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
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.
it serues to fill vp the measure and make a shew not for disproofe but disgrace of our profession But let vs see his proofe If the Protestants saith he haue any faith hope charitie repentance Church Altar Sacrifice Priest religion Christ then the world was without them for 1000. yeares or rather 1500. But the world was not without them for 1000. or 1500. yeeres Therefore the Protestants haue no faith hope charitie c. B. I deny the consequence of your proposition First because To the propositiō the Protestants may haue some faith hope charitie c. Though they haue not the same that the world then had as the Greeke and Aethiopian Churches haue some faith at this day howsoeuer they differ both from the Protestants and the Papists in diuers points of Religion Secondly because the Protestants professe the same faith and Religion which the Church of Christ alwayes held till it was by little and little supprest and driuen out of sight by Antichrist as it appeares that I may name onely those bookes that are extant in English by Bishop Iewell Doctor Fulke Doctor Whitaker Doctor Bilson Doctor Reynolds the Lord Plessy Doctor Willet and diuers other Protestant diuines Our confession makes nothing for them because if the church were eclipsed for 1000. yeares it was in the world else how could it be eclipsed vnlesse the Sunne and the Moone cease to be in the world when they are in the eclipse The proofe they offer and yet they doe but offer it is insufficient for it followes not that if these few records we haue of the East and West churches make no mention of the Faith and Religion we professe then they were not at all in the world You will say shew vs where they were held nay proue you they were held no where for we now are answeres not replyers and what if it could not be shewed yet we know by the Articles of our Creed that there hath beene alwayes a true church in which say we this Religion that we now professe must of necessitie haue beene held and with vs it is no inconuenience to haue the true church hid this it stands you vpon to disproue which when you attempt to doe by any particular records you shall God willing haue particular answeres yet we are content for auowing the substance of our doctrine to stand to the records of Antiquitie in these parts of the world where we gladly and thankfully acknowledge that the truth of God was for the most part faithfully preserued at the least for the first 500. yeares But the world saith he was not without them for 1000. or 1500. yeares No nor for 1000. minutes nor for one minute Therfore To the Assumption your proofe in this point might haue bin spared especially being no better then it is If the world saith he was without faith for 1000 yeares then Proofe of the Assumption was the Iewes Synagogue more constant for continuance and more ample for largnesse then the Church of Christ But the Iewes Synagogue was not more constant or ample Therefore the world was not with out faith c. for 1000. yeares If your words expresse your meaning in good english then in your Proposition you compare the Church of the Iewes which was before Christ with the church of Christians since christ If your purpose be as it should seeme by your proofe it is to make a comparison betwixt the Iewes Synagogue and the Christian Churches as they haue beene since Christ you should haue saide in steede of was hath bene This consequence proues nothing because no man can To the propositiō be sure that there shal not be aboue 1500. years from hence to the end of the world in which this doctrine we now professe shall continue the Iewes also being conuerted to our Religion or barred of the exercise of their owne superstition and if that should come to passe the Iewish Synagogue could haue no cause of boasting But I will not striue about this consequence Let vs come to the assumption But the Iewes Synagogue saith he hath not bene namely since the comming of Christ more ample or constant We easily graunt you this assumption confessing a perpetuall To the Assumption continuance of Christs Church from the beginning of the world to the end thereof and beleeuing that the number of them which haue professed the truth of Christs Gospell hath bene greater then the multitude of the Iewes since our sauiours comming If the Iewes Synagogue saith he hath bene more constant Proofes of the Assumption and ample then Christi admirable promises are not accomplished I denie your consequence for neither the Prophets nor our sauiour Christ compare this bastard Synagogue of the Iewes with the church of christ but that which was indeed the church of God For this that now is hath neither promise nor allowance from God but that church in comparison whereof the Lord magnifies the church of christ after his comming had many and excellent promises vouchsaft it by God which yet are much inferiour to those that were promised and are performed to the christian church If the comparison must be with the Church of the Iewes before Christ the visible continuance of the Iewish Synagogue since Christ is alledged by you to no purpose Let vs take your proposition in the best sense and answere seuerally to the 3. parts of the consequence If the Iewes Synagogue say you hath bene more ample and constant then Christs admirable promises are not accomplished The promises of God made to the church of Christ in D the Prophets are either of the outward estate thereof as that To the proofe of the Assumption it should be vniuersall for all nations not the Iewes only that it should be maintayned by Kings Queenes c. Or of the inward to which we must referre the peace the glory and the continuance for euer As for the perpetuall visibility and famousnesse in the world there is neither mention nor signification of any such matter in the Prophets and namely not in this place vnlesse perhaps it may be from hence concluded that there shal be more years from the first comming of Christ to his second then there were in the continuance of the Iewish Synagogue vnder the law which I thinke no sober Diuine will affirme howsoeuer it shall fall out in the euent Then saith he Christs assistance hath fayled Our Sauiour Mat. 16. 18. makes no promise of the continuall visibilitie of his Church but onely promiseth that the Diuell shall not preuaile against any true member thereof to breake of his continuance in the state of saluation who hath once with Peter by a true faith confest the Lord Iesus Then Christs presence saith he was absent many hundred yeares before the finall consummation There is no more promised Mat. 28. 20. but that our Sauiour F. wil be with them that beleeue and namely with his ministers till the end
of the world whensoeuer and wheresoeuer they be But we easily grant a perpetuall continuance of the church though we denie a necessity of visiblenesse Therefore neither Atheists nor Machiauillians haue G. any aduantage against the church by our doctrine but by the Papists rather who teach them to vnderstand our sauiours promises carnally and falsly Article 2. The learned Protestants are infidels Answere The title is only of the learned of them al the proofe of the vnlearned also but of them only that are in England Whosoeuer buildeth his faith vpon his owne priuate and singular A. exposition of scripture is an infidell But all Protestants in England build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of scripture Ergo all the protestants of England are Infidels The Maior cannot be denied because faith must be B. C. infallible and impossible to be either erroneous or chaungeable But faith which is builded vpon priuate exposition of scripture is subiect to errour and chaunge and consequently vpon better aduise and consideration may be altered The Minor I proue for either they build their faith vpon D. their owne priuate opinion in expounding of scripture the exposition of the church the Fathers or councels but not vpon these three ergo vpon their owne priuate exposition Some Protestants allow the fathers their expositions so farre forth as they agree with Gods word and no further E. but this is nothing els but to delude the world for what meane they when they say they will allow them so far â—orth as they agree with the scriptures meane they perhaps that if the fathers bring scriptures to proue any point of religioÌ„ now in controuersie to allow that point as true if so why then reiect they a August lib. de cura agenda pro mortuis Saint Augustine and other fathers who bring scripture to proue praier for the dead yea and all coÌ„trouersies almost in religion the fathers proue by scriptures when they dispute vpon them Or perhaps they meane to admit the fathers when they alleage scripture but such as euery protestant shall allow of F. so it be conformable to their fancies and fit their new coined Gospell and in this sense who seeth not that euery paltry companion will make himselfe not only the true Expositor of christs word but also will preferre his exposition before all ancient fathers when they daunce not after his pipe and consent not with his heresies Protestant First vpon your proposition thus I conclude A. Whosoeuer builds his faith vpon his owne priuate and singular exposition of scripture is an Infidell But the Pope builds his faith vpon his owne priuate and singular exposition of scripture Therefore the Pope is an Infidell Secondly I answere to your Syllogisme The Maior you say cannot be denied And I say it cannot be proued vnlesse you can shew either that no priuate and singular exposition of scripture can be true or that a man is therefore an Infidell because hee buildeth his faith vpon a priuate and singular exposition though it bee true For I take it you will not wrangle with mee because I speake generally of a priuate and singular exposition The reason of your mislike being not that a man should take his owne exposition but that he should ground vpon any priuate and singular exposition Indeed no man is an Infidell that builds his faith vpon a true exposition of Scripture whether it be publick or priuate because the truth of beleefe depends not vpon the publicknes of an exposition but vpon the soundnesse thereof If faith saith he must be infallible and impossible to be eyther Proofe of the proposition erroneous or changeable and faith built vpon priuate exposition be subiect to error and change Then he that builds his faith vpon his owne priuate exposition is an Infidell But faith must be infallible and impossible to be erroneous or changeable And faith built vpon priuate exposition is subiect to error and change Therefore he that builds his faith vpon his owne priuate exposition is an Infidell His reason may be diuersly concluded but I haue taken C. the shortest course and yet I haue set downe the full force of it which indeed is in the later part of the Assumption viz. That faith built vpon priuate exposition is subiect to errour and change No faith built vpon a true exposition of Scripture though To the assumption neuer so priuate is subiect to error or change For truth is in its nature vnchangeable and voide of error and we dispute now not of the euent whereby it may and doth come to passe that true doctrine is changed but of the nature of that â—octrine which is true I am sure no Papist will deny but a true Catholique in profession may become an heretick yea an Apostata as Iulâ—â—n did and yet that faith of his which he forsooke was true and vnchangeable But all Protestants in England saith he build their faith Principall AssuÌ„ption vpon their owne priuate exposition of Scripture Then belike not vpon Luther Caluin Beza c. as sometime D. To the assumption you charge vs vpon whom indeed we build not but only vpoÌ„ the true exposition of the Scriptures being examined according to those places points which naturall reason enlightned by the spirit of God caÌ„not but acknowledge In which respect the Popish interpreters do ordinarily refuse former expositions and deliuer their owne opinions submitted to the iudgement of the Church which no Protestant euer misliked so they take not Antichrist for Christ. But what is it you call priuate exposition doe we leaue euery man to his owne fancie in expounding the scriptures How can that be when as we haue certaine rules according vnto which all expositions must be framed The Analogie of faith conference of like places examining the originals with diuers other and namely the consent of former diuines to which though we may not tie our selues because they might and haue erred yet we allow no man libertie to refuse their interpretations but onely where euident reason taken from the Scriptures themselues necessarily requires it Indeed we thinke it vnreasonable that a man should hand ouer head receiue whatsoeuer is deliuered vnto him vpon the credit of 1. Ioa. 4. 1. men especially since we haue a charge giuen vs to trie the spirits and meanes appointed vs for the tryall Not onely some but all learned Protestants for ought I E. know or I thinke he can prooue allow the Fathers and their expositions so farre forth as they agree with Gods word And do any Papists allow them further If they do they allow false expositions of Scripture For such are all that agree not with the word of God But how can we be sayd to delude the world when we professe that we allow them no farther then they agree with Gods word and meane as we professe yet it is not our meaning to allow
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
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
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
Supreame head of the Church which title being taken from the Pope and giuen to the King seemed to inuest that whole power in the Kings person which the Pope had vsurped ouer the church Secondly Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester affirmed at Ratisbon that it was lawfull for the King to forbid eating of flesh vpon this or that day to forbid Priests to marry to take from the people the vse of the Cup in the Supper of the Lord The later two whereof are simply vnlawfull the first only so farre as it concernes putting religion in such abstinence of which anon And in that sense onely did Caluin denie the Kings supremacie in this point taking it to be all one with the Popes What opposition the Presbyterie of Scotland hath made against the King I neither know nor haue now leasure to seeke But if they haue done any thing whereby it may iustly be suspected that they thinke the king hath nothing to do with the kirke they haue gone beyond their bounds and shall neuer haue eyther approbation or excuse by my defense As for the Ministers and people which doe not yeeld to subscription and conformitie I must needs labour to cleere them of this imputation To which purpose I desire it may first be obserued that they acknowledge both by word and writing and that ex animo not like you Papists with I know not what aequiuocations that the Kings Maiestie vnder God is the onely supreame Gouernour of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse dominions and countries as well in all spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as temporall that no forraine Prince person state or Potentate hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within his Maiesties said Realmes dominions and countries according as the statute agreeablie to the law of God requireth Secondly they professe with the rest of their Fathers and brethren Protestants that his Maiestie hath authoritie to commaund or forbid in all matters whatsoeuer necessarie or indifferent and that in both these he is to be obeyed vpon conscience Of his authoritie in matters commanded by God we are wholy of one minde About the matters in question there are these two differences Whether they be indifferent or no whether supposing them to be indifferent they may be commaunded and done in case they be thought to nourish superstition in many and to be an occasion of stumbling and destruction to many a one for whom Christ hath dyed And these are the reasons why they dare not as they say approue some things in our church by subscription and practise otherwise professing not onely a willingnesse but a desire to yeeld if they might satisfie their owne consciences in these doubts So that indeed they no way deny the Kings supremacie either by attributing that to any forrain poteÌ„tate or prelate or any presbytery at home which lawfully beloÌ„gs vnto him or by denying his authority in things indifferent Concerning the authoritie of Bishops it is not an essentiall point of faith and besides the best protestant diuines holde that the forme of gouernment is left to the discretion of euery church to be framed as the ciuill estate may beare it and therefore it is not denyed I thinke that there may be a Presbytery but that a Presbytery is fit for a Monarchie So that the abolishing of Bishops in some Churches is not a confounding of Christs church but a dissoluing of one outward forme of gouernment Essentiall points of faith are matters of doctrine wherein a man may be sound and yet faile in some parts of obedience If therefore by not obseruing you meane not thinking it lawfull to obserue or appoint holy daies I say it is no esseÌ„tiall point of faith to doubt of or deny this authority though the Puritans generally hold such deniall to be an error If it be your meaning to charge the Puritans with neglecting the obseruation of such daies I dare be bold to say that all Puritans do more religiously obserue them then any Papist doth the Lords day or Sunday which I auowe both of Ministers and people That it is vnlawfull for the church or magistrat to appoint fasts for the religious humbling of men vpon iust occasions it is a foule error for any man to hold but not against any essentiall point of faith required to the being of a christian either in truth or profession Both Protestants Puritans agree generally about this point as for the weekly fish daies LeÌ„t the 4. ember weeks our church and state disclaime the appointing of them for any vse of religion and keepe them only as meanes to prouide for the encrease of cattell and mainteinance of shipping Mariners Fishermen and Fishmongers Neither is this doctrine of Christs suffrings any essentiall point of faith nor blasphemy on the one part or other as I haue sâ—ewed before in the fourth article This makes no difference betwixt Protestants Puritants because many on either side are of this opinion many of the contrary Of this I say as of the former that taking it in such a sense as this Papist doth it is no essentiall point of faith but in the true meaning of the article it is for it belongs to to the truth of Christian Religion as a substantiall point to hold that our Sauiour Christ was wholly in the estate of the dead both for soule and bodie Of this matter alsoe there is diuersitie of opinion betwixt Protestants and Protestants Puritans and Puritans and therefore it is fondly and falsly set downe as a point of dissent betwixt protestants and Puritans The like answere is to be made to this also saue onely that it may be doubted whether any Protestant agree with the Papists in this point or no generally I am sure the Puritans and the Protestants are of one opinion in this matter To hold that Christ is God of God the naturall sonne of God coessentiall CoeÌ„ternall to his father is a matter of necessitie at the least so that the Contrary ouerthrowes religion But for my part I dare not affirme that the distinct knowledge of all such points is of necessity to saluation And surely sauing other mens better iudgment I am of opinion that those Clauses of Athanasius Creed which seeme to shut all men out of heauen that beleeue not those articles of the Creed are to be vnderstood of some of them onely or of the Contrary to the truth The holy and learned man spake according to the occasion the heresie of Arrius hauing made a maine difference betwixt the true and false Christians But of these three last points see The fourth Article Thus much of the maine differences which this Papist â—oats now followe the petty ones as hee calls them The first whereof is as true as the former seauen For our agrement in the matter of Baptisme may easilie be knowne by our ioynt consent to the articles of Religion 1562. according to
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