his substance of his father and it implyeth contradiction that the sonne receaueth his person of his father and not his substance and essence for the substance of God is essentiall to euery person in Trinity * 5. N. Finally they deny the Descension of Christ into Hell desperately defend that he suffered the paines of Hell vpon the crosse whereby they blaspheme most horribly that sacred humanitie as if christ had despaired of his saluation as if God had hated him and he hated God as if he had bin afflicted tormented with anguish of minde for his offences for which he was depriued of the sight of God eternally to be depriued all which horrible punishments aâ—â— included in the paines of hel †Isai 66. v. 24. Mar. 9. 48. Mat. 25. v. 41. whosoeuer ascribeth them to Christ blasphemeth more horribly then Arrius who denied him to be God for lesse absurditie it were to deny him to be God then to make God the enemy of God Protestant How you haue proued that the ground of our beliefe is A. not the authority of the scripture of Councills of Doctors or of the Church let them iudge that haue weighed your accusation against my defence And yet for the last three wee neuer ment to striue For we build our faith vpon no authoririty but that of the scripture Councills Doctors we reuerence vse as special helpes for the vnderstanding of scripture but authority ouer our faith we giue to none but the holy Ghost the author of scripture Your reasoÌ„ to proue we know not what we beleeue is this B. They that haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not know not what they beleeue But the Protestants haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith and what is not Ergo the Protestants know not what they beleeue He may truly be said not to know what he beleeues that To the Proposition either is ignorant of the particular points he holdes or at least vnderstands them not such as all vnlearned Papists are by thâ—ir fides implicitae their Colliers faith which teaches them to beleeue as the Church doth but neuer instructs them either in al the seuerall matters of beleefe or in the vnderstanding of those which they know the Church maintaines And therefore euery vnlearned Papist beleeues he knowes not what But there is no reason why a man should be said not to know what he beleeues because he hath no rule to know what is matter of faith it may come to passe hereby that he shal beleeue somthing that is not to be beleeued or not beleeue somthing that is to be beleeued but that he should not know what he beleeues by this reason it cannot be proued But the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith No more then Lawyers haue to know what is Law I To the assumption maruaile to what vse these men thinke the Scriptures serue Dauid made accompt that the Scriptures which the Church then had were a perfect direction to al men both for beleife and practise And can we now want a rule when it hath pleased God to adde twice so much vnto the Scriptures as then was written Assuredly they that haue the Scriptures cannot want a Rule to know what is matter of faith though by abusing the Rule they may take that for matter of faith which is not C. They that extend the sphere of their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not But some Protestants extend the sphere of their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe c. Therefore the Protestants haue no rule to know c. Either your syllogisme is false if the conclusion be general or else it concludes only thus much that some Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith what is not If you will make your Assumption generall it is false because you confesse afterwards that some Protestants limit their faith by the Creed as being a diuers rule from the scripture I deny your Proposition as iniurious to the scripture by laying vpon it an imputation of insufficiencie concerning matters of faith They that extend the sphere of their faith say you no further then all damned Heretikes that beleeue the scripture haue no rule to know what is matter of faith But they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God extend it no further then all damned Heretikes that beleeue the scripture Therfore they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know what is matter of faith The proposition is false for all such Heretikes haue the true rule to know what is matter of faith though ignorantly or maliciously they abuse it to the defence of heresie But some Protestants extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set down in holy writ Not only some but all Protestants acknowledg the sufficiency of the scripture in matter of faith holding themselues not bound to beleeue any point of religion that cannot be warranted out of the Scripture either expresly or by necessary consequence They that haue no rule say you to know that the song of Solomon is Gods word and that as such an one it ought to be beleeued by faith haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not But they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know that the song of Solomon is Gods word Therefore they that extende their faith solely and wholly to the word of God haue no rule to know what is matter of Faith This Proposition may proue that they haue not a sufficient rule but not that they haue no rule I deny your assumption For they that rest onely vpon the scripture as the ground of faith are not barred of the testimony of the spirit in matters that must needes be held for the warranting of the scriptures The first motiue to the taking of that booke for the word of God is the constant iudgement of the Iewish church before Christ and the generall approbation thereof by the christian church since The certaine perswasion of this beleefe comes from the sâ—irit of God seconding this outward testimony of men by his owne witnesse in our hearts If this seeme an inconuenience to any man I intreat him to consider what rule the Papists haue in this case The authority of the Church they will say But what rule haue I to know whether it be a matter of faith or not to beleeue that whatsoeuer the church saith is a matter of faith is so indeed Wil you appeale to the scripture what rule haue you to know that this is scripture The voice 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
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
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
Glosta in extrau 102 22. de verborum signif c. quum inter nonâ—ullos Such Papists as you are care not what they say so it be Ad bonum Ecclesiae for the behoofe of your Lord God the Pope Papist The Protestants know not what they beleeue nor why A. they beleeue That they know not why they beleeue I haue shewed before for the ground of their beliefe is not the authoritie of Scripture of Councills of Doctors nor of the Church but their owne fancie And that they know B. Proofe of the article 1. not what they beleeue is manifest because they haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith and what is not Some say the sphere of their faith is extended solely and C. 2. wholy to the word of God set downe in holy writte what there is deliuered that they beleeue what there is concealed lyeth without the circumference of their beliefe Alas poore ignorance what heretick beleeueth not so much Certainly few or none so that by this meanes all damned hereticks which beleeue the Scriptures beleeue alike and they beleeue as much as our Protestants and ours no more then they But the Protestant will replie that he beleeueth the Scripture in a true sense truly expounded and all other heretickes in an erroneous sense and falsly interpreted And they will say as much of their religion and beleefe and hold your exposition hereticall and theirs orthodoxall Againe are you not bound to beleeue the Canticles or Song of Solomon as a part of your faith and where find you in the scripture deliuered that such a booke is Gods word and as such an one ought by faith to be beleeued That Sunday should be kept holy-day and Saturday the Iewes Sabbath prophaned in Gods word is not reuealed and yet by Protestants beleeued Moreouer to beleeue whatsoeuer is conteined in the Scripture is a generall confused folded implicite saith when we demand what a man is bound to beleeue we aske what he is obliged to beleeue expresly distinctly explicitely To beleeue al the Scripture distinctly explicitely cannot be performed by all Protestants since it supposeth a perfect and distinct knowledge of all the scripture wherevnto neuer mortall man attained the Apostles perhaps excepted Some will limit their beleefe to their creed saying that nothing D. ought to be beleeued which is not in the Apostles creed But then I would demaund of them whether we ought to beleeue that the Scripture is the word of God That Baptisme is a Sacrament That in the Eucharist is the body of Christ by faith to what article should these be reduced seeing they are not conteined in the creed or how shall we know infalliblie how these be matters of faith since they are not conteined in the creed Others deny some articles of their creed also for the Protestants E. deny three and the Puritans fiue 1. The first is the Catholick Church Credo ecclesiam sanctaÌ„ 1. F. Catholicam I beleeue the holy catholick church the which in very deed they do not beleeue because catholick is vniuersall and so the church of Christ which we are bound to beleeue must be vniuersall for all a time comprehending all Mat. 16. Psal 60. Psal 2. ages b vniuersall for place comprehending all Nations but that church which the Protestants beleeue was interrupted all the ages betwixt the Apostles and Luther which was 1400. yeeres or in very deed was neuer seene before Luthers dayes therefore that church they beleeue cannot be catholick Neither is it vniuersal in place being conteined within the narrow bounds of England which is accounted but as a corner of the world for the Lutherans in Germany the Hugenots in France and the Guiâ—es in Flaunders dâ—est their religion almost as much as the catholicks neither â—ill they ioyne issue with them in diuers essentiall points And therefore the Protestants church which they beleeue can no more be called catholick or vniuersal then England the vniuersall world or Kent the kingdome of England or a prâ—â—ed bowe a whole tree or a dead finger a man or a rotten tooth the whole head 2. â— 2. The second article is the communion of Saints the which they many wayes deny First by not beleeuing that Christ hath instituted seauen sacraments wherin the Saints of his church coÌ„municate specially the true reall presence of our sauiour Christ in the Eucharist by which all the faithfull receauers participating of one the selfe same body 1. Cor. 10. 17. are made one body as all the parts of a mans body are made one liuing thing by participating of one soule Secondly they deny the communion of the Church militant H. GeÌ„ â—8 16. Apoc. 1. 14 and triumphant by exclayming a against inuocation of Saints by which holy excercise those blessed Saints in heauen we in earth communicate we by prayer glorifying them and they by mediation obtaining our requests Thirdly they deny the Communion of the church militant I. 1. Cor. 3. 15. 15. â—9 and the soules in purgatory bereauing them of that christian charity which charitable compassion mercifull pitty requireth by mutuall affection the members of one body help one another The third Article is remission of sinnes for they acknowledge 3. K. no such effect in the Sacrament of Baptisme but only account it as an externall signe or seale of a prereceaued grace or fauour of God by his eternall predestination against the expresse word of God which therefore calleth this sacrament the c Lauer of regeneration for that in it the Tit. 3. soule dead by sinne is newly regenerated by grace L. Iohn 20 Moreouer they allow not the sacrament of penance wherin al actuall d sinnes coÌ„mitted after Baptisme are cancelled And that which exceedeth all in absurdity is to deny that our sinnes are perfectly forgiuen but only not imputed and as it were vayled or couered with the passion of Christ all the botches and biles the silth and abhomination of sinne still remayning and as it were exhaling a most pestiferous sent in the sight of God For let them shift â—â—emselues as they list and skarfe their soares according to their fancies yet no veile or mantle can couer the deformitie of sin from the eies of Gods perfect vnderstanding from which nothing can be concealed The Puritans in effect deny that Christ is the sonne of 4. m. Ioh. 8. v. 24. Ioh. 16. v. 13. And D. Bucley coÌ„tendeth to proue it in hâ—s aunswer to this article albeit he vnderstand not the reason heere alleaged for if he did he were too absurd to deniâ— it If you vnderstood his aunsvver you vvould neuer say so foâ— shame God for they peremptorily affirme that Christ is God of himselfe and not God of God So that he receiued not his diuinity from his father the which position flatly taketh away the nature of a sonne for the nature of a sonne is to receaue
the subscription required by statute Neither do the Puritans deny that Baptisme washeth away all sinnes as a Sacrament and seales vp the forgiuenesse thereof Neither do the protestants beleeue any other thing of it or ascribe any other vertue to it The Puritanes do not Condemne the communion booke as irreligious but acknowledge it lawfull to bee vsed and both haue vsed it heretofore and are readie to vse it againe howsoeuer they desire to be forborne in the vse of some things in it which to them seeme vnwarrantable They entreate to be spared for the Crosse in Baptisme And whereas diuers of late haue yeelded to it the ground of their yeelding is that it is no significant Ceremonie but onely a signe betwixt man and man and so indifferent as they thinke That there are some differences betwixt vs we deny not nor that this is one of them concerning the signe in Confirmation But this is farre from being an essentiall point of faith And so is this of vsing Vestiments Musicke c. wherein also there are diuers opinions on either side but I thinke there is no man condemns all these as will worship and superstitious Yea there are some called Puritans that take none of them all to be either will worship or superstitious and yet they hold them vnlawfull In a word there is not any difference to my knowledge betwixt vs which may either depriue vs of saluation by the death of Christ or barre vs from lyuing brotherly and christianly as members of one and the same Church And thus wee haue heard the strong arguments of this popish replyer Who it should seeme not resting much vpon his owne proofe in the end of this first parte lookes to heare some reasons from vs whereby we may approue our selues to be the true Church But that hath bin often donne by our Diuines so far as we professe of our selues For none of vs euer vndertooke to proue that we are the true Church as the Papists dreame of the Church Wee are by the blessing and grace of God a part or member of the true Church of Christ not the whole church Yea we acknowledge that diuers particular churches may refuse communion with vs. and yet both they and we remaine members of the same true church though not without some fault either on both sides or at least the one But the papists so take to themselues the name of the church that they condemne all for schismatickes yea for Heretikes that acknowledge not themselues to be members of the catholicke Romish church in subiection to the Pope of Rome The sum of our proofe is that we professe that religion which our sauiour Christ hath commended vnto vs in the scriptures of which it should seeme this man was not ignorant For in this very place he excepts against this reason because it is no other then that which all heretikes wil bring to condemne the church of Christ This answere is insufficient vnlesse we shall grant that our sauiour brings no good Mat. 4. 4. 7. reason against the Diuill in alledging scripture because Sathan himselfe in his temptation replies against him by scripture Who knowes not that in all controuersies reasons must be drawen from the arts of which the controuersie is as for example what Lawyer will offer to defend a bad cause but he will quote lawe for his purpose and shall this either bar him that pleads against him from alleging his bookes or make his plea of no force nay rather any man of meane discretion will readily distinguish and say the one makes a shew of law but the other hath law indeed so is it in these points of controuersie The Papists and other heretikes pretend that the scriptures make for them but this may not preiudice the authority thereof in deciding matters of controuersie neither shall any true christian need to be ashamed of seeking to ground his faith vpon the scriptures because Heretikes abuse them to their wicked purposes no more then our sauiour was to alleage them though the Diuill had drawen them to abett his horrible temptation Nay if the Papists were not too willfull they would in dyuers points acknowledge the voice of God in scriptures it being plaine as these allegations of our Sauiour Christ And if they had bin then in the Diuils steed they would not haue taken those places for satisfaction but would haue come vpon our sauiour with a second reply of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and haue charged him with falsifying the text for putting in Onely Therefore we acknowledge this to be our onely hould that by the Scriptures we are proued to be the Church of God Let the Arrians comtemne Councills We beleeue and professe that they are excellent meanes allowed by God for maintaining and searching out the truth only we refuse to match them in Authoritie and accompt with the vnfallible truth of the almighty God Will any absurd and base flatterer affirme that he despises Magistracy and Princes who denyes that they haue an absolute and infinite Authoritie But I thinke it would shrewdly trouble you to proue that the Arrians contemned Councills Sure it is not likely since themselues within the compasse of 30. yeares held 10. Councills at the least for the establishing of their wicked heresie True it is that they reiected the councill of Nice wherein their heresie was iustly and holyly condemned but that therefore they regarded not Councills at all it is not proued But consider I pray you with what conscience or rather with what malice you write The Arrians are blamed by you for not regarding Councils we are charged to contemne them Where as you know in your owne conscience that we receaue both that Councill which the Arrians refused and all the other generall and particuler councills saue those that as we are perswaded conteyne in them apparaunt falshood and impietie If it bee a fault not to receaue all who shall excuse you Papists that haue wholly reiected seauen generall Councills held at Antioch Millaine Ariminum Ephesus the second two at Constantinople against Images and one at Pisa and in part sixe other at Sardis at Syrmium at Constantinople in Trâ—llo at Frankeford at Constance at Basill how iustly all or some of these are reiected I dispute not once it is euident they are reiected neither haue we any reason to regard your shifting defences concerning the Popes authority in whom for sooth it lies to allow or disallowe of Councils For this is but to beg the question Therefore to make short we willingly and reuerently embrace all Councils and all Canons and articles of all Councills so far forth as they agree with the word of God not because of their authority but by reason of the truth of those things which according to the scriptures is in them declared commended to all christians Neither do we hereby challenge to our selues the true interpretation of scriptures as if it were appropriated
the church What is this but to trifle I must beleeue that the scripture is scripture because the church tels me so I must beleeue that the report of the church is true because the scripture saith so But for your better satisfactioÌ„ in this point I referre you to my answer in the 2. 5. articles of this former part I cannot well conceaue to what purpose this last clause is added if to proue the Article That the Protestants knowe not what they beleeue it is insufficient They that know not what they are bound to beleeue expresly distinctly explicitly know not what they beleeue For no more is proued by this reason But that they know not euery particular which they are bound to beleeue And if this be a disgrace to Protestants and their profession how shall Papists popery escape without reproach when as there is no rule among theÌ„ to teach what they ought to beleeue expresly distinctly c. And as all Protestants cannot beleeue all the Scripture distinctly explicitely no more can all Papists so beleeue what the Church deliuereth to be beleeued and therefore was their fides implicita deuised Neither is it proued that the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith what is not because they know not expresly distinctly explicitely what they are bound to beleeue For a man may haue a rule though he know not how to vse it as it also falls out ordinarily with vnlearned Papists in the rule that they follow to this same purpose If the Creed say you be not the limit of beleefe the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith I thinke the Protestant is yet vnborne that makes the D. Creede the rule of his beleefe further then to acknowledge that whatsoeuer is conteined in the Creed is of necessitie to be beleeued which I trow no Papist will denie But if it were granted that all Protestants do so yet it were not proued that the Protestants haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith but that they haue an vnperfect rule To be short who knowes not that the Protestants make the whole Scriptures the rule of their beleefe holding themselues bound in conscience to acknowledge all things conteyned therein to be the most true word of God and that out of the Scriptures there is nothing necessarily to be beleeued for saluation Whereas the Papists disable the written word of God to establish the fancies of mortall men ioyning the vnwritten traditions of I know not whom in equall authoritie with the written word of the Almighty God But the Creed say you is not the limit of faith That the Creed is no perfect rule of our beleefe we are so farre from denying that we make this reason one of the grounds wherevpon we build our perswasion that because of the vnperfectnesse thereof it was not penned by the Apostles whereas if it had bene it would haue bene perfect and Canonicall Scripture such as yet it neuer was acknowledged to be Howsoeuer we willingly graunt that there is nothing in it but sound and agreeable to the word of God in the Scripture So much the more wrong hath this slanderer done vs to charge any of vs with the deniall of any one Article thereof especially since no hereticks were euer charged with the deniall of Scripture because they â—isinterpreted it And yet by this Authors iudgement the Creed is not so bare as here he would faine make it For in the second part of this Article he teacheth vs that by beleeuing the communion of Saints we beleeue first That there are seauen Sacraments Secondly that Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist Thirdly that we must pray to the Saints Fourthly that we must pray for the soules in Purgatory In the fourth he tels vs that by beleeuing the Article of remission of sinnes we beleeue that Baptisme takes away the being of sinne They that deny some Articles of their Creed say you haue E. no rule to know what is matter of faith They that deny all the Articles of their Creed haue indeed no rule supposing that there is no other rule but the Creed but so much of the Creed as they deny not they haue still for a rule to know what is matter of faith But the Protestants say you deny three Articles of their Creed and the Puritants fiue He that makes difference betweene the Protestants and Looke in my answer to the next Article Puritans in matters of faith doth it either ignorantly or maliciously But to the seuerall points They that beleeue say you that to be the Catholicke F. Church which was interrupted 1400. yeeres and is conteyned within the narrow bounds of England deny the Catholicke Church The Article I beleeue the holy Catholick Church doth not teach vs how to know which is the true Church but enioynes vs to beleeue that there is a Catholick church which we gladly acknowledge viz. that there alwayes hath bene is and shall be a holy church of Christ which since his breaking downe of the partition wall is no longer tyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 place Hierusalem Rome c. but is spred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the face of the whole earth Neither can you 〈◊〉 thinke that the catholicknesse of the Church requirâ—â— continuall being in all places at once for then there 〈◊〉 as any catholick church in the world nor I suppose 〈◊〉 At the least haue you forgotten that according 〈◊〉 our owne doctrine the church shal be hidden in the 〈◊〉 all the time of Antichrists tyranny Then this wil be 〈◊〉 â—incible argument against the church It is not vniuersall 〈◊〉 â—lace therefore it is not the Holy Catholick Church 〈◊〉 the force of your reason is very feeble in the first 〈◊〉 it wherein the strength of it consists But admit we 〈◊〉 deceaued in taking that church to be vniuersall for time and place which is not vniuersal yet as long as we confe◠〈◊〉 there is such a Church we cannot be iustly charged to 〈◊〉 that article of our Creed But the Protestant 〈◊〉 you beleeue that to be the Catholick Church which was 〈◊〉 1400. yeares Therefore they deny the article of beleâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Catholick Church But they do not 〈◊〉 â—peares by the aunswere to the first Article besides â—â—â— Protestants do not hold that the church in England is 〈◊〉 â—atholick church but only that it is a part of the 〈◊〉 church which reaches to all times and places And 〈◊〉 word as I said in the first article we deny not to the 〈◊〉 the necessity of catholicknes but of visiblenes 〈◊〉 our church is not so narrow as you would beare the 〈◊〉 in hand as the Harmony of Confessions will proue to 〈◊〉 man that will but vouchsafe to read it For howsoeuer 〈◊〉 some churches of Germany and vs there be some 〈◊〉 in matters of importance yet neither are they such 〈◊〉 â—rectly ouerthrow the foundation And both the French 〈◊〉 Flemish churches agree with