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
aske be graunted it helpes you nothing for what if euerlasting life be giuen for workes how often must you be told that working and deseruing are not all one We deny not that God will reward euery least good worke of any of his children but we cannot graunt that eyther the reward he will giue is euerlasting life or that any workes of his children deserue that reward which he will giue I doubt not which is the second thing I note in his similitude but you Papists your selues would thinke it extreame presumption for any subiect to claime as of merit that 1000. pound a yeare which was promised by the Prince for good seruice in Ireland especially if it may be truely obiected against such claime that though some fewe actions haue bene valiantly performed in part yet both in the best there hath beene defect and for one thing well done twentie haue beene left vndone How then shall any man proudly vaunt of merit that knowes what Gods law requires and what his owne deserts are It is the infinite goodnesse of God our father in Iesus Christ that he doth accept of our vnperfect obedience crowne it with glory for all the imperfections thereof But euerlasting life saith he is called wages and giuen as wages As if we denied that good workes shall receaue reward and need euery foote put you in minde of the difference of workes and merites But indeed euerlasting life or the kingdome of heauen is neuer I thinke called wages in Scripture There is a reward promised by God viz. an increase of glory which shal be imparted to the faithfull proportionably to the measure of grace and vse thereof in this life according to workes But the kingdome of heauen is an inheritance belonging to all the faithfull as members of Iesus Christ their head whose first and properly it is This I proued a little before and therefore will now onely set it out more plainely by a similitude or likenesse The sonne and heire of a King hath interest in the kingdome by right of inheritance the Kings moâ—eables may eyther in his life time by guift or by legacie after his decease be disposed of to whom he please The King to incite his sonne to valure and loue of vertue promiseth him that he will giue him some speciall reward for euery valiant exploit or attempt with true martiall discretion and resolution This reward is to be raised out of his moueables giuen indeed for workes but not to be claimed vpon desert in regard of some iust exception which the King his father may take against all such his enterprises and atchiuements Such is our estate in matters of euerlasting life by resting vpon Iesus Christ to be saued by him we become members of his mysticall body sonnes of God his father and ours by him heires of euerlasting life which is his inheritance and ours as members of him God our Father hath made promise to vs being now sonnes and heires and hauing thereby interest in his kingdome of reward of all things that we shall valourously atchieue or resolutely vndertake for the glorifying of his name according to his will This promise conueyes not to vs any title to the kingdome for that is ours already euen in possession by Christ but incourageth 1. Cor. 15. 58. vs to Christian obedience to be stedfast vnmoueable aboundant alwayes in the worke of the Lord for as much as we know that our labour is not in vaine in the Lord. And yet this is not our onely or greatest motiue to good workes For that ariseth from our Child-like affection to so kind and bountifull a father Which if the Papists haue not let them not therfore deny that there is any such thing like the mole that will not beleeue that any beast can see because she her selfe is blind What if they like hirelings will doe nothing but for wages The sonnes of God in this life take as great pleasure in their present obedience as in their future reward which notwithstanding they most assuredly looke for according to his promise that can not faile euer God our Father To whome with the sonne and Holy Ghost bee all obedience thanks and glory from this time for euer and euer Amen A Conclusion vnto his most speciall friend Maister F. T. THus my deare friend I haue sett downe those reasons which induced me to receaue the Catholick faith and for which I continue therein Consider I pray you whether they be not so substantiall and waightie as any wise man might accept and allow of or at least might cause a reasonable doubt of religion arise in his minde concerning the Protestants faith for if these bee true as questionlesse they are most true what man of iudgment will hazard his soule vpon a religion pestered with so many notorious absurdities and palpable errors Eternall damnation is a matter of no small moment when the soule is once plunged into those flames it is past recouery farre he â—eapes and ill he lights that iumpeth into hell and questionles without true faith you shall neuer come to Heauen Vrge your Ministers therefore to satisfie your conscience in answering these articles Will them to reply with maturitie and cause them answere distinctly and as they thinke in their consciences For I feare they will rather do it for a forme to seeme to say some thing then they wil be iudged ignorant by silence in saying nothing And with this I rest at your deuotion expecting what your newe Euangelists can answere to these iust accusations of their erroneous religion From my chamber in Antwerpe this first of March your louing freind H. T. FINIS As much of this post-script as hath any need of answere is touched in my Preface I will therefore loose no more time in examining such discourses The abridgement of the former answer ART 1. Papist THe Protestants haue no faith nor Religion Protestant The question is whether the Protestants by their doctrine professe any faith or religion Papist If the Protestants haue any faith charity repentance Iustification church altar sacrifice priest religion Christ then the world was without them for fifteene hundred yeeres But the world was not without them for 1500. yeares Therefore the protestants haue no faith no hope no charity no repentance no iustification no church no altar no sacrifice no priest no religion no Christ. Protestant I deny the consequence of your proposition neither doe we confesse any such eclipse of our Church for a thousand yeares yet the same being eclipsed ceases not thereby to be in the world but rather is proued to be neither can you proue any such thing as you brag of Trie when you will ART 2. Papist The learned Protestants are Infidels Whosoeuer buildeth his faith vpon his owne priuate singular exposition of Scripture is an Infidell But all Protestants in England do build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of Scripture Ergo all the Protestants of England are
sinnes which are past and yet that is your doctrine If you answere that all sinnes before baptisme are absolutely pardoned then it may come to passe that a damned man may haue more sinnes forgiuen him then one that is saued that a man may haue 10000. sinnes forgiuen him and be damned for all that for some one Which is euident in the example of a man baptised in the end of his life who yet after baptisme committs some deadly sinne without repentance as if in his going from the Font he fall out with some man and presently kill and be killed not hauing any thought of receiuing absolution by the sacrament of penance Therefore baptisme is not alwaies accompanied with remission of sinnes Now that some obtaine forgiuenesse of sinne that neuer are baptised the Papists themselues graunt in two cases at the least For they teach that votum baptismi the purpose to be baptised is sufficient when the thing it selfe cannot be had and that martirdome is insteed of Baptisme Both these cases are without warrant of scripture if we hold a necessitie of Baptisme absolutely to iustification as they do but yet this they teach be it true or false Baptisme is indeed the Lauer of Regeneration because all they that are baptised and none but they are regenerate But we vnderstand not by baptisme the outward washing only but the inward especially whereof that is nothing but a signe and a seale yet such a signe and seale as by the grace of Gods spirit confirmes the Christian soule in the true beliefe of remission of sinnes Many are saued that neuer were baptised many haue beene baptised that neuer shall be saued therefore baptisme is in effect and force the Lauer of regeneration to those only that are saued to all other it is the signe without the thing by reason that they receaue not grace as well as water They saith he that allow not the sacrament of penance c. L. deny the remission of sinnes The Sacrament of Penance is a fancie of men Our Sauiour Iohn 20. 23. ordaines no such Sacrament but onely promises that the worke of the Ministerie shal be effectuall to the remitting and reteining of sinnes and indeed there is no sacrament of ordinarie vse in the Church which Christ himselfe did not either receiue or giue If you will say that Penance could not belong to him because he neuer sinned after Baptisme I will affirme with as good reason that no more did Baptisme because he neuer sinned at all for Baptisme as you here teach is the Lauer of Regeneration for that in it the soule dead by sinne is newlie regenerated by Grace But Christs soule was neuer dead neither indeed doth the Sacrament of penance serue for any purpose to him who is washed from all his sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ as all truely baptised are What Protestant euer denyed that our sinnes are perfectly forgiuen or what Papist can better tell what it is to haue sinnes forgiuen then the holy Ghost in Scripture who affirmes that reconciliation with God is made by hauing sinnes not imputed But what sayes our Sauiour Psal 32. 1. 2. Rom. 4. 7. 8. Luc. 22. 34 Acts. 7. 60. Christ Father forgiue them How doth Stephen in other words make the same prayer in the like case Lord laye not this sinne to their charge But you say the botches and Biles still remaine What botches These are words without matter when the Prince pardons any crâ—me what remaines after the pardon Is not originall corruption pardoned in Baptisme yet by your Doctors confession it remaines though it be not as they falsely teach Veri proprij nominis peccaâ—um that is truely and properly sinne yet the botch is there still as appeares by the continuall running more or lesse in the life of euery Christian Therefore we do not seeke to couer our sinne with any vaile but professe that it is truely properly and perfectly pardoned But we deny that which this man seemes not to vnderstand that by forgiuenesse of sinnes originall and actuall sinne is wholy and at once destroyed in vs the strength of it is abated yea the deadly wound is giuen to it so that it shall neuer recouer but yet weake though it be and drawing on to the very point of death it is the same thing it was before Therefore whatsoeuer can belong to the forgiuenesse of sinnes concerning the nature thereof we acknowledge and professe but we cannot contrary to all experience and warrant of Scripture yea to the very nature Nom. 7. 23. of a pardon fancie to our selues an absolute deliuerance from the being of sinne These 2. points are no doctrines peculiar to those whom M. this Author calles Puritans who dissent not from their brethren but only in some matters of discipline and ceremonie howsoeuer some few make doubt of the latter But because the former of these 2. is a matter of especial importance charged as a great heresie vpon Caluin by Bellarmine and our english Rhemists I will answere distinctly to euery part of this mans accusation The Papists flatly do all Protestants wrong first by Chalenging all saue Puritans of their owne error secondly by avouching so heynous a crime of them in part as is altogeather false for wee all with one mouth and heart affirme that Christ is the true and naturall sonne of God hauing whatsoeuer he hath as he is the sonne from God the father and no whit of it from himselfe But let vs examine his proofe They saith hee that affirme that Christ is God of him selfe and not God of God denie in effect that hee is the Sonne of God by denying that hee receaued his Diuinitie from his father Indeed if it were all one thing to bee God and to bee the Sonne the proposition were true but hee that hath learned that the Father and the Sonne beeing onâ— God are 2. disstinct Persones knowes that the Godhead belongs not to the nature of the Sonne because then the Father and the Holy Ghost not only might bee but needes must be the Sonne aâ— hauing the whole Godhead What hee would proue by these 2. places of Iohn it is not certaine but that he cannot proue the point in question it is more then certaine I aske no more of any man but to Ioa. â— 24. read them Therefore I said to you that you shall dye in your sinnes For if you beleeue not that I am he you shall dye in your sinnes But when the spirite of truth cometh hee shall teach you Ioa. 16. 3. all truth for hee shall not speake of himselfe but what thinges sosoeuer he shall heare he shall speake and the thinges that are to câ—â—e he shall shew you Now let any reasonable man iudge whether it can be gathered out of these places that Christ is not God of himselfe but God of God But it may bee the penner or the Printer mistoke the number of the verses and put 24. for
25. and 13. for 14. or 15. Let vs make the best of it They said therefore Ioa. 8. 25. vnto him Who art thou Iesus said to them The beginning who also spake vnto you I will not striue about the diuers reading only it is to bee noted that this Papist either ignorantly or craftely quotes Cyrill in the margine whereas wee haue no Commentary of his vpon that place but the defect thereof is supplyed by Iodocus Clichthoueus a Popish Bishop whom this man blushes not to alledge in Cyrills name Nothing can bee drawne from hence saue only that Christ is God which wee deny not except wee perhaps may proue hereby that hee is God of himselfe because he is the beginning Hee shall glorifie me because he shall receaue Ioa 16. 14. 15. of myne and shall shew to you All things whatsoeuer the father hath are mine Therefore I said that hee shall receaue of mine and shew to you Who can wring any word for proofe that Christ receaued his God-head from his father out of this text If you vrge That all whatsoeuer the father hath is his What proues that saue onely that hee is God equall with his father viz the same God with his father which is confest This Proposition saith hee That Christ receaued not his diuinitie from his father flatly takes awaye the nature of a Sonne Then the distinction of the persons is thus to bee conceaued that the Father is God one way by hauing his diuinitie of himselfe the Sonne another waie by hâ—uing his Diuinitie from his father and the Holy Ghost a third way by hauing his diuinitie both from the father and the sonne and so wee shall haue as truely and distinctly 3. Godes as wee haue 3. persons To the proofe The nature of a sonne saith hee is to receaue his substance from his father What 〈◊〉 substance then there is neuer a Sonne â—â— the world◠〈◊〉 we grant that the Father creats the soule as he 〈◊〉 the body But if we 〈◊〉 â—ake the supernaturall generation of the sonne of God 〈◊〉 â—gree precisely with the naturall generation of men 〈◊〉 must needes hold that as the humane Sonne is a 〈◊〉 â—an from his Father so the Sonne of God in respect◠〈◊〉 substance receaued from his heauenly Father is 〈◊〉 God from his father And surely that he is distâ—â—â—â—rom his Father by the nature of his being a Sonne 〈◊〉 cannot be doubted but that by the nature of his 〈◊〉 God he is distinct from God his Father it may 〈◊〉 hand be graunted because it necessarily implâ—â— a multiplying or pluralitie of Gods Neyther is the◠〈◊〉 Contradiction in graunting that our Sauiour Châ—â—â—â—â—ceaued his person of his Father and not his substâ—â—â— and essence For by substance and essence you doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nature of his being a Sonne which we graunt 〈◊〉 from the father wholly but his diuine nature whâ—◠〈◊〉 much differing from that as that the Father the Soâ—â—◠〈◊〉 the Holy Ghost being all three one in substaâ—â—◠〈◊〉 three distinct persons or subsistences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For what though◠〈◊〉 substance of God be essentiall to euery person in 〈◊〉 It doth not follow therevpon that it is of the 〈◊〉 of the person It is indeed thus essentiall that 〈◊〉 â—â—son is God but not that the God-head is the 〈◊〉 euery person for then as I haue often said 〈◊〉 must be but one person as the God-head iâ—â—â—e 〈◊〉 Gods as there are diuers persons The protestants saith 〈◊〉 â—â—emptorily affirme that Christ is God of himselfe and nâ—t Gâ—◠〈◊〉 God That Christ is God 〈◊〉 â—â—â—selfe we affirme constantly and certainly but this peremptorineâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Synagogue which thunde â— out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dently and ordinarily against all men tha◠〈◊〉 otherwise then it teaches thâ—â—gh 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 ly We deny not that the Holy councill of Nice â—â—ly taught that our Sauiour Christ is God of God veâ—◠〈◊〉 of very God but wee saye that they ment not as yoâ—â—â—â—pists do who make our Sauiour as it were an vnder God receauing his Godhead of another and not hauing â—â—â—â— himselfe How vnfitly this must needes serue those â—â—â—ed and godly fathers for the proofe of our Sauiours â—qualitie with God the fatheâ— who sees not when 〈◊〉 Arrius might readily haue answered that he must 〈◊〉 be inferiour to God the Father because he had his God-head of himselfe Christ of him As for the word whiâ—â— they vrged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the same nature of both it dâ—â— not signifie nor intend that Christ receaued his God-head of the Father but that he was the same God with his Father So that he being of God was the same God with him of whom he was Which cannot possiblie bâ—â—â—f the one be God of himselfe and the other God of him â—â—at is God of himselfe For to be of himselfe and not to be of himselfe but of another are things quite contrary which cannot be true of God as he is God But you will aske perchance whether the sonne be inferiouâ—â—o the Father touching his person because he hath that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No truely for the generation being eternall 〈◊〉 the Father hauing no preheminence of being before 〈◊〉 but as the nature of relation necessarily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is neither inferioritie nor superioritie betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet may the Father truely be said to be the first 〈◊〉 and the fountaine of the Trinity and if you will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tie also in this sense because either person being of 〈◊〉 truly God According to which meaning Our sauiour is God of God Deuâ—â—â— deo perennis Deus ex vtroque mâ—sâ—us Prudentius in hymno ante somnum that is the second person being truely God is of the father being truely God though in respect of his God-head he is not of the Father but of himselfe as I will proue by the reasons following 1. He that is Iehoâ—ah is God of himselfe not of another But Christ is Iehoâ—ah Therefore Christ is God of himselfe not of another 2. If all that is the fathers is Christs also then Christ is God of himselfe for the father is God of himselfe But all that is the fathers is Christs Therefore Christ is God of himselfe 3. If Christ receaue his Godhead of his father as he doth his person then must he be a distinct God as he is a distinct person But he must not be a distinct God Therefore he receaues not his Godhead of his father 4. If Christ receaue his Godhead then may the Godhead be distinguished by being begotten and vnbegotten But the Godhead may not be so distinguished for that is proper to the person Therefore Christ receaues not his Godhead from his Father but hath it of himselfe 5. It is somewhat yet for a man to belike himselfe The first of these 5. points was charged vpon vs as an errour N. in 2. respects because both we denie that interpretation of the Article which the Papists haue
comforts I spake of before vpheld him from all daunger of despayring and deliuered him from that perpetuity of torment in which otherwise hauing taken vpon him our Person hee should haue remained Now this so being we need not feare these thunder-bolts of horrible blasphemy although wee beleeue that Christ our sauiour did for a time indure in his soule the wrath of God which was due to our sinnes Neither doe we hereby make God the enemie of God nor of the humanitie of Iesus Christ which he euer most entirely loued but only auouch that God truly hated and punisht our sinnes in his owne sonne with such a kinde and measure of his wrath as being true and iust was euery way without sinne and finite in regard of the time so that I take the Doctrine to be voide of blasphemy howsoeuer the meaning of the Article bee conceiu'd Article 5. The Protestants haue no meane to determine Controuersies and abolish heresies Protestant No more then they haue a rule to know what is matter of Faith Papist As the Protestants neither know what they beleeue nor A. why they beleeue so haue they no meanes in their church to settle them in vnity of beleefe nor to determine controuersies nor to abolish heresies as hath the catholick church for our sauiour Christ by his diuine prouidence did foresee that heresies were to arise in his church as his Apostle S. Paule doth warne vs * 1. Cor 11 Profe that the church caÌ„not â—râ—e Mat. 18. 17 Eph. 4. 11. Ioh. 14. 17 Luk. 10. 16 § Profe of the principall proposition Act â—5 the which as plagues were to infect his flocke and therefore he not only forewarned vs of them but also gaue vs meanes how to preuent and extinguish them 1. â— He willed vs to heare his Church if we would not be accounted as Ethnicks and Publicans 2. He ordeined Pastors and Doctors least we should be carried away with euery blast of vaine doctrine 3. He promised vnto the church the assistance of the holy Ghost in such sort as they which would not heare her would not heare him The catholicks therefore beleeuing certainly that the Church cannot erre that the generall Councils cannot deliuer false doctrine that the Pastors and ancient fathers with ioynt consent cannot teach vntruths when heresies spring vp presently with thâ— voice of the Church pluck them vp by the rootes a In the first Nicene couÌ„cel was coÌ„demned Arrius in the couÌ„cell of ConstaÌ„tinople Macedonius In the couÌ„cel of Ephesus Nestorius In the couÌ„cel of Calcedon Eutiches vide Aug. lib. 2. retract ca. 50 and so euer hath practised and after this maner ouerthrowne all encounters false opinions and errours which the Diuill by his ministers euer planted or established in the world and so they haue bin freed from all braules and quarrels in matters of religion But the Protestants admitting the sole scripture as Vmpere Principall propositioÌ„ and Assumption and iudge in matters of Controuersie and allowing no infallible interpreter thereof but remitting all to euery mans priuate spirit and singular exposition cannot possiblie without errour wind themselues out of the Labyrinth of so many Controuersies wherewith they are now inueagled and intricated And the irreconciliable iarres betwixt them and the Puritans in essentiall points of faith geue sâ—fficient testimony that they will neuer haue an end holding those grounds of opinion which they obstinately defend B. And albeit they goe about to bleare the peoples braines I haue heard of blearing the peoples eyes but neuer till now of blearing their braines which I know not what vnity and conformity in matters of faith and in the substance of religion and that their disagreement only consisteth in points of Ceremonies and trifles of small importance yet in very deed they differ in many essentiall points of religion And although this shift will perhaps serue to cast a mist ouer the confused conceipts of simple soules silly foolesâ— yet no wiseman wil euer beleeue them I pray you tell me is not the Kings supremacie a matter of faith and a chiefe point of religion And do not all sound Puritans in the world denie it and defie it Aske Caluin 7. Amos. Caluin the puritanicall Patriarke what he thought of King Henry the eight for assuming of such a preheminence vnto him read the Annales of Scotland and you shall finde the presumptuous presbytery euery foot opposing themselues against our Kings authority as though he had nothing to doe with the Kirke Looke into the carriage of our precisians at home and you shall find them in shew to professe it but in deeds and effects really to deny it For if they approue his supremacie with what face can they resist his ordinances in matters of religion why weare they not vestments Surplisses the Cap and Tippet why refuse they to baptise with the signe of the Crosse why subscribe they not to the the booke of common praier why obey they not the ecclesiasticall Canons established by his Maiesties authoritie No other reason of this obstinate repugnancie can be yeelded then that in very truth they doe not in Conscience allow of his supremacy 2. Is not the authority of Bishops their power to create ministers their degree in dignity aboue ordinary Curats and Pastors a matter oâ— faith and so neerely toucheth the gouernment of the Church that if this hereticall order be abolished Perhaps he would haue said hierarchicall the whole forme of Christs Church is presently confounded 3. The obseruation of feasts and holy dayes infringed by Puritans maintayned by protestants is it but a Ceremony were not the obstinate impugning thereof a sufficient reason to censure them for Heretikes did not the Councill of Nice condemne the Quartodecimani for Heretickes who would only haue obserued their Easter day vpon the 14. day of the moneth of March What if they had called our Precisians to the barre who will haue it wholy abolished Questionâ—es they would haue branded them in a farre deeper degree of Heresie then the Quartodecimani 4 Is not the obseruation of Lent and other fasting days a matter of more moment then trifles or then things indifferent Did not S. Epiphanius ceÌ„sure Aërius of Heresie for denying these prescript times for fasting For albeit they be not precisely set downe in scriptures and therein commaunded to be obserued yet they being either ordeyned by the Apostles or instituted by the church which had authoritie to appoint fastes at least as well as the puritane presbytery wiâ—hout doubt he that calleth this holy institution either doctrine of Diuils or torture of consciences or restraint of Euangelical libertie ought by the iudgement of all true protestants to be condemned for a pagon and infidell who wil not submit his soule to the censure of the Church 5. The Puritans blasphemously pronounce and ignorantly defende that Christ suffred the paines of hell vpon the crosse and that in this passionful agony agonizing griefe did
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
3. That if they pray for vs wee must pray to them 4. That if the Angells be ministering spirits Therfore the Saints departed are so 2. Neither is there any Communion with soules in purgatory because there is no purgatory 1. Cor. 3. 15. Saint Paul speaks not of purgatory For the fire thereof burnes the worke men not the worke but the fire there meÌ„tioned burnes the works not all works neither but onely false doctrine The latter place being vnderstood 1. Cor. 15. 29. 2. of purgatory will not serue the Apostles purpose How can the resurrection of the body be proued by praying for the soules in purgatory Papist They that acknowledge not that Remission of sinnes is an effect of Baptisme deny the article of beleeuing the remission of sinnes But the Protestants acknowledge not that remission of sinnes is an effect of Baptisme Therefore the Protestants deny the article of beleeuing the remission of sinnes Protestant The proposition is false because not all haue Baptismum flaminis the Baptisme of the spirit that haue Baptismum fluminis the baptisme of water we acknowledge that whosoeuer is baptised by the spirit hath receiued forgiuenesse of sinnes which no man hath which shal be damned as many shal be that haue bene baptised Baptisme is the Lauer of regeneration to as many as haue the spirit added therevnto because then they haue remission of sinnes sealed vp vnto them The Sacrament of penance is a Popish fancie our Sauiour Iâ—â— 20. 23. ordained no such Sacrament but onely affirmed that the worke of the ministery shal be effectuall to the remitting and retaining of sinne We deny not that our sinnes are perfectly forgiuen but that by forgiuenesse of sinnes the power of sinne is wholy destroyed in vs at once for the destruction of sinne comes by sanctification not by iustification and it is alwaies in this life imperfect Papist They that affirme that Christ is God of himselfe and not God of God deny that he is the sonne of God But the protestants affirme that Christ is God of himselfe and not God of God Therefore the Protestants deny that Christ is the sonne of God Protestant I deny your proposition For Christ is not the sonne of God in respect of the Godhead if he be then must the father and the holy Ghost also be the sonne because they are one and the same God with the sonne He that precisely vrgeth the naturall generation of man as a paterne of the spirituall begeting of the sonne of God will make the sonne a diuers God from the father The substance of God is essentiall to euery person in Trinitie onely thus farre that euery person is God not that the God-head is the essence of euery person The Protestants beleeue and confesse with the councill of Nice that Christ is God of God very God of very God not that he hath his God-head from the father for then they should giue aduantage to Arius who was condemned by that councill for he would readily answer that Christ must needs be inferiour to God his father because the father hath his God-head of himselfe and the sonne not of himselfe but of his father Besides hereby we should make two distincte Gods one that hath the God-head of himselfe and another that hath it not of himselfe but of him that hath it of himselfe Papist They that deny that by descending into hell is meant that Christ went in soule into the place of the damned deny the articles of descension into hell But the Protestants deny that by descending into hell is meant that Christ went in soule into the place of the damned Therefore the protestants deny the article of descension into hell Protestant I deny your proposition Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies nothing but the estate of the dead and is not to be expounded hell but onely where the circumstances of the place in which it is vsed doe necessarily require that exposition but here there is no such necessitie The protestants doe not interpret the descent of suffering the wrath of God in soule though they acknowledge that doctrine to be sound and thus answere this cauillers illations Papist Christ bare the wrath of God Therefore he despaired of his saluation Protestant I deny the consequence For Christ knew both that God loued his person because he was his sonne and that by the power of his Godhead he was to free himselfe from eternall damnation Papist Christ suffered the wrath of God therefore God hated him he hated God Protestant Againe I deny your consequence Our Sauiours person was dearely beloued of God his father though being considered as a sinner such as by imputation he was for a time he was in that respect to God for vs as euery on of vs is in himselfe to God It is not certaine that in the punishment of the damned there shall be hatred of God as a part thereof and if it were yet Christ is exempted from so much of the punishment as cannot be without sinne Papist Christ suffered the wrath of God therefore he was tormented with anguish of mind for his offences Protestant The consequence should be therefore he was tormented with anguish of minde for those offences for which he felt the wrath of God But these were not his sinnes in whom there was not the least Tainte of sinne but ours Article 5. Papist The Protestants haue no means to determine controuersies and abolish heresies Protestant The propositioÌ„ is false for the scripture hath light enough in it selfe to discouer and abolish heresies which they that wil may by conference of diuerse places discerne off Looke my answere to the second and third Articles There follows an extrauagant syllogisme which belongs to the 6. Article of the second part this it is Papist Whosoeuer exhorteth vs to doubt of that which we are bound to beleeue by faith exhorteth vs to infidelity But S. Paule exhorteth 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 infidelity Protestant I deny your assumption S. Paule doth not exhort vs to doubt of our saluation but commaunds vs to vse the meanes whereby we may come to assurance viz. still to stand in feare and watch ouer our selues least by carelesnesse we fall to sinning to which we are alwayes subiect in this life The Protestants doe not teach that whosoeuer is not assured of his saluation without any doubting is in the state of damnation But that euery man must labour to come to the perfection as of all other graces so of assurance too the meanes of attaining whereto are feare and trembling by which wee may be kept from sinning and so strengthned in assurance of saluation Papist Articles concerning good life and piety Article I. The Protestants are bound in conscience neuer to aske God forgiuenes of their sinnes Whosoeuer is assured by faith that his sinnes are forgiuen him