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
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
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
Church in this place neither a generall council nor the Pope is ment but the Gouernours of seuerall congregations or the whole congregations themselues whether they be more or fewer so they be a church that is of necessity more then one Therfore whatsoeuer can be gathered out of this text for the churches priuiledge and soueraignty belongs to the Pastors and Rulers of seuerall churches If then by this scripture it be proued that the church cannot erre it is proued that the pastors and gouernours of seuerall charges cannot erre How then is this the speciall priuiledge of the Pope But indeed this is a great question and I thinke not easie by any Papist to be decided whether the priuiledge of not erring belong to the Pope or to the church If it were giuen to Peter and his successors why is it made common to them with the rest of the church If it appertaine to the whole church why is it appropriated to the Pope If it rest in the Pope what becomes of it Sede vacante when there is no Pope At such times be like the church may erre yea and at other times too For if it be proper to the Pope not to erre then all beside the Pope may erre and so it may come to passe that there shal be no church in the world because the Pope alone if he be neuer so great a head is but a head whereas to the being of a church a body also is necessary and not a head only * The 2. part of the proofe of the principall proposition To the second part of the profe of the principal proposition The 2. proofe that the church cānot erre To the secōd proofe that the church can not erre They that doe not beleeue the Church cannot erre haue no meanes to settle themselues in vnity of beleefe The truth of this Proposition wil be more fitly examined when we come to his Refutation of the scriptures sufficiency in the meane while let vs see what these other proofes are that follow If God ordained Pastors and Doctors least the Church should be carried away with euery blast of vaine doctrine then the Church cannot erre What Church meane you not the Pope for he hath not this priuiledge as he is a Pastor or Doctor but as he is Peters successor nor the congregation for the people both may and doe erre What then These Pastors and Doctors But they are not all Popes I trow that they should be exempted from possibility of erring It was indeed Gods purpose in giuing Pastors and Doctors that his children which only are the Church should be instructed and established in all truth and accordingly it comes to passe in matters of substance and foundation but this is done by little and little as the Apostle witnesses in this place knowledge being not perfect all at once but first beginning as in children then by degrees receauing a continual increase till we come to the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ which is neuer found in any while we remaine 1. Cor. 13. 9. in this vale of ignorance where we do but see in part If this reason proue any thing it makes as well for euery Pastor and Doctor in his seuerall charge as for the Pope in his pretended generall For it cannot be doubted but that the whole succession of the ministery is here signified vnder the title of Pastors Doctors in seuerall Congregations such as this or these of the Ephesians were Neither can w◠from Gods purpose conclude the necessitie of the euent since we finde the contrary in dayly experience and know by scripture that not these or those means but only in generall means of saluation are prouided for them whom God hath chosen to eternall life though ordinarily the word be the means The Princes end in making and appointing iudges is that true iustice may be administred to the people Nay more then that it is also Gods purpose in this his owne ordinance yet it doth not follow hereupon that the Iudges or Magistrats cannot or will not erre But if Christ haue promised the Church the assistance of the The 3. proofe that the church cānot erre To the 3. proofe that the church cānot erre holy Ghost in such sort that they that will not heare her will not heare him then the Church cannot erre If this promise of Christ be generall that whosoeuer will not heare the church in all points will not heare him then the consequence is good But that we deny because it is restrained to the scripture according to which if the church speake not we may not at any hand giue eare vnto her You will say she neuer speakes but agreeably to the Scriptures That is the question which we must see how you proue in your assumption Io◠14. 17. Luc. 10. 16. The Father shall giue you saith Christ to his Apostles another comforter euen the spirit of truth which the world cannot receaue c. If Christ promised to his Apostles the spirit of truth then the church cannot erre First our Sauiour in this place enforces not vpon this guift of the spirit any necessitie of hearing whatsoeuer the Church shall deliuer but only makes this promise by way of comfort Secondly this promise is made not to the church in generall but to the Apostles in particular Thirdly is is made not onely to them all ioyntly but also to euery one of them seuerally So that if by this place any thing can be concluded for the Church at this daye euery particular Pastor or Minister may claime this priuilege of not erring and beyng heard whatsoeuer he teach which being most absurde and impious that charge to heare and penalty for not hearing belongs simply to the Apostles only and to euery one of them whom the spirit of God infalliblie kept from erring To all others so far forth as that which they teach is agreeable to the word which the Lord by his Apostles hath left and commended to his Church Therefore howsoeuer the perswasion that the Church cannot erre may sometimes breed an outward quietnesse in the Church yet it hath no force to establish men in the vnitie of true beleefe since it may both deceaue and be deceaued not to end controuersies because all beleeue it not nor to abolish Heresies which many times it may fauour But what is it that he addes concerning generall Councills and auncient Fathers Haue they some priuilege the Church hath not Or is it his meaning to exemplifie that in particular which before he wrote in generall of the impossibility that the church should erre If it be then all he sayes of these for he brings no new reason is already answered in trying the Churches title to that feigned prerogatiue But cannot generall Councils deliuer false doctrine How chaunce then that some wholly others in part haue bin and are at this daie reiected by the Pope what say you to the three Councilles that make
the 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
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
sinnes which are past and yet that is your doctrine If you answere that all sinnes before baptisme are absolutely pardoned then it may come to passe that a damned man may haue more sinnes forgiuen him then one that is saued that a man may haue 10000. sinnes forgiuen him and be damned for all that for some one Which is euident in the example of a man baptised in the end of his life who yet after baptisme committs some deadly sinne without repentance as if in his going from the Font he fall out with some man and presently kill and be killed not hauing any thought of receiuing absolution by the sacrament of penance Therefore baptisme is not alwaies accompanied with remission of sinnes Now that some obtaine forgiuenesse of sinne that neuer are baptised the Papists themselues graunt in two cases at the least For they teach that votum baptismi the purpose to be baptised is sufficient when the thing it selfe cannot be had and that martirdome is insteed of Baptisme Both these cases are without warrant of scripture if we hold a necessitie of Baptisme absolutely to iustification as they do but yet this they teach be it true or false Baptisme is indeed the Lauer of Regeneration because all they that are baptised and none but they are regenerate But we vnderstand not by baptisme the outward washing only but the inward especially whereof that is nothing but a signe and a seale yet such a signe and seale as by the grace of Gods spirit confirmes the Christian soule in the true beliefe of remission of sinnes Many are saued that neuer were baptised many haue beene baptised that neuer shall be saued therefore baptisme is in effect and force the Lauer of regeneration to those only that are saued to all other it is the signe without the thing by reason that they receaue not grace as well as water They saith he that allow not the sacrament of penance c. L. deny the remission of sinnes The Sacrament of Penance is a fancie of men Our Sauiour Iohn 20. 23. ordaines no such Sacrament but onely promises that the worke of the Ministerie shal be effectuall to the remitting and reteining of sinnes and indeed there is no sacrament of ordinarie vse in the Church which Christ himselfe did not either receiue or giue If you will say that Penance could not belong to him because he neuer sinned after Baptisme I will affirme with as good reason that no more did Baptisme because he neuer sinned at all for Baptisme as you here teach is the Lauer of Regeneration for that in it the soule dead by sinne is newlie regenerated by Grace But Christs soule was neuer dead neither indeed doth the Sacrament of penance serue for any purpose to him who is washed from all his sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ as all truely baptised are What Protestant euer denyed that our sinnes are perfectly forgiuen or what Papist can better tell what it is to haue sinnes forgiuen then the holy Ghost in Scripture who affirmes that reconciliation with God is made by hauing sinnes not imputed But what sayes our Sauiour Psal 32. 1. 2. Rom. 4. 7. 8. Luc. 22. 34 Acts. 7. 60. Christ Father forgiue them How doth Stephen in other words make the same prayer in the like case Lord laye not this sinne to their charge But you say the botches and Biles still remaine What botches These are words without matter when the Prince pardons any crâ—me what remaines after the pardon Is not originall corruption pardoned in Baptisme yet by your Doctors confession it remaines though it be not as they falsely teach Veri proprij nominis peccaâ—um that is truely and properly sinne yet the botch is there still as appeares by the continuall running more or lesse in the life of euery Christian Therefore we do not seeke to couer our sinne with any vaile but professe that it is truely properly and perfectly pardoned But we deny that which this man seemes not to vnderstand that by forgiuenesse of sinnes originall and actuall sinne is wholy and at once destroyed in vs the strength of it is abated yea the deadly wound is giuen to it so that it shall neuer recouer but yet weake though it be and drawing on to the very point of death it is the same thing it was before Therefore whatsoeuer can belong to the forgiuenesse of sinnes concerning the nature thereof we acknowledge and professe but we cannot contrary to all experience and warrant of Scripture yea to the very nature Nom. 7. 23. of a pardon fancie to our selues an absolute deliuerance from the being of sinne These 2. points are no doctrines peculiar to those whom M. this Author calles Puritans who dissent not from their brethren but only in some matters of discipline and ceremonie howsoeuer some few make doubt of the latter But because the former of these 2. is a matter of especial importance charged as a great heresie vpon Caluin by Bellarmine and our english Rhemists I will answere distinctly to euery part of this mans accusation The Papists flatly do all Protestants wrong first by Chalenging all saue Puritans of their owne error secondly by avouching so heynous a crime of them in part as is altogeather false for wee all with one mouth and heart affirme that Christ is the true and naturall sonne of God hauing whatsoeuer he hath as he is the sonne from God the father and no whit of it from himselfe But let vs examine his proofe They saith hee that affirme that Christ is God of him selfe and not God of God denie in effect that hee is the Sonne of God by denying that hee receaued his Diuinitie from his father Indeed if it were all one thing to bee God and to bee the Sonne the proposition were true but hee that hath learned that the Father and the Sonne beeing onâ— God are 2. disstinct Persones knowes that the Godhead belongs not to the nature of the Sonne because then the Father and the Holy Ghost not only might bee but needes must be the Sonne aâ— hauing the whole Godhead What hee would proue by these 2. places of Iohn it is not certaine but that he cannot proue the point in question it is more then certaine I aske no more of any man but to Ioa. â— 24. read them Therefore I said to you that you shall dye in your sinnes For if you beleeue not that I am he you shall dye in your sinnes But when the spirite of truth cometh hee shall teach you Ioa. 16. 3. all truth for hee shall not speake of himselfe but what thinges sosoeuer he shall heare he shall speake and the thinges that are to câ—â—e he shall shew you Now let any reasonable man iudge whether it can be gathered out of these places that Christ is not God of himselfe but God of God But it may bee the penner or the Printer mistoke the number of the verses and put 24. for
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
Iesus Christ All the blessings that Abraham the Father of the faithfull could make any claime to were to be held by guift vpon promise Therefore if we wil be his children as we must be if we be faithfull we haue nothing to trust to but Gods promise in Iesus Christ Faith then is the ground of Hope and according to the measure of true beleeuing so is the measure of all true hoping Let vs exemplifie it a little Do I hope for euerlasting life What reason haue I to hope for it the promise of God that proclaimeth pardon of sinne and inheritance of Glory to all that beleeue in his sonne Iesus Christ But how doth that concerne me by reason of my faith in Christ So that if I beleeue not in Christ I doe but deceiue my selfe with a shadowe of hope for true Christian hope I haue none But I hope I beleeue in Christ But that will not serue thy turne For so dooth euery man that hath heard of Christ and beleeueth the truth of the Gospell and yet he is farre from true hope and from that which the Papists themselues require of euery Christian Who teach that euery man by receauing the Sacrament of Baptisme is actually purged from all his sinnes before committed which he must certainely be perswaded and assured of The like they say of their sacraments of penance and of extreame vnction Which he that receaueth dying hauing a generall Catholicke faith shall surely go to heauen though perhaps through Purgatory In somuch that if he which is thus prepared should doubt whether he were saued or no he should sinne mortally Therefore to conclude this point which I haue hit vpon this by the waie I say it is plaine that faith limits hope and that there is no true hope or reason of hoping but proportionably to the measure of beleeuing Which will easilier be acknowledged of vs if we remember that hope in the Scriptures is applied to those things which we must of necessitie beleeue by faith And in deed the true difference betwixt faith and hope is not in the diuersitie of assurance but in the circumstance of time Faith reaching to all times past present and to come hope being restrained onely to the future time A Christian man beleeueth by faith that God will blesse him in all things of this life so farre forth as it shall make for his owne glory and the beleeuers saluation Therefore also he hopeth for this blessing from God not absolutely but with those conditions which faith obserues in beleeuing The same man beleeues by faith that because he trusts in Christ he is now in the fauour of God and shall so continue for euer Therefore accordingly he hopes for saluation without any other condition Of the truth of these things I dispute not but only bring them to shew the nature of hope which is alwayes fitted according to the nature of the promises which faith rests vpon Where we beleeue conditionally we hope conditionally where our faith is absolute our hope is so too That the proposition is false it appeares by the example B. To the proposition of Dauid Who praies to God for the pardon of those sinnes which he beleeued by faith were forgiuen for so was he assured from the Lord by the prophet Nathan vnlesse we shall charge him with infidelity for not beleeuing the prophet since the speech was so plaine that hee could not but vnderstand it I haue sinned against the Lord. A plaine and 2. Sam. 12. 13. true Confession The Lord also hath put away thy sinne thou shalt not dye As plaine and certaine an absolution Will you come in here with your vaine distinctions of guilt and punishment of temporall and eternall If you do it is to no purpose For whatsoeuer the respects were in which Dauid praied for the forgiuenes of sinnes once this is cleere that he praied for it and then what remaines but that you condemne him of sinning greeuously in asking God pardon for those sinnes which he beleeued by faith were forgiuen or of infidelitie for not beleeuing But if Dauid in some regard might craue pardon when it was already graunted and beleeued by him to be so be thinke your selfe what will become of your proposition and how wisely you haue charged vs with sinning greeuously for doing that which in some respect may be lawfully done Now for your distinctions I will not wast time nor blot paper to refute them but onely shew that in this case they cannot helpe you Which of the former is apparant because the Prophet precisely mentions both parts The Lord hath taken awaie thy sinne There is the guilt wipt away Thou shalt not die There is the punishment forgiuen Yea you will say the eternall punishment but not the temporall I pray you whether of the two is it that God threatens Adam Gen. 2. 18. withall The day thou eatest thou shalt die the death The punishment yea the whole penaltie of the statute concerning sinne is Thou shalt die See how God for the comfort of Dauid proclaimes this pardon in the very contrary words Thou shalt not die Who shall perswade vs now that the pardon is lesse generall then the penalty But is the eternall punishment indeed forgiuen I thinke you mistake your selfe or els popish doctrine hanges but ill fauoredly togeather For what is that which you say is changed from eternall to temporall Is it not the punishment due to sinne how is it then forgiuen vnles forgiuenes of sinnes be nothing els but a changing of the punishment which if we grant then Christ hath not obteyned any more for vs but the altering of the punishment then God hath not pardoned our sin but remitted somwhat of the penalty Speake not here of the effect of baptisme for if by forgiuenesse of sinnes therein we are wholy acquitted from the guilt and punishment why should the same words after baptisme signifie a change of the punishment and not a full pardon Dauid therefore in praying for pardon of those sinnes which he beleeued by faith were already pardoned by his practise destroyed this popish reason long before it was hatcht Nor may you answere that this prayer was for any temporall Calamity which was layde vpon him for this sinne because the scriptures make these requests diuers Hee was threatned by the prophet that the child borne in adultery 2. Sam. 12. 18. Psa 32. 3. 4 51. 1. 2. should surely dye For the life of the childe he prayes fastes and weepes but those 2. Psalmes I spake of are of another nature not once mentioning nor once glancing at any temporall or outward affliction And if there be in deede any such dictinction of guilt and punishment Dauid intreats directly and principally for the former According to the multitude of thy mercies wash me throughly c. Euery verse expressing the anguish of a distressed soule for the conscience of sinne cōmitted against God And whereas he makes also request
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
Infidels Protestant I deny your whole antecedent first your proposition for the truth of faith depends not vpon the publicknesse of an exposition but vpon the soundnesse thereof Papist If faith must be infallible and vnpossible to be either erroneous or changeable and faith built vpon priuate exposition be subiect to error and change then he that builds his faith vpon his owne priuate exposition is an Infidell But faith must be infallible and impossible to be 〈◊〉 â—â— changeable and faith built vpoâ— priuate 〈◊〉 is subiect to error and change Therefore he that builds his faith vpon his owne priuat exposition is an Infidell Papist I deny your assumption Because the latter part of it is false For a true exposition though it be priuate is not subiect to error or change we dispute not of the euent whereby it may and doth come to passe that true doctrine is changed but of the nature of that doctrine which is true I am sure no Papist wil deny that a true Catholick in profession may become an hereticke yet an apostata and yet that faith of his which he forsooke was true and vnchangeable Your principall assumption is also false for no protestant builds vpon any priuat interpretation but vpon such as is warranted by the analogy of faith publickly acknowledged and the circumstances of the particular Scriptures aduisedly weighed Papist All protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuas opinion or vpon the exposition of the Church the fathers or councills But they build not their faith vpon any of these three therfore vpon their owne priuat opinion Protestant I deny your disiunction in your propositioÌ„ as insufficient for we build vpon the euidence of truth in it selfe reuealed in the scriptures by going from things manifest to those that are lesse manifest in themselues but become manifest by being compared with and examined by the other we allow of no exposition contrary to the fathers but where euident reason taken from the scriptures themselues necessarily requires it Article 3. Papist All protestants who are Ignorant of the Greeke and Latin tongues are Infidells Whosoeuer reâ—â—eth his faith vpon the ministers credit and fidelity hath no faith at all But all those that are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues rely their faith vpon the ministers credit Ergo all those in England who are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues haue no faith at all Protestant If by relying vpon the Ministers credit you meane they haue no ground to build vpoÌ„ but that I deny your assumption For the vnlearned Protestants rest vpon the witnesse of Gods spirit which perswades them of the generall truth contained in the translation directs them to and in the triall of particulars If to the Credit of the Minister you adde the witnes of the spirit I say the Proposition is false For he hath true faith that relyeâ— vpon the Credit of the Minister being directed by the spirit of God so to doe and perswaded by him of the truth that is deliuered Besides this reasoÌ„ makes as much against the Papists learned and vnlearned who rely one the Popes credit being at the most but a learned man oftentimes not so much Article 4. Papist The Protestants know not what they beleeue They that haue no rule to know what is matter of faith know not what they beleeue But the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith Therefore the protestants know not what they beleeue Protestant I deny your whole antecedent First your proposition for a man may know what he beleeues without a rule to knowe what is matter of faith though he may by that want beleeue that he should not faile in not beleeuing that he should Your Assumption also is false For we haue the whole Scripture to be our Rule Therefore this discourse needed not All the Articles whereof are faithfully beleeued ioyntely by Protestants and Puritans that is by those that dissent in opinion about the outward gouernment or ceremonies of the church Papist They that beleeue that to be the catholick church which hath not bene is and shal be vniuersall for all times and places deny the article of beleeuing the catholick church But the Protestants doe beleeue that to be the catholick church which hath not beene is and shal be vniuersall for all times and places Therefore they deny the article of beleeuing the catholicke church Protestant I deny your whole antecedent againe First your proposition because the Article of beleeuing the catholick Church requires not the acknowledging that this or that congregation is the church But onely beleeuing that from the beginning of the world to the end there alwayes hath bene is and shal be a holy church of Christ which since his ascension hath not bene tied to any place but is dispersed vniuersally amongst all nations Your assumption also I deny because the Protestants do not hold that the church in England is the catholick church but onely that it is a part of the Catholicke Church Which reaches to all times and places And in one word we deny not to the Church the necessitie of Catholicknesie but of visiblenesse Papist They that beleeue not that Christ hath instituted 7. Sacraments and especially the Reall presence of our Sauiour in the Eucharist do deny the article of the communion of Saints But the Protestants beleeue not that Christ hath Instituted 7. Sacraments and the Reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist Therefore the Protestants deny the article of beleeuing the communion of Saints Protestant Any man may make as good a reason of seauen score seauen hundred or seauen thousand or of the Reall presence in Baptisme The Reall presence wee beleeue the Carnall and bodily presence no Papist can proue If the faithfull be made one body by receauing so may they be though there be no such presence Therefore the Apostle calls it Bread all that participate of one breâ—â— not of one body carnally besides if by receiuing they bee made one body then they were not one body till they receiued then they are made such euery time they receaue both which are manifestly false Papist They that deny the communion of the Church militant triumphant by exclaiming against inuocation of Saints and prayers for the soules in purgatory deny the Article of beleeuing the communion of Saints But the Protestants deny the communion of the Church militant and triumphant by exclaiming against inuocation of Saints and prayer for the soules in purgatory Therefore the Protestants deny the Article of beleeuing the communion of Saints Protestant The proposition is false Because there is no such communion your profe is nothing Iacob and Iohn praied to God that the Church may be protected and blessed by the ministery of Angells therfore the Saints departed pray for vs and wee must pray to them 1. Whie not rather to God as Iacob and Iohn did 2. It followes not because they protect vs therefore they pray for vs.
ended and heresies abolisht eyther To the principall propositiō by conuincing those that maintaine them of error or by commanding them to forbeare all medling therein The former being the more proper and orderly course may be performed by the Ministers of the word without any infallible interpreter of the Scripture For it is very possible to vnderstand the true meaning thereof in most places and so to prooue it by the Analogie of faith grounded vpon euident Textes and by the examining of the Texts that are in question that a reasonable man shall not be able to with-hould his assent without manifest blindnesse if not wilfulnesse If you aske me what shall become of other places that are very hard I answere that we need not these for the confirming of any point of doctrine as if without them it could not sufficiently be done Further I say that he which mainteines any point that he is not able to auow by any but some such places as this Author doth Purgatorie is no way to be allowed or borne with The other meanes of enioyning silence and quietnesse is partly in the censures of the Church but principally in the authoritie of the Magistrate whom God hath made Soueraigne gouernour for the outward peace and prosperitie of his church This in order must follow the former yet so as that if the Magistrate commaund before conuincing he must be obeyed by forbearance of any further proceedings vnlesse the charge be directly contrary to the commandement of God in which case we must answer with the Apostles Whether it be right in the sight of God Act. 4. 18. 5. 40. to obey you rather then God iudge you But the Protestants saith he admit the sole Scripture as Principall assumptiō vmpere c. What course is to be held for the interpretation of Scripture To the principall assumptiō I haue partly shewed already in the 2. and 3. and in this 5. article and it shall appeare more fully in the particular examining of this discourse according as it is set downe They saith he that certainely beleeue the Church cannot Proofe of the principall Proposition erre haue meanes to settle themselues in vnity of beleefe to end controuersies and abolish heresies and contrariwise they that do not beleeue it haue none When it is proued that the Church cannot erre then the To the proofe of the principall proposition proposition shal be granted but till then it deserues no allowance and if it be granted yet what hereticall church may not haue the same quietnesse vpon the same perswasion Indeed one of the three points euen that which the Papists stand most vpon viz. their outward quiet estate may in part ensue vpon this beleefe though it be most erroneous For this perswasion that the Church cannot erre is sufficient to stay all controuersies when the Church hath shewed her opinion of them And yet it is with them only sufficient that acknowledge this false priuiledge of the church therfore it follows but in part because you must first perswade those that contend of the truth of this assertion ere you cā worke by it vpon their consciences So that although this meanes supposing the truth of it be in it selfe effectuall yet it cānot breed this effect in all that at any time contend about religion but in those only that beleeue it For example put case that some of the Church being perswaded that the Church hath not authoritie to rob the people of the Cup should call this priuiledge of erring into question How will your Church take vp this controuersie will shee vrge the conclusion I cannot erre or will shee procure her Bishops Abbots Cardinals c. to auouch asmuch of her What is this but Aske my fellowe if I bee a theefe Yes it is somewhat worse for it is all one as if he that is arraigned for fellony should say I tell you I am not a theefe were he not worthy to be acquited trow you And such would your proofe be in this question But if the Church in this case could bring out a Charter and plead that for this priuiledge her aduersaries must needs be conuerted or at least might be confounded and so perhaps the Controuersie ended Yet not by the Churches but by the scriptures authoritie which as I must hereafter shew is the meanes that God hath appointed for that purpose but it may perhaps be 1. Proofe that the Church can not erre Proposition To that proposition proued that the Church cānot erre Let vs heare the reasons If they that will not heare the Church must be accounted as Ethnicks and Publicans the Church cannot erre for if the Church could erre then were there no reason why hee that would not heare her should be so accounted of When the Pope sendes his Legats with pardons a begging about the Countrie commaunding them to preach to the people of the vertue efficacie of those indulgences Are they not as Ethnickes or Publicans or worse that shall refuse to heare their sermons and may I herevpon reasonably conclude that therefore they that preach them cannot erre Why shall I not say the like of any Popish Priest moncke or fryer being authorised by the Church of Rome to preach who can refuse to heare them and not be guiltie of contempt against your Church Apostolicke yet I hope these may erre Wherevpon I conclude that therefore your proposion is false if they that will not heare the Church must be accounted as Ethnicks the Church cannot erre But he that will not heare the Church is to be counted as an Assumptiō Ethnick What simplie if he do not heare the church nay rather To the assumption if in that case set downe by our sauiour he do not heare her Now the case is this If one brother or christian sinne against another he that is offended must rebuke the other in priuate betwixt them alone 2. If this preuaile not with him he must the second time rebuke him and that before one or two witnesses 3. If this will not serue he must complaine of him to the Gouernours of the Church 4. If their censure will do no good with him he is to be accounted no mēber of the church after excommunication Let vs now draw an argument from this place and see what it makes for the churches infinite authority He that being thus proceeded withall obeyes not the iust censure of the Gouernours of the church to the confessing of his sinne and satisfying of his brother the congregation is to be accounted an Ethnicke Therefore whatsoeuer the church sayes must be beleeued or therefore the Church cannot erre Who sees not the weaknesse of this reason He that obeys not the church in a iust censure is no longer any member of the Church Therefore he that simply in al things obeies her not acknowledging that she cannot erre is an Infidell Here it would be further considered that by the