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
euery point that some of the Fathers endeuour to prooue by Scripture Neither will any Papist that knowes the writings of the Fathers giue them such allowance Nay it is ordinary with them in their controuersies to acknowledge that diuers texts brought by the Fathers in maine points of religioÌ„ are not rightly alleaged Looke what they proue by scriptures that we gladly receiue not because they say it but because the truth of God approueth it But then we make our selues iudges of the Fathers writings If we doe there is more reason that euery man should be made a iudge of a mans writing then any man of Gods But we do not for we desire not to haue any interpretation of Scripture allowed of contrary to the exposition of the Fathers but as I said before where euident reason taken from the Scriptures themselues doth necessarily require it As for our priuate exposition it is nothing else but a perswasion that euery man must haue of the interpretation deliuered according to the course of Scriptures generally and particularly to the context of the place expounded Which to deny Christians is to bring them into slauerie not obedience to depriue them of the spirit of God yea more to spoile them of all vse of reason by which enlightened by the holy Ghost the truth of God may be and is to be discerned Art 3. All Protestants who are ignorant of the Greeke and Latine tongues are Infidels Here is Latine put for Hebrew either by the Printers fault or the Authors craft who perhaps by this sleight would bring their vulgar Latine translation into credit and thereby iustle out the originall Hebrew but we will lay the blame vpon the Printer and so let it passe Papist Whosoeuer relyeth his faith vpon the Ministers credit and A. B. fidelitie hath no faith at all But all those in England who are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues relye their faith vpon the Ministers credit Ergo All those in England who are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues haue no faith at all The Maior is manifest because they themselues confesse C. Calu. lib. 4. instit cap. 9. § 3. Luther lib. de concil pag. 54. lib de concil par 1. q. D. b Wherein he desireth the lords of the Councill to procure speedily a new translatioÌ„ because that which now is in vse in England is full of errors E c â—n the conference at Hampâ—oÌ„ Court. that euery man may erre and doth erre neither haue they any warrant why the Ministers do not erre since they constantly doe defend that whole generall Councills yea and the vniuersall Catholick church may erre and hath erred The Minor I proue for all such Protestants ground their faith vpon the Bible translated into English the which translation they know not whether it be true or false whether the Minister Tindall for example erred or no either vpon ignorance as b Broughton one of the greatest Linguists among the Precisions affirmeth in an Epistle dedicated to the Lords of the Councel or vpon malice to induce the people to Protestancy and to cause them to leaue the Catholick religion as Gregorie Martin in his discouery most pregnantly proueth c And for that all the olde translations are false and the Geneuians the worst the Ministers are now in moulding a new one the which will haue as great immunitie from falsitie as the former were voide of veritie that is both be subiect to semblable vncertaintie These errors I say they know not and consequently cannot discerne a true translation from a false and therefore must needs relye their faith vpon the sillie Ministers faithlesse fidelitie which conuinceth that they haue no faith at all Protestants Iâ— there be any force in this reason it ouerthrowes Papists A. as well as Protestants because the very same thing may be concluded of them in this sort Whosoeuer builds his faith vpon a mans credit and fidelitie hath no faith at all But euery Papist builds his faith vpon a mans credit Therefore no Papist hath faith The difference betweene my Proposition and his stands onely in one word He disables the Minister in particular I euery man generally and perticularly but I keepe his sense whole and intire For the reason that he giueth in the proofe of his Maior doth shew that therefore ministers are not to be credited because being men they may erre And indeed whatsoeuer imperfection is in any Minister he hath it not as he is a minister but as he is a man and therefore if his proposition be true mine is The assumption needs no other proofe but that first Fathers Councils and Church are men without any speciall priuiledge of not erring 2. that at the least the particuler teachers which tell the Papists that such and such Councills haue allowed these bookes for scripture are men that may erre 3. And indeede what ground hath any learned Papist that there haue bene such Councils but the authority of men 4. Whereupon can any vnlearned Papist relie for the interpretation of the decrees of the Councils being written in Greeke or Latine as all are but the credit of men 5. Nay more then that who can tell what the signification of the Hebrew and Greeke words is euen in the Bible but by the report of men So that it may more truly be saide of the Papists then of the Protestants that they build their faith vpon the credit of men yea the Papists do properly and wholy rely vpon men viz. the Pope and his Priests because they beleeue not by their ministery as Christians but by their authority like Pythagoreans B. But shortely to make an answere to his reason if by relying vpon the ministers credit he meane that they haue no To the Assumption ground to build vpon but that I deny his Assumption For the vnlearned Protestant rests vpon the witnes of Gods spirit which perswadeth him of the generall truth contained in the translation and directeth him to and in the triall of particulars If to the credit of the minister he add the witnes To the PropositioÌ„ of the spirit I say the Proposition is false for he hath true faith that relies on the Credit of the minister being directed by the spirit of God so to do If this seeme strange to any papist let him remember that popish faith requires no lesse reuelation then the beleefe of Protestants for according to their doctrine no man is perswaded of the truth of the scripture either for the text or the interpretation but by the especiall grace of the spirit vsing as they say the argument of the Churches authority to beget faith in the heart only we say the spirit vseth not the authority but the ministry of the Church to perswade withall They affirme that men beleeue because of the Churches authority the spirit directing and inclining them to rest therevpon Our opinion is that the credit of the minister relies on his doctrine They
principally consist the satisfaction of Christ for the redemption of man from those eternall torments of hell And thinke you this is a trifle a rite or ceremonie This faith the Puritans professe this blasphemie the Protestants detest The descension of Christ to hell is no doubt but a trifle a ceremonie a matter of small importance It is but an article of our creed and yet this article the puritanes really deny the which al Protestants stedfastly beleeue That the second person in Trinitie receaued his diuinitie from his father is but a trifle a point not much materiall to our beleefe and yet if this bee denied the mysterie of the holy trinitie can not bee beleeued for it absolutely taketh away the nature of a sonne and consequently the admirable procession of the second person and so ouerthroweth all the mysterie of the Trinitie This principall part of Christianitie Protestants approue and Puritans improue I omit here many more petty differences in matters of faith the which were sufficient to make them condemne one another not onely in accidents and ceremonies but also in the substance and principall partes of religion As in that the Precisians denie that in Baptisme our sinnes bee remitted but onely take it for a seale of that grace God gaue them by his eternal election The Protestants confesse that in the sacrament we are washed by Gods spirite from originall sinne The Puritans condemne the Communion booke as irreligious and erroneous The Protestants commend it as orthodoxall and religious The Protestants vse the crosse in baptisme as a holy signe fitt for the profession of Christs faith and religion The Puritanes exclaime against it as a humane inuention and a point of superstition The Protestants defend that imposition of handes in confirmation is a signe of the fauour and goodnes of God towards them The Puritans auouch that this is a flat lie that they testifie therein that God doth that he neuer did The Protestants in fine will vse Vestments Musicke Organes surplisses and diuerse other ceremonies in diuine seruice and administration of sacraments all which the puritanes condemne as will worship and not being commaunded by God to bee superstitious All these I say I omitt and many more which are to bee seene in the Puritanes supplication to the Parliament where 32. differences are assigned and onely haue thought good to aduertise euery discreete Protestant to consider the 7. precedent differences For there is neuer a one of them which the Puritane defendeth not to bee a matter of faith and the Protestant is bound in conscience to condemne him for obstinatly maintayning the contrarie to bee an heretick and the reason is euident for the rule and square the Protestants and Puritanes both hould to know an heresie is this whatsoeuer is contrarie to Gods word is an heresie if it be obstinately defended but all the aforesaid 7. points in controuersie are by the one part proued contrary to Gods word and by the other auouched to bee grounded vpon the same Therefore we may well conclude that if one error in faith with obstinacy defended sufficeth to make an heretick what shall we iudge of the Puritan who so mainely defendeth so manie Surelie this I will auer that they differ in substance of religion and not only in accidents and ceremonies And finally they haue no argument to proue that they C. haue the true Church true religion true faith which al hereticks that euer were will not bring to condemne the Church of Christ as well as they For example they aledge scriptures so did the Arrians they contemne councills the Arrians did not regard them They challenge to themselues the true interpretation the same did all hereticks to this day And to conclude they call themselues the litle flock of Christ to whom God hath reuealed his truth and illuminated them from aboue all which the Donatists with as good reason and better arguments did arrogate vnto themselues The same I say of the Pelagians Nestorians Eutychians with all the rable of other damned hereticks And to conclude these articles of faith I say that if the D principles of the Protestants religion be true S. Paul himselfe exhorteth vs to infidelitie which I proue thus Whosoeuer exhorteth vs to doubt of that which we are bound to beleeue by faith exhorteth vs to infidelitie But S. Paule doth exhort vs to doubt of our saluation which we are bound to beleeue by faith according to the Protestants religion Ergo. S. Paule exhorteth vs to infidelitie The Maior is plaine for to doubt of matters in faith is manifest infidelitie because whosoeuer doubteth whether God hath reuealed that which indeed he hath reuealed being sufficiently proposed as reuealed virtuallie doubteth whether God saith trueth or lyeth The Minor is proued by the testimonie of S. Paule 1. Cor. 2. Cum timore tremore salutem vestram operamini With feare and trembling worke your saluation All feare whether it be filial feare or seruile feare includeth both the one of sinne the other of punishment Protestant A very good comparison whether it be of likenesse or A. equalitie for the one is euen as true as the other As we know not what to beleeue or why So we haue no meane in our Church to settle vs in vnitie of beleefe c. If we shall ioyne issue in this point vpon the former tryall the matter is already answered For all those accusations and euidences being false what truth can there be in this and yet the last clause makes me graunt him the conclusion We haue no such meanes as the Popish Church hath But what will he inferre herevpon That therefore wee haue none at all What because we will not acknowledge the Popes Soueraigne authoritie in making what he list an Article of faith Haue we no meanes to end controuessies As good neuer a whit as neuer the better Is it not more for the glory of God and good of the Church that there should be continuall disagreement about matters of Religion then that all should beleeue and maintaine false doctrine Were not Christ as good haue a troubled church as none at all Honourable warre is better then dishonourable peace in the iudgement of any wise States-man And can it be more glorious to God to haue quietnesse in the church with heresie yea with Antichristianisme then truth with contention So then this proposition that we haue no such meanes as the Papists haue to end controuersies neither disproues nor disgraces our church But it is worth the doing to take a view of this rhetoricall declamation rather then Logicall disputation which was promist by stripping it out of this braucry and setting it naked before the light of true reason Thus then he disputes They saith he that admit the sole Scripture as Vmpere and Principall propositiō Iudge in matters of controuersie allowing no infallible interpreter thereof haue no meanes to end controuersies and abolish heresies Controuersies may be
Church in this place neither a generall council nor the Pope is ment but the Gouernours of seuerall congregations or the whole congregations themselues whether they be more or fewer so they be a church that is of necessity more then one Therfore whatsoeuer can be gathered out of this text for the churches priuiledge and soueraignty belongs to the Pastors and Rulers of seuerall churches If then by this scripture it be proued that the church cannot erre it is proued that the pastors and gouernours of seuerall charges cannot erre How then is this the speciall priuiledge of the Pope But indeed this is a great question and I thinke not easie by any Papist to be decided whether the priuiledge of not erring belong to the Pope or to the church If it were giuen to Peter and his successors why is it made common to them with the rest of the church If it appertaine to the whole church why is it appropriated to the Pope If it rest in the Pope what becomes of it Sede vacante when there is no Pope At such times be like the church may erre yea and at other times too For if it be proper to the Pope not to erre then all beside the Pope may erre and so it may come to passe that there shal be no church in the world because the Pope alone if he be neuer so great a head is but a head whereas to the being of a church a body also is necessary and not a head only * The 2. part of the proofe of the principall proposition To the second part of the profe of the principal proposition The 2. proofe that the church cānot erre To the secōd proofe that the church can not erre They that doe not beleeue the Church cannot erre haue no meanes to settle themselues in vnity of beleefe The truth of this Proposition wil be more fitly examined when we come to his Refutation of the scriptures sufficiency in the meane while let vs see what these other proofes are that follow If God ordained Pastors and Doctors least the Church should be carried away with euery blast of vaine doctrine then the Church cannot erre What Church meane you not the Pope for he hath not this priuiledge as he is a Pastor or Doctor but as he is Peters successor nor the congregation for the people both may and doe erre What then These Pastors and Doctors But they are not all Popes I trow that they should be exempted from possibility of erring It was indeed Gods purpose in giuing Pastors and Doctors that his children which only are the Church should be instructed and established in all truth and accordingly it comes to passe in matters of substance and foundation but this is done by little and little as the Apostle witnesses in this place knowledge being not perfect all at once but first beginning as in children then by degrees receauing a continual increase till we come to the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ which is neuer found in any while we remaine 1. Cor. 13. 9. in this vale of ignorance where we do but see in part If this reason proue any thing it makes as well for euery Pastor and Doctor in his seuerall charge as for the Pope in his pretended generall For it cannot be doubted but that the whole succession of the ministery is here signified vnder the title of Pastors Doctors in seuerall Congregations such as this or these of the Ephesians were Neither can w◠from Gods purpose conclude the necessitie of the euent since we finde the contrary in dayly experience and know by scripture that not these or those means but only in generall means of saluation are prouided for them whom God hath chosen to eternall life though ordinarily the word be the means The Princes end in making and appointing iudges is that true iustice may be administred to the people Nay more then that it is also Gods purpose in this his owne ordinance yet it doth not follow hereupon that the Iudges or Magistrats cannot or will not erre But if Christ haue promised the Church the assistance of the The 3. proofe that the church cānot erre To the 3. proofe that the church cānot erre holy Ghost in such sort that they that will not heare her will not heare him then the Church cannot erre If this promise of Christ be generall that whosoeuer will not heare the church in all points will not heare him then the consequence is good But that we deny because it is restrained to the scripture according to which if the church speake not we may not at any hand giue eare vnto her You will say she neuer speakes but agreeably to the Scriptures That is the question which we must see how you proue in your assumption Io◠14. 17. Luc. 10. 16. The Father shall giue you saith Christ to his Apostles another comforter euen the spirit of truth which the world cannot receaue c. If Christ promised to his Apostles the spirit of truth then the church cannot erre First our Sauiour in this place enforces not vpon this guift of the spirit any necessitie of hearing whatsoeuer the Church shall deliuer but only makes this promise by way of comfort Secondly this promise is made not to the church in generall but to the Apostles in particular Thirdly is is made not onely to them all ioyntly but also to euery one of them seuerally So that if by this place any thing can be concluded for the Church at this daye euery particular Pastor or Minister may claime this priuilege of not erring and beyng heard whatsoeuer he teach which being most absurde and impious that charge to heare and penalty for not hearing belongs simply to the Apostles only and to euery one of them whom the spirit of God infalliblie kept from erring To all others so far forth as that which they teach is agreeable to the word which the Lord by his Apostles hath left and commended to his Church Therefore howsoeuer the perswasion that the Church cannot erre may sometimes breed an outward quietnesse in the Church yet it hath no force to establish men in the vnitie of true beleefe since it may both deceaue and be deceaued not to end controuersies because all beleeue it not nor to abolish Heresies which many times it may fauour But what is it that he addes concerning generall Councills and auncient Fathers Haue they some priuilege the Church hath not Or is it his meaning to exemplifie that in particular which before he wrote in generall of the impossibility that the church should erre If it be then all he sayes of these for he brings no new reason is already answered in trying the Churches title to that feigned prerogatiue But cannot generall Councils deliuer false doctrine How chaunce then that some wholly others in part haue bin and are at this daie reiected by the Pope what say you to the three Councilles that make
Infidels Protestant I deny your whole antecedent first your proposition for the truth of faith depends not vpon the publicknesse of an exposition but vpon the soundnesse thereof Papist If faith must be infallible and vnpossible to be either 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 〈◊〉 â—â— changeable and faith built vpoâ— priuate 〈◊〉 is subiect to error and change Therefore he that builds his faith vpon his owne priuat exposition is an Infidell Papist I deny your assumption Because the latter part of it is false For a true exposition though it be priuate is not subiect to error or change we dispute not of the euent whereby it may and doth come to passe that true doctrine is changed but of the nature of that doctrine which is true I am sure no Papist wil deny that a true Catholick in profession may become an hereticke yet an apostata and yet that faith of his which he forsooke was true and vnchangeable Your principall assumption is also false for no protestant builds vpon any priuat interpretation but vpon such as is warranted by the analogy of faith publickly acknowledged and the circumstances of the particular Scriptures aduisedly weighed Papist All protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuas opinion or vpon the exposition of the Church the fathers or councills But they build not their faith vpon any of these three therfore vpon their owne priuat opinion Protestant I deny your disiunction in your propositioÌ„ as insufficient for we build vpon the euidence of truth in it selfe reuealed in the scriptures by going from things manifest to those that are lesse manifest in themselues but become manifest by being compared with and examined by the other we allow of no exposition contrary to the fathers but where euident reason taken from the scriptures themselues necessarily requires it Article 3. Papist All protestants who are Ignorant of the Greeke and Latin tongues are Infidells Whosoeuer reâ—â—eth his faith vpon the ministers credit and fidelity hath no faith at all But all those that are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues rely their faith vpon the ministers credit Ergo all those in England who are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues haue no faith at all Protestant If by relying vpon the Ministers credit you meane they haue no ground to build vpoÌ„ but that I deny your assumption For the vnlearned Protestants rest vpon the witnesse of Gods spirit which perswades them of the generall truth contained in the translation directs them to and in the triall of particulars If to the Credit of the Minister you adde the witnes of the spirit I say the Proposition is false For he hath true faith that relyeâ— vpon the Credit of the Minister being directed by the spirit of God so to doe and perswaded by him of the truth that is deliuered Besides this reasoÌ„ makes as much against the Papists learned and vnlearned who rely one the Popes credit being at the most but a learned man oftentimes not so much Article 4. Papist The Protestants know not what they beleeue They that haue no rule to know what is matter of faith know not what they beleeue But the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith Therefore the protestants know not what they beleeue Protestant I deny your whole antecedent First your proposition for a man may know what he beleeues without a rule to knowe what is matter of faith though he may by that want beleeue that he should not faile in not beleeuing that he should Your Assumption also is false For we haue the whole Scripture to be our Rule Therefore this discourse needed not All the Articles whereof are faithfully beleeued ioyntely by Protestants and Puritans that is by those that dissent in opinion about the outward gouernment or ceremonies of the church Papist They that beleeue that to be the catholick church which hath not bene is and shal be vniuersall for all times and places deny the article of beleeuing the catholick church But the Protestants doe beleeue that to be the catholick church which hath not beene is and shal be vniuersall for all times and places Therefore they deny the article of beleeuing the catholicke church Protestant I deny your whole antecedent againe First your proposition because the Article of beleeuing the catholick Church requires not the acknowledging that this or that congregation is the church But onely beleeuing that from the beginning of the world to the end there alwayes hath bene is and shal be a holy church of Christ which since his ascension hath not bene tied to any place but is dispersed vniuersally amongst all nations Your assumption also I deny because the Protestants do not hold that the church in England is the catholick church but onely that it is a part of the Catholicke Church Which reaches to all times and places And in one word we deny not to the Church the necessitie of Catholicknesie but of visiblenesse Papist They that beleeue not that Christ hath instituted 7. Sacraments and especially the Reall presence of our Sauiour in the Eucharist do deny the article of the communion of Saints But the Protestants beleeue not that Christ hath Instituted 7. Sacraments and the Reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist Therefore the Protestants deny the article of beleeuing the communion of Saints Protestant Any man may make as good a reason of seauen score seauen hundred or seauen thousand or of the Reall presence in Baptisme The Reall presence wee beleeue the Carnall and bodily presence no Papist can proue If the faithfull be made one body by receauing so may they be though there be no such presence Therefore the Apostle calls it Bread all that participate of one breâ—â— not of one body carnally besides if by receiuing they bee made one body then they were not one body till they receiued then they are made such euery time they receaue both which are manifestly false Papist They that deny the communion of the Church militant triumphant by exclaiming against inuocation of Saints and prayers for the soules in purgatory deny the Article of beleeuing the communion of Saints But the Protestants deny the communion of the Church militant and triumphant by exclaiming against inuocation of Saints and prayer for the soules in purgatory Therefore the Protestants deny the Article of beleeuing the communion of Saints Protestant The proposition is false Because there is no such communion your profe is nothing Iacob and Iohn praied to God that the Church may be protected and blessed by the ministery of Angells therfore the Saints departed pray for vs and wee must pray to them 1. Whie not rather to God as Iacob and Iohn did 2. It followes not because they protect vs therefore they pray for vs.
part of the question that it may gaine-say the former Example If the Protestants haue any faith the world was without faith Art 1. par 1. 1500. yeares But the world was not without faith 1500. yeares Therefore the Protestants haue no faith This Papist affirmes that the Protestants haue no faith to proue it he brings this argument that the world was not without faith 1500. yeares The Syllogisme is of the later kind because the latter part of the proposition is gainesaid in the assumption and the former in the conclusion A Disiunctiue Syllogisme is when the Proposition is Disiunctiue whereof also there are two kinds The former gainsayes one and concludes the rest Example All Protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition Art 2. par 1. of the scripture or vpon the Churches exposition But they build not vpon the Churches exposition Therefore they build vpon their owne priuate exposition The point is that the Protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of scripture the proofe is that they build it not vpon the Churches exposition The Syllogisme is of the former kinde because in the proposition the one part is seuered from the other the one whereof is gainesaid in the assumption and the other affirmed in the conclusion The Latter when all parts of the Proposition being affirmatiue one is assumed and the rest gainesaid It is hard to finde examples of this latter kinde but I will frame one thus Example The Pope builds his faith either vpon his owne singular exposition or vpon the Churches But he doth build vpon his owne exposition Therefore not vpon the Churches To proue that the Pope builds not his faith vpon the Churches exposition I alledge this argument he builds vpon his owne My Syllogisme is of the second kinde because the proposition being wholy affirmatiue assumes the one and gainesayes the other It was very necessary that I should deliuer the Rules of a Syllogisme because without them my course of answering cannot be throughly vnderstood If they seeme hard to any man a little paines and vse will make them easye and pleasant His request of breuity I haue satisfied as neere as I could It is easier to tye a knot then to vntye it and one man hath greater dexterity in vttering shortly that which he hath conceiued then another For my part I had rather any man had answered that can do it with shortnesse then my selfe rather my selfe then no body but I hope this Papist will stand to his owne ground in his Preface and since he holds it hard or impossible to reply without prolixitie where there is no truth nor verity he will acknowledge truth where he cannot but acknowledge shortnesse His threatnings and reproches I doe willingly and wittingly passe ouer as the heate of an angry disputer and withall I protest to him and all men that I haue answered according to my small skill briefly orderly and seriously not least I should seeme ignorant by silence in saying nothing as he presumes in the end of his letter but as I thinke and beleeue in my conscience For what am I the meanest of many and most vnknowne not to the Papists only but to our owne Church also that I should feare the suspition of ignorance by silence when so many famous diuines sit still and say nothing If he that hath answered the first part had thought it worth his paines and found leasure to refute the second I cannot say I should haue wholie saued my labour for it is not vnknowne to some that I had finished all the 12. before his answere to the fiue first came forth but sure I should haue beene eased of some paines which I haue taken since especially in writing the abridgement and auoyded all danger of further trouble But the Lord who hath giuen me strength and will to dispatch this will I doubt not assist me in the defence of his trueth for euer To whose gracious blessing I commend the successe of this and all other my indeuours in Iesus Christ our Lord and onely Sauiour Amen THE FIRST ARTICLE concerning Knowledge and Faith THe Protestants haue no faith nor religion Answere For the better vnderstanding of this Article we are to know that the question is not Whether the Protestants haue any faith or Religion in their hearts but whether they make profession of any by their doctrine Papist The Protestants haue no faith no hope no charitie no A. Conclusion repentance no iustification no Church no Altar no Sacrifice no Priest no religion no Christ The reason is for if they haue then the world was without B. Proposition them for 1000. yeares as they themselues must needes confesse videl All that time their Church was eclipsed or for 1500. as we will proue by the testimony of all records of antiquity as Histories Councels monuments of ancient fathers Whereby it plainly appeareth that the Synagogue of C. Proofe of the Assumption Propositiō the Iewes was more constant in continuance and more ample for place then the Church of Christ for they haue had their synagogue visible in diuers countries euer since Christs death and passion euen vntill this day Which is the very path to lead men into Athiesme as D. Proofe of the Assumption a Isai 60. 11. b Mat. 16. 18. c Mat. 28. 20. though Christ were as yet not come into the world whose admirable promises are not accomplished whose assistance hath failed in preseruing his Church vnto the worldes end whose presence was absent many hundred yeares before the consummation and consequently they open the gap to all Machiuillians who say that our Sauiour was one of the deceiuers of the world promising so much concerning his Church and performing so little Protestant How can it be truely said that the Protestants haue no A. faith no hope no charitie no repentance no iustification no church no altar no sacrifice no Priest no religion no Christ when as they acknowledge Iesus Christ the naturall sonne of God and of the blessed Virgin Mary to be the Redeemer of mankind their Altar Sacrifice and Priest when as they beleeue in him for saluation both of soule and body If he meane we beleeue not these points truely and so haue them not in trueth true charitie should haue perswaded him to speake plainely and not to make no difference betweene Protestants Mahometans and Infidels It is at the best rather hyperbolicall Rhetorick then Logicall diuinitie whereof there is promise and shew made in this treatise To this figure belongs the heaping vp of all those particulars no faith no hope c. whereas the two points set downe in the title being proued all the rest must needs follow yet this shift is not the worst For besides this he mingles trueth and falshood together Altar Sacrifice propitiatorie and Priest except Christ himselfe we professe we haue none but what doth Chaffe with Wheate saue onely that
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 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
deuised and also refuse the doctrine of visible famousnes which they would thrust vpon the church This last point is altogeather of the same kinde which I note the rather because both this and that are deliuered in such a phrase as the scripture knowes not To beleeue the Catholick church to descend into hell are speeches with which the scriptures are not acquainted and this is another reason why learned Diuines the rather perswade themselues that this Creed was not of the Apostles penning Yet do not we deny the truth of either of these articles bâ—t only that erroneous interpretation which the Papists make of them Of the former I haue already spoken now let vs shortly examine the latter First we say the english word Hell doth not expresse the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Latine Inferi though wee cannot rest vpon the Latine whatsoeuer it signifies since it is but a translation Hell in English is restrained to the place of the damned so that no english man vnderstands by Hell either purgatory or limbus patrum or infantum but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Inferi do signifie indifferently the state and place of the dead as Maister Broughâ—on hath sufficiently proued Neither need it breed a doubt in any man that descending or going downe is mentioned because it is out of doubt that the heathen from whom this speech is taken place their elysium or paradise vnder the earth as well as their Tartarus or Hell that lying on the right hand this on the left as it appeares in Virgill Aenâ—id 6. Hac iter elysium nobis at laeua malorum Exercet poenas et ad impia tartara mittit Secondly it is to be known that diuers Creeds haue not this article in them which proues that it was thought either to be comprised in some of the other or els not to be any matter of faith Thirdly it must be obserued that some of the ancient writers haue vnderstood it of our Sauiours buryall as Ruffinus and Athanasius hee in plaine termes auouching that it was not to bee found in the Romane Creed and that the meaning of it seemed to be nothing els but that he was interred or laied in his graue Athanasius indeed hath the words but that hee takes them to signifie his buriall may appeare for that he leaues out all other meÌ„tion of that article of his buriall Fourthly it must be remembred that the maintayners of Christs going really into hell agree not about the matter whether he went into the place of the damned or only into the suburbes of it in limbum patrum or Infantum nor about the end Fiftely we haue great reason to refuse this sense which hath no ground of Scripture wherevpon it can be built as diuers of our writers haue plainely shewed and as I could and would prooue if it agreed with this course of writing Sixthly we affirme that if we shall follow the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot expound it of the place of the damned vnlesse it be apparant that the matter necessarilie requires it which also is to be said of the Hebrew Sheoll commonly in the Bible translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bucer Carlile and Broughton haue shewed by particular induction Seauenthly we must note this mans dealing that makes choise of the woâ—st interpretation as he accompt it whereas he cannot be ignorant both that there are diuers other and that many Protestants do mâ—slike this which he brings as if he would make the world beleeue that we allow not of this peece of the Creed but onely in that sense howbeit many of our diuines do rather expound it of our Sauiours subiection to death or of the truth of his death fully signified not onely by his buriall but by his being altogether in the state of the dead his body and soule being seuered and seuerally so disposed of as all other dead mens bodies and sâ—ules are without any speciall signifying of the place whether his soule went But howsoeuer we dissent from our bretheren in the meaning of this Article we allow the doctrine as good and sound For we beleeue that our Sauiour Christ being by imputation a sinner though of himselfe most holy and pure suffred in his soule the wrath of God due to vs sinners and for our sinnes in such sort and measure as God had appointed and as without sinne in a finite time it could be suffred As for those horrible plasphemies which are sayde to be included in the paines of hell we neither auouch them all of our Sauiour Christ nor acknowledge that they nessarily accompany the wrath of God as in handling the particulars it will appeare Christ saith he bare the wrath of God Therefore he despaired of his saluation The consequence is false for he knew that God loued his person being his sonne and therefore that this wrath should not be perpetuall though the present sense of it wrung from him that lamentable exclamation My God my God why hast thou forsaken me and also that by the power of his Godhead he was to free himselfe from continuing in death which but for these reasons he must needs haue indured and which for a time he did taste the Godhead as it were withdrawing it selfe that the manhood might suffer Christ saith he suffred the wrath of God therefore God hated him and he God Of the latter clause I shall need to say nothing hauing before restrained Christs sufferings to that maner of torment which is without sinne Neither is that hatred of God an effect of his wrath in the damned in whom it is naturall but by his wrath against them that malice of theirs accidentally is increased Which I speake vpon this supposition that the damned shall continue in sinne as well as in punishment The former point if we hold the former distinction aduisedly contaynes at all no blasphemy against our sauiour his person was of it selfe most tenderly beloued of God his father though beeing considered as a sinner such as by imputation hee was in the sight of God for a time in that respect hee was to God for vs as euery one of vs is in himselfe to God Christ suffered saith he the wrath of God therefore he was tormented with anguish of minde for his offences for which c. The consequence should haue bin Therefore he was tormented with anguish of mind for those offences for which he suffered the wrath of God But those were not his but ours Ours I say truly and properly hâ—s only by imputation And it is no blasphemy to hold that Christ so as he was a sinner and punished for sinne had also anguish of minde for sinne not for his owne there was no suspicion or likenesse of sinne in him but for ours which by his consent was charged on him for the time he saw the angry countenance of God against him and hee knewe that our sinnes had deserued the continuance of it for euer But the
comforts I spake of before vpheld him from all daunger of despayring and deliuered him from that perpetuity of torment in which otherwise hauing taken vpon him our Person hee should haue remained Now this so being we need not feare these thunder-bolts of horrible blasphemy although wee beleeue that Christ our sauiour did for a time indure in his soule the wrath of God which was due to our sinnes Neither doe we hereby make God the enemie of God nor of the humanitie of Iesus Christ which he euer most entirely loued but only auouch that God truly hated and punisht our sinnes in his owne sonne with such a kinde and measure of his wrath as being true and iust was euery way without sinne and finite in regard of the time so that I take the Doctrine to be voide of blasphemy howsoeuer the meaning of the Article bee conceiu'd Article 5. The Protestants haue no meane to determine Controuersies and abolish heresies Protestant No more then they haue a rule to know what is matter of Faith Papist As the Protestants neither know what they beleeue nor A. why they beleeue so haue they no meanes in their church to settle them in vnity of beleefe nor to determine controuersies nor to abolish heresies as hath the catholick church for our sauiour Christ by his diuine prouidence did foresee that heresies were to arise in his church as his Apostle S. Paule doth warne vs * 1. Cor 11 Profe that the church caÌ„not â—râ—e Mat. 18. 17 Eph. 4. 11. Ioh. 14. 17 Luk. 10. 16 § Profe of the principall proposition Act â—5 the which as plagues were to infect his flocke and therefore he not only forewarned vs of them but also gaue vs meanes how to preuent and extinguish them 1. â— He willed vs to heare his Church if we would not be accounted as Ethnicks and Publicans 2. He ordeined Pastors and Doctors least we should be carried away with euery blast of vaine doctrine 3. He promised vnto the church the assistance of the holy Ghost in such sort as they which would not heare her would not heare him The catholicks therefore beleeuing certainly that the Church cannot erre that the generall Councils cannot deliuer false doctrine that the Pastors and ancient fathers with ioynt consent cannot teach vntruths when heresies spring vp presently with thâ— voice of the Church pluck them vp by the rootes a In the first Nicene couÌ„cel was coÌ„demned Arrius in the couÌ„cell of ConstaÌ„tinople Macedonius In the couÌ„cel of Ephesus Nestorius In the couÌ„cel of Calcedon Eutiches vide Aug. lib. 2. retract ca. 50 and so euer hath practised and after this maner ouerthrowne all encounters false opinions and errours which the Diuill by his ministers euer planted or established in the world and so they haue bin freed from all braules and quarrels in matters of religion But the Protestants admitting the sole scripture as Vmpere Principall propositioÌ„ and Assumption and iudge in matters of Controuersie and allowing no infallible interpreter thereof but remitting all to euery mans priuate spirit and singular exposition cannot possiblie without errour wind themselues out of the Labyrinth of so many Controuersies wherewith they are now inueagled and intricated And the irreconciliable iarres betwixt them and the Puritans in essentiall points of faith geue sâ—fficient testimony that they will neuer haue an end holding those grounds of opinion which they obstinately defend B. And albeit they goe about to bleare the peoples braines I haue heard of blearing the peoples eyes but neuer till now of blearing their braines which I know not what vnity and conformity in matters of faith and in the substance of religion and that their disagreement only consisteth in points of Ceremonies and trifles of small importance yet in very deed they differ in many essentiall points of religion And although this shift will perhaps serue to cast a mist ouer the confused conceipts of simple soules silly foolesâ— yet no wiseman wil euer beleeue them I pray you tell me is not the Kings supremacie a matter of faith and a chiefe point of religion And do not all sound Puritans in the world denie it and defie it Aske Caluin 7. Amos. Caluin the puritanicall Patriarke what he thought of King Henry the eight for assuming of such a preheminence vnto him read the Annales of Scotland and you shall finde the presumptuous presbytery euery foot opposing themselues against our Kings authority as though he had nothing to doe with the Kirke Looke into the carriage of our precisians at home and you shall find them in shew to professe it but in deeds and effects really to deny it For if they approue his supremacie with what face can they resist his ordinances in matters of religion why weare they not vestments Surplisses the Cap and Tippet why refuse they to baptise with the signe of the Crosse why subscribe they not to the the booke of common praier why obey they not the ecclesiasticall Canons established by his Maiesties authoritie No other reason of this obstinate repugnancie can be yeelded then that in very truth they doe not in Conscience allow of his supremacy 2. Is not the authority of Bishops their power to create ministers their degree in dignity aboue ordinary Curats and Pastors a matter oâ— faith and so neerely toucheth the gouernment of the Church that if this hereticall order be abolished Perhaps he would haue said hierarchicall the whole forme of Christs Church is presently confounded 3. The obseruation of feasts and holy dayes infringed by Puritans maintayned by protestants is it but a Ceremony were not the obstinate impugning thereof a sufficient reason to censure them for Heretikes did not the Councill of Nice condemne the Quartodecimani for Heretickes who would only haue obserued their Easter day vpon the 14. day of the moneth of March What if they had called our Precisians to the barre who will haue it wholy abolished Questionâ—es they would haue branded them in a farre deeper degree of Heresie then the Quartodecimani 4 Is not the obseruation of Lent and other fasting days a matter of more moment then trifles or then things indifferent Did not S. Epiphanius ceÌ„sure Aërius of Heresie for denying these prescript times for fasting For albeit they be not precisely set downe in scriptures and therein commaunded to be obserued yet they being either ordeyned by the Apostles or instituted by the church which had authoritie to appoint fastes at least as well as the puritane presbytery wiâ—hout doubt he that calleth this holy institution either doctrine of Diuils or torture of consciences or restraint of Euangelical libertie ought by the iudgement of all true protestants to be condemned for a pagon and infidell who wil not submit his soule to the censure of the Church 5. The Puritans blasphemously pronounce and ignorantly defende that Christ suffred the paines of hell vpon the crosse and that in this passionful agony agonizing griefe did
ended and heresies abolisht eyther To the principall propositiō by conuincing those that maintaine them of error or by commanding them to forbeare all medling therein The former being the more proper and orderly course may be performed by the Ministers of the word without any infallible interpreter of the Scripture For it is very possible to vnderstand the true meaning thereof in most places and so to prooue it by the Analogie of faith grounded vpon euident Textes and by the examining of the Texts that are in question that a reasonable man shall not be able to with-hould his assent without manifest blindnesse if not wilfulnesse If you aske me what shall become of other places that are very hard I answere that we need not these for the confirming of any point of doctrine as if without them it could not sufficiently be done Further I say that he which mainteines any point that he is not able to auow by any but some such places as this Author doth Purgatorie is no way to be allowed or borne with The other meanes of enioyning silence and quietnesse is partly in the censures of the Church but principally in the authoritie of the Magistrate whom God hath made Soueraigne gouernour for the outward peace and prosperitie of his church This in order must follow the former yet so as that if the Magistrate commaund before conuincing he must be obeyed by forbearance of any further proceedings vnlesse the charge be directly contrary to the commandement of God in which case we must answer with the Apostles Whether it be right in the sight of God Act. 4. 18. 5. 40. to obey you rather then God iudge you But the Protestants saith he admit the sole Scripture as Principall assumptiō vmpere c. What course is to be held for the interpretation of Scripture To the principall assumptiō I haue partly shewed already in the 2. and 3. and in this 5. article and it shall appeare more fully in the particular examining of this discourse according as it is set downe They saith he that certainely beleeue the Church cannot Proofe of the principall Proposition erre haue meanes to settle themselues in vnity of beleefe to end controuersies and abolish heresies and contrariwise they that do not beleeue it haue none When it is proued that the Church cannot erre then the To the proofe of the principall proposition proposition shal be granted but till then it deserues no allowance and if it be granted yet what hereticall church may not haue the same quietnesse vpon the same perswasion Indeed one of the three points euen that which the Papists stand most vpon viz. their outward quiet estate may in part ensue vpon this beleefe though it be most erroneous For this perswasion that the Church cannot erre is sufficient to stay all controuersies when the Church hath shewed her opinion of them And yet it is with them only sufficient that acknowledge this false priuiledge of the church therfore it follows but in part because you must first perswade those that contend of the truth of this assertion ere you cā worke by it vpon their consciences So that although this meanes supposing the truth of it be in it selfe effectuall yet it cānot breed this effect in all that at any time contend about religion but in those only that beleeue it For example put case that some of the Church being perswaded that the Church hath not authoritie to rob the people of the Cup should call this priuiledge of erring into question How will your Church take vp this controuersie will shee vrge the conclusion I cannot erre or will shee procure her Bishops Abbots Cardinals c. to auouch asmuch of her What is this but Aske my fellowe if I bee a theefe Yes it is somewhat worse for it is all one as if he that is arraigned for fellony should say I tell you I am not a theefe were he not worthy to be acquited trow you And such would your proofe be in this question But if the Church in this case could bring out a Charter and plead that for this priuiledge her aduersaries must needs be conuerted or at least might be confounded and so perhaps the Controuersie ended Yet not by the Churches but by the scriptures authoritie which as I must hereafter shew is the meanes that God hath appointed for that purpose but it may perhaps be 1. Proofe that the Church can not erre Proposition To that proposition proued that the Church cānot erre Let vs heare the reasons If they that will not heare the Church must be accounted as Ethnicks and Publicans the Church cannot erre for if the Church could erre then were there no reason why hee that would not heare her should be so accounted of When the Pope sendes his Legats with pardons a begging about the Countrie commaunding them to preach to the people of the vertue efficacie of those indulgences Are they not as Ethnickes or Publicans or worse that shall refuse to heare their sermons and may I herevpon reasonably conclude that therefore they that preach them cannot erre Why shall I not say the like of any Popish Priest moncke or fryer being authorised by the Church of Rome to preach who can refuse to heare them and not be guiltie of contempt against your Church Apostolicke yet I hope these may erre Wherevpon I conclude that therefore your proposion is false if they that will not heare the Church must be accounted as Ethnicks the Church cannot erre But he that will not heare the Church is to be counted as an Assumptiō Ethnick What simplie if he do not heare the church nay rather To the assumption if in that case set downe by our sauiour he do not heare her Now the case is this If one brother or christian sinne against another he that is offended must rebuke the other in priuate betwixt them alone 2. If this preuaile not with him he must the second time rebuke him and that before one or two witnesses 3. If this will not serue he must complaine of him to the Gouernours of the Church 4. If their censure will do no good with him he is to be accounted no mēber of the church after excommunication Let vs now draw an argument from this place and see what it makes for the churches infinite authority He that being thus proceeded withall obeyes not the iust censure of the Gouernours of the church to the confessing of his sinne and satisfying of his brother the congregation is to be accounted an Ethnicke Therefore whatsoeuer the church sayes must be beleeued or therefore the Church cannot erre Who sees not the weaknesse of this reason He that obeys not the church in a iust censure is no longer any member of the Church Therefore he that simply in al things obeies her not acknowledging that she cannot erre is an Infidell Here it would be further considered that by the
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
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