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 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
of the world whensoeuer and wheresoeuer they be But we easily grant a perpetuall continuance of the church though we denie a necessity of visiblenesse Therefore neither Atheists nor Machiauillians haue G. any aduantage against the church by our doctrine but by the Papists rather who teach them to vnderstand our sauiours promises carnally and falsly Article 2. The learned Protestants are infidels Answere The title is only of the learned of them al the proofe of the vnlearned also but of them only that are in England Whosoeuer buildeth his faith vpon his owne priuate and singular A. exposition of scripture is an infidell But all Protestants in England build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of scripture Ergo all the protestants of England are Infidels The Maior cannot be denied because faith must be B. C. infallible and impossible to be either erroneous or chaungeable But faith which is builded vpon priuate exposition of scripture is subiect to errour and chaunge and consequently vpon better aduise and consideration may be altered The Minor I proue for either they build their faith vpon D. their owne priuate opinion in expounding of scripture the exposition of the church the Fathers or councels but not vpon these three ergo vpon their owne priuate exposition Some Protestants allow the fathers their expositions so farre forth as they agree with Gods word and no further E. but this is nothing els but to delude the world for what meane they when they say they will allow them so far â—orth as they agree with the scriptures meane they perhaps that if the fathers bring scriptures to proue any point of religioÌ„ now in controuersie to allow that point as true if so why then reiect they a August lib. de cura agenda pro mortuis Saint Augustine and other fathers who bring scripture to proue praier for the dead yea and all coÌ„trouersies almost in religion the fathers proue by scriptures when they dispute vpon them Or perhaps they meane to admit the fathers when they alleage scripture but such as euery protestant shall allow of F. so it be conformable to their fancies and fit their new coined Gospell and in this sense who seeth not that euery paltry companion will make himselfe not only the true Expositor of christs word but also will preferre his exposition before all ancient fathers when they daunce not after his pipe and consent not with his heresies Protestant First vpon your proposition thus I conclude A. Whosoeuer builds his faith vpon his owne priuate and singular exposition of scripture is an Infidell But the Pope builds his faith vpon his owne priuate and singular exposition of scripture Therefore the Pope is an Infidell Secondly I answere to your Syllogisme The Maior you say cannot be denied And I say it cannot be proued vnlesse you can shew either that no priuate and singular exposition of scripture can be true or that a man is therefore an Infidell because hee buildeth his faith vpon a priuate and singular exposition though it bee true For I take it you will not wrangle with mee because I speake generally of a priuate and singular exposition The reason of your mislike being not that a man should take his owne exposition but that he should ground vpon any priuate and singular exposition Indeed no man is an Infidell that builds his faith vpon a true exposition of Scripture whether it be publick or priuate because the truth of beleefe depends not vpon the publicknes of an exposition but vpon the soundnesse thereof If faith saith he must be infallible and impossible to be eyther Proofe of the proposition erroneous or changeable and faith built vpon priuate exposition be subiect to error and change Then he that builds his faith vpon his owne priuate exposition is an Infidell But faith must be infallible and impossible to be erroneous or changeable And faith built vpon priuate exposition is subiect to error and change Therefore he that builds his faith vpon his owne priuate exposition is an Infidell His reason may be diuersly concluded but I haue taken C. the shortest course and yet I haue set downe the full force of it which indeed is in the later part of the Assumption viz. That faith built vpon priuate exposition is subiect to errour and change No faith built vpon a true exposition of Scripture though To the assumption neuer so priuate is subiect to error or change For truth is in its nature vnchangeable and voide of error and we dispute now not of the euent whereby it may and doth come to passe that true doctrine is changed but of the nature of that â—octrine which is true I am sure no Papist will deny but a true Catholique in profession may become an heretick yea an Apostata as Iulâ—â—n did and yet that faith of his which he forsooke was true and vnchangeable But all Protestants in England saith he build their faith Principall AssuÌ„ption vpon their owne priuate exposition of Scripture Then belike not vpon Luther Caluin Beza c. as sometime D. To the assumption you charge vs vpon whom indeed we build not but only vpoÌ„ the true exposition of the Scriptures being examined according to those places points which naturall reason enlightned by the spirit of God caÌ„not but acknowledge In which respect the Popish interpreters do ordinarily refuse former expositions and deliuer their owne opinions submitted to the iudgement of the Church which no Protestant euer misliked so they take not Antichrist for Christ. But what is it you call priuate exposition doe we leaue euery man to his owne fancie in expounding the scriptures How can that be when as we haue certaine rules according vnto which all expositions must be framed The Analogie of faith conference of like places examining the originals with diuers other and namely the consent of former diuines to which though we may not tie our selues because they might and haue erred yet we allow no man libertie to refuse their interpretations but onely where euident reason taken from the Scriptures themselues necessarily requires it Indeed we thinke it vnreasonable that a man should hand ouer head receiue whatsoeuer is deliuered vnto him vpon the credit of 1. Ioa. 4. 1. men especially since we haue a charge giuen vs to trie the spirits and meanes appointed vs for the tryall Not onely some but all learned Protestants for ought I E. know or I thinke he can prooue allow the Fathers and their expositions so farre forth as they agree with Gods word And do any Papists allow them further If they do they allow false expositions of Scripture For such are all that agree not with the word of God But how can we be sayd to delude the world when we professe that we allow them no farther then they agree with Gods word and meane as we professe yet it is not our meaning to allow
euery point that some of the Fathers endeuour to prooue by Scripture Neither will any Papist that knowes the writings of the Fathers giue them such allowance Nay it is ordinary with them in their controuersies to acknowledge that diuers texts brought by the Fathers in maine points of religioÌ„ are not rightly alleaged Looke what they proue by scriptures that we gladly receiue not because they say it but because the truth of God approueth it But then we make our selues iudges of the Fathers writings If we doe there is more reason that euery man should be made a iudge of a mans writing then any man of Gods But we do not for we desire not to haue any interpretation of Scripture allowed of contrary to the exposition of the Fathers but as I said before where euident reason taken from the Scriptures themselues doth necessarily require it As for our priuate exposition it is nothing else but a perswasion that euery man must haue of the interpretation deliuered according to the course of Scriptures generally and particularly to the context of the place expounded Which to deny Christians is to bring them into slauerie not obedience to depriue them of the spirit of God yea more to spoile them of all vse of reason by which enlightened by the holy Ghost the truth of God may be and is to be discerned Art 3. All Protestants who are ignorant of the Greeke and Latine tongues are Infidels Here is Latine put for Hebrew either by the Printers fault or the Authors craft who perhaps by this sleight would bring their vulgar Latine translation into credit and thereby iustle out the originall Hebrew but we will lay the blame vpon the Printer and so let it passe Papist Whosoeuer relyeth his faith vpon the Ministers credit and A. B. fidelitie hath no faith at all But all those in England who are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues relye their faith vpon the Ministers credit Ergo All those in England who are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues haue no faith at all The Maior is manifest because they themselues confesse C. Calu. lib. 4. instit cap. 9. § 3. Luther lib. de concil pag. 54. lib de concil par 1. q. D. b Wherein he desireth the lords of the Councill to procure speedily a new translatioÌ„ because that which now is in vse in England is full of errors E c â—n the conference at Hampâ—oÌ„ Court. that euery man may erre and doth erre neither haue they any warrant why the Ministers do not erre since they constantly doe defend that whole generall Councills yea and the vniuersall Catholick church may erre and hath erred The Minor I proue for all such Protestants ground their faith vpon the Bible translated into English the which translation they know not whether it be true or false whether the Minister Tindall for example erred or no either vpon ignorance as b Broughton one of the greatest Linguists among the Precisions affirmeth in an Epistle dedicated to the Lords of the Councel or vpon malice to induce the people to Protestancy and to cause them to leaue the Catholick religion as Gregorie Martin in his discouery most pregnantly proueth c And for that all the olde translations are false and the Geneuians the worst the Ministers are now in moulding a new one the which will haue as great immunitie from falsitie as the former were voide of veritie that is both be subiect to semblable vncertaintie These errors I say they know not and consequently cannot discerne a true translation from a false and therefore must needs relye their faith vpon the sillie Ministers faithlesse fidelitie which conuinceth that they haue no faith at all Protestants Iâ— there be any force in this reason it ouerthrowes Papists A. as well as Protestants because the very same thing may be concluded of them in this sort Whosoeuer builds his faith vpon a mans credit and fidelitie hath no faith at all But euery Papist builds his faith vpon a mans credit Therefore no Papist hath faith The difference betweene my Proposition and his stands onely in one word He disables the Minister in particular I euery man generally and perticularly but I keepe his sense whole and intire For the reason that he giueth in the proofe of his Maior doth shew that therefore ministers are not to be credited because being men they may erre And indeed whatsoeuer imperfection is in any Minister he hath it not as he is a minister but as he is a man and therefore if his proposition be true mine is The assumption needs no other proofe but that first Fathers Councils and Church are men without any speciall priuiledge of not erring 2. that at the least the particuler teachers which tell the Papists that such and such Councills haue allowed these bookes for scripture are men that may erre 3. And indeede what ground hath any learned Papist that there haue bene such Councils but the authority of men 4. Whereupon can any vnlearned Papist relie for the interpretation of the decrees of the Councils being written in Greeke or Latine as all are but the credit of men 5. Nay more then that who can tell what the signification of the Hebrew and Greeke words is euen in the Bible but by the report of men So that it may more truly be saide of the Papists then of the Protestants that they build their faith vpon the credit of men yea the Papists do properly and wholy rely vpon men viz. the Pope and his Priests because they beleeue not by their ministery as Christians but by their authority like Pythagoreans B. But shortely to make an answere to his reason if by relying vpon the ministers credit he meane that they haue no To the Assumption ground to build vpon but that I deny his Assumption For the vnlearned Protestant rests vpon the witnes of Gods spirit which perswadeth him of the generall truth contained in the translation and directeth him to and in the triall of particulars If to the credit of the minister he add the witnes To the PropositioÌ„ of the spirit I say the Proposition is false for he hath true faith that relies on the Credit of the minister being directed by the spirit of God so to do If this seeme strange to any papist let him remember that popish faith requires no lesse reuelation then the beleefe of Protestants for according to their doctrine no man is perswaded of the truth of the scripture either for the text or the interpretation but by the especiall grace of the spirit vsing as they say the argument of the Churches authority to beget faith in the heart only we say the spirit vseth not the authority but the ministry of the Church to perswade withall They affirme that men beleeue because of the Churches authority the spirit directing and inclining them to rest therevpon Our opinion is that the credit of the minister relies on his doctrine They
Glosta in extrau 102 22. de verborum signif c. quum inter nonâ—ullos Such Papists as you are care not what they say so it be Ad bonum Ecclesiae for the behoofe of your Lord God the Pope Papist The Protestants know not what they beleeue nor why A. they beleeue That they know not why they beleeue I haue shewed before for the ground of their beliefe is not the authoritie of Scripture of Councills of Doctors nor of the Church but their owne fancie And that they know B. Proofe of the article 1. not what they beleeue is manifest because they haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith and what is not Some say the sphere of their faith is extended solely and C. 2. wholy to the word of God set downe in holy writte what there is deliuered that they beleeue what there is concealed lyeth without the circumference of their beliefe Alas poore ignorance what heretick beleeueth not so much Certainly few or none so that by this meanes all damned hereticks which beleeue the Scriptures beleeue alike and they beleeue as much as our Protestants and ours no more then they But the Protestant will replie that he beleeueth the Scripture in a true sense truly expounded and all other heretickes in an erroneous sense and falsly interpreted And they will say as much of their religion and beleefe and hold your exposition hereticall and theirs orthodoxall Againe are you not bound to beleeue the Canticles or Song of Solomon as a part of your faith and where find you in the scripture deliuered that such a booke is Gods word and as such an one ought by faith to be beleeued That Sunday should be kept holy-day and Saturday the Iewes Sabbath prophaned in Gods word is not reuealed and yet by Protestants beleeued Moreouer to beleeue whatsoeuer is conteined in the Scripture is a generall confused folded implicite saith when we demand what a man is bound to beleeue we aske what he is obliged to beleeue expresly distinctly explicitely To beleeue al the Scripture distinctly explicitely cannot be performed by all Protestants since it supposeth a perfect and distinct knowledge of all the scripture wherevnto neuer mortall man attained the Apostles perhaps excepted Some will limit their beleefe to their creed saying that nothing D. ought to be beleeued which is not in the Apostles creed But then I would demaund of them whether we ought to beleeue that the Scripture is the word of God That Baptisme is a Sacrament That in the Eucharist is the body of Christ by faith to what article should these be reduced seeing they are not conteined in the creed or how shall we know infalliblie how these be matters of faith since they are not conteined in the creed Others deny some articles of their creed also for the Protestants E. deny three and the Puritans fiue 1. The first is the Catholick Church Credo ecclesiam sanctaÌ„ 1. F. Catholicam I beleeue the holy catholick church the which in very deed they do not beleeue because catholick is vniuersall and so the church of Christ which we are bound to beleeue must be vniuersall for all a time comprehending all Mat. 16. Psal 60. Psal 2. ages b vniuersall for place comprehending all Nations but that church which the Protestants beleeue was interrupted all the ages betwixt the Apostles and Luther which was 1400. yeeres or in very deed was neuer seene before Luthers dayes therefore that church they beleeue cannot be catholick Neither is it vniuersal in place being conteined within the narrow bounds of England which is accounted but as a corner of the world for the Lutherans in Germany the Hugenots in France and the Guiâ—es in Flaunders dâ—est their religion almost as much as the catholicks neither â—ill they ioyne issue with them in diuers essentiall points And therefore the Protestants church which they beleeue can no more be called catholick or vniuersal then England the vniuersall world or Kent the kingdome of England or a prâ—â—ed bowe a whole tree or a dead finger a man or a rotten tooth the whole head 2. â— 2. The second article is the communion of Saints the which they many wayes deny First by not beleeuing that Christ hath instituted seauen sacraments wherin the Saints of his church coÌ„municate specially the true reall presence of our sauiour Christ in the Eucharist by which all the faithfull receauers participating of one the selfe same body 1. Cor. 10. 17. are made one body as all the parts of a mans body are made one liuing thing by participating of one soule Secondly they deny the communion of the Church militant H. GeÌ„ â—8 16. Apoc. 1. 14 and triumphant by exclayming a against inuocation of Saints by which holy excercise those blessed Saints in heauen we in earth communicate we by prayer glorifying them and they by mediation obtaining our requests Thirdly they deny the Communion of the church militant I. 1. Cor. 3. 15. 15. â—9 and the soules in purgatory bereauing them of that christian charity which charitable compassion mercifull pitty requireth by mutuall affection the members of one body help one another The third Article is remission of sinnes for they acknowledge 3. K. no such effect in the Sacrament of Baptisme but only account it as an externall signe or seale of a prereceaued grace or fauour of God by his eternall predestination against the expresse word of God which therefore calleth this sacrament the c Lauer of regeneration for that in it the Tit. 3. soule dead by sinne is newly regenerated by grace L. Iohn 20 Moreouer they allow not the sacrament of penance wherin al actuall d sinnes coÌ„mitted after Baptisme are cancelled And that which exceedeth all in absurdity is to deny that our sinnes are perfectly forgiuen but only not imputed and as it were vayled or couered with the passion of Christ all the botches and biles the silth and abhomination of sinne still remayning and as it were exhaling a most pestiferous sent in the sight of God For let them shift â—â—emselues as they list and skarfe their soares according to their fancies yet no veile or mantle can couer the deformitie of sin from the eies of Gods perfect vnderstanding from which nothing can be concealed The Puritans in effect deny that Christ is the sonne of 4. m. Ioh. 8. v. 24. Ioh. 16. v. 13. And D. Bucley coÌ„tendeth to proue it in hâ—s aunswer to this article albeit he vnderstand not the reason heere alleaged for if he did he were too absurd to deniâ— it If you vnderstood his aunsvver you vvould neuer say so foâ— shame God for they peremptorily affirme that Christ is God of himselfe and not God of God So that he receiued not his diuinity from his father the which position flatly taketh away the nature of a sonne for the nature of a sonne is to receaue
his substance of his father and it implyeth contradiction that the sonne receaueth his person of his father and not his substance and essence for the substance of God is essentiall to euery person in Trinity * 5. N. Finally they deny the Descension of Christ into Hell desperately defend that he suffered the paines of Hell vpon the crosse whereby they blaspheme most horribly that sacred humanitie as if christ had despaired of his saluation as if God had hated him and he hated God as if he had bin afflicted tormented with anguish of minde for his offences for which he was depriued of the sight of God eternally to be depriued all which horrible punishments aâ—â— included in the paines of hel †Isai 66. v. 24. Mar. 9. 48. Mat. 25. v. 41. whosoeuer ascribeth them to Christ blasphemeth more horribly then Arrius who denied him to be God for lesse absurditie it were to deny him to be God then to make God the enemy of God Protestant How you haue proued that the ground of our beliefe is A. not the authority of the scripture of Councills of Doctors or of the Church let them iudge that haue weighed your accusation against my defence And yet for the last three wee neuer ment to striue For we build our faith vpon no authoririty but that of the scripture Councills Doctors we reuerence vse as special helpes for the vnderstanding of scripture but authority ouer our faith we giue to none but the holy Ghost the author of scripture Your reasoÌ„ to proue we know not what we beleeue is this B. They that haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not know not what they beleeue But the Protestants haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith and what is not Ergo the Protestants know not what they beleeue He may truly be said not to know what he beleeues that To the Proposition either is ignorant of the particular points he holdes or at least vnderstands them not such as all vnlearned Papists are by thâ—ir fides implicitae their Colliers faith which teaches them to beleeue as the Church doth but neuer instructs them either in al the seuerall matters of beleefe or in the vnderstanding of those which they know the Church maintaines And therefore euery vnlearned Papist beleeues he knowes not what But there is no reason why a man should be said not to know what he beleeues because he hath no rule to know what is matter of faith it may come to passe hereby that he shal beleeue somthing that is not to be beleeued or not beleeue somthing that is to be beleeued but that he should not know what he beleeues by this reason it cannot be proued But the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith No more then Lawyers haue to know what is Law I To the assumption maruaile to what vse these men thinke the Scriptures serue Dauid made accompt that the Scriptures which the Church then had were a perfect direction to al men both for beleife and practise And can we now want a rule when it hath pleased God to adde twice so much vnto the Scriptures as then was written Assuredly they that haue the Scriptures cannot want a Rule to know what is matter of faith though by abusing the Rule they may take that for matter of faith which is not C. They that extend the sphere of their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not But some Protestants extend the sphere of their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe c. Therefore the Protestants haue no rule to know c. Either your syllogisme is false if the conclusion be general or else it concludes only thus much that some Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith what is not If you will make your Assumption generall it is false because you confesse afterwards that some Protestants limit their faith by the Creed as being a diuers rule from the scripture I deny your Proposition as iniurious to the scripture by laying vpon it an imputation of insufficiencie concerning matters of faith They that extend the sphere of their faith say you no further then all damned Heretikes that beleeue the scripture haue no rule to know what is matter of faith But they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God extend it no further then all damned Heretikes that beleeue the scripture Therfore they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know what is matter of faith The proposition is false for all such Heretikes haue the true rule to know what is matter of faith though ignorantly or maliciously they abuse it to the defence of heresie But some Protestants extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set down in holy writ Not only some but all Protestants acknowledg the sufficiency of the scripture in matter of faith holding themselues not bound to beleeue any point of religion that cannot be warranted out of the Scripture either expresly or by necessary consequence They that haue no rule say you to know that the song of Solomon is Gods word and that as such an one it ought to be beleeued by faith haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not But they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know that the song of Solomon is Gods word Therefore they that extende their faith solely and wholly to the word of God haue no rule to know what is matter of Faith This Proposition may proue that they haue not a sufficient rule but not that they haue no rule I deny your assumption For they that rest onely vpon the scripture as the ground of faith are not barred of the testimony of the spirit in matters that must needes be held for the warranting of the scriptures The first motiue to the taking of that booke for the word of God is the constant iudgement of the Iewish church before Christ and the generall approbation thereof by the christian church since The certaine perswasion of this beleefe comes from the sâ—irit of God seconding this outward testimony of men by his owne witnesse in our hearts If this seeme an inconuenience to any man I intreat him to consider what rule the Papists haue in this case The authority of the Church they will say But what rule haue I to know whether it be a matter of faith or not to beleeue that whatsoeuer the church saith is a matter of faith is so indeed Wil you appeale to the scripture what rule haue you to know that this is scripture The voice of
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
this answere both is false in regard of that it affirmes concerning our being out of Christ and also doth not satisfie the whole doubt For it shewes no reason why we may pray for the forgiuenesse of any other sinnes then those great ones So that either we must not craue pardon for smal transgressions or els must do it needlesly since they are already pardoned as long as we abide in the body of our sauiour Christ Wherefore I had rather rest vpon the former answere which is agreeable to the word of God and warrantable by true reason Article 2 Papist The Protestants are bound in conscience to auoyd all good workes Protestant If this Papist would haue avoyded all slaundering the world should not haue bin troubled with such absurd collections Papist Euery man is bound vpon paine of eternall damnation to auoide all deadly sinnes But fasting prayer almesdeeds and all good workes according Luther in after ar 31 32. 39. Calu. lib. 3. inst c. 11. â— 4. c. 14 §. 19. Mclarch locc tit de peccat Confess Augusti articlâ— 6. Rom. 6. 23. Isa 64. 6. to the Protestants religion are deadly sinnes Ergo According to the Protestants religion all men are bound vpon paine of eternall damnation to auoide fasting prayer Almesdeedes all good workes B. The Maior is manifest for the wages of deadly sinne is death Stipendium peccati mors D. The Minor is as euident for according to the Protestants religion and common exposition of this text of scripture Facti sumns vt immundi omnes nos tanquam pannus menstruatâ— omnes iustitiae nostrâ— Wee are made all vncleane and al our Iustices are like a stayned cloth That is as they say the best workes wee can do are infected with deadly synne and consequently deserue eternall damnation and therefore to be auoided I am not ignorant that some wranglers with some shifting euasions go about to answer this article forsooth that the staines and imperfections the sinnes and spots ought to be auoyded but yet the good workes to be prosecuted A silly shift but put case it be impossible to wring out the staines then is not this monstruous cloth to be abhord put case I could not giue almes but I must steale am I not bound in conscience to auoide the giuing of almes Admit I could not see mine enemy but by experieÌ„ce long proued I should fall a quarrelling with him am I bound in conscience to auoide his company say that I could not eat flesh but I should scandalize the beholders ought I not to say non manducabo carnes in aternum I will not eat flesh for euer Graunt that I could not releeue the poore but I should staine this action with vaine glory Should I not heare of him that can not lye he hath receaued his reward and consequently that there remayneth no recompensation therefore in heauen So I say in like maner if the corruptioÌ„ of nature if the poyson of concupisceÌ„ce so staine my best actions that whatsoeuer I do or thinke I cannot possiblie effect them without these infections and corruptions then certainely I am bound in conscience to auoide these crimes offences the which cannot possibly be performed without these vitious circumstances for bonum constat ex integra causa malum nascitur ex quolibet defectu a good thing consisteth of all integrity but an euill thing is caused by euery defect that a man be in health euery humour must keepe his temper that he be sick it sufficeth one onely exceed keepe not his iust proportion so that a work be good it must be effected with all due circumstances that it be ill one only will defile as we commonly say one ill hearbe will spoile a whole potfull of pottage Protestant By an orderly course of disputation the first syllogisme should haue bin to this effect If al good works according to the Protestants religioÌ„ be deadly sins the ProtestaÌ„ts are bound in conscience to auoid al good works But al good works are deadly syns according to the Protesâ—ants Religion Therfore the protestants are bound in conscience to auoide all good workes This or some such syllogisme would haue saued me some labour for I should not haue needed to haue medled with any thing but the matter of it and you some blame for the forme of it would haue bene agreeable to logick Wheras now I must needs take paines to finde fault with the lamenes of your reason Euery man is bound vpon paine of eternall damnation to auoide all deadly synnes This syllogisme is faulty because the conclusioÌ„ agrees not with the questioÌ„ Your conclusioÌ„ is general of al men wheras your questioÌ„ is particular of protestantâ— Besides that runs vpon a penalty of eternall damnation this speakes of being bound in conscience If you answer that is is all one to bee bound in conscience and to be bound vpon pain of eternall damnation either all sinns deserue eternall damnation and then what will become of your purgatory distinction betwixt mortall and veniall sinnes or else no man is bound in Conscience to auoyde any but deadly sinnes and then what a window do you set open to an innumerable company of sinnes â— How empty will you make purgatory How short and bare will your auricular Confessions be It were as good therefore for you to do that you make a show of euen directly to conclude your question But let vs examine the matter of your syllogisme The Proposition I graunt is true that Euery man is bound in conscience or vpon paine of eternall damnation B. to avoide all sinne But what needs this popish distinction of Deadly sinnes Which is so alledged by you as if it had some allowance from our Diuines whereas we wholy reiect this fancy because there is no sinne that deserues not eternall damnation For proofe whereof wee need no other place of Scripture then that which this Papist himselfe bringes The wages of sinne is death Neither may it be preiudiciall Rom. 6. 25 to vs that he hath foisted in Deadly since neither the Greeke hath any such word nor the latine which hee according to his fond custome to no purpose and here also vnwisely against himselfe sets downe We grant there are differences and degrees of sinnes but the least that can be is a transgression and breach of the law and therefore punishable by damnation but if his meaning were by deadly sins to signifie notorious grosse transgressions he doth vs wrong another way as in the assumption it shal presently appeare which is this But fasting prayer alâ—â—â—sdeedes and all good workes according C. to the Protestants religion are deadly sinnes But lying and slaundering are not according to the popish religion as it should seeme by your practise For surely if you thought they were you would neuer be so desperate to practise them against so manifest a truth in matters of so great impoâ—tance It is not possible you should thinke that
that euer was coÌ„mitted And because of many other such reasons aleadged by our diuines heretofore whereof this of his is none being indeed without all shew of likelihood For how doth the bodily presence of Christ deterre any man from sinne and wickednesse nay rather it incourages him thereto For who would feare or respect such a God as hath neither eye to see nor eare to heare that is crusht vp togeather into the compasse a baggage Wafer cake which he may and must eate and if he be afraide of any displeasure by it he may throw it to the Dogges or cast it into the fire as one of your Popes did Miserable Idolaters that worship such a breaden created God! But I pray you what aduantage get we by remouing Christs bodily presence from the Sacrament as long as we confesse that both God-head and manhood are truely receiued of all faithfull beleeuers in that blessed communion How vnreasonable an absurditie were it to imagine that the bodily presence of Christ can worse consort with sinfull liues then his spirituall Whereas we are sure that while he liued he was bodily present with sinners and Publicans but spiritually neuer had any communion or conuersation with any such vntill his grace had in some measure purged them Papists indeed absurdly dreame that the wicked receiue Christ in the Sacrament and yet haue no benefit by Christs being in them For what cause saith he haue they coyned a new negatiue Religion First proue they haue and then require an answere But that is vnpossible vnlesse your skill will serue you to perswade men that the Scriptures are newly coyned and as true is your charge that our religion is negatiue otherwise then the Scriptures are which are profitable to teach to coÌ„uince 2. Tim. 3. 16. to correct to instruct in righteousnesse But what a toye is this to obiect that to vs in disgrace of our Religion which the Iewes with as good reason might haue obiected to our Sauiour and the Gentiles to his holy Apostles for did not he and they vtterly take away the Sacraments ceremonies rites lawes customes of the Iewes and all heathenish points of the Gentiles superstition and Idolatry you deale with vs in this case as a man would deale with the right heire to lands which he iniuriously deteyned You haue forged new deeds conueiances wheÌ„ we come to demand our right you tel vs our plea stands vpon negatioÌ„ of euidences deeds conueiances whereas we bring the most ancient record of Scripture to proue our title as our proper plea and deale with your forgeries no further then the necessitie of cleering our right and the truth enforceth vs. which also driues me at this time to make a short answere to your slaunders How doe we bring in Feasting for fasting When neither you Papists haue any true fasts among you neither do we ordinarily vse any feasting vpon those dayes which being superstitiously left to vs by you are Ciuilly retained by vs with more moderation then your selues vsed Saue only that we make it no matter of conscience to forbeare flesh at such times appointed In steed of galloping ouer Pater nosters Aue maries and Creeds with many Idolatrous some blasphemous adiurations without vnderstanding or affection we haue restored the true vse of praying which is to confesse our sinnes and with hearty sorrowes to craue pardon of God in the name of Iesus Christ for his sake and in his only mediation That is popish deuotion the dissolution whereof in deed we haue by all meanes procured and by the gracious mighty prouidence of God performed Not to make men more vainely secure but more religiously deuout in geuing the honor to God only which Papists rob him of to worship their owne Idolatrous inuentions this we continually teach and vrge not without zeale in verball sermons how glad would you be if it were so and how well would you like such sermons But with euidence of truth prouing by the scriptures that the Pope is that very great Antichrist prophecied of by Paule and Iohn That popery is an Idollatrous seruice patcht vp togeather by little and little as the diuill could from time to time deuise and procure allowance of such points as were fitt for the aduancâ—ng establishing of his eldest sonne Antichrist But if any of our sermons be verball they are those that are botcht vp out of your postills foaming vp a little froath of carnall wit withour zeale in the speaker or coÌ„science in the hearers that are delighted with such vanities neither of which seemes to haue any sufficient knowledge or feeling of the true course and vse of preaching Article 5. Papist The Protestants make God the Author of sinne the only cause of sinne that man sinneth not that God is worse then the diuell Protestant The Protestants make the diuill and man the onely Authors and committers of all sinne and namly of these heresies and slaunders wherewith you haue stult this malicious pamphlet Papist Whosoeuer defendeth that God commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth impelleth to sinne maketh God the cause of sinne But all Protestants say that God commaundeth perswadeth Calu lib. 1. instit c 17. sect 11. c 18. sect 4 li. 3. c. 23. sect 7. 8. 9. Zuingl serd prouidentia Beza aphoris vrgeth impelleth to sinne Ergo. The Protestants make God the cause and author of sinne The maior I proue for if God perswade or impell men to sinne as for example Iudas to sel Christ Saint Peter to deny Christ the Iewes to crucifie Christ questionles he intended the sacriledge of Iudas the negation of Peter the murder of the Iewes and this much more effectually then Iudas Peter or the Iewes for who can resist his impulsion or who can frustrat his intention Voluntati euis quis resistet who is able to oppose himselfe against his wil yea what maÌ„ is he that in conscience were not bound to coÌ„forme his will vnto the wil of God who is the author of al good wills the first rule square of al regular wils Iudas Peter the Iewes if they had followed the motions of God who could haue blamed them for following him who could not erre in impelling nor sinne in perswading them But some will say God moued them for a good end videlicet the redemption of man and they intended an ill end to wit lucre reuenge or some other sinister effect Yet this Ad Rom. 3 v. 8. snift will not salue the soare For euill may not be done that good may follow Non suâ—t facienda mala vt inde veniant bona For otherwise a man might steale to giue almes be drunke for a meriment commit adultrie to beget Children Moreouer why might not Iudas Peter or the Iewes intend that good end that God intended and haue sold denied and crucified Christ conforming their intentions to his they being instruments and he the first mouer Agane it cannot be said but that God indirectly
The most points wherein the protestants dissent from Catholickes tend to loosnesse of life and carnall liberty If the 〈◊〉 points following tend to loosnesse of life carnall 〈◊〉 then the most points wherein the Protestants dissent from Catholicks do so But the seauen points following tend to loosenesse of life and carnall liberty Therfore the most points wherein the Protestants dissent from Catholicks tend to loosnesse of life and carnall liberty Protestant First I answere to the whole syllogisme that if the Protestants teach nothing in these points of dissent which is not warranted by the Scriptures then it skils not what in the corrupt iudgement of man may be argued to ensue Rom. 6. 1. 9. 19. therevpon Secondly I say the consequence of the proposition is false For these seauen points are not the seauenth part of those wherein we dissent from the papists Thirdly I deny that any of these points tends to loosenesse of life Papist If man haue not free-will to do good he may be negligent in preparing his soule to serue God But man hath not free-will as the protestants teach Therefore he may be negligent in preparing his soule to serue God Protestant I deny the consequence of the proposition For God that commaunds a man to be carefull in preparing his soule to serue him must be obeyed simply though we see not the particular reason of the commaundement But indeed wee deny not but men freely both prepare their soules and receaue Gods grace but we say that it is God which makes difference betwixt the beleeuers and vnbeleeuers yet not without their owne labour and willingnesse to which they are stirred vp in respect of the euent necessarily Papist The doctrine of Iustification by faith onely tends to loosenesse of life You would neuer say so if you knew that we beleeue and teach that no man is iustified but he that is also sanctified and no man is sanctified but he that walkes in obedience to God We hold a necessity of workes but not to iustification and we looke for a reward of workes but not vpon desert Wherein we dissent from the Papists without preaching carnall liberty Wherefore though faith once had can neuer be lost yet where there is no holinesse of life there neuer was faith and where there is not a conscience of refraining all sinne there is no holinesâ—e aâ— all Therefore he that is giuen to carnall liberty hath no faith to loose Neither doth our want of liberty to keepe the commaundements euer a whit discourage or withdraw vs from indeuouring to doe well since that God both accepts of our willingnesse and we acknowledge our selues bound to perfect obedience which we must striue to so much the more by how much the lesse we can attaine to it The sacrament of penance we refuse because it is a patch of Antichrist because it brings a sâ—auery and sâ—are vpon mens consciences because it makes men cease to trust in Christs satisfactions and trust to their owne because it breedes securitie in them that receaue Popish absolution Wee deny the carnall presence in the Sacrament because there is neither Scripture nor reason to prooue it because it is an occasion of most senslesse Idolatrie and surely it is so farre from restraining men from sinne that rather it encourages them to despise such a God as is crusht vp into a bagage Cake and whom if they should be afraid of him they might cast into the fire and burne as one of your Popes did Lastly wee neither haue coyned any Religion nor 7. haue a negatiue religion but we hold the truth of God reuealed in the scriptures and reiect your popish errors contrary thereto The Iewes by the same reason condemned our Sauiour Christ and the Gentils accused his Apostles for bringing in a new Religion whereby they denyed and abollished the heresies of the one and the Idolatry of the other Article 5. Papist The Protestants make God the author of synne the onely cause of synne that man synneth not that God is worse then the Diuil Whosoeuer defendeth that God commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth impelleth to sinne maketh God the author of synne But all protestants say that God commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth and impelleth to synne Ergo the Protestants make God the author of synne Protestant The proposition in the 3. latter points is altogeather true in the former thus it is to be conceiued of that if God commaund that which by some law of his owne is sinne as that Abraham should kill his sonne he is not the Authour of sinne but onely so farre as he commaunds that which of it selfe without that speciall dispensation of his were sinne but by that it ceaseth to be sinne The assumption is false no Protestant defends any such thinge howsoeuer we all acknowlege that it was Gods will that Iudas should betray Christ c. But we deny that either Iudas had any commaundement or warrant from God or that God put that wicked thought into his heart or that he inclined him to the liking of it Neither do wee deride any permissiue will in God but that which makes him an Idle beholder of things without any determination of their being or not being but onely such as dâ—pendâ—s wholly or principally vpon the creature We beleeue and professe that God workes otherwise by the wicked then by the godly in these by putting in good thoughtes and bringing theÌ„ to effect by their wil labour In the wicked he doth not worke but onely by them bringing his owne purpose to passe without commaunding perswading vrging or impelling to sinne this latter you may if you will call permission without feare of being derided by any Protestant yea with the good liking of all Protestants so you acknowledge a necessity of euent Article 6. Papist That faith once had may be lost Whosoeuer looseth his charity looseth his faith But Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his charity Ergo Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his faith Protestant As before so here also he leaues out the principall syllogisme which I thus supply If Dauid lâ—st his faith then faith once had may be lost But Dauid lost his faith Therefore faith once had may be lost The assumption is false which he labours to confirme notwithstanding by the reason afore rehearsed To the which I answere first by distinguishing on the proposition whosoeuer leeseth his charity altogeather that there remains no grace of sanctificatioÌ„ hath no faith but it is not true that whosoeuer commits some greeuous sinne against the law of Charity thereby leeseth his faith I deny your assumption Dauid lost not his charity because he was still sanctified though he fell grieâ—ously Papist Whosoeuer remaineth in death is without charity But Dauid when he killed Vrias remained in death Therefore Dauid when he killed Vrias was without charity Protestant I distinguish againe vpon your proposition hee that remaines in death is so farre without charity as he remaines in death But a man may in respect of some sinfull actions be in death and for all that be truely sanctified though not throughly as the hand may be dead to any motion towards the head and yet aliue to all motions downward The proofe is both false and absurd For if there be any life in the Heb. 10. 38. soule abiding in it as a quality that must be faith Some Papists call chairty the life of faith but none that euer I read or heard of the life of the soule The assumption not only may be but must be denyed because it is vntrue 1. Ioh. 3. 14. is to be expounded by the 17. where it is said He that shâ—â—s vp his bowels of compassion from his brethren that hath need hath not the loâ—e of God in him And yet no Papist wil say that a man is void of the loue oâ— God vpoÌ„ the refusal at somtimes to giue almes to him that stands in need He that is quite without loue that is he that hath not in him the loue of his neighbour is without sanctification and Iustification but this a man may haue and Dauid had in some good measure though he faile as he did in that one particular of loue towards Vriaâ— When you bring any proofe out of that place of Ezechiell 18. 24. you shall haue an answer to it In the meane while I say no more but this that conditionalis nihil pâ—â—it in esse a thing is not proued to be because if it be such or such an euent shall follow therupon Article 7. Papist The Protestants shall neuer haue life euerlasting Because they will haue no merits for which euerlasting life is giuen Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages is giuen for workes But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages Therefore the kingdomâ— of heauen is giuen for workes Protestant Any man may easily perceiue that the question is not concluded in this syllogisme But I will not in this short answer trouble my selfe with any more then answering to the point Papist Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages is giuen for workes But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages Ergo the kingdome of heauen is giuen for workes Protestant If we graunt him the whole syllogisme he gets nothing by it vnlesse he can proue that workes and merits are all one which is vtterly false I deny your assumption which none of these places you bring doth proue the first is a parable signifying that the Gentiles shall haue place in heauen aswell as the Iewes though they came later to the knowledge of the truth The other two mention reward but not wages and these two are your common â—rrors in most of your arguments concerning the question oâ— workes that you without all authority of Scripture or reason confound workes with merits and reward with wages Which you professing a schollerlike disputation should not haue done without some speciall proofe of their being all one especially since you can hardly be ignorant that we alwaies distinguish the one from the other not without reason as we surely perswade our selues FINIS