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
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
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
of adultery discouered If by Vrias death it were not otherwise prouided for And that the place of Scripture by him alleaged is not to be wrested according to his fancy it may appeare by the 3. chap. 17. verse where it is said that he which shuts vp his bowells of compassion from his brother that hath â—eed hath not the loue of God abiding in him Yet I think this Papist will not condemne euery man as void of the loue of God vpon the refusall at some one time to giue almes to him that stands in neede Though it can not be denied but such a refusall is a breach of the lawe of God So then by this reason it is not proued that Dauid lost his faith or that faith may be lost Yf it could as easely haue bin proued out of Ezechiel 18. as said no doubt we should haue had it to the full But you shall giue vs leaue to beleeue it when wee see it done In the meane while it is inough to stop your mouth that your proofe may as easely be answered as you Imagine it may be made Especially if you remember that Ezâ—chiels speach is conditionall Conditionalis â—ihil poniâ— in esse A thing is not proued to be because if it be such or such an euent shall follow therevpon Artictle 7. Papist The Protestants shal neuer haue life euerlasting because they will haue no merits for which euerlasting life is giuen Protestant Miserable Protestants if the Pope had giuen that place and office to this man which he hath bestowed vpon Saint Peter to make him porter of heauen gates Papist A. Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages is giuen for works But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages Ergo the kingdome of heauen is giuen for works The maior or first proposition may be declared after this maner For example her Maiesty may bestow 1000. pounds a yeare vpon some suter either gratis of meere liberality so it is called a guift Donum a grace or fauor or vpon conditioÌ„ if he behaue himselfe manfully in the warres of Iâ—eland in this case the reuenue is called Merces wages Remuneratio Stipendium a reward or paiment And although her Maiesty did shew him a grace fauour to promise such a reward for performing such a work the which he was bouÌ„d vpon his allegeance otherwise to performe yet once hauing promised and the worke being performed her Maiesty is bound vpon her fidelity iustice to pay that she promised In like maner God may giue vs the kingdome of heauen without any respect or regard of works as he giueth it to litle Ad Rom. 4. v. 5. Children that are baptised and so it is a meere guift a pure grace Or hee may giue it with some respect vnto our works so he giueth it to al them who hauing vse of discretion keepe his commaundements for this cause it is called wages Mâ—rces a reward and thus the maior must be vnderstood to wit that Whatsoeuer God giueth as wages is giuen for works and such wages are called merits vvages then merits haue a mutuall relation for what are wages but a reward of merits what are merits but a desert of wages The minor is most plaine inculcated in scriptures Voca B. Apoc 22. vers 12. 1. Cor. 3. vers 8. Mat. 5. 12. cap. 6. vâ—rs â— 1. 1. Tim. 5. vers 18. operarios redde illis mercedem Call the workemen pay them their wages Ecce ego venio merces mea mecuÌ„ est reddere vnicuique secunduÌ„ opera sua â—oe I come my wages with me to giue to euery one according to his workes Vnusquisque propriam mercedem accipiet secundum suum laborem Euery on shal receaue proper wages according to his labour The like we haue in tweÌ„ty other places of scripture al which infallibly proue that the kingdoÌ„ of heaueÌ„ is giuen as wages for merits and consequently that Protestants who are enemies to merits shall neuer attaine to the kingdome of heauen which is purchased by good works and merits and for such men we may well say that heauen was neuer made no more then learning for him that will neuer studie nor vertue for him who despiseth the exercise thereof Protestant Any man may see with halfe an eye that the point in question is not concluded in this syllogisme But this fault is so common with this disputer that I am weary of noting it The reason stands thus being orderly shortly concluded If the kingdom of heauen be giuen for workes and the Protestants will haue no merits the Protestants shall neuer haue the kingdome of heauen But the kingdome of heauen is giuen for workes and the Protestants will haue no merits Therfore the Protestants shall neuer haue the kingdome of heauen See this popish sleight of confounding workes merits as if they were all one Indeed the ancient Latin writers put meritum desert or merit for opus worke somtimes mereri to deserue sometimes for consequi to obtaine or to be vouchsaft a thing But neither are they all one in truth and the scripture that speakes much of workes neuer vtters any word of merit Therefore the consequence of this proposition is little worth Neither is the assumption of this syllogisme any better as being altogeather false For how can the kingdome of heauen be giuen for works when as it is an Inheritance not a purchase For as many as are redeemed by Gal 4. 4 5. Ioa. 1. 12. Rom. 8. 17. Christ receaue the adoption of sinnes and all Gods sonnes are heires euen fellow heires with Iesus Christ Now to the heire the inheritance is due as descending vpon him neither can he make purchase of that which already is his owne by law Hireling indeed worke for wages yet many of them câ—not iustly plead desert in claiming their wages But whatsoeuer their plea be it is strange diuinitie law too for children to deserue their owne inheritance The weaknesse of this assumption is vnderpropt with this reason Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages is giuen for workes But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages Ergo The kingdome of heauen is giuen for workes This is your proofe to the which at the last we are come But you forget your selfe much therein For the question is not of workes but of desert by working so that if the conclusion of this syllogisme be granted the kingdome of heauen is giuen for workes yet are you farre enough from prouing your article that euerlasting life is giuen for merits Since some thing may be due vpoÌ„ promise by couenant which notwithstanding is no way deserued And this it should seeme you saw well enough and therefore chose rather to bring a weake similitude then to make offer of any sound proofe You tell vs a tale what the Lord may doe vtterly to no purpose Wherein I note onely these two things First that if all you
owne credit how he hath acquitted himselfe herein let all that will first read and then iudge The Protestants allow no Gospell but one only which is no newer then the promise of God in the old Testament Gen. 3. 15. 12. 3. Gal. 3. 8. Act. 11. 26. Neither do they challenge to themselues the name of Protestants but of Christians The fittest title for Heretiks is Antichristians which notwithstanding they forbeare on the Papists behalfe because they would not offend those that are weake amongst them Papists indeed they call them because of their dependance on the Pope The name of Catholickes being vniustly challenged they iustly deny both because in the Creed the church of Christ hath that title of which the popish church is not so much as a â—ound member And also because the Donatists heresie restraining the church to their congregation in Affrica gaue occasion to the church of Christ to tearme themselues by the name of Catholike or vniuersall in opposition to the Heretikes conceite As for the name of Protestants it was giuen vpon occasion Sleydan lib. 6. of Protestation made by the Duke of Saxony and other Princes and Cities of Germany against a certaine decree at Spires published by the Emperour Charles the 5. and is not a title affected by them or any way arising from their doctrine yet do they not disclaime it as Antichristian or vnlawfull because it is not so in it selfe nor likely to breede any errour or offence in the church of God The maner of his penning is vnaccustomed but yet such as that reuerend and learned Diuine Doctor Fulke a good while since required of all Papists and such in deed as is most fitt for handling all controuersies But it should seeme this writer is not much acquainted with this course his Syllogismes are so loosely tyed and his conclusions so farre from the question but for the better vnderstanding of this course giue me leaue as briefely as I can to teach the reader the vse and nature of a Syllogisme All axiomes or sentences deliuered for true are either acknowledged to bee so denied or else doubted of If there be doubt made of the trueth it is called a question therefore some reason must be brought for the cleering and proning of it wherevpon triall is to be made whether this proofe be sufficient or no which is by a syllogisme Now a syllogisme is a ioyning together of diuers Axiomes wherein the question is so disposed with the Argument that it is necessarily concluded vpon the Antecedent so that if both the former Axiomes be true the conclusion is true also If either of them bâ— false the question resteth as yet vnproued The parts of a syllogisme are two the Antecedent and the Consequent the Antecedent is the former part that disposeth the question and the Argument together and it hath two parts the Proposition or Maior wherein the whole question or at least the latter part of it is disposed with the Argument the Assumption or Mâ—â—or which is assumed or taken out of the Proposition The consequent or conclusion is the latter part which comprehends the parts of the question and concludeth it A syllogisme is simple or compound Simple where the latter part of the question is disposed in the proposition the former part in the Assumption A simple syllogisme is either contract or explicate A contract syllogisme so called because it is seldome or neuer found with the parts distinctlie set downe is when the Argument by way of example is so ioyned to a particular question that it is the former part of the Antecedent the Assumption being affirmatiue As some confidence is a vertue as Constancie some confidence is not a vertue as Audaciousnesse the question is whether some confidence be a vertue or no. First it is proued that some confidence is a vertue The whole syllogisme stands thus Constancie is a vertue Constancie is confidence therefore Some confidence is a vertue Secondly it is proued that some confidence is not a vertue Audaciousnesse is not a vertue Audaciousnesse is confidence therefore Some confidence is not a vertue In these syllogismes the questions are particular some confidence and the Argument by way of example in the former is Constancie in the latter Audaciousnesse Constancie in the one and Audaciousnes in the other are made the former parts of the Antecedent the Assumption in each is affirmatiue In an explicate syllogisme the proposition is generall or proper and the conclusion like the Assumption or weaker That part which is negatiue part There are two kinds of it the former where the argument is alwaies the latter part of each Axiome one of them being negatiue Example The doctrine of Iustification by workes doth not take away boasting But the true doctrine of Iustification doth take away boasting therefore The doctrine of iustification by workes is not the true doctrine Rom. 3. 27. 28. of iustification Here the matter to be proued is that the doctrine of Iustification by workes is not the true doctrine of Iustification The Argument to proue it is It takes not away boasting The Argument is in the latter part of the proposition and Assumption and the Proposition is negatiue Therefore the syllogisme is truely form'd according to this former kinde The Latter when the Argument is the former part of the Proposition and the latter part of the Assumption being affirmatiue Example Whosoeuer buildes his faith vpon his priuat and singular exposition Art 2. part 1. of scripture is an Infidell But all Protestants in England build their faith vpon their owne priuate and singular exposition of scripture Therfore all Protestants in England are Infidels The point is that all the Protestants in England are Infidels The argument to proue it They build their faith vpon their owne priuat and singular exposition of scripture The syllogisme is of the second kind because the Argument is set in the former part of the proposition and in the latter part of the assumption which is also affirmatiue A Compound Syllogisme is a Syllogisme wherein the whole question is one part of the Proposition being affirmatiue and compound and the argument the other part To gainesay in a compound Syllogisme is to make a speciall contradiction A compound Syllogisme is either Connexine or Disiunctiue A Connexiue Syllogisme is when the Proposition is Connexiue and it is of two kindes whereof the former assumes the former part of the question and denies the latter Example If Dauid lost his faith then faith once had may be lost Art 6. par 2. in my answere But Dauid lost his faith Therefore faith once had may be lost It is affirmed that faith once had may be lost the proofe is Dauid lost his faith the Syllogisme is of the former kinde because the proposition is Connexiue or Condicionall the former part thereof auouched in the asâ—umption and the latter concluded in the consequent or conclusion The latter gaine-sayes the latter
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
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
the church What is this but to trifle I must beleeue that the scripture is scripture because the church tels me so I must beleeue that the report of the church is true because the scripture saith so But for your better satisfactioÌ„ in this point I referre you to my answer in the 2. 5. articles of this former part I cannot well conceaue to what purpose this last clause is added if to proue the Article That the Protestants knowe not what they beleeue it is insufficient They that know not what they are bound to beleeue expresly distinctly explicitly know not what they beleeue For no more is proued by this reason But that they know not euery particular which they are bound to beleeue And if this be a disgrace to Protestants and their profession how shall Papists popery escape without reproach when as there is no rule among theÌ„ to teach what they ought to beleeue expresly distinctly c. And as all Protestants cannot beleeue all the Scripture distinctly explicitely no more can all Papists so beleeue what the Church deliuereth to be beleeued and therefore was their fides implicita deuised Neither is it proued that the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith what is not because they know not expresly distinctly explicitely what they are bound to beleeue For a man may haue a rule though he know not how to vse it as it also falls out ordinarily with vnlearned Papists in the rule that they follow to this same purpose If the Creed say you be not the limit of beleefe the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith I thinke the Protestant is yet vnborne that makes the D. Creede the rule of his beleefe further then to acknowledge that whatsoeuer is conteined in the Creed is of necessitie to be beleeued which I trow no Papist will denie But if it were granted that all Protestants do so yet it were not proued that the Protestants haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith but that they haue an vnperfect rule To be short who knowes not that the Protestants make the whole Scriptures the rule of their beleefe holding themselues bound in conscience to acknowledge all things conteyned therein to be the most true word of God and that out of the Scriptures there is nothing necessarily to be beleeued for saluation Whereas the Papists disable the written word of God to establish the fancies of mortall men ioyning the vnwritten traditions of I know not whom in equall authoritie with the written word of the Almighty God But the Creed say you is not the limit of faith That the Creed is no perfect rule of our beleefe we are so farre from denying that we make this reason one of the grounds wherevpon we build our perswasion that because of the vnperfectnesse thereof it was not penned by the Apostles whereas if it had bene it would haue bene perfect and Canonicall Scripture such as yet it neuer was acknowledged to be Howsoeuer we willingly graunt that there is nothing in it but sound and agreeable to the word of God in the Scripture So much the more wrong hath this slanderer done vs to charge any of vs with the deniall of any one Article thereof especially since no hereticks were euer charged with the deniall of Scripture because they â—isinterpreted it And yet by this Authors iudgement the Creed is not so bare as here he would faine make it For in the second part of this Article he teacheth vs that by beleeuing the communion of Saints we beleeue first That there are seauen Sacraments Secondly that Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist Thirdly that we must pray to the Saints Fourthly that we must pray for the soules in Purgatory In the fourth he tels vs that by beleeuing the Article of remission of sinnes we beleeue that Baptisme takes away the being of sinne They that deny some Articles of their Creed say you haue E. no rule to know what is matter of faith They that deny all the Articles of their Creed haue indeed no rule supposing that there is no other rule but the Creed but so much of the Creed as they deny not they haue still for a rule to know what is matter of faith But the Protestants say you deny three Articles of their Creed and the Puritants fiue He that makes difference betweene the Protestants and Looke in my answer to the next Article Puritans in matters of faith doth it either ignorantly or maliciously But to the seuerall points They that beleeue say you that to be the Catholicke F. Church which was interrupted 1400. yeeres and is conteyned within the narrow bounds of England deny the Catholicke Church The Article I beleeue the holy Catholick Church doth not teach vs how to know which is the true Church but enioynes vs to beleeue that there is a Catholick church which we gladly acknowledge viz. that there alwayes hath bene is and shall be a holy church of Christ which since his breaking downe of the partition wall is no longer tyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 place Hierusalem Rome c. but is spred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the face of the whole earth Neither can you 〈◊〉 thinke that the catholicknesse of the Church requirâ—â— continuall being in all places at once for then there 〈◊〉 as any catholick church in the world nor I suppose 〈◊〉 At the least haue you forgotten that according 〈◊〉 our owne doctrine the church shal be hidden in the 〈◊〉 all the time of Antichrists tyranny Then this wil be 〈◊〉 â—incible argument against the church It is not vniuersall 〈◊〉 â—lace therefore it is not the Holy Catholick Church 〈◊〉 the force of your reason is very feeble in the first 〈◊〉 it wherein the strength of it consists But admit we 〈◊〉 deceaued in taking that church to be vniuersall for time and place which is not vniuersal yet as long as we confe◠〈◊〉 there is such a Church we cannot be iustly charged to 〈◊〉 that article of our Creed But the Protestant 〈◊〉 you beleeue that to be the Catholick Church which was 〈◊〉 1400. yeares Therefore they deny the article of beleâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Catholick Church But they do not 〈◊〉 â—peares by the aunswere to the first Article besides â—â—â— Protestants do not hold that the church in England is 〈◊〉 â—atholick church but only that it is a part of the 〈◊〉 church which reaches to all times and places And 〈◊〉 word as I said in the first article we deny not to the 〈◊〉 the necessity of catholicknes but of visiblenes 〈◊〉 our church is not so narrow as you would beare the 〈◊〉 in hand as the Harmony of Confessions will proue to 〈◊〉 man that will but vouchsafe to read it For howsoeuer 〈◊〉 some churches of Germany and vs there be some 〈◊〉 in matters of importance yet neither are they such 〈◊〉 â—rectly ouerthrow the foundation And both the French 〈◊〉 Flemish churches agree with
deuised and also refuse the doctrine of visible famousnes which they would thrust vpon the church This last point is altogeather of the same kinde which I note the rather because both this and that are deliuered in such a phrase as the scripture knowes not To beleeue the Catholick church to descend into hell are speeches with which the scriptures are not acquainted and this is another reason why learned Diuines the rather perswade themselues that this Creed was not of the Apostles penning Yet do not we deny the truth of either of these articles bâ—t only that erroneous interpretation which the Papists make of them Of the former I haue already spoken now let vs shortly examine the latter First we say the english word Hell doth not expresse the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Latine Inferi though wee cannot rest vpon the Latine whatsoeuer it signifies since it is but a translation Hell in English is restrained to the place of the damned so that no english man vnderstands by Hell either purgatory or limbus patrum or infantum but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Inferi do signifie indifferently the state and place of the dead as Maister Broughâ—on hath sufficiently proued Neither need it breed a doubt in any man that descending or going downe is mentioned because it is out of doubt that the heathen from whom this speech is taken place their elysium or paradise vnder the earth as well as their Tartarus or Hell that lying on the right hand this on the left as it appeares in Virgill Aenâ—id 6. Hac iter elysium nobis at laeua malorum Exercet poenas et ad impia tartara mittit Secondly it is to be known that diuers Creeds haue not this article in them which proues that it was thought either to be comprised in some of the other or els not to be any matter of faith Thirdly it must be obserued that some of the ancient writers haue vnderstood it of our Sauiours buryall as Ruffinus and Athanasius hee in plaine termes auouching that it was not to bee found in the Romane Creed and that the meaning of it seemed to be nothing els but that he was interred or laied in his graue Athanasius indeed hath the words but that hee takes them to signifie his buriall may appeare for that he leaues out all other meÌ„tion of that article of his buriall Fourthly it must be remembred that the maintayners of Christs going really into hell agree not about the matter whether he went into the place of the damned or only into the suburbes of it in limbum patrum or Infantum nor about the end Fiftely we haue great reason to refuse this sense which hath no ground of Scripture wherevpon it can be built as diuers of our writers haue plainely shewed and as I could and would prooue if it agreed with this course of writing Sixthly we affirme that if we shall follow the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot expound it of the place of the damned vnlesse it be apparant that the matter necessarilie requires it which also is to be said of the Hebrew Sheoll commonly in the Bible translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bucer Carlile and Broughton haue shewed by particular induction Seauenthly we must note this mans dealing that makes choise of the woâ—st interpretation as he accompt it whereas he cannot be ignorant both that there are diuers other and that many Protestants do mâ—slike this which he brings as if he would make the world beleeue that we allow not of this peece of the Creed but onely in that sense howbeit many of our diuines do rather expound it of our Sauiours subiection to death or of the truth of his death fully signified not onely by his buriall but by his being altogether in the state of the dead his body and soule being seuered and seuerally so disposed of as all other dead mens bodies and sâ—ules are without any speciall signifying of the place whether his soule went But howsoeuer we dissent from our bretheren in the meaning of this Article we allow the doctrine as good and sound For we beleeue that our Sauiour Christ being by imputation a sinner though of himselfe most holy and pure suffred in his soule the wrath of God due to vs sinners and for our sinnes in such sort and measure as God had appointed and as without sinne in a finite time it could be suffred As for those horrible plasphemies which are sayde to be included in the paines of hell we neither auouch them all of our Sauiour Christ nor acknowledge that they nessarily accompany the wrath of God as in handling the particulars it will appeare Christ saith he bare the wrath of God Therefore he despaired of his saluation The consequence is false for he knew that God loued his person being his sonne and therefore that this wrath should not be perpetuall though the present sense of it wrung from him that lamentable exclamation My God my God why hast thou forsaken me and also that by the power of his Godhead he was to free himselfe from continuing in death which but for these reasons he must needs haue indured and which for a time he did taste the Godhead as it were withdrawing it selfe that the manhood might suffer Christ saith he suffred the wrath of God therefore God hated him and he God Of the latter clause I shall need to say nothing hauing before restrained Christs sufferings to that maner of torment which is without sinne Neither is that hatred of God an effect of his wrath in the damned in whom it is naturall but by his wrath against them that malice of theirs accidentally is increased Which I speake vpon this supposition that the damned shall continue in sinne as well as in punishment The former point if we hold the former distinction aduisedly contaynes at all no blasphemy against our sauiour his person was of it selfe most tenderly beloued of God his father though beeing considered as a sinner such as by imputation hee was in the sight of God for a time in that respect hee was to God for vs as euery one of vs is in himselfe to God Christ suffered saith he the wrath of God therefore he was tormented with anguish of minde for his offences for which c. The consequence should haue bin Therefore he was tormented with anguish of mind for those offences for which he suffered the wrath of God But those were not his but ours Ours I say truly and properly hâ—s only by imputation And it is no blasphemy to hold that Christ so as he was a sinner and punished for sinne had also anguish of minde for sinne not for his owne there was no suspicion or likenesse of sinne in him but for ours which by his consent was charged on him for the time he saw the angry countenance of God against him and hee knewe that our sinnes had deserued the continuance of it for euer But the
the Pope subiect to the Councills Pisa Constance and Basill What to that of Florence vnder Charlemaigne which condemned worshipping of Images and the second Councill of Nice for allowing it Bellarmine saies they are not simply necessary and that more heresies haue bene abolisht without them then by them Nazianzen wholy mislikt them the Councill of Trent and that of Nice ended not the Controuersies Now if neither the Church haue it in generall nor especially Generall Councills how should the Pastors and ancient Fathers come by it For that which is added of their teaching on truth with ioynt consent is but to bleare the eyes of the ignorant Can there bee more ioynt consent then in generall Councills may they erre when they seeke the truth with graue and serious aduise in great multitudes and can they not be deceaued when they enquire after it priuately in their seuerall studies who knowes not that the error of some one man renowned for learning and Godlines drawes whole Churches after it many times especially since custome like a tyrant rules ouer the witts and wills euen of learned men who oft-times thinke it more discretion to retaine a small error with quietnes then to restore the truth with great trouble and hazard But where shall a man finde this ioynt consent you imagine I dare bee bould to say in very few points of controuersie at this day if in any Yet say it were eaâ—ilie to be found in the writinges that now are extant Alas what a small number of bookes haue wee in respect of those that haue bin written What gappes are there in the course of succession What maymes in often copying out bookes by writing What mistaking in translations many greeke copies being lost and the latine translation of them onely remaining And who can tell what Indices Purgatoriâ— haue bene deuised enioyned before this last assemblie of Trent especially since Canons haue bene foisted into ancient Councills by Popes of Rome for the establishing of their lawlesse tyranny Therefore though we refuse not to make triall of our doctrine by the Fathers writings namely those that are indeed auntient in the first 600. yeeres before the kingdome of Anthichrist Yet we receaue them as witnesses of the truth not Iudges and vse them as we vse old Coines not for an assay to trye by them the purenes of metâ—all but for a standard to shew what moneis were currant in seuerall ages and places Where they speake according to Scripture we acknowledge the good graces of God in them to their deserued Commendation Where they write of themselues we obserue examples of mans frailety and ignorance to which we make no doubt but all writers since the Apostles and except them haue bin are and shal be subiect To what tryall then shall we be take our cause To what else but to the Scriptures of God Would a man thinke there should be any professed Christian found that would mislike of this course And yet our Papistes doe They cannot abide to heare that the sole Scripture should be vmpere and iudge in matters of controuersie Belike they haue found a better Euen the Pope to whome they attribute more whatsoeuer they talke of the Church Councills and Fathers then to all three together saue that by Church perhaps they meane the Pope Whom they make the head and husband of it being not afraide blasphemously to write that all the names that are giuen to Christ as he is ouer the Church belong to the Pope as well as to Christ though at the second hand as beeing Christs or rather as they say Gods vicar Perhaps they will say as good do so as remit all to euery mans priuat spirit and singular exposition Surely much about one yet by this later it may come to passe that though many erre yet many also may hold the truth Whereas by the former if one bee deceaued all must lie in ignorance and error since no man may so much as say vnto him why dâ—st thou so But that we permit not the interpretation of scripture to euery mans priuate fancy I shewed in handling the 2. Article Yet this inconuenience lyes vpon vs that we can not possiblie winde our selues out of the labirinth of so many controuersies wherewith wee are now inueigled and intricated When we lacke helpe we will send for their Pope or if neede bee make one of our owne As yet things are not in so desperat an estate that we should be enforced to seeke any such remedie For the Irreconciliable iarres betwixt vs are neither as he slanders vs in any essentiall point of faith nor such as hinder vs from agreeing in that doctrine which is according to the word of God established amongst vs and published in the Booke of Articles 1562. That the Protestants and the Puritans as the Papists B. terme them differ in essentiall points of faith he vndertakes to proue by this reason They that differ about the Kings supremacie the Bishops authoritie the obseruation of feasts c. differ in essentiall points of faith But the Protestants and Puritans differ in these Therefore they differ in essentiall points of faith If by essentiall points of faith all matters of truth in diuinitie be signified we graunt his conclusion adding further that the church was neuer yet so happy as to be without difference of opinions amongst diuines in any one age since the beginning of christian Religion If he meane by these words such things as are necessarilie to be beleeued to saluation or to the profession of christianitie I deny his Proposition in all or the most part of it as in handling the particulars it shall appeare That the Protestants hold the kings supremacie to be an essentiall point of faith so that he which doubteth of it cannot be either in truth or in profession a christian neither the confession of our church no the writings of any of our diuines prooue Indeed seditious Papists would beare the world in hand that their traiterous Priests and Iesuits haue beene executed for religion and not for treason in denying the Kings supremacie but neither Protestant nor Puritan euer yet beleeued them Both which doe constantly and ioyntly auowe that although it be not a heresie of so high a nature yet it is a wicked error against the truth of Gods word and an opinion not to be tollerated in any Christian or ciuill state There is no dissent betwixt the Protestant and the Puritan about the Kings supremacie but the difference that is ariseth from the diuers conceit each part hath of the things by his Maiestie enioyned as it shall appeare in due place Caluin doth not so much as charge Henrie the eight with assuming the Soueraignety he speakes of but onely layes the fault vpon certaine men who in an vnconsiderate zeale as he saith ascribed such a power to him as by the word of God is not warrantable Wherein these two points made him mislike the matter First that he was called
the subscription required by statute Neither do the Puritans deny that Baptisme washeth away all sinnes as a Sacrament and seales vp the forgiuenesse thereof Neither do the protestants beleeue any other thing of it or ascribe any other vertue to it The Puritanes do not Condemne the communion booke as irreligious but acknowledge it lawfull to bee vsed and both haue vsed it heretofore and are readie to vse it againe howsoeuer they desire to be forborne in the vse of some things in it which to them seeme vnwarrantable They entreate to be spared for the Crosse in Baptisme And whereas diuers of late haue yeelded to it the ground of their yeelding is that it is no significant Ceremonie but onely a signe betwixt man and man and so indifferent as they thinke That there are some differences betwixt vs we deny not nor that this is one of them concerning the signe in Confirmation But this is farre from being an essentiall point of faith And so is this of vsing Vestiments Musicke c. wherein also there are diuers opinions on either side but I thinke there is no man condemns all these as will worship and superstitious Yea there are some called Puritans that take none of them all to be either will worship or superstitious and yet they hold them vnlawfull In a word there is not any difference to my knowledge betwixt vs which may either depriue vs of saluation by the death of Christ or barre vs from lyuing brotherly and christianly as members of one and the same Church And thus wee haue heard the strong arguments of this popish replyer Who it should seeme not resting much vpon his owne proofe in the end of this first parte lookes to heare some reasons from vs whereby we may approue our selues to be the true Church But that hath bin often donne by our Diuines so far as we professe of our selues For none of vs euer vndertooke to proue that we are the true Church as the Papists dreame of the Church Wee are by the blessing and grace of God a part or member of the true Church of Christ not the whole church Yea we acknowledge that diuers particular churches may refuse communion with vs. and yet both they and we remaine members of the same true church though not without some fault either on both sides or at least the one But the papists so take to themselues the name of the church that they condemne all for schismatickes yea for Heretikes that acknowledge not themselues to be members of the catholicke Romish church in subiection to the Pope of Rome The sum of our proofe is that we professe that religion which our sauiour Christ hath commended vnto vs in the scriptures of which it should seeme this man was not ignorant For in this very place he excepts against this reason because it is no other then that which all heretikes wil bring to condemne the church of Christ This answere is insufficient vnlesse we shall grant that our sauiour brings no good Mat. 4. 4. 7. reason against the Diuill in alledging scripture because Sathan himselfe in his temptation replies against him by scripture Who knowes not that in all controuersies reasons must be drawen from the arts of which the controuersie is as for example what Lawyer will offer to defend a bad cause but he will quote lawe for his purpose and shall this either bar him that pleads against him from alleging his bookes or make his plea of no force nay rather any man of meane discretion will readily distinguish and say the one makes a shew of law but the other hath law indeed so is it in these points of controuersie The Papists and other heretikes pretend that the scriptures make for them but this may not preiudice the authority thereof in deciding matters of controuersie neither shall any true christian need to be ashamed of seeking to ground his faith vpon the scriptures because Heretikes abuse them to their wicked purposes no more then our sauiour was to alleage them though the Diuill had drawen them to abett his horrible temptation Nay if the Papists were not too willfull they would in dyuers points acknowledge the voice of God in scriptures it being plaine as these allegations of our Sauiour Christ And if they had bin then in the Diuils steed they would not haue taken those places for satisfaction but would haue come vpon our sauiour with a second reply of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and haue charged him with falsifying the text for putting in Onely Therefore we acknowledge this to be our onely hould that by the Scriptures we are proued to be the Church of God Let the Arrians comtemne Councills We beleeue and professe that they are excellent meanes allowed by God for maintaining and searching out the truth only we refuse to match them in Authoritie and accompt with the vnfallible truth of the almighty God Will any absurd and base flatterer affirme that he despises Magistracy and Princes who denyes that they haue an absolute and infinite Authoritie But I thinke it would shrewdly trouble you to proue that the Arrians contemned Councills Sure it is not likely since themselues within the compasse of 30. yeares held 10. Councills at the least for the establishing of their wicked heresie True it is that they reiected the councill of Nice wherein their heresie was iustly and holyly condemned but that therefore they regarded not Councills at all it is not proued But consider I pray you with what conscience or rather with what malice you write The Arrians are blamed by you for not regarding Councils we are charged to contemne them Where as you know in your owne conscience that we receaue both that Councill which the Arrians refused and all the other generall and particuler councills saue those that as we are perswaded conteyne in them apparaunt falshood and impietie If it bee a fault not to receaue all who shall excuse you Papists that haue wholly reiected seauen generall Councills held at Antioch Millaine Ariminum Ephesus the second two at Constantinople against Images and one at Pisa and in part sixe other at Sardis at Syrmium at Constantinople in Trâ—llo at Frankeford at Constance at Basill how iustly all or some of these are reiected I dispute not once it is euident they are reiected neither haue we any reason to regard your shifting defences concerning the Popes authority in whom for sooth it lies to allow or disallowe of Councils For this is but to beg the question Therefore to make short we willingly and reuerently embrace all Councils and all Canons and articles of all Councills so far forth as they agree with the word of God not because of their authority but by reason of the truth of those things which according to the scriptures is in them declared commended to all christians Neither do we hereby challenge to our selues the true interpretation of scriptures as if it were appropriated
vnto vs. That is your Popish Heresie Nay we acknowledge with thankes to God and their iust commendation that the ancient writers haue brought great light to the true vnderstanding of scriptures Yea that many Papists haue interpreted some texts of scripture soundly religiously Moreouer we confesse that all and euery one of our writers either hath or may haue failed in his expositions I speake the last doubtfully because some haue written but little and my selfe haue not examined all If any Heretikes avow the truth of al their owne interpretations what should this preiudice our cause Who submitt whatsoeuer our expositions to be compared with the scriptures to be receaued or refused as they shal be found to agree or disagree with or from the word of God I would add hereunto the generall consent of the ancient writers but that it is a longer and more vncertaine course to try whether they be sutable vnto their owne writings then whether they be framed according to the holy Ghosts meaning For the maine doubt must needs accompany that tryall viz. who shal be Iudge whether we or the Papists rightly vnderstand and expounde the fathers wrytings If any man shall say their Bookes and Commentaries are plaine and easie I dare boldly say of him that either he neuer read what they write or cares not what himselfe sayes It wil not serue the turne to bring some plaine interpretations out of them for so can we alleage very many texts out of the Scripture But he that is desirous to iudge truly of the meaning of any writer must not snatch vp a sentence here and there but aduisedly consider both his manner of writing in other places and the signification of diuers phrases and custome of speech in those times wherin he writ the occasion of those particular words he would vnderstand and diuers other such points Which will proue as ere while I said more troublesome and lesse certaine then to search euery corner of the text for the true meaning of the scripture And here let vs remember that we are sure the scripture agrees with it selfe in euery place and point that any other writers do so who can be assured So that many times we shall beat our braines to reconcile those speeches which indeed are very certaine contrarieties Since that this difficultie remaines in vnderstanding the fathers writings which is the onely doubt in the scripture what madnesse were it to leaue beating of the text wherein we know the certaine truth is to be found and to run ryot in the wilde-feilds of mens inuentions where perhaps there is nothing to be had but errour Let vs vse the helpe of Ancient writers to finde the meaning of the holy Ghost but not rest vpon their authority therein If they proue their interpretations by reason let it be waighed that it may perswade vs to think as they do If there be none let vs labour to find some for their interpretation If that will be not let vs see what other reason we can haue of any other exposition If it please God to shew vs any Let vs craue pardon of the Fathers to dissent from them if none Let vs rather trust them then our selues where there is nothing but coniecture without difference of likelyhood We are far from bragging of any such speciall illumination as the Donatists challenged to themselues For we say not that the Church of God is only in our assemblies or the spirit tyed to vs. Who knowes not that this is a stale popish deuise to shutt vp the holy Ghost in the Popes brest so that neither all Councills without him can be any thing worth and hee of himselfe without any of them is alsufficient A litle flocke wee are in deed if wee bee compared with the huge swarmes of Infidells Papistes and other hâ—retickes Yea as many of vs as belong to the election of God are of that small flocke to which Luke 12. 32. it is Godâ— good pleasure to giue A kingdome To bee of any other Litle flocke wee accompt it no commendation Nay rather wee desire and pray that it would please God to enlarge the boundes of his Church and to increase the number of true professors But we are not ashamed of our small nomber though the Papists twight vs with all in comparison of their huge multitudes Therefore whereas this Papist likens vs to the Donatists Pelagians Nestorians Eutychians with all the rable of other damned heretickes we acknowledge it is our portion to be rayled on with our Master Christ and so shake of this froth of a malicious stomacke with that speech of the Archangell The Lord rebuke thee Now for a Conclusion that the end might be sutable to the beginning he laboures to disgrace the principles of our Religion by affirming as truely as he hath done all the rest that if our principles bee true then Saint Paule exhorts men to infidelity How many of our principles thinke you hee ouerthrowes by this reason But poore one if it were neuer so true and being false as it is not that neither Whosoeuer exhorts vs to doubt of that which we are bound to beleeue by faith exhorts vs to infidelitie The proofe of this might well haue bin spared and the strength you wastâ—nâ—â— reserued for the assumption which hath more need oâ— your help then it seemes your are aware of But Saint Paul doth exhort vs to doubt of our saluation which wee are bound to beleeue by faith according to the Protestants doctrine Because it makes for the better vnderstanding of this Reason I will in few wordes set downe what we teach concerning this point Namely that it behooues euery Christian to laboure for the perfection as of other graces so of the assurance that comes by faith also Which standes in a full perswasion of the loue of God in Iesus Christ and the continuance thereof to his euerlasting saluation In deed this is not the proper nature of faith which rather is that grace whereby we cast our selues vpon Christ to be saued by him But it is an effect of faith which euery Christian must striue to haue grounded in him selfe so that if he haue it not he failes in one duty to God But we may not imagine that whosoeuer hath not this feeling assurance of Gods loue to him either is without faith or shal be damned for the want of this perswasion Nay we make no question but that both faith it selfe this effect of it is in al or the most part very far from perfection euery one hauing his measure alotted vnto him according to the good pleasure of God who sees how much is necessary for euery one in regard of the inward and outward trialls which hee shall haue in this life This must wee indeuour by all good meanes to establish and augment herevnto belongs that exhortation of the Apostles With feare and trembling worke your saluation There are two kinds of men whom it doth concerne