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
the Pope subiect to the Councills Pisa Constance and Basill What to that of Florence vnder Charlemaigne which condemned worshipping of Images and the second Councill of Nice for allowing it Bellarmine saies they are not simply necessary and that more heresies haue bene abolisht without them then by them Nazianzen wholy mislikt them the Councill of Trent and that of Nice ended not the Controuersies Now if neither the Church haue it in generall nor especially Generall Councills how should the Pastors and ancient Fathers come by it For that which is added of their teaching on truth with ioynt consent is but to bleare the eyes of the ignorant Can there bee more ioynt consent then in generall Councills may they erre when they seeke the truth with graue and serious aduise in great multitudes and can they not be deceaued when they enquire after it priuately in their seuerall studies who knowes not that the error of some one man renowned for learning and Godlines drawes whole Churches after it many times especially since custome like a tyrant rules ouer the witts and wills euen of learned men who oft-times thinke it more discretion to retaine a small error with quietnes then to restore the truth with great trouble and hazard But where shall a man finde this ioynt consent you imagine I dare bee bould to say in very few points of controuersie at this day if in any Yet say it were eaâ—ilie to be found in the writinges that now are extant Alas what a small number of bookes haue wee in respect of those that haue bin written What gappes are there in the course of succession What maymes in often copying out bookes by writing What mistaking in translations many greeke copies being lost and the latine translation of them onely remaining And who can tell what Indices Purgatoriâ— haue bene deuised enioyned before this last assemblie of Trent especially since Canons haue bene foisted into ancient Councills by Popes of Rome for the establishing of their lawlesse tyranny Therefore though we refuse not to make triall of our doctrine by the Fathers writings namely those that are indeed auntient in the first 600. yeeres before the kingdome of Anthichrist Yet we receaue them as witnesses of the truth not Iudges and vse them as we vse old Coines not for an assay to trye by them the purenes of metâ—all but for a standard to shew what moneis were currant in seuerall ages and places Where they speake according to Scripture we acknowledge the good graces of God in them to their deserued Commendation Where they write of themselues we obserue examples of mans frailety and ignorance to which we make no doubt but all writers since the Apostles and except them haue bin are and shal be subiect To what tryall then shall we be take our cause To what else but to the Scriptures of God Would a man thinke there should be any professed Christian found that would mislike of this course And yet our Papistes doe They cannot abide to heare that the sole Scripture should be vmpere and iudge in matters of controuersie Belike they haue found a better Euen the Pope to whome they attribute more whatsoeuer they talke of the Church Councills and Fathers then to all three together saue that by Church perhaps they meane the Pope Whom they make the head and husband of it being not afraide blasphemously to write that all the names that are giuen to Christ as he is ouer the Church belong to the Pope as well as to Christ though at the second hand as beeing Christs or rather as they say Gods vicar Perhaps they will say as good do so as remit all to euery mans priuat spirit and singular exposition Surely much about one yet by this later it may come to passe that though many erre yet many also may hold the truth Whereas by the former if one bee deceaued all must lie in ignorance and error since no man may so much as say vnto him why dâ—st thou so But that we permit not the interpretation of scripture to euery mans priuate fancy I shewed in handling the 2. Article Yet this inconuenience lyes vpon vs that we can not possiblie winde our selues out of the labirinth of so many controuersies wherewith wee are now inueigled and intricated When we lacke helpe we will send for their Pope or if neede bee make one of our owne As yet things are not in so desperat an estate that we should be enforced to seeke any such remedie For the Irreconciliable iarres betwixt vs are neither as he slanders vs in any essentiall point of faith nor such as hinder vs from agreeing in that doctrine which is according to the word of God established amongst vs and published in the Booke of Articles 1562. That the Protestants and the Puritans as the Papists B. terme them differ in essentiall points of faith he vndertakes to proue by this reason They that differ about the Kings supremacie the Bishops authoritie the obseruation of feasts c. differ in essentiall points of faith But the Protestants and Puritans differ in these Therefore they differ in essentiall points of faith If by essentiall points of faith all matters of truth in diuinitie be signified we graunt his conclusion adding further that the church was neuer yet so happy as to be without difference of opinions amongst diuines in any one age since the beginning of christian Religion If he meane by these words such things as are necessarilie to be beleeued to saluation or to the profession of christianitie I deny his Proposition in all or the most part of it as in handling the particulars it shall appeare That the Protestants hold the kings supremacie to be an essentiall point of faith so that he which doubteth of it cannot be either in truth or in profession a christian neither the confession of our church no the writings of any of our diuines prooue Indeed seditious Papists would beare the world in hand that their traiterous Priests and Iesuits haue beene executed for religion and not for treason in denying the Kings supremacie but neither Protestant nor Puritan euer yet beleeued them Both which doe constantly and ioyntly auowe that although it be not a heresie of so high a nature yet it is a wicked error against the truth of Gods word and an opinion not to be tollerated in any Christian or ciuill state There is no dissent betwixt the Protestant and the Puritan about the Kings supremacie but the difference that is ariseth from the diuers conceit each part hath of the things by his Maiestie enioyned as it shall appeare in due place Caluin doth not so much as charge Henrie the eight with assuming the Soueraignety he speakes of but onely layes the fault vpon certaine men who in an vnconsiderate zeale as he saith ascribed such a power to him as by the word of God is not warrantable Wherein these two points made him mislike the matter First that he was called
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
vnto vs. That is your Popish Heresie Nay we acknowledge with thankes to God and their iust commendation that the ancient writers haue brought great light to the true vnderstanding of scriptures Yea that many Papists haue interpreted some texts of scripture soundly religiously Moreouer we confesse that all and euery one of our writers either hath or may haue failed in his expositions I speake the last doubtfully because some haue written but little and my selfe haue not examined all If any Heretikes avow the truth of al their owne interpretations what should this preiudice our cause Who submitt whatsoeuer our expositions to be compared with the scriptures to be receaued or refused as they shal be found to agree or disagree with or from the word of God I would add hereunto the generall consent of the ancient writers but that it is a longer and more vncertaine course to try whether they be sutable vnto their owne writings then whether they be framed according to the holy Ghosts meaning For the maine doubt must needs accompany that tryall viz. who shal be Iudge whether we or the Papists rightly vnderstand and expounde the fathers wrytings If any man shall say their Bookes and Commentaries are plaine and easie I dare boldly say of him that either he neuer read what they write or cares not what himselfe sayes It wil not serue the turne to bring some plaine interpretations out of them for so can we alleage very many texts out of the Scripture But he that is desirous to iudge truly of the meaning of any writer must not snatch vp a sentence here and there but aduisedly consider both his manner of writing in other places and the signification of diuers phrases and custome of speech in those times wherin he writ the occasion of those particular words he would vnderstand and diuers other such points Which will proue as ere while I said more troublesome and lesse certaine then to search euery corner of the text for the true meaning of the scripture And here let vs remember that we are sure the scripture agrees with it selfe in euery place and point that any other writers do so who can be assured So that many times we shall beat our braines to reconcile those speeches which indeed are very certaine contrarieties Since that this difficultie remaines in vnderstanding the fathers writings which is the onely doubt in the scripture what madnesse were it to leaue beating of the text wherein we know the certaine truth is to be found and to run ryot in the wilde-feilds of mens inuentions where perhaps there is nothing to be had but errour Let vs vse the helpe of Ancient writers to finde the meaning of the holy Ghost but not rest vpon their authority therein If they proue their interpretations by reason let it be waighed that it may perswade vs to think as they do If there be none let vs labour to find some for their interpretation If that will be not let vs see what other reason we can haue of any other exposition If it please God to shew vs any Let vs craue pardon of the Fathers to dissent from them if none Let vs rather trust them then our selues where there is nothing but coniecture without difference of likelyhood We are far from bragging of any such speciall illumination as the Donatists challenged to themselues For we say not that the Church of God is only in our assemblies or the spirit tyed to vs. Who knowes not that this is a stale popish deuise to shutt vp the holy Ghost in the Popes brest so that neither all Councills without him can be any thing worth and hee of himselfe without any of them is alsufficient A litle flocke wee are in deed if wee bee compared with the huge swarmes of Infidells Papistes and other hâ—retickes Yea as many of vs as belong to the election of God are of that small flocke to which Luke 12. 32. it is Godâ— good pleasure to giue A kingdome To bee of any other Litle flocke wee accompt it no commendation Nay rather wee desire and pray that it would please God to enlarge the boundes of his Church and to increase the number of true professors But we are not ashamed of our small nomber though the Papists twight vs with all in comparison of their huge multitudes Therefore whereas this Papist likens vs to the Donatists Pelagians Nestorians Eutychians with all the rable of other damned heretickes we acknowledge it is our portion to be rayled on with our Master Christ and so shake of this froth of a malicious stomacke with that speech of the Archangell The Lord rebuke thee Now for a Conclusion that the end might be sutable to the beginning he laboures to disgrace the principles of our Religion by affirming as truely as he hath done all the rest that if our principles bee true then Saint Paule exhorts men to infidelity How many of our principles thinke you hee ouerthrowes by this reason But poore one if it were neuer so true and being false as it is not that neither Whosoeuer exhorts vs to doubt of that which we are bound to beleeue by faith exhorts vs to infidelitie The proofe of this might well haue bin spared and the strength you wastâ—nâ—â— reserued for the assumption which hath more need oâ— your help then it seemes your are aware of But Saint Paul doth exhort vs to doubt of our saluation which wee are bound to beleeue by faith according to the Protestants doctrine Because it makes for the better vnderstanding of this Reason I will in few wordes set downe what we teach concerning this point Namely that it behooues euery Christian to laboure for the perfection as of other graces so of the assurance that comes by faith also Which standes in a full perswasion of the loue of God in Iesus Christ and the continuance thereof to his euerlasting saluation In deed this is not the proper nature of faith which rather is that grace whereby we cast our selues vpon Christ to be saued by him But it is an effect of faith which euery Christian must striue to haue grounded in him selfe so that if he haue it not he failes in one duty to God But we may not imagine that whosoeuer hath not this feeling assurance of Gods loue to him either is without faith or shal be damned for the want of this perswasion Nay we make no question but that both faith it selfe this effect of it is in al or the most part very far from perfection euery one hauing his measure alotted vnto him according to the good pleasure of God who sees how much is necessary for euery one in regard of the inward and outward trialls which hee shall haue in this life This must wee indeuour by all good meanes to establish and augment herevnto belongs that exhortation of the Apostles With feare and trembling worke your saluation There are two kinds of men whom it doth concerne
for giuen them They should indeed be so assured and are bound to labour E. for such assurance but not one of many thousands attaines to that plerophorie or full perswasion and yet euery one as I sayd before hath his proportion fitted out for him by the spirit of God according to the measure of tryall which God in his fatherly wisedome will by any meanes make of him so that he shall neuer be finally or wholy swallowed vp of despairing And this is an effect of that iustifying faith by which we lay hold on and apply vnto our selues the sufferings of Christ which euery true Christian man feeles in himselfe in part whiles he liues in this vale of misery and wholly at the time of his departure henco the spirit taking from him all conscience of sinne and filling his soule with the vndoubted feeling of that ioy which God hath prepared for him in Iesus Christ Other assurance then this or in other maner we teach not and namely not this that he is not to be esteemed as a true Christian who makes any doubt vpon any occasion of the pardon of any sinne Now for a conclusion of this Article he geathers of the F. former point that no Protestant can with a safe conscience say the Lords Prayer because therein he must aske forgiuenesse of sinnes whereas he beleeues already that all are forgiuen The reason stands thus He that cannot without note of infidelitie aske forgiuenesse of sinnes cannot with a safe conscience say the Lords Prayer What this note of Infidelitie meanes we shall more fitlie examine in the assumption If by a safe conscience hee meane a conscience free from sinne euen in the very action of prayer we graunt his conclusion Because as it shall appeare in the next article no man performes any dutie in this life vnto God but it is stained with some spot of his naturall corruption But if by a safe conscience he vnderstand a conscience without sinne in respect of his praying as I am perswaded he doth I deny the consequence of his proposition For though a man cannot craue pardon of sinne with a full assurance the want whereof this Papist seemes to call a note of infidelitie yet he may make that petition with a safe conscience that is without any iust checke of conscience for praying so But no Protestant can without note of infidelitie aske forgiuenesse of sinnes That weake faith is not to be counted infidelitie I take it no Christian doubts at all And as little that it is not a note of infidelitie to begge pardon of our sinnes The assurance whereof though we should haue yet we haue it but in part Therefore this assumption is voide of truth as the whole discourse of this article hath proued For I make no doubt but that by note of Infidelitie he meanes as before want of faith in not beleeuing that our sinnes are forgiuen or in demaunding that of God which by faith we are assured he hath already performed All which being answered before there remaines nothing but that I shortly declare what we hould and teach concerning praying for forgiuenesse of sinnes First we beleeue and teach that all our synnes originall and actuall before and after Baptisme both guilt and punishment temporall and eternall are washt away by the bloud and sufferings of the Lord Iesus Christ Secondly that this pardon is made effectuall to vs by faith whereby we cast our selues vpon Christ to be saued by him Thirdly that the assurance which followes vpon beleeuing is wrought in euery man according to his measure and is in no man ordinarily so perfect but that it is mixed with some doubting more or lesse How praying for pardon of sinnes may stand with this faith though I haue shewed sufficiently already yet it will not be amisse to declare it more fully for answer to this accusation We beleeue in some measure that God hath forgiuen all our sinnes in our sauiour Iesus Christ But because our faith is weake we continually pray to God for pardon or rather for the assurance of our pardon to be encreased neither yet doth it follow that then prayer for forgiuenesse is an effect of a weake faith because though our faith were strong yet the feeling of our owne wretchednesse the iust desert of sin and the wrath of God due vnto vs would wring out such entreatie from vs as we see the extremity which our sauiour Christ was in vpon the Crosse made him cry out so maynly My God my God why hast thou forsaken me albeit he was fully assured that God neither had nor would vtterly forsake him Ad hereunto that we do indeed properly demaund forgiuenesse of sinne because we are to receaue actual pardon from God continually both for our originall corruption which alwaies in this life abides with vs and for actuall sins which we dayly and hourely commit against the maiestie of Almighty God If any man shall inferre hereupon that therfore the person sueing is guilty of damnation till his sinne be forgiuen which must ensue vpon his prayer I answer that in respect of God it is pardoned as soone as committed because he that once beleeueth is thereby made a member of Christs mystical body and so hath all his sinnes satisfied for by the death and suffrings of his head Christ But to him that is in his feeling it is not by and by forgiuen namely til by repentance he haue craued mercy of God for it But indeed the chiefe reason and end of our praying to God for pardon is that we may alwayes acknowledge that euery sinne committed by vs deserues euerlasting damnaton of it selfe and should euerlastingly be punisht if that God had not accepted our sauiour Christs satisfaction for vs By which though wee are freed if we rest on him by faith yet both it is our duty according to Gods commaundement to sue for pardō for his sake in truth if we doe it not we haue no reason to perswade our selues that our sinnes are pardoned For howsoeuer it is true that Christ our head hath paid the price of our ransome yet it is also true that we euery day deserue condemnation must entreate God for pardon that so we may come to that assurance which the Lord hath enioyned vs to labour and seeke for The some of all is this that we pray for pardon of our sinnes 1. because Christ hath taught and commaunded vs so to pray 2. because by our sinnes we haue deserued eternall damnation 3. because wee must dayly renew our repentance as we commit new sinnes euery day 4. because we haue not absolute assurance of the forgiuenesse thereof Some perhaps will rather answere that we haue no assurance at all but so long as we continue members of Christs body which is no longer say they then we refraine from great sinnes for by euery such sinne they say we are cut of from Christ and therefore haue need to pray for pardon of it But
this answere both is false in regard of that it affirmes concerning our being out of Christ and also doth not satisfie the whole doubt For it shewes no reason why we may pray for the forgiuenesse of any other sinnes then those great ones So that either we must not craue pardon for smal transgressions or els must do it needlesly since they are already pardoned as long as we abide in the body of our sauiour Christ Wherefore I had rather rest vpon the former answere which is agreeable to the word of God and warrantable by true reason Article 2 Papist The Protestants are bound in conscience to auoyd all good workes Protestant If this Papist would haue avoyded all slaundering the world should not haue bin troubled with such absurd collections Papist Euery man is bound vpon paine of eternall damnation to auoide all deadly sinnes But fasting prayer almesdeeds and all good workes according Luther in after ar 31 32. 39. Calu. lib. 3. inst c. 11. â— 4. c. 14 §. 19. Mclarch locc tit de peccat Confess Augusti articlâ— 6. Rom. 6. 23. Isa 64. 6. to the Protestants religion are deadly sinnes Ergo According to the Protestants religion all men are bound vpon paine of eternall damnation to auoide fasting prayer Almesdeedes all good workes B. The Maior is manifest for the wages of deadly sinne is death Stipendium peccati mors D. The Minor is as euident for according to the Protestants religion and common exposition of this text of scripture Facti sumns vt immundi omnes nos tanquam pannus menstruatâ— omnes iustitiae nostrâ— Wee are made all vncleane and al our Iustices are like a stayned cloth That is as they say the best workes wee can do are infected with deadly synne and consequently deserue eternall damnation and therefore to be auoided I am not ignorant that some wranglers with some shifting euasions go about to answer this article forsooth that the staines and imperfections the sinnes and spots ought to be auoyded but yet the good workes to be prosecuted A silly shift but put case it be impossible to wring out the staines then is not this monstruous cloth to be abhord put case I could not giue almes but I must steale am I not bound in conscience to auoide the giuing of almes Admit I could not see mine enemy but by experieÌ„ce long proued I should fall a quarrelling with him am I bound in conscience to auoide his company say that I could not eat flesh but I should scandalize the beholders ought I not to say non manducabo carnes in aternum I will not eat flesh for euer Graunt that I could not releeue the poore but I should staine this action with vaine glory Should I not heare of him that can not lye he hath receaued his reward and consequently that there remayneth no recompensation therefore in heauen So I say in like maner if the corruptioÌ„ of nature if the poyson of concupisceÌ„ce so staine my best actions that whatsoeuer I do or thinke I cannot possiblie effect them without these infections and corruptions then certainely I am bound in conscience to auoide these crimes offences the which cannot possibly be performed without these vitious circumstances for bonum constat ex integra causa malum nascitur ex quolibet defectu a good thing consisteth of all integrity but an euill thing is caused by euery defect that a man be in health euery humour must keepe his temper that he be sick it sufficeth one onely exceed keepe not his iust proportion so that a work be good it must be effected with all due circumstances that it be ill one only will defile as we commonly say one ill hearbe will spoile a whole potfull of pottage Protestant By an orderly course of disputation the first syllogisme should haue bin to this effect If al good works according to the Protestants religioÌ„ be deadly sins the ProtestaÌ„ts are bound in conscience to auoid al good works But al good works are deadly syns according to the Protesâ—ants Religion Therfore the protestants are bound in conscience to auoide all good workes This or some such syllogisme would haue saued me some labour for I should not haue needed to haue medled with any thing but the matter of it and you some blame for the forme of it would haue bene agreeable to logick Wheras now I must needs take paines to finde fault with the lamenes of your reason Euery man is bound vpon paine of eternall damnation to auoide all deadly synnes This syllogisme is faulty because the conclusioÌ„ agrees not with the questioÌ„ Your conclusioÌ„ is general of al men wheras your questioÌ„ is particular of protestantâ— Besides that runs vpon a penalty of eternall damnation this speakes of being bound in conscience If you answer that is is all one to bee bound in conscience and to be bound vpon pain of eternall damnation either all sinns deserue eternall damnation and then what will become of your purgatory distinction betwixt mortall and veniall sinnes or else no man is bound in Conscience to auoyde any but deadly sinnes and then what a window do you set open to an innumerable company of sinnes â— How empty will you make purgatory How short and bare will your auricular Confessions be It were as good therefore for you to do that you make a show of euen directly to conclude your question But let vs examine the matter of your syllogisme The Proposition I graunt is true that Euery man is bound in conscience or vpon paine of eternall damnation B. to avoide all sinne But what needs this popish distinction of Deadly sinnes Which is so alledged by you as if it had some allowance from our Diuines whereas we wholy reiect this fancy because there is no sinne that deserues not eternall damnation For proofe whereof wee need no other place of Scripture then that which this Papist himselfe bringes The wages of sinne is death Neither may it be preiudiciall Rom. 6. 25 to vs that he hath foisted in Deadly since neither the Greeke hath any such word nor the latine which hee according to his fond custome to no purpose and here also vnwisely against himselfe sets downe We grant there are differences and degrees of sinnes but the least that can be is a transgression and breach of the law and therefore punishable by damnation but if his meaning were by deadly sins to signifie notorious grosse transgressions he doth vs wrong another way as in the assumption it shal presently appeare which is this But fasting prayer alâ—â—â—sdeedes and all good workes according C. to the Protestants religion are deadly sinnes But lying and slaundering are not according to the popish religion as it should seeme by your practise For surely if you thought they were you would neuer be so desperate to practise them against so manifest a truth in matters of so great impoâ—tance It is not possible you should thinke that
righteous But we deny that eyther of these enforcements of such exhortation in any part weakens the doctrine of free iustification by onely resting vpon Iesus Christ Which he may easily conceaue that hath a sincere purpose to glorifie God by the saluation of his chosen For he knowes that as much as is giuen to man for iustifying himselfe is taken from God God and man after this reckoning may part stakes God may haue glory for affording meanes of saluation and abilitie to vse those meanes man may be proud of the well vsing of that abilitie and iustifying of himselfe by the meanes afforded Yet if all men that are inabled did so helpe themselues there were lesse cause of boasting more reason to giue God the glory of iustification For it might well seeme to proceed from the grace that God imparts to them that they are iustified But when some vse it well some ill and this difference of well or ill vsing it flowes from the free-will of men by their owne power what a small part of glory is left to God in the seuerall iustification of those that are saued Hence it follows that the doctrine of iustification by workes preparatorie before a man is at all iustified by workes meritorious after he is begun to be iustified is dishonorable to God the death of all goodnesse in those very workes that are done Because the intent which our Papists magnifie so much is directly derogatorie froÌ„ the glory of God without the true and sincere purpose whereof no workes of any man baptised are one iott better then the morall actions of heathen men But the sonnes of the bond-woman being of a seruile nature respecting themselues either only or principally being ignorant and without feeling of the affection of childreÌ„ can neuer be perswaded that any sonne of God will performe duties of kindnesse and thankfulnesse to his father but must needs doe that he doth like a hireling for loue of wages And by such meanes our Papists would procure and deserue the perfect reconciliation of their soules with God as if we were not perfectly reconciled in Christ in whom God reconciled the world to himselfe not imputing their sinnes What is it to be reconciled to God but to haue Gods displeasure remoued his fauor fatherly loue vouchsafed to vs This hath Christ procured by his death and bloud-shedding the increase of our sanctification in vs by the dayly dying vnto sinne and rising againe vnto newnesse of life restores more perfectly the image of God decayed in vs by naturall corruption and manifold actuall transgressions but reconciles vs neuer awhit the more to God When the Prodigall sonne Luc. 15. 20 came home to his father starued and euill coloured in his body ragged and torne in his apparrell who can doubt for all this but he was fully reconciled to his father when he fell on his neck kissed embraced and entertained him but as his flesh euery day came better and better as his colour mended and waxed more fresh when he was arrayed according to his estate he did more liuely represent the sonne of such a father The same is our case in Christ by his suffrings are we wholy reconciled vnto God For we are made his Children but we begin dayly more and more to resemble him as we Ioa. 1. 12. Gal. 4. 4. 5. growe in holinesse of nature and conuersation Therefore let the Papists imagine that they reconcile themselues to God by mortification of passions and I know not what supposed vertues It is sufficient for vs that Christ hath by his bloud made our peace and put vs in possession of his fathers loue and fauour If this be a false fantasticall apprehension of Christs death and passion to relie wholy vpon him for reconcilation with God by his bloud and propitiation then his dying the Apostles preaching and our beleeuing is all in vaine How then doth this Doctrine tend to loosenesse especially if it be remembred that we shut al men out from iustificatioÌ„ that are not sanctified by the spirit of Christ They tell vs saith hee that faith anâ— good workes can not be seuered Would you knowe what faith he meanes only a perswasion of the truth of the Scripture euen such an one as the Diuil is said to haue and that with a Popish preparatorie good worke namely Feare The diuills beleeue and tremble Iac. 2. 19. But if they would speake any thing to the purpose they should proue these 3. things 1. that to beleeue in Iesus Christ iâ— nothing els but to be perswaded that these points that the Scriptures teach of Christ are true Which will neuer be done as long as that famous distinction is retemed Credere Deum deo in deum To beleeue there is a God to beleeue that all that God sayes is true to beleeue or trust in God or to rest vpon him and as our Nor theme men speake very plainely and significantly to beleeue on God Secondly that a man thus relying vpon Christ to be saued by him for al this beleuing is not iustified contrary to the whole course of the Gospell Thirdly they must shew vs that a man may be iustified and yet not sanctified then which nothing is more repugnant to popery For the popish Doctors teach vs that to be iustified is To haue sinne abolisht and grace infused into vs whereby and for which wee are as they say truely and habitually iust in the sight of God If they answere that these maâ—ters haue bin already proued by their Diuins we reply that ours haue shewed the insufficiency of their proofes and that if either this accuser or any other Papist will vrge those scriptures that haue bin aledged to this end any further or bring any that yet haue not bin brought he shall receaue by the grace of God true and sufficient satisfaction if truth will satisfie him In the meane while it shall suffice to put this Author in minde that his experience failes him beeing made not of those that beleeue in Christ but of them that beleeue Christ or at the most geue credit to those things which are spoken of him in the Gospell Whereunto I ad that neither faith which hath force to remoue mountaines is so noble as that which makes a man heire of heauen nor because that faith can be without Charitie Therefore either he that beleeues in Christ can bee without iustification or he that is iustifyed without sanctification They assure vs saith he that faith once had can neuer be lost What then This vaine securitie saith he opens the gap to all libertine sensuality If he speake of the euent all experience refuts him because no men liue more soberly and Christianly then they that haue the greatest measure of this perswasion And indeed it cannot bee otherwise For this is no where but where the spirit of God is and where he is there only is true sanctification If he blame the doctrine in respect of
that euer was coÌ„mitted And because of many other such reasons aleadged by our diuines heretofore whereof this of his is none being indeed without all shew of likelihood For how doth the bodily presence of Christ deterre any man from sinne and wickednesse nay rather it incourages him thereto For who would feare or respect such a God as hath neither eye to see nor eare to heare that is crusht vp togeather into the compasse a baggage Wafer cake which he may and must eate and if he be afraide of any displeasure by it he may throw it to the Dogges or cast it into the fire as one of your Popes did Miserable Idolaters that worship such a breaden created God! But I pray you what aduantage get we by remouing Christs bodily presence from the Sacrament as long as we confesse that both God-head and manhood are truely receiued of all faithfull beleeuers in that blessed communion How vnreasonable an absurditie were it to imagine that the bodily presence of Christ can worse consort with sinfull liues then his spirituall Whereas we are sure that while he liued he was bodily present with sinners and Publicans but spiritually neuer had any communion or conuersation with any such vntill his grace had in some measure purged them Papists indeed absurdly dreame that the wicked receiue Christ in the Sacrament and yet haue no benefit by Christs being in them For what cause saith he haue they coyned a new negatiue Religion First proue they haue and then require an answere But that is vnpossible vnlesse your skill will serue you to perswade men that the Scriptures are newly coyned and as true is your charge that our religion is negatiue otherwise then the Scriptures are which are profitable to teach to coÌ„uince 2. Tim. 3. 16. to correct to instruct in righteousnesse But what a toye is this to obiect that to vs in disgrace of our Religion which the Iewes with as good reason might haue obiected to our Sauiour and the Gentiles to his holy Apostles for did not he and they vtterly take away the Sacraments ceremonies rites lawes customes of the Iewes and all heathenish points of the Gentiles superstition and Idolatry you deale with vs in this case as a man would deale with the right heire to lands which he iniuriously deteyned You haue forged new deeds conueiances wheÌ„ we come to demand our right you tel vs our plea stands vpon negatioÌ„ of euidences deeds conueiances whereas we bring the most ancient record of Scripture to proue our title as our proper plea and deale with your forgeries no further then the necessitie of cleering our right and the truth enforceth vs. which also driues me at this time to make a short answere to your slaunders How doe we bring in Feasting for fasting When neither you Papists haue any true fasts among you neither do we ordinarily vse any feasting vpon those dayes which being superstitiously left to vs by you are Ciuilly retained by vs with more moderation then your selues vsed Saue only that we make it no matter of conscience to forbeare flesh at such times appointed In steed of galloping ouer Pater nosters Aue maries and Creeds with many Idolatrous some blasphemous adiurations without vnderstanding or affection we haue restored the true vse of praying which is to confesse our sinnes and with hearty sorrowes to craue pardon of God in the name of Iesus Christ for his sake and in his only mediation That is popish deuotion the dissolution whereof in deed we haue by all meanes procured and by the gracious mighty prouidence of God performed Not to make men more vainely secure but more religiously deuout in geuing the honor to God only which Papists rob him of to worship their owne Idolatrous inuentions this we continually teach and vrge not without zeale in verball sermons how glad would you be if it were so and how well would you like such sermons But with euidence of truth prouing by the scriptures that the Pope is that very great Antichrist prophecied of by Paule and Iohn That popery is an Idollatrous seruice patcht vp togeather by little and little as the diuill could from time to time deuise and procure allowance of such points as were fitt for the aduancâ—ng establishing of his eldest sonne Antichrist But if any of our sermons be verball they are those that are botcht vp out of your postills foaming vp a little froath of carnall wit withour zeale in the speaker or coÌ„science in the hearers that are delighted with such vanities neither of which seemes to haue any sufficient knowledge or feeling of the true course and vse of preaching Article 5. Papist The Protestants make God the Author of sinne the only cause of sinne that man sinneth not that God is worse then the diuell Protestant The Protestants make the diuill and man the onely Authors and committers of all sinne and namly of these heresies and slaunders wherewith you haue stult this malicious pamphlet Papist Whosoeuer defendeth that God commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth impelleth to sinne maketh God the cause of sinne But all Protestants say that God commaundeth perswadeth Calu lib. 1. instit c 17. sect 11. c 18. sect 4 li. 3. c. 23. sect 7. 8. 9. Zuingl serd prouidentia Beza aphoris vrgeth impelleth to sinne Ergo. The Protestants make God the cause and author of sinne The maior I proue for if God perswade or impell men to sinne as for example Iudas to sel Christ Saint Peter to deny Christ the Iewes to crucifie Christ questionles he intended the sacriledge of Iudas the negation of Peter the murder of the Iewes and this much more effectually then Iudas Peter or the Iewes for who can resist his impulsion or who can frustrat his intention Voluntati euis quis resistet who is able to oppose himselfe against his wil yea what maÌ„ is he that in conscience were not bound to coÌ„forme his will vnto the wil of God who is the author of al good wills the first rule square of al regular wils Iudas Peter the Iewes if they had followed the motions of God who could haue blamed them for following him who could not erre in impelling nor sinne in perswading them But some will say God moued them for a good end videlicet the redemption of man and they intended an ill end to wit lucre reuenge or some other sinister effect Yet this Ad Rom. 3 v. 8. snift will not salue the soare For euill may not be done that good may follow Non suâ—t facienda mala vt inde veniant bona For otherwise a man might steale to giue almes be drunke for a meriment commit adultrie to beget Children Moreouer why might not Iudas Peter or the Iewes intend that good end that God intended and haue sold denied and crucified Christ conforming their intentions to his they being instruments and he the first mouer Agane it cannot be said but that God indirectly
of adultery discouered If by Vrias death it were not otherwise prouided for And that the place of Scripture by him alleaged is not to be wrested according to his fancy it may appeare by the 3. chap. 17. verse where it is said that he which shuts vp his bowells of compassion from his brother that hath â—eed hath not the loue of God abiding in him Yet I think this Papist will not condemne euery man as void of the loue of God vpon the refusall at some one time to giue almes to him that stands in neede Though it can not be denied but such a refusall is a breach of the lawe of God So then by this reason it is not proued that Dauid lost his faith or that faith may be lost Yf it could as easely haue bin proued out of Ezechiel 18. as said no doubt we should haue had it to the full But you shall giue vs leaue to beleeue it when wee see it done In the meane while it is inough to stop your mouth that your proofe may as easely be answered as you Imagine it may be made Especially if you remember that Ezâ—chiels speach is conditionall Conditionalis â—ihil poniâ— in esse A thing is not proued to be because if it be such or such an euent shall follow therevpon Artictle 7. Papist The Protestants shal neuer haue life euerlasting because they will haue no merits for which euerlasting life is giuen Protestant Miserable Protestants if the Pope had giuen that place and office to this man which he hath bestowed vpon Saint Peter to make him porter of heauen gates Papist A. Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages is giuen for works But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages Ergo the kingdome of heauen is giuen for works The maior or first proposition may be declared after this maner For example her Maiesty may bestow 1000. pounds a yeare vpon some suter either gratis of meere liberality so it is called a guift Donum a grace or fauor or vpon conditioÌ„ if he behaue himselfe manfully in the warres of Iâ—eland in this case the reuenue is called Merces wages Remuneratio Stipendium a reward or paiment And although her Maiesty did shew him a grace fauour to promise such a reward for performing such a work the which he was bouÌ„d vpon his allegeance otherwise to performe yet once hauing promised and the worke being performed her Maiesty is bound vpon her fidelity iustice to pay that she promised In like maner God may giue vs the kingdome of heauen without any respect or regard of works as he giueth it to litle Ad Rom. 4. v. 5. Children that are baptised and so it is a meere guift a pure grace Or hee may giue it with some respect vnto our works so he giueth it to al them who hauing vse of discretion keepe his commaundements for this cause it is called wages Mâ—rces a reward and thus the maior must be vnderstood to wit that Whatsoeuer God giueth as wages is giuen for works and such wages are called merits vvages then merits haue a mutuall relation for what are wages but a reward of merits what are merits but a desert of wages The minor is most plaine inculcated in scriptures Voca B. Apoc 22. vers 12. 1. Cor. 3. vers 8. Mat. 5. 12. cap. 6. vâ—rs â— 1. 1. Tim. 5. vers 18. operarios redde illis mercedem Call the workemen pay them their wages Ecce ego venio merces mea mecuÌ„ est reddere vnicuique secunduÌ„ opera sua â—oe I come my wages with me to giue to euery one according to his workes Vnusquisque propriam mercedem accipiet secundum suum laborem Euery on shal receaue proper wages according to his labour The like we haue in tweÌ„ty other places of scripture al which infallibly proue that the kingdoÌ„ of heaueÌ„ is giuen as wages for merits and consequently that Protestants who are enemies to merits shall neuer attaine to the kingdome of heauen which is purchased by good works and merits and for such men we may well say that heauen was neuer made no more then learning for him that will neuer studie nor vertue for him who despiseth the exercise thereof Protestant Any man may see with halfe an eye that the point in question is not concluded in this syllogisme But this fault is so common with this disputer that I am weary of noting it The reason stands thus being orderly shortly concluded If the kingdom of heauen be giuen for workes and the Protestants will haue no merits the Protestants shall neuer haue the kingdome of heauen But the kingdome of heauen is giuen for workes and the Protestants will haue no merits Therfore the Protestants shall neuer haue the kingdome of heauen See this popish sleight of confounding workes merits as if they were all one Indeed the ancient Latin writers put meritum desert or merit for opus worke somtimes mereri to deserue sometimes for consequi to obtaine or to be vouchsaft a thing But neither are they all one in truth and the scripture that speakes much of workes neuer vtters any word of merit Therefore the consequence of this proposition is little worth Neither is the assumption of this syllogisme any better as being altogeather false For how can the kingdome of heauen be giuen for works when as it is an Inheritance not a purchase For as many as are redeemed by Gal 4. 4 5. Ioa. 1. 12. Rom. 8. 17. Christ receaue the adoption of sinnes and all Gods sonnes are heires euen fellow heires with Iesus Christ Now to the heire the inheritance is due as descending vpon him neither can he make purchase of that which already is his owne by law Hireling indeed worke for wages yet many of them câ—not iustly plead desert in claiming their wages But whatsoeuer their plea be it is strange diuinitie law too for children to deserue their owne inheritance The weaknesse of this assumption is vnderpropt with this reason 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 This is your proofe to the which at the last we are come But you forget your selfe much therein For the question is not of workes but of desert by working so that if the conclusion of this syllogisme be granted the kingdome of heauen is giuen for workes yet are you farre enough from prouing your article that euerlasting life is giuen for merits Since some thing may be due vpoÌ„ promise by couenant which notwithstanding is no way deserued And this it should seeme you saw well enough and therefore chose rather to bring a weake similitude then to make offer of any sound proofe You tell vs a tale what the Lord may doe vtterly to no purpose Wherein I note onely these two things First that if all you
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.
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