us Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a curse for us that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles Surely he hath born our griefs carried our sorrows He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed All which refer to this state of humiliation from which we have long since passed I would have L. B. or any Papist to shew me what benefit we have by these sufferings or how they tend to our redemption and salvation When dogs cats mice eat and tare in pieces Christ's body or a weak stomackt Priest spues up the body of Christ into some filthy place are we advantaged hereby or can we glory in these sufferings in this Cross of Christ 2. There may be other things infer'd as 1. That the Priest that either through negligence suffers Christs body to be torn in pieces of dogs cats mice or that willingly deliver it to wicked men and miscreants is a Judas a betrayer of Christ and you may know him by his sop dipt in the wine which none of the people partake of 2. That the Jews and heathenish Romans were more mercifull to Christ then the present Priests and Pharisees of Rome Antichristian Those delivered him into the hands of men these give him into the mouths of dogs cats mice Those preserved him whole not breaking a bone of him these tare him in pieces by wild beasts Those gave him an honourable interment He made his grave with the rich these buried him in the bellyes of beasts or cast him into the draught 2. I come to shew the contrariety of this Doctrine to Scripture 1. Some Scriptures affirm that Christ is in Heaven and must be contained there till the restitution of all things Acts 3.21 That the Apostle Heb. 9.24 gives the reason of it He is entred into Heaven it â—elf now to appear in the presence of God for us which is the work of the High Priest within the vaile and Primasius to this purpose saith Introire autem Iesum c. We say that Jesus is entred into Heaven according to his Manhood Primas apud Lyr. in Heb. 9.12 for as God he is every where Again Joh. 16.28 I come forth from the Father and am come into the world again I leave the world and go to the Father If you ask how he left the world the Interlineary truely tells you he did it Corporali discessione non gubernatiâ—ne presentiae By a removall of his body c. He speaks of his local removing not of his lying hid in the world Indeed ver 16. he speaks of his invisibility A little while and ye shall not see me but the reason was not because he would goe up and downe hid under the forms and species of bread and wine but because he went to the Father as Theophilact from the Text doth truely note Yea further we finde the Scripture expresly denying his presence on earth and that by a weightie reason Heb. 8.4 If he were on earth he should not be a Priest is he could not perform all the rites of his Priesthood For some of them require his presence in the Holy of Holies and there he could not be if he were on earth this is clearly the Apostles Argument Christ could not be in the state of humiliation and exaltation at one and the same time if he be in that state he is not in that too 2. We finde the Scriptures expresly denying that Christs corporall presence is in divers places at once Matth. 28.6 He is not here for he is risen which were no reason if your Doctrine were good for he might be there and risen too To conclude there is not any part of Gods Word which gives the least countenance or incouragement to this Popish absurditie You answer The Word of God is plain and express for the presence of Christs body in the Sacrament and consequently in many places at once Reply You truly infer that if Christs body be really present in the Sacrament it must needs be in many places at once but this presence is not plainly and expresly delivered in Scripture The word This is my body which you mention do neither plainly nor expresly deliver it There are two things oppose your exposition of those words 1 The judgement of Fathers Tertul. lib. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. L. 3. c. 19. Theod. Dial. 1. 2. Aug. c. 12. contr Adimant Ep. 23. ad Bonif Concil Carth. 3. Can. 24. Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. Vasq in 3. part Thom. disp 180. t. 5. Cajet in 3. Thom. q. 75. Schoolmen and others Tertullian Theodoret and Augustine understand the words figuratively The third Councill of Carthage saith that here is in the Sacraments no more offered to God than bread and wine mingled with water c. Scotus affirms Non exstare c. That there is not any place of Scripture so express that without the Churches Declaration it can evidently compell us to admit Transubstantiation And this saith Bellarmine is not altogether improbable Yea Vasques further tells us that Scotus affirmed That the truth of these words of Consecration may be retained although the substance of bread and wine should remain in the Eucharist and blames certain professours of Divinitie that side with him and in speciall Cardinall de Alliaio for affirming that this way is possible and neither contrary to reason nor the authority of Scriptures yea its easier to be understood and more rationall than any other of this judgement is also Cajetan 2. Reason which teacheth first that neither one desperate can predicate of another i. e. as you express it when two distinct things of different kinds are affirmed of each other which you say cannot be true nor one thing of it self in the same consideration or respect and whereas you say that the body of Christ out of the Sacrament before the words began is affirmed to be in the Sacrament after they are ended This is not plainly or expresly delivered in the words of Christ for he must either have said That which was my body before the Sacrament is now my body in the Sacrament or this was my body before the Sacrament In saying This and is he informs us that he speaks of the Subject in its present capacity and therefore some by This understand Bread which is most agreeable to the context Christ took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat This is my body That which Christ took blessed brake and gave to them was Bread 1 Cor. 10.16 Now this is predicated improperly of Christs body Thus Christ is called a Doore John 10.7 a Rocke 1 Cor. 10.4 Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.10 The Sacramentall Cup is called the New Testament in Christs blood Luk. 22.20 I pray satisfie me what may be the reason why
so much as one miracle Hast thâ—u by thy prayers raised up the dead or r stâ—red them thaâ— have been sick of fâ—aâ—ers If thou wert of any worth thâ—u wouldst do some miracle Answer and say 't is writâ—â—n thou shâ—lt not tempt the Lord thy God I will not therefore tempt God as if I belonged to God if I did a miracle or did not belong to him if I did it not This is our answer when you demand of us miracles as evidences of the Spirits favour 2. You say The Spirit in us induceth to ill it perswading a disloyal deâ—ection fr m the Lords prayer the Commandments and church This is a most grosse and impudent slander we neither teach nor practise defection from the Lords Prayer the Commandments or that faith which the Apostles preached and the primitive Christians received from them We reverence and use the Lords Prayer as the most exact and perfect pattern of Prayer We insert it in our Catechisms teach it our children earnestly seek after those blessings it contains we have honourable and precious thoughts of it as of whatsoever Jesus Christ delivered to us We receive the Commandments as the rule of our obedience the guid of our way and as the Lord enables us do conform our selves thereto The like we say of the Church We reject no Doctrines that we know to be Apostolical Its our cleaving to the Apostolical Church which makes us to be hated of Papists What Creeds the ancient Churches of Christ have received we freely own and beleeve all things written therein though we ingeniously professe our dislike and rejection of your late coyned articles as not being received by former Churches Finally the Spirit that is in us doth not induce us to any ill we have indeed corruption in us which induceth us to ill but we pray and strive against it I dare affirm it and disprove it if you can that our reformed Ministry is as holy if not more than your Priesthood our people that receive the truth into their hearts walk as closely with God and as free from sin as most of your Catholiques yea its observable that the more free any parts are from popery and papists the more zealous and religious they are and more carefull sanctifiers of the Lords day Since it pleased God to set me in the place where I now live which is in the midst of Papists and popish persons I have given my self to observe their waies and I find the best of them notorious profaners of the Lords day spending it either in drinking or walking about from house to house or sporting and if they have Protestant servants imploying them about their worldly businesses as much as on any other day But Sir I may say of your self and such like as Hiero. of some Qâ—um bona imitari non queant c. Hierom. When they cannot imitate the good is in us which they can only do they envie us in this think themselves verie learned that they can detract from us You cannot imitate therefore enuy it s one peice of Jesuitical learning to slander What you bring those names of our Authors in your margent for I know not I am sure were they alive they would accuse you of slandring them 3. You say This Spirit in us prompteth things contrarie and inconsistent each with other Ans The Spirit in us is the Spirit of truth and leads us into truth not universally and infallibly as if we knew all truth and erred in nothing for it s not given fully and perfectly though there be light in us yet it s not without darkness if it were we should be Angels rather than men comprehensors rather then travellers This spirit keeps us from the destructivenesse of error not from error yet I say the confessions of the reformed Churches are most harmonious our Churches teach not things contrary nor inconsistent each with othea though particular men in our Churches may dissent in some points as in all Churches 3. In your last section you bring in and answer two Arguments formed as I suppose upon the anvile of your own brain 1. God is no accepter of persons his Spirit being free may breath on whom he pleaseth To this you answer This is out of the matter in hand here being no dispute of Gods power what he may do but of his will what he doth Reply When I know whose argument this is and see the form of it I shall vindicate it from your answer if I like it at present I shall shall only desire you to remember your answer when you come to the point of transubstantiation 2. Arg and Answ their other ground for insâ—iration upon the assurance of Consciencâ— St. Paul and St. Augustine convinced long since of weaknesse and coufinage Reply This argument came out of the same mint with the other for which of us lay any claim to inspiration 2. 'T is true we say that the Spirit bears witnesse with our spirits that we are the Children of God and doth not the Apostle say so Rom. 8.16 Your Rhemists confesse that by this testimony the Children of God have an attestation of his favour towards them 3. Whereas you object the example of St. Paul and Austin pray tell me can conscience never tell true because sometimes it erred there is an erring conscience is there therefore no rightly informed conscience You make notable inferences 4. May not conscience mistake in its judgment about works as to their goodnesse or badness nay was it not about works that St. Paul and Augustines conscience did erre you acknowledg it was the one persecuted the Church the other the Truth Why should not the Spirit when by conscience it testifies of it self be regarded as when it testifies of works You say conscience can have no greater certainty then the understanding that gaue it being and the understanding often misseth I grant that the understanding of it self is errable and subject to mistakes but being guided by the spirit its certain and so is conscience The Apostle saith We know thâ—t we dwâ—ll in him and he in us 1 John 4.13 because he hath given us of his Sprit and we see and do testifie c. Upon which words your Glosse saith Per hoc c. Hereby we prove that he hath given us of his holy Spirit because we see that is through the Spirit of inspiration by faith we know and by the testifying spirit do we witness c. CHAP. IX Of the Spiritists rule of Faith YOu begin with a distinction about the rule of faith which you say may be considered in it self or in r spect of us In it self its Gods reveal d truth in respect of us it s the same truth expressed to us Thus far say you Catholiques and Sâ—iritists agree their difference iâ— about the expression Answ 1. I conceive your distinction is vain and can hardly beleeve that Spiritists agree with you thus far For 1. I conceive the
rule of faith as such cannot be considered but as to us it being a relative tearm cannot be considered without relation to beleevers who are its correlative you might as well tell of a father considered in himself or in respect of his Child A father abstract from relation to his child is no father no more is the Word of God abstract from its respect to beleeve in a rule of Faith 2. You are extream quick and witty in distingishing betwixt Gods truth revealed and the same truth expressed I wonder what 's the difference doth not God when he reveales his truth expresse it to us revelation is nothing else but the expressing of some thing formerly unknown Spiritists say Gods truth revealed or expressed to us in Scripture is the rule of Faith and manners to beleevers 2. You say Their difference is about the exprâ—ssion These Spiritists holding that it is that of their private Spirit joyned to to that of Scipture only those Catholiques that it is that of the Châ—rch Scripture bearing witness to her truth Answ 1. If Spiritists for I use your own word and you agree about the rule of Faith both in it self and in respect of us that it is Gods revealed truth and the same truth expressed to us Why then do you entitle your Chapter The Spiritists rule of Faith as if we had one rule of Faith and you another whereas you assert that the difference is not about the rule but the expression of it You explain the difference thus Spiritists hold that the rule of Faith is Gods revealâ—d truth expressed to them by their private Spirit joyned to the expression of Scripture only Catholiques teach that it is God revealed truth expressed by the Church Scripture bearing wirness to her truth Ans 1. For your opinion I say 1. What mean you by Gods revealed truth I perceive you understand not the Word of God revealed by the Prophets and Apostles in Scripture for you seem to blame us for our expression of Scripture only and accordingly oppose the Scriptures sufficiency in your next section 2. How comes it that the Spirit of God hath no place with you in expressing the truth of God Must your Diana shoulder out the Scripture and the Spirit too The Spirit is much beholding to you for your opinion Are you not Antispiritists in this your doctrine and clearly destitute of the favourable effects of the Spirit of God 3. Hath the Scripture no use or imployment with you but to come in and bear witness that the Church is true Doth it not witness for Gods truth as much as for your Churches truth Is it not the testimony of the Lord Jesus But as the thing Church is the Pillar of Truth so the word Church is the very Pillar and Prop of Popish Errors and therefore you use it usque ad nauseam 4. Are not you like a turning mill-horse or like the wicked in the Psalms Impii nmbulant in circuitu You say the Scripture is the Rule of Faith at least partial as the Church expresseth that is expoundeth it and if you be asked how you know the Church expounds it right you answer by the Scripture which bears witnesse to the Churches truth The Scriptures bear witness to the Churches truth and the Church bears witness to the Scriptures truth But your tenet is so clear with you though most grosse and wicked that you add no confirmation of it but what ariseth from the opposition of ours as you have delivered it Therefore 2. I come to defend ours against you but first I will lay it down in other tearms 't is this we say that the rule of divine belief is the Word of God contained only in Scripture the means whereby we understand it is principaly the Spir t of God which enlightens our minds and eâ—abâ—es us by the use of those means God hath appointed us to use amongst wh ch we number the consent of learned men in former and in the present age for the findiâ—g out of the Scriptures meaâ—ing Now if this be tâ—e private Spirit you speak of we acknowledg it and own it and account what you say against it to be sinfull and foolish as will presently appear Against us 1. You affirm that this Spirit is false and spurious Answ 1. Is the Spirit of God in private persons false and spurious Or have they not this Spirit Take heed of blasphemy for you are at the brink of it The Spirit is promised to private Christians as well as to others and doth testifie as truly though not always so manifestly and fully in them as in publique persons convened in Council I could quote many particular Doctors of your Church preferring their own expositions of Scripture before the expositions of the Church and Fathers but for brevity to refer to Dr. Mortons learned Apeal lib. 9. c. 29. I will only say one thing for your self that in your expositions of Scripture so much as it is especially in your reading of it you follow neither Church nor Father nor honest Christian witness the Scriptures you bring for your impudent assertion 1. text 2. Pet. 1. No interpretation of Scripture by private Spirit Excellently read you have found private Spirit in expresse words yet let me tell you had you been put to read this Text instead of a Miserere mei before a Judg of Assise your reading would hardly have saved you from hanging 2. Text Math. 18.17 To belâ—eve the Churcâ— Admiâ—able Heâ—e is faith iâ— the Church in express tearms which none ever saw before 3. Text 2 Cor. 10. Where say you St. Paul wisheth to captivate the understanding to the obedience of faith Yet more falshood The Rhemists as well as we and all men that are in their right wit and have any thing of ingenuity read it to the Obedience of Christ I wonder you read it not to the obedi-of the Church And thus you would prove both faith and obedience due to the Church which in time might have procured you a Cardinalship 4. Text Luke 16. None can serve two Masters This reading is tolerable I will briefly now answer these Texts 1. To the first I say the words are these knowing this first that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interprâ—tation and they are spoken of the penmen of Scripture not of private Interpreters who did not use their own wills and counsels vers 21. but were inspired by the Holy Ghost The Rhemists reading shews that it belongs to the Prophets Vnderstanding this first that no prophesie of Scripture is Made by private interpretati n It 's spoken of the Composure not of the Exposition of Scripture 2. Your second Text I have formerly answered 3. Your third Text Chrysostom understands of bringing men from the estate of death and destruction into the estate of life and Salvation subjecting them to Christ Your gloss by All understanding conceives is meant all proud conceited persons who are made subject to the faith of
you say the Scriptures declare not that its lawfull to eat strangled meats and blood Answ 1. The Scriptures declare that every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving 1 Tim. 4.4 And that Christians are not to be judged for their eating of any meats Col. 2.16 So it be not with the offence of our brother who is weak thus Lyra on that decree of the Apostles concerning strangled meats and blood saith Those who were newly converted from Judaisme did abhor these meats Lyran. in Acts 5.20 and therâ—fore although it was meat that lawfully might be eaten yet for their sakes the Gentiles were commanded to abstain from as a man is to abstain from that meat which is hateful to his companion but afterwards the cause ceasing through the clear discovery of the Gospel the effect ceased And this Gospel light he fetcheth from Math. 15. and 1 Tim. 4. both which are Scripture 2. It may be questioned whether it be necessary to salvation to beleeve that things strangled blood may be lawful to be eaten The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink we are not justified by meat It s weaknesse to think any meat unlawful Rom. 14.2 but not heretical the eating or refusing of meats is of that kind of things quae dubium est quo animo fiant not of those quae non possunt bono animo fiâ—ri as Augustine distinguisheth Thus much for answer to your reason and its confirmation Lastly In the close of your Chapter you bring an argument to prove that Spiritists do not make the Scriptures a rule of their belief 't is this Were Scripture the rule of their belief though it contain divers truths yet those truths meeting and becoming one in revelation they wo ld all perfectly agree not only Lutherans amo g themselves Zuinglians among themselves Calvenists among themselves but likewise Lutherans with Zuinlians c. It being the property of unitie to unite and make one all that conform to the same Answ 1. You suppose that all they who acknowledg one Rule must perfectly agree amongst themselves which is evidently false an exact walking according the same rule is not attainable by any society on this side heaven For 1. All have not the same measure of knowledg whereby they should understand exactly every point in Scripture many things are Scriptural by consequence which must be found out by argument and are hardlier understood than other things Though in some places of Scripture a Lamb may wade yet in others an Elephant may swim The Apostle saith Let us as many as be perfect be thus minded if in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule c. Phil. 3.15.16 It s a perfection an high attainment for Christians to be perfectly one Yea it s a priviledg of another life Rhem. annot on Phil. 3.15 where knowledg becomes perfect Eph. 4.13 with 1 Cor. 13. The Rhemists acknowledg this as the judgment of Saint Paul acknowledging that in this imperfection of mens science in this life everie one cannot be free from all error or think the same that another thinketh whereupon may arise difference of understanding opinion and Judgment in certa n hard matters which God hath not revealed or the Church determined and therefore that such diversity is tollerable and agreeable to our humane condition and the state of the way that we be in 2. All have not the same measure of grace and freedome from corruption and passions which prevail to draw men from a conformity to the same rule Some are of a crosse and peevish temper subject to a spirit of contradiction maintaining errors lest they should seem to be overcome by others or not to have been so sound as others are Passion had a great influx upon the differences of our first reformers nor are you free from this evil this Spirit of contradiction You reject clear expositions of Scripture because we approve of them When Augustine comparing the Jewish and Christian Sacraments saith fuerunt c. they were divers in the signs but alike in the thing signified grounding his speech upon 1 Cor. 10.3 Maldonate answers I am perswaded if Augustine had lived in our age he would have thought otherwise especially perceiving the heretical Calvinists to be of of his opinions And he further adds I rather approve my own exposition than that of Augustin because this is more contradictory to the Calvinists Mald. in Joan. 6. 2. Your selves acknowledg one Rule the Church yet cannot truly say that all Papists do perfectly agree I shall shew the contrary hereafter 3. Though Protestants differ about particular truths yet they all agree in this that whatsoever God reveals to them in Scripture they are bound to beleeve it Herein Lutherans Zuinghans and Calvenists as you name them do fully agree 4. You falsly and ignorantly suggest to your seduced followers that the Protestant Churches are full of divisions and disagreements Calvenists differing amongst themselves and from Lutherans c. Sir I pray you read the harmonious confessions of Protestant Churches and if by them you be not convinced of error in your next give us some catalogues of those divided and sub-divided differences you generally mention till then we shall suspend our belief of you Your reason in these words It being the property of unitie to unite c. is a piece of non-sence If you had mentioned Rule instead of unity it had been most true but nothing to purpose It is the property of a rule to unite and make one all that conform to it So that to the making up of this unity there must not only be an exact rule but a perfect conformity to it in them whom it doth concern which perfect conformity canot be yeelded by any living man to the Word of God because of ignorance and corruption which remain in the very best of men The conclusion of your Argument needs no answer the Premises being overthrown What you say of our doing homage to Luther Calvin and Zuinglius's fancy is simple and false You know we abhor a blind obedience and an implicite faith The books our people read ordinarily are not Luther Calvin or Zuinglius's works but the sacred Scriptures by which we examine all writings even their 's you now mention if we meet with them We look upon Luther Calvin and Zuinglius as eminent lights in the Church of God not as Gods We say not Dominus Deus noster Calvinus c. as some of you have said of your Pope We acknowledg them indued with the Spirit but not infallibly inspired as holders forth of an old light hid under a Romish bushel not as introducers of any new one as reformers not innovators We reverence them as pious men now with the Lord but neither pray to them nor keep holidays for them our homage we
Pastors should be visible after they are dead for a visibility of them whilst they live would be to no purpose it not providing the the Church of means to defend aâ—d make good her right in case of opposition c. Answ 1. For men to be visible after death is something accidentall and withall strange unless to a popish ear or a necromancers eye but supposing charitably that you mean that their names should be visible I say 2. There is no necessity for evidencing a true Church that the names of all preceding Bishops and Pastors thereof should be mentioned It s sufficient that it be shewed that their Doctrine had its rise from Christ and that the Apostles professed and preached it Thus we shew the truth of our Church against your Antichristian Temple It s a truth subscribed to by all that the Doctrine which had its rise from Christ and was professed by the Apostles had professors of it in all ages and these must needs be true Pastors though without exact succession Your self formerly did confess that it is required of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and his Apostles not of men meerly sent but withall professing the Doctrine maintained in the Church of England though now forgetting what you had before said you affirm that if Bishops and Pastors be found succeeding each other without intermission its euident they are true and Catholique but this I have confuted before 3. Your reason with its comparisons annexed to it do not prove your assertion you say It not providing the Church of means to defend and make good her right in case of opposition the question of the Churches right is to be decided not unlike that of two great men laying claim to a principality by vertue of some pretended descent from a certain Prince Answ 1. It is unlike if by discent you mean a series of personal succession without interruption For the Churches right is not decided that way Scribes and Pharisees might have lineal descent from Aaron yet be theeves and robbers John 10.8 The Churches planted since the Apostles days could not have this lineal discent from Christ and his Apostles yea the Churches planted by the Apostles might have their Hiatus Yet both these later be true Churches of Christ You seem to grant pag. 56 that the Bishops and Pastors of some particular Churches cannot be named in a constant succession How then will you prove the truth of those Churches for it cannot be proved by this means you plead for 2. Supposing them like yet it s not the un-interruptednesse of succession for which they lay claim to the principality for it may have been in the hands of usurpers but discent together with the qualifications required in him who is to inherit which are found in one but not in the other thus it may be said of the Church whose discent from Christ together with her qualifications viz. investure with true Doctrine and right administration of Sacraments according to the will of Jesus Christ doth entitle her to the inheritance of truth 2. Or to a river whether it hath its off-spring from such an hill or mountain the surest way is to trace the river up to the head Answ 1. It may be probably known by other means than this viz. by compareing the water of the mountain with this in the river by the ascent of the water of the rivers c. 2. Tracing it is not always a sure way it may be mingled with other waters as have not their rise from that mountain it may run through a dead sea and then you may be at a losse whilst you seek an uninterrupted derivation of it from its head Yet 3. I grant that when the head is near and there is no mixture of impure and different waters your course is very good thus the fathers who lived within a few years after Christ and before heretiques came into Bishopricks and Pastoral Churches did make use of derivation of succession But the case is otherwise with us we living many hundreds of years after them and there having been heretical Bishops in the Church Lastly You say The truth of Doctrine is discernable much after the same manner if it be found to have no way varied but to have kept its own from Christ and the Apostles doubtless its Orthodox if not most certainly its new and false Answ 1. The former part is most true but not the later that Doctrine is true which though it have been varied in particular Churches yet at present is the same with the Apostles Doctrine 2. Granted is true what will become of your present Church and its Doctrine which you confesse is not the same with Christs and his Apostles Doctrine certainly it will follow that your new articles of communion in one Kinde prayer in an unknown tongue c. are new and false The rest of your answer is but a piece of railing rhetorick not worthy a reply SHAPE V. THe fift Shape is this That Church is true and Catholique which professeth the Apostles Doctrine clearly delivered in Scripture but the Protestant Church doth so therefore c. You answer 1. True Doctrine is no mark of a true Church it being often to be seen among schismaticks who for want of communion cannot make a true Church Reply 1. The profession of the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scripture is a mark of the true Church as not agreeing to any other which I prove by these arguments drawn from your own assertions 1. True Doctrine is the Churches inseperable mate p. 40. But it could not be her inseperable mate if it could be seperated from her and brought into society with a schismatical Church 2. Christ hath entrusted his Church with trueth and ordained her keeper and preserver of it and what comes upon any other score than upon the Churches account and credit is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of belief p. 13. Therefore whatsoever Doctrines are out of the true Church are not truths For that which is beleeved by men out of the Church comes not upon the Churches account and therefore with you is Apocriphal 3. True Doctrine is Her the Churches Doctrine p. 51. Therefore cannot agree to others 4. There is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and idols no concord with Christ and Belial You urge these words to prove that professors of error cannot be in the Church and it will as strongly prove that professors of truth cannot be out of the Church where then is your truth agreeing to a schismatical Church 5. Doctrine being in nature much like unto number the least addition or diminution altereth its kind and groundeth a new denomination p. 50. Now you cannot name any number of schismaticks that did not either adde to or diminish something of the Doctrine which the Apostles taught in Scripture hence 't is that both Augustine and Hierom tell us that there is no schisme which doth not
profession of Doctrine In your next words you call it Apostolical power which may extend to jurisdiction as well as to Order to Government as well as Doctrine but in the confirmation of your assumption you only though frequently express it by a power to preach and inculcate the truth which is no more then profession of true Doctrine against errors and thus it must be understood if the Argument be good 2. Your felf overthrow the truth of this proposition 1. In saying Apostolicall power and doctrine where Communion is not wanting are sure evidences of the true Catholick Church whereby you declare then your enumeration of particulars in the proposition is unsufficient and may be where the true Church is not viz. where communion is wanting and this is more necessary with you than any thing you express 2. Whereas in the former Chapter we asserted the profession of true doctrine to be a mark of the true Church you vehemently opposed it as an error how comes it then to be a truth in this Chapter Is it a truth or no truth a Popish truth and a Protestant error 3. These marks or rather this mark may agree to particular Churches and have rather agreed to any particular Church than the now Roman Yea they may agree to particular Christians of other Churches as to Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople Athanasus Bishop of Alexandria Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem whom you mention and were distinct Patriarchs from the Bishop or Patriarch of Rome yea every private Christian hath a power from Christ to embrace true Doctrine and to make profession of it and to contend earnestly for it against all false doctrine Answ 2. To your minor I deny it to be true your proof of I shall mainly examine The second Proposition say you I clear by instances in and from the Apostles down to Luther Zuinglius and Calvin and those of such points as Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ in Parturiunt montes c. Who would not here expect some great matter from this Doctor yet who ever examines his instances shall finde nothing but a heap of lies and fopperies For my discovery hereof I shall shew particularly what this man undertakes and how he swerves from his undertaking 1. He undertakes things 1. To produce a Catalogue of such points wherein Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ So that to bring instances of such doctrines as Protestants disclaim as well as Papists is to lie grosly and to befool the Reader 2. To produce the generallity or universall company of Christians as appears by those words Christians generally maintained so often repeated in the following instances 3. To produce this company professing c. when any opposition was first made whereby is implied that when the Protestant supposed errors did arise in severall ages these Authors and Councels did then arise and oppose them 4. To bring in the testimony of Roman Catholicks for he proves that the Roman Church is Catholick because of their constant opposition of Heresies in all ages since Christ 2. The frothiness of his undertaking appears in his swerving from it which comes not to be delivered 1. As for his instance of such points c. who that read his Profession but would expect a Catologue of Protestant errors from the Apostles down to Calvin but behold a Catalogue of such Doctrines as Protestants and Papists comply in the opposition of Here are fifteen instances of which the six first together with the eighth tenth eleaventh and twelfth as he delivers it fourteen and part of the fifteenth we utterly disclaim as none of the doctrine of the Protestant Churches but a dead bastard which the whore of Rome hath laid at our side insteed of our own living child which this author hath carefully hid from the eyes of his followers making shew onely of hâ—s own deformed bastard But lest I should seem to affirm rather then prove Our disowning of them I shall take a little liberty to demonstrate what is the judgement of the Protestant Churches in those points that this Author mentions as errors only first I will advertise the reader of a jugling feat of this Romish artist 't is this when he brings in Fathers or Councels in opposition to some errors he turns them from opposing those erors to assert some doctrines not directly contrary to those errors but rather to the true doctrine of Protestants as S. 2. in opposition to S. Magus opening Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works he brings in the Apostles and Austin asserting that good works are Absolutely necessary to salvation Sect. 3. in opposition to Eunomius attributing Justification to a simple act of faith he brings in Irenaeus and Austin affirming that Faith alone doth not justifie Sect. 4. Whereas Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin he brings in Tertullian Origen and the Trent Councell asserting that God doth no more but permit as if God could do no more about sin but he must be the Author of it Having premised this I come to his instances 1. Instance Simon Magus took upon him to open Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works Ans Is this the doctrine of Protestants or do they open Heaven to Faith accompanied with good works Do not all Protestants require that the Faith which justifies be an active or operative Faith and proclaim other Faith dead read concerning the necessitie of works the English Confession Non tamen dicimus c. Yet we say not that men may live dissolutely as if it were sufficient for a Christian onâ—ly to be dipt and to believe and nothing else expected from him true Faith is living and cannot be idle Read the Articles of the Church of England especially Act. 12. Albeit that good works which are the fruits of Faith and follow after Justification cannot put away our sins and endure the severitie of Gods judgement yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith c. Again Act. 17. They which are predestinated they walk religiously in good works c. To all this the reverend Assembly of Divines consent saying Good works are the fruit and evidences of a true and lively Faith that believers are created thereto that having their fruit in holiness they may have the end Confess of Faith c. 16. Sect. 2. eternall life If you say Protestants hold they are not absolutely necessary I answer this was not the error of Simon Magus nor is the contrary opinion the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome as appears to any that reads the Councel of Trent Session 6. or of her children see the Rhemists on Lu. 23.43 2. Inst Eunomius attributed to a simple act of faith virtue and efficacie to cleanse and wash a-away whatsoever ordure and spots of sins Tolet. in c. 3. ad Rom. This is no Protestant doctrine We fully consent to the speech of the Jesuite Tolet. Advertendum est c.