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
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
so without warrant from him in euery matter contrary to his reuealed commaundements Blasphemous therefore and not be thought on by any christian much lesse vttered are these consequents and especially the last of them which inferres that God is worse then the diuill Because neither doth God as I haue often said impell or induce any man to sinne and though he should for causes knowne onely to himselfe incline as Austin saith the hearts of men to euill things yet were it still blasphemous to denie the iustice of his iudgement whatsoeuer prophane flesh and bloud imagines O man Rom. 9. 19. 20. what art thou that disputest with God! shall the clay c. Article 6. Papist That faith once had may be lost Protestant This point it should seeme stickes in this mans stomack he is so much troubled with it Art 5 in the extrauagant syllogisme Art 4. the third point and here it makes a whole article The principall syllogisme is thus to be framed If Dauid lâ—st his faith then faith once had may be lost But Dauid lost his faith Therefore faith once had may be lost The assumption of this syllogisme he offers to proue in this maner Papist Whosoeuer leeseth his charitie leeseth his faith A. But Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his charitie Ergo Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his faith The Maior is a principle vndoubted of in the Schooles of Protestants For they peremptorily affirme that true faith such as was in Dauid one of Gods elected can no more be seuered from charitie then heate from fire or light from the Sunne and therefore if Dauid killing Vrias lost his charitie no doubt but therewithall he lost his faith The Minor I proue for whosoeuer remaineth in death B. is without charitie But Dauid when he killed Vrias remained in death Ergo Dauid when he killed Vrias was without charitie If he was without that which once he had no doubt but then he lost it for he was depriued thereof for his sinne The Maior Proposition of this last Syllogisme thus I prooue For charity is the life of the soule and it is as impossible for a man to haue charity and remaine in death as it is impossible for a man to be dead in body and yet indewed with a reasonable soule The Minor cannot be denied to wit that Dauid by killing Vrias remained in death For it is the expresse word of God Qui non diligit manet in morte He that loâ—eth not his neighbour remaineth in death but certaine it is that Dauid loued not Vrias when he killed him Ergo likewise certaine it is that Dauid remained in death The same position might easily be proued out of Ezekiel Ezech. c. 18. ver 24. Si autem aâ—erterit se iustus a iusticia sua c. Protestant Whosoeuer looseth his Charity looseth his faith If by Charity A. Rom. 13. 10. you vnderstand an absolute being without sanctification which is signified by Charity because Loue is the fullfilling of the Law your proposition is true but your assumption is false If thereby you meane not performing some act of Charity or doing the contrary your proposition is false For not euery one that failes in the performance of some duties of loue or doth some thing contrary to the rule of Loue by such omission of good or committing of euill looseth nor in deed may truely bee said to loose his Charity though he sinne against the lawe of Charity in so doing Your proofe being grounded vpon a misconceauing of the Protestants principle which I expounded in the 4. Article is of no force True faith such as wee confesse Dauids was alwaies after his calling can no more be without loue then the sunne without light or the fire without heat But â—et he that hath this faith and loue may sometimes neglect some duties of this loue and do some works of hatred Because his sanctification being vnperfect his obedience also must needs be so But it neither falls out that such a man becomes againe wholy vnregenerate by which meanes onely and by none other sanctification or loue can bee altogeather lost But Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his Charity Nay rather if Charity can be lost he then lost it when he committed â— Adultery vnles we shall say that either Adultery is not against Charity or that murther only not Adultery procures a dâ—priuation of Charitie But Dauid did not loose his Charitie by either or both of them though in each he greuously sinned against the loue of his neighbour Which for murder this man grants for Adultery that parable that Nathan brings prooues vndoubtedly Whosoeuer remaines in death is without Charity Namely 2. Sam. 12. 1. 2. so farre as he is in death If he be altogeather in death he is wholy without Charity But a man may in respect of some sinnefull action be in death and yet for all that bee truely sanctified though not throughly In regard whereof he may must be takeÌ„ for a sanctified man as in truth he is howsoeuer hee doe some thing contrary to the grace of sanctification according to the lusts of his naturall corruption He that hath some of his members dead as his hands or his feete in respect of these parts is dead and yet may be aliue in all the other How much more may he then be truely said to haue liuing charity in him which failing in some one duty and that but of one part for a time brings forth notwithstanding many fruits of loue euen of the same kind of which that sinne against loue is What needs any further answere to your proofe then hath already bin geuen For in deed it is of no force Vnles that be granted which is the question that euery act contrary to loue drawes loue out of the soule so that a man thereby ceasses to haue any part of regeneration in hâ—m And this answere were sufficient though Charity were in deed the life of the soule Which is but an Idle popish fancy or rather a sudden conceipt of this quick disputer Rom. 1. 17. If there be any other life of the soule then God surely it is faith rather then loue by which the righteous man liueth Is it not inough for our Papists to make Loue the forme of faith but that they must haue it also the life of the soule Dauid when he killed Vrias remained in death In respect of that sinne yet was hee translated from death to life by beleeuing in the Messias to come and accordingly brought forth the fâ—â—its of sanctification in obeying both the other commaundements and that also oâ— not kilâ—ing which by the murther oâ— Vrias he brake So thaâ— the proofe which followes is vnsufficient Because that Dauid could not be charged simply with the want of loue though he did not loue Vrias in that action Which yet proceeded not somuch from the haâ—red of his person as from Dauids feare to haue his former sinne
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