutem vestram operamini With feare and trembling worke your saluation All feare whether it be filial feare or seruile feare includeth both the one of sinne the other of punishment Protestant A very good comparison whether it be of likenesse or A. equalitie for the one is euen as true as the other As we know not what to beleeue or why So we haue no meane in our Church to settle vs in vnitie of beleefe c. If we shall ioyne issue in this point vpon the former tryall the matter is already answered For all those accusations and euidences being false what truth can there be in this and yet the last clause makes me graunt him the conclusion We haue no such meanes as the Popish Church hath But what will he inferre herevpon That therefore wee haue none at all What because we will not acknowledge the Popes Soueraigne authoritie in making what he list an Article of faith Haue we no meanes to end controuessies As good neuer a whit as neuer the better Is it not more for the glory of God and good of the Church that there should be continuall disagreement about matters of Religion then that all should beleeue and maintaine false doctrine Were not Christ as good haue a troubled church as none at all Honourable warre is better then dishonourable peace in the iudgement of any wise States-man And can it be more glorious to God to haue quietnesse in the church with heresie yea with Antichristianisme then truth with contention So then this proposition that we haue no such meanes as the Papists haue to end controuersies neither disproues nor disgraces our church But it is worth the doing to take a view of this rhetoricall declamation rather then Logicall disputation which was promist by stripping it out of this braucry and setting it naked before the light of true reason Thus then he disputes They saith he that admit the sole Scripture as Vmpere and Principall propositiō Iudge in matters of controuersie allowing no infallible interpreter thereof haue no meanes to end controuersies and abolish heresies Controuersies may be
vnto vs. That is your Popish Heresie Nay we acknowledge with thankes to God and their iust commendation that the ancient writers haue brought great light to the true vnderstanding of scriptures Yea that many Papists haue interpreted some texts of scripture soundly religiously Moreouer we confesse that all and euery one of our writers either hath or may haue failed in his expositions I speake the last doubtfully because some haue written but little and my selfe haue not examined all If any Heretikes avow the truth of al their owne interpretations what should this preiudice our cause Who submitt whatsoeuer our expositions to be compared with the scriptures to be receaued or refused as they shal be found to agree or disagree with or from the word of God I would add hereunto the generall consent of the ancient writers but that it is a longer and more vncertaine course to try whether they be sutable vnto their owne writings then whether they be framed according to the holy Ghosts meaning For the maine doubt must needs accompany that tryall viz. who shal be Iudge whether we or the Papists rightly vnderstand and expounde the fathers wrytings If any man shall say their Bookes and Commentaries are plaine and easie I dare boldly say of him that either he neuer read what they write or cares not what himselfe sayes It wil not serue the turne to bring some plaine interpretations out of them for so can we alleage very many texts out of the Scripture But he that is desirous to iudge truly of the meaning of any writer must not snatch vp a sentence here and there but aduisedly consider both his manner of writing in other places and the signification of diuers phrases and custome of speech in those times wherin he writ the occasion of those particular words he would vnderstand and diuers other such points Which will proue as ere while I said more troublesome and lesse certaine then to search euery corner of the text for the true meaning of the scripture And here let vs remember that we are sure the scripture agrees with it selfe in euery place and point that any other writers do so who can be assured So that many times we shall beat our braines to reconcile those speeches which indeed are very certaine contrarieties Since that this difficultie remaines in vnderstanding the fathers writings which is the onely doubt in the scripture what madnesse were it to leaue beating of the text wherein we know the certaine truth is to be found and to run ryot in the wilde-feilds of mens inuentions where perhaps there is nothing to be had but errour Let vs vse the helpe of Ancient writers to finde the meaning of the holy Ghost but not rest vpon their authority therein If they proue their interpretations by reason let it be waighed that it may perswade vs to think as they do If there be none let vs labour to find some for their interpretation If that will be not let vs see what other reason we can haue of any other exposition If it please God to shew vs any Let vs craue pardon of the Fathers to dissent from them if none Let vs rather trust them then our selues where there is nothing but coniecture without difference of likelyhood We are far from bragging of any such speciall illumination as the Donatists challenged to themselues For we say not that the Church of God is only in our assemblies or the spirit tyed to vs. Who knowes not that this is a stale popish deuise to shutt vp the holy Ghost in the Popes brest so that neither all Councills without him can be any thing worth and hee of himselfe without any of them is alsufficient A litle flocke wee are in deed if wee bee compared with the huge swarmes of Infidells Papistes and other hâ—retickes Yea as many of vs as belong to the election of God are of that small flocke to which Luke 12. 32. it is Godâ— good pleasure to giue A kingdome To bee of any other Litle flocke wee accompt it no commendation Nay rather wee desire and pray that it would please God to enlarge the boundes of his Church and to increase the number of true professors But we are not ashamed of our small nomber though the Papists twight vs with all in comparison of their huge multitudes Therefore whereas this Papist likens vs to the Donatists Pelagians Nestorians Eutychians with all the rable of other damned heretickes we acknowledge it is our portion to be rayled on with our Master Christ and so shake of this froth of a malicious stomacke with that speech of the Archangell The Lord rebuke thee Now for a Conclusion that the end might be sutable to the beginning he laboures to disgrace the principles of our Religion by affirming as truely as he hath done all the rest that if our principles bee true then Saint Paule exhorts men to infidelity How many of our principles thinke you hee ouerthrowes by this reason But poore one if it were neuer so true and being false as it is not that neither Whosoeuer exhorts vs to doubt of that which we are bound to beleeue by faith exhorts vs to infidelitie The proofe of this might well haue bin spared and the strength you wastâ—nâ—â— reserued for the assumption which hath more need oâ— your help then it seemes your are aware of But Saint Paul doth exhort vs to doubt of our saluation which wee are bound to beleeue by faith according to the Protestants doctrine Because it makes for the better vnderstanding of this Reason I will in few wordes set downe what we teach concerning this point Namely that it behooues euery Christian to laboure for the perfection as of other graces so of the assurance that comes by faith also Which standes in a full perswasion of the loue of God in Iesus Christ and the continuance thereof to his euerlasting saluation In deed this is not the proper nature of faith which rather is that grace whereby we cast our selues vpon Christ to be saued by him But it is an effect of faith which euery Christian must striue to haue grounded in him selfe so that if he haue it not he failes in one duty to God But we may not imagine that whosoeuer hath not this feeling assurance of Gods loue to him either is without faith or shal be damned for the want of this perswasion Nay we make no question but that both faith it selfe this effect of it is in al or the most part very far from perfection euery one hauing his measure alotted vnto him according to the good pleasure of God who sees how much is necessary for euery one in regard of the inward and outward trialls which hee shall haue in this life This must wee indeuour by all good meanes to establish and augment herevnto belongs that exhortation of the Apostles With feare and trembling worke your saluation There are two kinds of men whom it doth concerne
First those that vainely deceaue themselues with an opinion of of faith wheras they haue none Let him that thinks he stands take heed least he fall Then they that in deed do truely beleeue who because their faith is vnperfect must labour dayly for the perfecting thereof which they shall neuer attaine to if they bee careles and do not continually stand in feare of falling by reason of their owne infirmity So that this exhortation doth not forbid striâ—ing to perfection but inioyne the meanes of attaining thereto which is dayly to stand in feare of our corruption because we are not perfect in faith Blessed is the man that feareth alway feare to Pro. 28. 14 sinne is no way against faith because faith hath receaued no promise of full freedome from sinne Feare of punishment Rom. 6. 23. is necessarily annexed to the former because the wages of sinne is death Whereof we may taste in our owne feeling by reason of our weake faith if we doe not worke our saluation with feare and trembling What his meaning should be in his last sentence I cannot gesse For I thinke he will not say that this filiall feare comprehends in it seruile feare also because then the distinction will scarce be currant vnlesse he expound himselfe as I sayd before that the feare of punishment followes vpon the feare of sinne in which respect we neede not doubt to graunt that the Apostle exhorts vs to both kinds of feare and yet so as that he no way perswades to infidelitie though the Protestants principle be that we are bound to beleeue by faith that we shal be saued Papist Articles concerning good life and pietie Protestant I may not forget to put the Reader in minde that diuers of these Articles as the 1. 2. 4. 5. are not points held by the Protestants but matters charged vpon their doctrine by the Papists and that quite contrary to their direct protestation So that if any such thing fall out vpon our opinions we may professe with a good conscience that we are deceaued by the error of our iudgement not carryed away by any desire to erre For proofe hereof we offer our selues to be iudged by all men of any indifferencie according to our answeres and reasons which we haue made and now doe make in our iust and necessary defence Article 1. Papist The Protestants are bound in Conscience neuer to aske God forgiuenesse of their sinnes Protestant The Protestants will rather abiure any point of doctrine vpon which this may follow then to maintaine their doctrine for beare the pâ—rformance of this duty but neither of both these need as our answer will shew The principall syllogisme for the proofe of this article omitted I know not vpon what reason by this Author is thus to be concluded Whosoeuer sinnes grieuously in asking God forgiuenesse of his sinnes is bound in conscience neuer to aske it But the Protestants sinne grieuously in asking God forgiuenes of their sinnes Therefore the Protestants are bound in conscience neuer to aske God forgiuenes of their sinnes Instead of this syllogisme we haue the proofe of the assumption Papist Whosoeuer is assured by faith that his sinnes are forgiuen A. B. Bucer in lib. de con art de â—ustifi Calum in aâ—â—d coÌ„cil â—es 6. lib. 3. iustit c. 2 â— 16. 17. 18 Kemâ—â— in exam con Truâ— â—est 6 him sinneth most grieuously in asking God pardon for them But all true Protestants are assured by faith that their sinnes are forgiuen them Ergo. All true Protestants sinne greiuously in asking pardon of God for them The Maior is euident for who but an Infidell or a mad man would demaund of God the creation of the world which he is assured by faith that God hath already created or Christs incarnation which already is performed or the institution of sacraments which alreadie is effected In like maner who but an Infidell or mad man will demaund pardon of his sinnes which he beleeueth already by faith that God hath forgeuen For it is a signe that he doubteth of that which hee is bound by faith to beleeue which doubting faith is flat infidelitie D. Moreouer whatsoeuer we demaund that we hope to obtaine Nam quod videt quis quid â—peratâ—d Rom. 6. but no man hopeth to obtaine that he alreadie possesseth as no man will demaund of God his owne soule or body because already he posâ—esseth them The Minor is vndoubted because this is that liuely faith whereby the Protestants are iustified by this they apprehend Christ by this they applie his merits and Passion vnto them and without this no man can attaine vnto Saluation Hereupon I will inferre that no Protestant can with a safe conscience say the Lords prayer Because he cannot pray as hee ought without true faith and call God his father and if he haue true faith he cannot without note of infidelitie vtter this petition forgiue vs our sinnes for that most assuredly he beleeueth and protesteth in the first ingresse of that praier that he is the sonne of God and consequently beleueth by faith that his sinnes are forgiuen him Protestant The best is we are not charged with denying that a man is bound to aske God forgiuenes of sinnes but only that we do it against that duty to which in coÌ„science we are bound Therefore if this cauil were a true challenge we might happily be thought absurd in holding opinions that cannot agree togeather but we could not be counted impious since we vrge and practize continually and daily praier for the obtayning of forgiuenes but this conceit is fancied by Papists not so much as fauored by our doctrine Witnes this poore reason of theirs and our plaine and true answere thereunto Whosoeuer is assured by faith that his sinnes are forgiuen sinneth Proposition most greuously in asking God pardon for them Perhaps some man will maruell that this Papist as it may A. seeme vnnecessarily makes so often mention of beleeuing by faith and being assured by faith because there can be no assurance or beleefe but only by faith But he doth it agreeably to their Popish doctrine which acknowledgeth a kinde of assurance but that not of faith but of hope There is say they concerning euery mans owne saluation Certitudo spei Assurance of hope but not Certitudo fidei Assurance of faith The reason of this distinction is that hope may be deceaued but faith cannot Which they would neuer say if they considered that all true Christian hope ariseth from some promise made vnto vs by God in the Scriptures whervnto we haue interest by nothing but faith What a vaine thing is it for a man to hope for ought at Gods hands as the world commonly doth without any likelyhood of obteining it and what likelyhood can there be where there is a flat protestation to the contrary namely that nothing is to be looked for at the hands of God either by faith or hope but in and for
some libertie which he imagines it may afford let him call to minde what consequences Rom. 6. 1. 2. 1â— flesh and bloud gather vpon the doctrine of free iustification and what answere the Apostle makes to such obiections and then he wil be ashamed to aske why a man may not wallow in all licencious pleasures in this life and neuer doubt of glory in the other if he be certaine that he haue true faith For first hee will vnderstand that hee is bound to the obedience of the lawe though hee bee freed from the damnation of it Secondly he shall feele that hauing true faith it is not possible for him to liue in sinne because Rom. 6. 2. 3. he is dead and buried thereto If he will say then I am sure I haue true faith and that can neuer be lost therefore I may sinne as I lift without danger of damnation He must be answered I am sure thou hast no true faith For that makes no such reasons Whosoeuer is iustified is also sanctified Thou wantest the lateâ— therefore thou hast not the former Neither Whâ—remâ—ngers nor Idolaters nor Adulterers nor Wantons nor Buggerers nor Theeues nor Couetous 1. Cor. 6. 9. 10. nor Drunkards nor Raylers nor Extortioners shall inherit the kingdome of God But thou art such a one therefore there is no place for thee in heauen What inconuenience followes now vpon this doctrine Thou wilt say I am sure if I haue faith I cannot be damned I answere I am sure if thou let sinne raigne in thee thou caâ—st not be saued As it is not possible that he that beleeues truly should be dammned so is it also vnpossible that hee Which liues with delight in presumptuous sinne should beleeue truly But our seruile and proud Papists cannot be brought to performe any obedience or refraine any sinne except they see Hell gaping to swallow them below and heauenly glory set as deserued wages aboue For the loue and honour of God they will do nothing but with especial respect to themselues They say saith he that a man cannot keepe all the commaundements E. No not perfectly as he ought to doe For then many men might stand though God should streightly Psa 143. 2. examine what is done amisse Then we need not Christs bloud whereof before to dippe our workes in But you demaund for what cause wee say so because God hath taught vs so not as you would haue the world imagine thereby To make men negligent in keeping them Nay rather for the quite contrary that knowing how farre they shal be from performing their duty when they haue done all they can they may neuer cease to be doing neither can they be discouraged as long as they know that God of his gracious mercy in Iesus Christ accepts of his childrens indeauours in their imperfections for Christs sake and will rewaâ—â— them aboundantly in the kingdome of heauen In the â—â—ane while this knowledge of continuall sinning must stir vs vp to contynuall carefulnesse and preâ—isenesse must humble vs vnder the hand of God must enforce vs to be earnest with God for the pardon of our transgressions both in committing euill and omitting good must make vs feele the infinite mercy and loue of God towardes vs in accepting so graciously of our poore weake good will and lastly must driue vs to cleaue fast to Iesus Christ and his obedience because we haue no other righteousnesse to present God withall so far are we in this matter from teaching men to pretend an excuse of impossibilitie whensoeuer they transgresse the commaundements Yea indeed wee plainely affirme that there is no man but failes very much of that paynes and care I will not say that hee ought but that he might bestow in fitting himselfe to true obedience Why denâ— they saith he the sacrament of penance F. Because it is a patch of Antichrists sowing to the faire broad cloth of Gods holy word because it brings a slauery and snare vpon mens consciences because it makes men leaue trusting to Iesus Christs satisfaction and rest vpon their owne because it breeds security in theÌ„ that receaue popish absolutioÌ„ because it was a deuise or at least is a practise of the popish clergie to get intelligence of al state matters in christendoÌ„e for their own aduantage These many other such reasons of our denyal this Papist wil not see but faines to himselfe an absurd impossible conceat That we would haue men careles how they liue neuer regard the auoyding of sinnes as though they were neuer to render an account of them wheras we constaÌ„tly auouch 1 that he that is careles to bring forth the fruits of sanctification hath not the roote of faith to iustification wheras we teach that euery veniall sinne of the Papists is by desert euen in the regenerate punishable with euerlasting damnation That God lookes for repentance at his childrens hands is fayne many times to draw theÌ„ to it by the misery of all miseries in this life the afflictioÌ„ of conscience which is of more force with a true christian then al the blushing shame of this world put togeather As for restitution and satisfaction to men we do not only vrge it vpon all occasions but hold it so necessary as that without it where there are meanes to performe it there can bee no assurance of pardon to him that knowes hee hath done wronge either in this life or in your purgatory And here we say no shame of what estate soeuer a man be may keepe him from making satisfaction Whereas with you Papists if a man performe some penance enioyned him by his ghostly father though quite of an other nature from satisfaction to his offended brother and namely if he fill your Corban he shall haue absolution a culpa et pâ—na by your deuised sacrament of penance Now he that by dayly confession of sinnes vnto God of whom he receaues not by and by absolution as of your priest but is faine to beg the assurance oft tymes againe and againe with many teares deep sighs horror of conscience and such like will neuer be brought to any true repentance by telling a Priest of his finnes past since he shall finde it so easie a matter to buy out any penance at the Popes price as it is set downe in his bocke of Rates for indulgences Our end therefore in denying your forged Sacrament of penance is to enforce men to a true and hearty sorrow for their sinne That God may haue the glory of their humiliation and the whole thankes for their pardon You meane why do they deny that Christ is bodily present in G. the sacrament because there is neither scripture nor reason to prove it Because to hould he is there in that sort it is vntrue vnreasonable and vnpossible to be true because it destroies the nature of Christs humanity because it makes his manhood God because it is an occasioÌ„ of the most senseles Idolatry
aske be graunted it helpes you nothing for what if euerlasting life be giuen for workes how often must you be told that working and deseruing are not all one We deny not that God will reward euery least good worke of any of his children but we cannot graunt that eyther the reward he will giue is euerlasting life or that any workes of his children deserue that reward which he will giue I doubt not which is the second thing I note in his similitude but you Papists your selues would thinke it extreame presumption for any subiect to claime as of merit that 1000. pound a yeare which was promised by the Prince for good seruice in Ireland especially if it may be truely obiected against such claime that though some fewe actions haue bene valiantly performed in part yet both in the best there hath beene defect and for one thing well done twentie haue beene left vndone How then shall any man proudly vaunt of merit that knowes what Gods law requires and what his owne deserts are It is the infinite goodnesse of God our father in Iesus Christ that he doth accept of our vnperfect obedience crowne it with glory for all the imperfections thereof But euerlasting life saith he is called wages and giuen as wages As if we denied that good workes shall receaue reward and need euery foote put you in minde of the difference of workes and merites But indeed euerlasting life or the kingdome of heauen is neuer I thinke called wages in Scripture There is a reward promised by God viz. an increase of glory which shal be imparted to the faithfull proportionably to the measure of grace and vse thereof in this life according to workes But the kingdome of heauen is an inheritance belonging to all the faithfull as members of Iesus Christ their head whose first and properly it is This I proued a little before and therefore will now onely set it out more plainely by a similitude or likenesse The sonne and heire of a King hath interest in the kingdome by right of inheritance the Kings moâ—eables may eyther in his life time by guift or by legacie after his decease be disposed of to whom he please The King to incite his sonne to valure and loue of vertue promiseth him that he will giue him some speciall reward for euery valiant exploit or attempt with true martiall discretion and resolution This reward is to be raised out of his moueables giuen indeed for workes but not to be claimed vpon desert in regard of some iust exception which the King his father may take against all such his enterprises and atchiuements Such is our estate in matters of euerlasting life by resting vpon Iesus Christ to be saued by him we become members of his mysticall body sonnes of God his father and ours by him heires of euerlasting life which is his inheritance and ours as members of him God our Father hath made promise to vs being now sonnes and heires and hauing thereby interest in his kingdome of reward of all things that we shall valourously atchieue or resolutely vndertake for the glorifying of his name according to his will This promise conueyes not to vs any title to the kingdome for that is ours already euen in possession by Christ but incourageth 1. Cor. 15. 58. vs to Christian obedience to be stedfast vnmoueable aboundant alwayes in the worke of the Lord for as much as we know that our labour is not in vaine in the Lord. And yet this is not our onely or greatest motiue to good workes For that ariseth from our Child-like affection to so kind and bountifull a father Which if the Papists haue not let them not therfore deny that there is any such thing like the mole that will not beleeue that any beast can see because she her selfe is blind What if they like hirelings will doe nothing but for wages The sonnes of God in this life take as great pleasure in their present obedience as in their future reward which notwithstanding they most assuredly looke for according to his promise that can not faile euer God our Father To whome with the sonne and Holy Ghost bee all obedience thanks and glory from this time for euer and euer Amen A Conclusion vnto his most speciall friend Maister F. T. THus my deare friend I haue sett downe those reasons which induced me to receaue the Catholick faith and for which I continue therein Consider I pray you whether they be not so substantiall and waightie as any wise man might accept and allow of or at least might cause a reasonable doubt of religion arise in his minde concerning the Protestants faith for if these bee true as questionlesse they are most true what man of iudgment will hazard his soule vpon a religion pestered with so many notorious absurdities and palpable errors Eternall damnation is a matter of no small moment when the soule is once plunged into those flames it is past recouery farre he â—eapes and ill he lights that iumpeth into hell and questionles without true faith you shall neuer come to Heauen Vrge your Ministers therefore to satisfie your conscience in answering these articles Will them to reply with maturitie and cause them answere distinctly and as they thinke in their consciences For I feare they will rather do it for a forme to seeme to say some thing then they wil be iudged ignorant by silence in saying nothing And with this I rest at your deuotion expecting what your newe Euangelists can answere to these iust accusations of their erroneous religion From my chamber in Antwerpe this first of March your louing freind H. T. FINIS As much of this post-script as hath any need of answere is touched in my Preface I will therefore loose no more time in examining such discourses The abridgement of the former answer ART 1. Papist THe Protestants haue no faith nor Religion Protestant The question is whether the Protestants by their doctrine professe any faith or religion Papist If the Protestants haue any faith charity repentance Iustification church altar sacrifice priest religion Christ then the world was without them for fifteene hundred yeeres But the world was not without them for 1500. yeares Therefore the protestants haue no faith no hope no charity no repentance no iustification no church no altar no sacrifice no priest no religion no Christ. Protestant I deny the consequence of your proposition neither doe we confesse any such eclipse of our Church for a thousand yeares yet the same being eclipsed ceases not thereby to be in the world but rather is proued to be neither can you proue any such thing as you brag of Trie when you will ART 2. Papist The learned Protestants are Infidels Whosoeuer buildeth his faith vpon his owne priuate singular exposition of Scripture is an Infidell But all Protestants in England do build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of Scripture Ergo all the Protestants of England are
owne credit how he hath acquitted himselfe herein let all that will first read and then iudge The Protestants allow no Gospell but one only which is no newer then the promise of God in the old Testament Gen. 3. 15. 12. 3. Gal. 3. 8. Act. 11. 26. Neither do they challenge to themselues the name of Protestants but of Christians The fittest title for Heretiks is Antichristians which notwithstanding they forbeare on the Papists behalfe because they would not offend those that are weake amongst them Papists indeed they call them because of their dependance on the Pope The name of Catholickes being vniustly challenged they iustly deny both because in the Creed the church of Christ hath that title of which the popish church is not so much as a â—ound member And also because the Donatists heresie restraining the church to their congregation in Affrica gaue occasion to the church of Christ to tearme themselues by the name of Catholike or vniuersall in opposition to the Heretikes conceite As for the name of Protestants it was giuen vpon occasion Sleydan lib. 6. of Protestation made by the Duke of Saxony and other Princes and Cities of Germany against a certaine decree at Spires published by the Emperour Charles the 5. and is not a title affected by them or any way arising from their doctrine yet do they not disclaime it as Antichristian or vnlawfull because it is not so in it selfe nor likely to breede any errour or offence in the church of God The maner of his penning is vnaccustomed but yet such as that reuerend and learned Diuine Doctor Fulke a good while since required of all Papists and such in deed as is most fitt for handling all controuersies But it should seeme this writer is not much acquainted with this course his Syllogismes are so loosely tyed and his conclusions so farre from the question but for the better vnderstanding of this course giue me leaue as briefely as I can to teach the reader the vse and nature of a Syllogisme All axiomes or sentences deliuered for true are either acknowledged to bee so denied or else doubted of If there be doubt made of the trueth it is called a question therefore some reason must be brought for the cleering and proning of it wherevpon triall is to be made whether this proofe be sufficient or no which is by a syllogisme Now a syllogisme is a ioyning together of diuers Axiomes wherein the question is so disposed with the Argument that it is necessarily concluded vpon the Antecedent so that if both the former Axiomes be true the conclusion is true also If either of them bâ— false the question resteth as yet vnproued The parts of a syllogisme are two the Antecedent and the Consequent the Antecedent is the former part that disposeth the question and the Argument together and it hath two parts the Proposition or Maior wherein the whole question or at least the latter part of it is disposed with the Argument the Assumption or Mâ—â—or which is assumed or taken out of the Proposition The consequent or conclusion is the latter part which comprehends the parts of the question and concludeth it A syllogisme is simple or compound Simple where the latter part of the question is disposed in the proposition the former part in the Assumption A simple syllogisme is either contract or explicate A contract syllogisme so called because it is seldome or neuer found with the parts distinctlie set downe is when the Argument by way of example is so ioyned to a particular question that it is the former part of the Antecedent the Assumption being affirmatiue As some confidence is a vertue as Constancie some confidence is not a vertue as Audaciousnesse the question is whether some confidence be a vertue or no. First it is proued that some confidence is a vertue The whole syllogisme stands thus Constancie is a vertue Constancie is confidence therefore Some confidence is a vertue Secondly it is proued that some confidence is not a vertue Audaciousnesse is not a vertue Audaciousnesse is confidence therefore Some confidence is not a vertue In these syllogismes the questions are particular some confidence and the Argument by way of example in the former is Constancie in the latter Audaciousnesse Constancie in the one and Audaciousnes in the other are made the former parts of the Antecedent the Assumption in each is affirmatiue In an explicate syllogisme the proposition is generall or proper and the conclusion like the Assumption or weaker That part which is negatiue part There are two kinds of it the former where the argument is alwaies the latter part of each Axiome one of them being negatiue Example The doctrine of Iustification by workes doth not take away boasting But the true doctrine of Iustification doth take away boasting therefore The doctrine of iustification by workes is not the true doctrine Rom. 3. 27. 28. of iustification Here the matter to be proued is that the doctrine of Iustification by workes is not the true doctrine of Iustification The Argument to proue it is It takes not away boasting The Argument is in the latter part of the proposition and Assumption and the Proposition is negatiue Therefore the syllogisme is truely form'd according to this former kinde The Latter when the Argument is the former part of the Proposition and the latter part of the Assumption being affirmatiue Example Whosoeuer buildes his faith vpon his priuat and singular exposition Art 2. part 1. of scripture is an Infidell But all Protestants in England build their faith vpon their owne priuate and singular exposition of scripture Therfore all Protestants in England are Infidels The point is that all the Protestants in England are Infidels The argument to proue it They build their faith vpon their owne priuat and singular exposition of scripture The syllogisme is of the second kind because the Argument is set in the former part of the proposition and in the latter part of the assumption which is also affirmatiue A Compound Syllogisme is a Syllogisme wherein the whole question is one part of the Proposition being affirmatiue and compound and the argument the other part To gainesay in a compound Syllogisme is to make a speciall contradiction A compound Syllogisme is either Connexine or Disiunctiue A Connexiue Syllogisme is when the Proposition is Connexiue and it is of two kindes whereof the former assumes the former part of the question and denies the latter Example If Dauid lost his faith then faith once had may be lost Art 6. par 2. in my answere But Dauid lost his faith Therefore faith once had may be lost It is affirmed that faith once had may be lost the proofe is Dauid lost his faith the Syllogisme is of the former kinde because the proposition is Connexiue or Condicionall the former part thereof auouched in the asâ—umption and the latter concluded in the consequent or conclusion The latter gaine-sayes the latter
teach that the credit of the doctrine ariseth from the minister And yet they cannot but confesse that euery minister and all except the Pope may erre in matters of greatest substance We confesse in deede that men may erre both in possibility C. and euent But that the whole catholick Church may erre no Protestant euer taught or thought For we professe that the holy men departed are triumphant members of the catholick church who are exempted from all daunger of being deceaued That part of the catholick church which is militant may and doth erre but neuer wholy in matters of substance for then we know it might come to passe that at some time there should be no church at all vpon the earth whence a present dissolutioÌ„ of the world should follow since D. it is continued for the elect and churches sake The Protestants you say ground their faith vpon the Bible translated into English And the Papists say I build theirs vpon the bible translated into latine or simply vpon the word of him that preacheth vnto them They are bound vpon paine of damnation to beleeue that the Pope is Christs vicar and cannot erre But how shall I know that the Pope teacheth this doctrine vpon what ground is this beleefe built vpon the credit of him that tells them so But it is scripture how shall I know that He that tells me so may be deceiued But the Pope cannot First you begge the questioÌ„ for you haue not proued that the pope cannot erre TheÌ„ how shal I know that the Pope teacheth this doctrine Alas I am a poore ignorant man and vnderstand not either Latine or Italian in which the Popes iudgement is set downe But put case I did what proofe can I haue that the Pope deliuered this for his iudgement How can I be sâ—â—e he was rightly chosen I might adde a number of these doubts of none whereof you can resolue me but only by vrging me to rest vpon the authority of men Now then let any man weigh theâ—e things in the ballance of reason and trye whether is lighter Protestants cannot tell whether Maister Tindals translation of the Scripture bee true or no neither can they discerne a true translation from a faâ—se and therefore must needs relye their faith vpon the silly Ministers faithlesse fidelitie which conuinceth that they haue no faith at all Papist cannot tell whether the Latine translation of the scrâ—pture be true or no neyther can they discerne a true translation from a false and therfore they must need build their faith vpon a silly Priests or Fryers faithlesse fidelity which conâ—inceth that they haue no faith at all Hâ—therto are all things equall betwixt vs. Now consider some differences First we professe that Maister Tâ—â—dall might and did erre and therefore we labour euery day to amend our translations They acknowledge theirs to be faulty but they accurse them to the pit oâ— Hell that will not for all that rest vpon it Secondly we submit our translations to be examined by any learned Papists according to the Hebrew and Greeke They preferre theirs beâ—ore the Hebrewe and Greeke Thirdly we binde no mans conscience to agree to our translation vpon paine of damnation because it askes yet some better correction They tye all men to take euery title of theirs for the certaine word of God and yet dayly they alter it As it appears by the diuers editions of Sixtus 5. Clemens 8. two Popes neither of which could erre and yet either disagrees from the other But for the further avowing of our english translation I desire all men to obserue these fewe points First that these parts of scripture which are worst translated as the Psalmes are most agreeable to the popish Latine Secondly that our best translation comes a great deale neerer to the interpretation of the learned Papists a Vatablus Pagninus Isidorus Clarius Arias Montanâ—s then the popish Latin doth Thirdly that in all this variety of translations no one poynte of Doctrine is ouerthrowne by any newe exposition Fourthly that no papist is able to finde in any of our translations so many errors from the sense of the Holy Ghost as Isidorus Clarius a learned Papist hath amended All these 8000. faults remaine still in their vulgar translation in their popish Latine viz. to the number of 8000 places euery one of which as he professeth changeth the meaning of the text Lastly I offer our worst translation to be compared with the Rhemists affirme that in any reasonable mans iudgment it will appeare that we haue delt more faithfully and plainly then they who seeme to haue bin afraide of nothing more then that the text of Scripture should be easely vnderstood Maister Broughtons skill in the Tongues he that commends not either knowes not or enuies His mislâ—ke of Maister Tindalls translation I wil condemne when I see it disproued As for Gregorie Martine Doctor Fulke long since stopt vp the mouth of his slaunders that none of all you Papists hitherto could open it againe E. It passeth my small skill in Logick to see how this newe addicion is applied to proue the old Article For it agreeeth not either with the Maior or Minor of his Syllogisme For that all the old translations are false the Ministers are are now in moulding a new Therefore whosoeuer relyeth his faith on the silly Ministers faithlesse fidility is an Infidell Therfore all those in England who are ignorant of the Greek and Hebrew are Infidells That clause of the Geneua translation sauours of malice more then reason for though that translation were the best by many degrees as it may be for ought that was said at the conference where the notes not the text were condemned yet might the Ministers haue iust occasion to amend them all He that so peremptorily condemnes the labours of many graue and learned Diuines before he see them shewes more obstinate preiudice then either iudgement or conscience But who will helpe me to vnderstand this strange sentence The translation in hand will haue as great immunitie from falsitie as the former were voide of veritie that is If I shall make reason of it as much as the former were voide of veritie so great immunitie will this haue from falsitie This exposition will admit no conclusion but to the Authors great disgrace For if I assume thus But the former were wholy voide of veritie then must the conclusion be Therefore this translation will be altogether free from falsitie If otherwise But the former were not voide of veritie Then indeed I may conclude Therefore this will not be free from falsitie But here the Assumption makes as much against him as the conclusion doth for him The comparison of equalitie being so little to his purpose who can make the exposition of it serue his turne that both shal be subiect to like vncertainty Indeed who can make reason of the sentence Art 4. The Protestants know not what they beleeue Answere
comforts I spake of before vpheld him from all daunger of despayring and deliuered him from that perpetuity of torment in which otherwise hauing taken vpon him our Person hee should haue remained Now this so being we need not feare these thunder-bolts of horrible blasphemy although wee beleeue that Christ our sauiour did for a time indure in his soule the wrath of God which was due to our sinnes Neither doe we hereby make God the enemie of God nor of the humanitie of Iesus Christ which he euer most entirely loued but only auouch that God truly hated and punisht our sinnes in his owne sonne with such a kinde and measure of his wrath as being true and iust was euery way without sinne and finite in regard of the time so that I take the Doctrine to be voide of blasphemy howsoeuer the meaning of the Article bee conceiu'd Article 5. The Protestants haue no meane to determine Controuersies and abolish heresies Protestant No more then they haue a rule to know what is matter of Faith Papist As the Protestants neither know what they beleeue nor A. why they beleeue so haue they no meanes in their church to settle them in vnity of beleefe nor to determine controuersies nor to abolish heresies as hath the catholick church for our sauiour Christ by his diuine prouidence did foresee that heresies were to arise in his church as his Apostle S. Paule doth warne vs * 1. Cor 11 Profe that the church caÌ„not â—râ—e Mat. 18. 17 Eph. 4. 11. Ioh. 14. 17 Luk. 10. 16 § Profe of the principall proposition Act â—5 the which as plagues were to infect his flocke and therefore he not only forewarned vs of them but also gaue vs meanes how to preuent and extinguish them 1. â— He willed vs to heare his Church if we would not be accounted as Ethnicks and Publicans 2. He ordeined Pastors and Doctors least we should be carried away with euery blast of vaine doctrine 3. He promised vnto the church the assistance of the holy Ghost in such sort as they which would not heare her would not heare him The catholicks therefore beleeuing certainly that the Church cannot erre that the generall Councils cannot deliuer false doctrine that the Pastors and ancient fathers with ioynt consent cannot teach vntruths when heresies spring vp presently with thâ— voice of the Church pluck them vp by the rootes a In the first Nicene couÌ„cel was coÌ„demned Arrius in the couÌ„cell of ConstaÌ„tinople Macedonius In the couÌ„cel of Ephesus Nestorius In the couÌ„cel of Calcedon Eutiches vide Aug. lib. 2. retract ca. 50 and so euer hath practised and after this maner ouerthrowne all encounters false opinions and errours which the Diuill by his ministers euer planted or established in the world and so they haue bin freed from all braules and quarrels in matters of religion But the Protestants admitting the sole scripture as Vmpere Principall propositioÌ„ and Assumption and iudge in matters of Controuersie and allowing no infallible interpreter thereof but remitting all to euery mans priuate spirit and singular exposition cannot possiblie without errour wind themselues out of the Labyrinth of so many Controuersies wherewith they are now inueagled and intricated And the irreconciliable iarres betwixt them and the Puritans in essentiall points of faith geue sâ—fficient testimony that they will neuer haue an end holding those grounds of opinion which they obstinately defend B. And albeit they goe about to bleare the peoples braines I haue heard of blearing the peoples eyes but neuer till now of blearing their braines which I know not what vnity and conformity in matters of faith and in the substance of religion and that their disagreement only consisteth in points of Ceremonies and trifles of small importance yet in very deed they differ in many essentiall points of religion And although this shift will perhaps serue to cast a mist ouer the confused conceipts of simple soules silly foolesâ— yet no wiseman wil euer beleeue them I pray you tell me is not the Kings supremacie a matter of faith and a chiefe point of religion And do not all sound Puritans in the world denie it and defie it Aske Caluin 7. Amos. Caluin the puritanicall Patriarke what he thought of King Henry the eight for assuming of such a preheminence vnto him read the Annales of Scotland and you shall finde the presumptuous presbytery euery foot opposing themselues against our Kings authority as though he had nothing to doe with the Kirke Looke into the carriage of our precisians at home and you shall find them in shew to professe it but in deeds and effects really to deny it For if they approue his supremacie with what face can they resist his ordinances in matters of religion why weare they not vestments Surplisses the Cap and Tippet why refuse they to baptise with the signe of the Crosse why subscribe they not to the the booke of common praier why obey they not the ecclesiasticall Canons established by his Maiesties authoritie No other reason of this obstinate repugnancie can be yeelded then that in very truth they doe not in Conscience allow of his supremacy 2. Is not the authority of Bishops their power to create ministers their degree in dignity aboue ordinary Curats and Pastors a matter oâ— faith and so neerely toucheth the gouernment of the Church that if this hereticall order be abolished Perhaps he would haue said hierarchicall the whole forme of Christs Church is presently confounded 3. The obseruation of feasts and holy dayes infringed by Puritans maintayned by protestants is it but a Ceremony were not the obstinate impugning thereof a sufficient reason to censure them for Heretikes did not the Councill of Nice condemne the Quartodecimani for Heretickes who would only haue obserued their Easter day vpon the 14. day of the moneth of March What if they had called our Precisians to the barre who will haue it wholy abolished Questionâ—es they would haue branded them in a farre deeper degree of Heresie then the Quartodecimani 4 Is not the obseruation of Lent and other fasting days a matter of more moment then trifles or then things indifferent Did not S. Epiphanius ceÌ„sure Aërius of Heresie for denying these prescript times for fasting For albeit they be not precisely set downe in scriptures and therein commaunded to be obserued yet they being either ordeyned by the Apostles or instituted by the church which had authoritie to appoint fastes at least as well as the puritane presbytery wiâ—hout doubt he that calleth this holy institution either doctrine of Diuils or torture of consciences or restraint of Euangelical libertie ought by the iudgement of all true protestants to be condemned for a pagon and infidell who wil not submit his soule to the censure of the Church 5. The Puritans blasphemously pronounce and ignorantly defende that Christ suffred the paines of hell vpon the crosse and that in this passionful agony agonizing griefe did
it serues to fill vp the measure and make a shew not for disproofe but disgrace of our profession But let vs see his proofe If the Protestants saith he haue any faith hope charitie repentance Church Altar Sacrifice Priest religion Christ then the world was without them for 1000. yeares or rather 1500. But the world was not without them for 1000. or 1500. yeeres Therefore the Protestants haue no faith hope charitie c. B. I deny the consequence of your proposition First because To the propositiō the Protestants may haue some faith hope charitie c. Though they haue not the same that the world then had as the Greeke and Aethiopian Churches haue some faith at this day howsoeuer they differ both from the Protestants and the Papists in diuers points of Religion Secondly because the Protestants professe the same faith and Religion which the Church of Christ alwayes held till it was by little and little supprest and driuen out of sight by Antichrist as it appeares that I may name onely those bookes that are extant in English by Bishop Iewell Doctor Fulke Doctor Whitaker Doctor Bilson Doctor Reynolds the Lord Plessy Doctor Willet and diuers other Protestant diuines Our confession makes nothing for them because if the church were eclipsed for 1000. yeares it was in the world else how could it be eclipsed vnlesse the Sunne and the Moone cease to be in the world when they are in the eclipse The proofe they offer and yet they doe but offer it is insufficient for it followes not that if these few records we haue of the East and West churches make no mention of the Faith and Religion we professe then they were not at all in the world You will say shew vs where they were held nay proue you they were held no where for we now are answeres not replyers and what if it could not be shewed yet we know by the Articles of our Creed that there hath beene alwayes a true church in which say we this Religion that we now professe must of necessitie haue beene held and with vs it is no inconuenience to haue the true church hid this it stands you vpon to disproue which when you attempt to doe by any particular records you shall God willing haue particular answeres yet we are content for auowing the substance of our doctrine to stand to the records of Antiquitie in these parts of the world where we gladly and thankfully acknowledge that the truth of God was for the most part faithfully preserued at the least for the first 500. yeares But the world saith he was not without them for 1000. or 1500. yeares No nor for 1000. minutes nor for one minute Therfore To the Assumption your proofe in this point might haue bin spared especially being no better then it is If the world saith he was without faith for 1000 yeares then Proofe of the Assumption was the Iewes Synagogue more constant for continuance and more ample for largnesse then the Church of Christ But the Iewes Synagogue was not more constant or ample Therefore the world was not with out faith c. for 1000. yeares If your words expresse your meaning in good english then in your Proposition you compare the Church of the Iewes which was before Christ with the church of Christians since christ If your purpose be as it should seeme by your proofe it is to make a comparison betwixt the Iewes Synagogue and the Christian Churches as they haue beene since Christ you should haue saide in steede of was hath bene This consequence proues nothing because no man can To the propositiō be sure that there shal not be aboue 1500. years from hence to the end of the world in which this doctrine we now professe shall continue the Iewes also being conuerted to our Religion or barred of the exercise of their owne superstition and if that should come to passe the Iewish Synagogue could haue no cause of boasting But I will not striue about this consequence Let vs come to the assumption But the Iewes Synagogue saith he hath not bene namely since the comming of Christ more ample or constant We easily graunt you this assumption confessing a perpetuall To the Assumption continuance of Christs Church from the beginning of the world to the end thereof and beleeuing that the number of them which haue professed the truth of Christs Gospell hath bene greater then the multitude of the Iewes since our sauiours comming If the Iewes Synagogue saith he hath bene more constant Proofes of the Assumption and ample then Christi admirable promises are not accomplished I denie your consequence for neither the Prophets nor our sauiour Christ compare this bastard Synagogue of the Iewes with the church of christ but that which was indeed the church of God For this that now is hath neither promise nor allowance from God but that church in comparison whereof the Lord magnifies the church of christ after his comming had many and excellent promises vouchsaft it by God which yet are much inferiour to those that were promised and are performed to the christian church If the comparison must be with the Church of the Iewes before Christ the visible continuance of the Iewish Synagogue since Christ is alledged by you to no purpose Let vs take your proposition in the best sense and answere seuerally to the 3. parts of the consequence If the Iewes Synagogue say you hath bene more ample and constant then Christs admirable promises are not accomplished The promises of God made to the church of Christ in D the Prophets are either of the outward estate thereof as that To the proofe of the Assumption it should be vniuersall for all nations not the Iewes only that it should be maintayned by Kings Queenes c. Or of the inward to which we must referre the peace the glory and the continuance for euer As for the perpetuall visibility and famousnesse in the world there is neither mention nor signification of any such matter in the Prophets and namely not in this place vnlesse perhaps it may be from hence concluded that there shal be more years from the first comming of Christ to his second then there were in the continuance of the Iewish Synagogue vnder the law which I thinke no sober Diuine will affirme howsoeuer it shall fall out in the euent Then saith he Christs assistance hath fayled Our Sauiour Mat. 16. 18. makes no promise of the continuall visibilitie of his Church but onely promiseth that the Diuell shall not preuaile against any true member thereof to breake of his continuance in the state of saluation who hath once with Peter by a true faith confest the Lord Iesus Then Christs presence saith he was absent many hundred yeares before the finall consummation There is no more promised Mat. 28. 20. but that our Sauiour F. wil be with them that beleeue and namely with his ministers till the end
of the world whensoeuer and wheresoeuer they be But we easily grant a perpetuall continuance of the church though we denie a necessity of visiblenesse Therefore neither Atheists nor Machiauillians haue G. any aduantage against the church by our doctrine but by the Papists rather who teach them to vnderstand our sauiours promises carnally and falsly Article 2. The learned Protestants are infidels Answere The title is only of the learned of them al the proofe of the vnlearned also but of them only that are in England Whosoeuer buildeth his faith vpon his owne priuate and singular A. exposition of scripture is an infidell But all Protestants in England build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of scripture Ergo all the protestants of England are Infidels The Maior cannot be denied because faith must be B. C. infallible and impossible to be either erroneous or chaungeable But faith which is builded vpon priuate exposition of scripture is subiect to errour and chaunge and consequently vpon better aduise and consideration may be altered The Minor I proue for either they build their faith vpon D. their owne priuate opinion in expounding of scripture the exposition of the church the Fathers or councels but not vpon these three ergo vpon their owne priuate exposition Some Protestants allow the fathers their expositions so farre forth as they agree with Gods word and no further E. but this is nothing els but to delude the world for what meane they when they say they will allow them so far â—orth as they agree with the scriptures meane they perhaps that if the fathers bring scriptures to proue any point of religioÌ„ now in controuersie to allow that point as true if so why then reiect they a August lib. de cura agenda pro mortuis Saint Augustine and other fathers who bring scripture to proue praier for the dead yea and all coÌ„trouersies almost in religion the fathers proue by scriptures when they dispute vpon them Or perhaps they meane to admit the fathers when they alleage scripture but such as euery protestant shall allow of F. so it be conformable to their fancies and fit their new coined Gospell and in this sense who seeth not that euery paltry companion will make himselfe not only the true Expositor of christs word but also will preferre his exposition before all ancient fathers when they daunce not after his pipe and consent not with his heresies Protestant First vpon your proposition thus I conclude A. Whosoeuer builds his faith vpon his owne priuate and singular exposition of scripture is an Infidell But the Pope builds his faith vpon his owne priuate and singular exposition of scripture Therefore the Pope is an Infidell Secondly I answere to your Syllogisme The Maior you say cannot be denied And I say it cannot be proued vnlesse you can shew either that no priuate and singular exposition of scripture can be true or that a man is therefore an Infidell because hee buildeth his faith vpon a priuate and singular exposition though it bee true For I take it you will not wrangle with mee because I speake generally of a priuate and singular exposition The reason of your mislike being not that a man should take his owne exposition but that he should ground vpon any priuate and singular exposition Indeed no man is an Infidell that builds his faith vpon a true exposition of Scripture whether it be publick or priuate because the truth of beleefe depends not vpon the publicknes of an exposition but vpon the soundnesse thereof If faith saith he must be infallible and impossible to be eyther Proofe of the proposition erroneous or changeable and faith built vpon priuate exposition be subiect to error and change Then he that builds his faith vpon his owne priuate exposition is an Infidell But faith must be infallible and impossible to be erroneous or changeable And faith built vpon priuate exposition is subiect to error and change Therefore he that builds his faith vpon his owne priuate exposition is an Infidell His reason may be diuersly concluded but I haue taken C. the shortest course and yet I haue set downe the full force of it which indeed is in the later part of the Assumption viz. That faith built vpon priuate exposition is subiect to errour and change No faith built vpon a true exposition of Scripture though To the assumption neuer so priuate is subiect to error or change For truth is in its nature vnchangeable and voide of error and we dispute now not of the euent whereby it may and doth come to passe that true doctrine is changed but of the nature of that â—octrine which is true I am sure no Papist will deny but a true Catholique in profession may become an heretick yea an Apostata as Iulâ—â—n did and yet that faith of his which he forsooke was true and vnchangeable But all Protestants in England saith he build their faith Principall AssuÌ„ption vpon their owne priuate exposition of Scripture Then belike not vpon Luther Caluin Beza c. as sometime D. To the assumption you charge vs vpon whom indeed we build not but only vpoÌ„ the true exposition of the Scriptures being examined according to those places points which naturall reason enlightned by the spirit of God caÌ„not but acknowledge In which respect the Popish interpreters do ordinarily refuse former expositions and deliuer their owne opinions submitted to the iudgement of the Church which no Protestant euer misliked so they take not Antichrist for Christ. But what is it you call priuate exposition doe we leaue euery man to his owne fancie in expounding the scriptures How can that be when as we haue certaine rules according vnto which all expositions must be framed The Analogie of faith conference of like places examining the originals with diuers other and namely the consent of former diuines to which though we may not tie our selues because they might and haue erred yet we allow no man libertie to refuse their interpretations but onely where euident reason taken from the Scriptures themselues necessarily requires it Indeed we thinke it vnreasonable that a man should hand ouer head receiue whatsoeuer is deliuered vnto him vpon the credit of 1. Ioa. 4. 1. men especially since we haue a charge giuen vs to trie the spirits and meanes appointed vs for the tryall Not onely some but all learned Protestants for ought I E. know or I thinke he can prooue allow the Fathers and their expositions so farre forth as they agree with Gods word And do any Papists allow them further If they do they allow false expositions of Scripture For such are all that agree not with the word of God But how can we be sayd to delude the world when we professe that we allow them no farther then they agree with Gods word and meane as we professe yet it is not our meaning to allow