An ansvvere to a popish pamphlet, of late newly forbished, and the second time printed, entituled: Certaine articles, or forcible reasons discouering the palpable absurdities, and most notorious errors of the Protestants religion. By Anthony Wotton

AN ANSWERE to a popish Pamphlet , of late newly forbished , and the second time Printed , Entituled : Certaine articles , or forcible reasons discouering the palpable absurdities , and most notorious errors of the Protestants religion .

By Anthony Wotton .

Papist .

Palpauimus quasi coeci parietem , et quasi absque oculis attrectauimus , impegimus meridie , quasi in tenebris . As blinde men we haue gropte the wall , and as without eyes we haue handled it , we haue stumbled at noone dayes , as in darknesse . Isa. 59.

Protestant .

If you were blinde , yee should not haue sinne ; but now yee say we see , therefore your sinne remaineth . Iohn . 9. 41.

Papist .

Domine aperi oculos istorum vt videant . O Lord open the eyes of these men , that they may see . 4. Reg. 6.

Protestant .

Lord lay not this sinne to their charge . Acts. 7. 60.

Imprinted at London by G. Eld , for William Timme , dwelling in Pater-noster rowe , at the signe of the Flower de Luce and crowne , neere Cheapeside . 1605.

To the Right Honorable Edward Lord Denny , Baron of Waltham .

R. Honorable :

MAy it please your good Lordship , to accept of this poore treatise , not in any part of satisfaction for so honorable an offer of your vndeserued kindnes , but as a Bill of my hand , for the acknowledgment of so great a debt ; To promise payment of such a sum , were to deceiue with false hope , to imagine it may be made by such meanes as this , would argue a misconceipt both of your Lordships due , and my ability . All that remaines is by this , or some such l●ke deed , to professe my sensiblenes of your great fauour , and my owne bond , with a continuall desire of some better oportunity to shew my thankfulnesse . Which if it please your Lordship to take in good part , your honorable kindnes , and my debt by it shall receaue such increase , as shal bind mee alwaies to the best duty I can performe , euen to call vpon God for an enlargement of all his graces and blessings on your Lordship , and all yours , to your present , and euerlasting comfort through Iesus Christ ; to whose gratious protection I commend your Honor now and euer . Tower hill . May 23. 1605.

Your Lordships in all Christian duty . Anthony Wotton .

To the Reader .

I Had dispatcht my answer to these Popish Articles , with purpose to haue publisht it , Ianuary 9. 1600. But it pleased God to disapoynt me of that purpose , by the vnlooked for ouerthrow of my Honourable Lord the Earle of Essex , since that time I haue kept it by me , the rather because the Pamphlet hath bene since that time sufficiently answered , by two learned men : Now at the last the importunity of some friends hath drawne from me a certain Consent , for the Printing of it , in these 2. respects . First because it seemes to them that it may serue , as part of an answere , to diuers points lately set out against Maister Perkins reformed Catholick : til● a more particular refutation thereof be ready ; secondly , because the Papists haue of late new forbished and reprinted these Articles , with some answers and arguments , which were not in the former treatise , & therfore remaine as yet vnanswered . The booke it selfe , with the Author , and reasons of the publishing thereof ; I committ to thy Christian censure , beseeching God to giue a blessing to it , for the maintayning of his owne holy truth , the instructing and establishing of his children , & the conuincing and confounding of his enemies , to his diuine Maiesties glory , in Iesus Christ our Lord and onely Sauiour . Tower-hill . May 23. 1605.

Thine assured in Christ . Anthony Wotton .

The Coppie of a Letter , written by a Catholicke to a Worshipfull Protestant Gentle man , his especiall friend , concerning certaine reasons , why the Protestants religion is false and absurd .

Papists .

LOuing and reloued friend , I haue recei●●ed A your courteous letter , wherein you greatly wonder , that I wondered so much in our last discourse , that any man in England , endu●d with a good iudgement , conioyned with a religious conscience , could either accept or affect the Protestants new coyned Gospell . You request me to set B downe briefly such reasons as induced me therevnto ; the which suite I could not denie ; for both religion and affection vrged me to satisfie so iust a desire . For I must confesse I loue you as a man , and as an honest ciuill Gentleman , and most gladly ▪ I would haue occasion to loue you as a Catholick Gentleman : for it is great pitty , that such a multitude of detessable errours , and hainous heresies , should lodge in so rarely qualified a soule .

I haue penned them after an vnaccustomed maner , following C the fashion of Schooles in most of them , after a syllogisticall Why not in all ? methode : to the intent that if you should shew them to your Ministers which swarme about you , they might not haue such free scope , and libertie to range abroad with their idle discourses ( as they vse to take ) vailing their confused conceipts with a multitude of affected phrases , thereby more easilie to deceiue the simple , and to loath the learned .

Wherefore I beseech you , if any such itching spirit , shall D attempt an answer , to intreat him to performe it briefly , orderly , and seriously . This I request , for that I perceiue , that Protestants cannot answer with breuitie ; because their religion lacketh both certaintie , and perspicuitie : & extreame hard , or impossible it is , to replie without prolixitie , where there is no truth , nor veritie .

And therefore I request you , as you loue me , to will them to consider well , before they answer ill ; and not to replie with rashnesse , least they retreate with deliberation , to their vtter shame and confusion . And that you may perceiue , how my wonder rather deserued approbation , then admiration , and for that order is a fauorite of memory : I thought good to reduce all my reasons vnto two heads . Witte , and Wi●l , Knowledge and affection , faith and good life ; because the nature of heresie hath euer beene such , as did not onely inueagle the witte with errors but also seduce the will , with occasions of inordinate affections : I say then , that no excellent good witte , lincked with a religious conscience , can either accept , or affect the Protestants new coined Gospell , for good witts , and iudgements , assisted with Gods grace , may easily perceiue the truth : yea , by the force of their very naturall faculties , they may iudge credibly of the trueth once proposed , and without great difficultie , discerne the absurditie of an vntrue religion : vertuous and well inclined affections , which are the bases of quiet , secure , and religious consciences , abhorre , and detest such principles , as either dishonour God , abase mans nature are occasion of sinne , fauour iniquitie ▪ or in any sort diminish deuotion , or pietie . And therefore all these insequent articles shall stand vpon these two foundations , to wit that the Protestants religion debarreth the witte from right vnderstanding the true faith , and the will from following of any vertue or godlinesse .

Protestant .

THe occasion of his writing ▪ as he professeth , is the satisfying of a friends request , for the sauing of his owne credit : how he hath acquitted himselfe herein , let all that will , first read , and then iudge .

The Protestants allow no Gospell , but one only , which is no newer then the promise of God in the old Testament : Gen. 3. 15. & 12. 3. Gal. 3. 8. Act. 11. 26. Neither do they challenge to themselues the name of Protestants , but of Christians . The fittest title for Heretiks is Antichristians , which notwithstanding they forbeare , on the Papists behalfe , because they would not offend those , that are weake amongst them , Papists indeed they call them , because of their dependance on the Pope . The name of Catholickes , being vniustly challenged , they iustly deny : both because in the Creed the church of Christ hath that title , of which the popish church is not so much as a ●ound member : And also because the Donatists heresie restraining the church to their congregation in Affrica , gaue occasion to the church of Christ , to tearme themselues ▪ by the name of Catholike , or vniuersall , in opposition to the Heretikes conceite .

As for the name of Protestants , it was giuen vpon occasion Sleydan ▪ lib. 6. of Protestation , made by the Duke of Saxony , and other Princes and Cities of Germany against a certaine decree at Spires published by the Emperour Charles the 5. and is not a title affected by them , or any way arising from their doctrine ; yet do they not disclaime it as Antichristian , or vnlawfull , because it is not so in it selfe , nor likely to breede any errour , or offence in the church of God .

The maner of his penning is vnaccustomed but yet such , as that reuerend , and learned Diuine Doctor Fulke , a good while since required of all Papists ▪ and such in deed , as is most fitt , for handling all controuersies .

But it should seeme , this writer is not much acquainted with this course ; his Syllogismes are so loosely tyed , and his conclusions so farre from the question , but for the better vnderstanding of this course , giue me leaue , as briefely as I can , to teach the reader the vse , and nature of a Syllogisme . All axiomes , or sentences deliuered for true , are either acknowledged to bee so , denied , or else doubted of . If there be doubt made of the trueth , it is called a question , therefore some reason must be brought for the cleering , and proning of it : wherevpon triall is to be made whether this proofe be sufficient or no , which is by a syllogisme . Now a syllogisme is a ioyning together of diuers Axiomes , wherein the question is so disposed with the Argument , that it is necessarily concluded vpon the Antecedent , so that if both the former Axiomes be true , the conclusion is true also . If either of them b● false , the question resteth as yet vnproued : The parts of a syllogisme are two ; the Antecedent , and the Consequent ; the Antecedent is the former part , that disposeth the question , and the Argument together ; and it hath two parts , the Proposition or Maior , wherein the whole question , or at least the latter part of it , is disposed with the Argument , the Assumption , or M●●or , which is assumed , or taken out of the Proposition . The consequent , or conclusion is the latter part , which comprehends the parts of the question , and concludeth it ; A syllogisme is simple or compound . Simple , where the latter part of the question is disposed in the proposition , the former part in the Assumption . A simple syllogisme is either contract , or explicate . A contract syllogisme ( so called because it is seldome , or neuer , found with the parts distinctlie set downe ) is when the Argument by way of example , is so ioyned to a particular question , that it is the former part of the Antecedent , the Assumption being affirmatiue . As some confidence is a vertue , as Constancie ; some confidence is not a vertue , as Audaciousnesse ; the question is whether some confidence be a vertue or no. First it is proued that some confidence is a vertue : The whole syllogisme stands thus .

Constancie is a vertue . Constancie is confidence : therefore Some confidence is a vertue . Secondly it is proued , that some confidence is not a vertue . Audaciousnesse is not a vertue . Audaciousnesse is confidence : therefore Some confidence is not a vertue .

In these syllogismes the questions are particular , some confidence : and the Argument , by way of example , in the former , is Constancie ; in the latter , Audaciousnesse . Constancie in the one , and Audaciousnes in the other , are made the former parts of the Antecedent ; the Assumption in each is affirmatiue .

In an explicate syllogisme the proposition is generall , or proper , and the conclusion like the Assumption , or weaker That part which is negatiue . part . There are two kinds of it : the former , where the argument is alwaies the latter part of each Axiome , one of them being negatiue .

Example .

The doctrine of Iustification by workes doth not take away boasting ,

But the true ▪ doctrine of Iustification doth take away boasting : therefore :

The doctrine of iustification by workes is not the true doctrine Rom. 3. 27. 28. of iustification .

Here the matter to be proued is , that the doctrine of Iustification by workes , is not the true doctrine of Iustification . The Argument to proue it is , It takes not away boasting . The Argument is in the latter part of the proposition , and Assumption and the Proposition is negatiue . Therefore the syllogisme is truely form'd according to this former kinde .

The Latter , when the Argument is the former part of the Proposition , and the latter part of the Assumption being affirmatiue .

Example .

Whosoeuer buildes his faith vpon his priuat and singular exposition Art. 2. part. 1. of scripture , is an Infidell . But all Protestants in England build their faith vpon their owne priuate , and singular exposition of scripture . Therfore all Protestants in England are Infidels .

The point is , that all the Protestants in England are Infidels . The argument to proue it , They build their faith vpon their owne priuat , and singular exposition of scripture . The syllogisme is of the second kind , because the Argument is set in the former part of the proposition , and in the latter part of the assumption , which is also affirmatiue .

A Compound Syllogisme is a Syllogisme , wherein the whole question is one part of the Proposition being affirmatiue , and compound , and the argument the other part . To gainesay , in a compound Syllogisme , is to make a speciall contradiction .

A compound Syllogisme is either Connexine , or Disiunctiue .

A Connexiue Syllogisme is when the Proposition is Connexiue : and it is of two kindes ; whereof the former assumes the former part of the question , and denies the latter .

Example .

If Dauid lost his faith , then faith once had , may ▪ be lost . Art. 6. par. 2. in my answere .

But Dauid lost his faith .

Therefore faith once had , may be lost .

It is affirmed that faith once had ▪ may be lost ; the proofe is , Dauid lost his faith , the Syllogisme is of the former kinde , because the proposition is Connexiue , or Condicionall , the former part thereof auouched in the as●umption , and the latter concluded in the consequent , or conclusion .

The latter gaine-sayes the latter part of the question , that it may gaine-say the former .

Example .

If the Protestants haue any faith , the world was without faith Art. 1. par. 1. 1500. yeares .

But the world was not without faith 1500. yeares .

Therefore the Protestants , haue no faith .

This Papist affirmes that the Protestants haue no faith : to proue it he brings this argument , that the world was not without faith 1500. yeares . The Syllogisme is of the later kind ; because the latter part of the proposition is gainesaid in the assumption , and the former in the conclusion .

A Disiunctiue Syllogisme is , when the Proposition is Disiunctiue , whereof also there are two kinds . The former gainsayes one , and concludes the rest .

Example .

All Protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition Art 2. par. 1. of the scripture , or vpon the Churches exposition .

But they build not vpon the Churches exposition .

Therefore they build vpon their owne priuate exposition .

The point is , that the Protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of scripture , the proofe is , that they build it not vpon the Churches exposition . The Syllogisme is of the former kinde ; because in the proposition the one part is seuered from the other , the one whereof is gainesaid in the assumption , and the other , affirmed in the conclusion .

The Latter , when all parts of the Proposition being affirmatiue , one is assumed , and the rest gainesaid .

It is hard to finde examples of this latter kinde , but I will frame one thus .

Example .

The Pope builds his faith either vpon his owne singular exposition , or vpon the Churches .

But he doth build vpon his owne exposition .

Therefore not vpon the Churches .

To proue that the Pope builds not his faith vpon the Churches exposition , I alledge this argument , he builds vpon his owne . My Syllogisme is of the second kinde ▪ because the proposition being wholy affirmatiue , assumes the one , and gainesayes the other . It was very necessary that I should deliuer the Rules of a Syllogisme , because without them my course of answering cannot be throughly vnderstood . If they seeme hard to any man , a little paines ▪ and vse will make them easye , and pleasant .

His request of breuity I haue satisfied , as neere as I could . It is easier to tye a knot , then to vntye it , and one man hath greater dexterity , in vttering shortly that which he hath conceiued , then another . For my part , I had rather , any man had answered , that can do it with shortnesse , then my selfe ; rather my selfe , then no body , but I hope this Papist will stand to his owne ground , in his Preface , and since he holds it hard , or impossible to reply without prolixitie , where there is no truth , nor verity , he will acknowledge truth , where he cannot but acknowledge shortnesse . His threatnings and reproches , I doe willingly , and wittingly passe ouer , as the heate of an angry disputer ; and withall I protest to him , and all men , that I haue answered ( according to my small skill ) briefly , orderly , and seriously ; not least I should seeme ignorant by silence , in saying nothing as he presumes in the end of his letter , but as I thinke , and beleeue in my conscience ; For what am I , the meanest of many , and most vnknowne , not to the Papists only , but to our owne Church also , that I should feare the suspition of ignorance , by silence , when so many famous diuines sit still , and say nothing ? If he , that hath answered the first part , had thought it worth his paines , and found leasure to refute the second , I cannot say I should haue wholie saued my labour ( for it is not vnknowne to some , that I had finished all the 12. before his answere to the fiue first came forth ) but sure I should haue beene eased of some paines which I haue taken since , especially in writing the abridgement : and auoyded all danger of further trouble . But the Lord who hath giuen me strength , and will to dispatch this , will ( I doubt not ) assist me in the defence of his trueth for euer : To whose gracious blessing I commend the successe of this , and all other my indeuours , in Iesus Christ our Lord , and onely Sauiour .

Amen .

THE FIRST ARTICLE , concerning Knowledge and Faith .

THe Protestants haue no faith nor religion .

Answere .

For the better vnderstanding of this Article , we are to know , that the question is not , Whether the Protestants haue any faith or Religion in their hearts , but whether they make profession of any , by their doctrine .

Papist .

The Protestants haue no faith , no hope , no charitie , no A. Conclusion . repentance , no iustification , no Church , no Altar , no Sacrifice , no Priest , no religion , no Christ .

The reason is : for if they haue , then the world was without B. Proposition . them for 1000. yeares ( as they themselues must needes confesse , videl. All that time , their Church was eclipsed ) or for 1500. as we will proue by the testimony of all records of antiquity ; as Histories , Councels , monuments of ancient fathers .

Whereby it plainly appeareth , that the Synagogue of C. Proofe of the Assumption . Proposition the Iewes was more constant in continuance , and more ample for place , then the Church of Christ ; for they haue had their synagogue visible in diuers countries euer since Christs death and passion euen vntill this day .

Which is the very path to lead men into Athiesme , as D. Proofe of the Assumption . a a Isai. 60. 11. b b Mat. 16. 18. c c Mat. 28. 20. though Christ were as yet not come into the world whose admirable promises are not accomplished , whose assistance hath failed in preseruing his Church vnto the worldes end , whose presence was absent many hundred yeares , before the consummation ; and consequently they open the gap to all Machiuillians , who say that our Sauiour was one of the deceiuers of the world , promising so much concerning his Church , and performing so little .

Protestant .

How can it be truely said , that the Protestants haue no A. faith , no hope , no charitie , no repentance , no iustification , no church , no altar , no sacrifice , no Priest , no religion , no Christ , when as they acknowledge Iesus Christ the naturall sonne of God , and of the blessed Virgin Mary , to be the Redeemer of mankind , their Altar , Sacrifice , and Priest : when as they beleeue in him for saluation , both of soule , and body ? If he meane we beleeue not these points truely , and so haue them not in trueth , true charitie should haue perswaded him to speake plainely , and not to make no difference betweene Protestants , Mahometans , and Infidels . It is , at the best , rather hyperbolicall Rhetorick , then Logicall diuinitie , whereof there is promise , and shew made in this treatise . To this figure belongs the heaping vp of all those particulars , no faith , no hope , &c. whereas the two points set downe in the title being proued , all the rest must needs follow ; yet this shift is not the worst : For besides this he mingles trueth and falshood together ; Altar , Sacrifice propitiatorie , and Priest , except Christ himselfe , we professe we haue none ; but what doth Chaffe with Wheate ? saue onely that it serues to fill vp the measure , and make a shew , not for disproofe , but disgrace of our profession . But let vs see his proofe .

If the Protestants ( saith he ) haue any faith , hope , charitie , repentance , Church , Altar , Sacrifice , Priest , religion , Christ , then the world was without them for 1000. yeares , or rather 1500.

But the world was not without them for 1000. or 1500. yeeres .

Therefore the Protestants haue no faith , hope , charitie , &c. B.

I deny the consequence of your proposition ; First because To the proposition . the Protestants may haue some faith , hope , charitie , &c. Though they haue not the same that the world then had ; as the Greeke and Aethiopian Churches haue some faith at this day , howsoeuer they differ both from the Protestants and the Papists in diuers points of Religion . Secondly , because the Protestants professe the same faith , and Religion , which the Church of Christ alwayes held , till it was by little and little supprest , and driuen out of sight by Antichrist ; as it appeares ( that I may name onely those bookes that are extant in English ) by Bishop Iewell , Doctor Fulke , Doctor Whitaker , Doctor Bilson , Doctor Reynolds , the Lord Plessy , Doctor Willet , and diuers other Protestant diuines .

Our confession makes nothing for them , because if the church were eclipsed for 1000. yeares , it was in the world ; else how could it be eclipsed ? vnlesse the Sunne and the Moone cease to be in the world , when they are in the eclipse .

The proofe they offer ( and yet they doe but offer it ) is insufficient ; for it followes not , that if these few records , we haue of the East and West churches , make no mention of the Faith and Religion we professe , then they were not at all in the world . You will say , shew vs where they were held ; nay proue you they were held no where ; for we now are answeres not replyers : and what if it could not be shewed ? yet we know by the Articles of our Creed , that there hath beene alwayes a true church , in which ( say we ) this Religion that we now professe , must of necessitie haue beene held ▪ and with vs it is no inconuenience to haue the true church hid : this it stands you vpon to disproue ; which when you attempt to doe , by any particular records , you shall ( God willing ) haue particular answeres ; yet we are content , for auowing the substance of our doctrine , to stand to the records of Antiquitie , in these parts of the world , where we gladly , and thankfully acknowledge , that the truth of God , was ( for the most part ) faithfully preserued , at the least , for the first 500. yeares .

But the world ( saith he ) was not without them for 1000. or 1500. yeares .

No , nor for 1000. minutes , nor for one minute . Therfore To the Assumption . your proofe in this point , might haue bin spared , especially being no better , then it is .

If the world ( saith he ) was without faith for 1000 , yeares , then Proofe of the Assumption . was the Iewes Synagogue more constant for continuance , and more ample for largnesse , then the Church of Christ .

But the Iewes Synagogue was not more constant , or ample .

Therefore the world was not with out faith &c. for 1000. yeares .

If your words expresse your meaning in good english , then in your Proposition you compare the Church of the Iewes , which was before Christ , with the church of Christians , since christ : If your purpose be ( as it should seeme by your proofe it is ) to make a comparison betwixt the Iewes Synagogue , and the Christian Churches , as they haue beene since Christ , you should haue saide in steede of , was , hath bene .

This consequence proues nothing , because no man can To the proposition . be sure , that there shal not be aboue 1500. years from hence , to the end of the world ; in which this doctrine , we now professe , shall continue : the Iewes also being conuerted to our Religion ; or barred of the exercise of their owne superstition : and if that should come to passe , the Iewish Synagogue could haue no cause of boasting . But I will not striue about this consequence . Let vs come to the assumption .

But the Iewes Synagogue ( saith he ) hath not bene ( namely since the comming of Christ ) more ample , or constant .

We easily graunt you this assumption , confessing a perpetuall To the Assumption . continuance of Christs Church , from the beginning of the world to the end thereof , and beleeuing that the number of them which haue professed the truth of Christs Gospell hath bene greater , then the multitude of the Iewes , since our sauiours comming .

If the Iewes Synagogue ( saith he ) hath bene more constant Proofes of the Assumption . and ample , then Christi admirable promises are not accomplished .

I denie your consequence ▪ for neither the Prophets , nor our sauiour Christ compare this bastard Synagogue of the Iewes ; with the church of christ , but that , which was indeed the church of God . For this , that now is , hath neither promise , nor allowance from God ; but that church , in comparison whereof the Lord magnifies the church of christ , after his comming , had many and excellent promises vouchsaft it by God , which yet are much inferiour to those , that were promised , and are performed to the christian church .

If the comparison must be with the Church of the Iewes before Christ , the visible continuance of the Iewish Synagogue since Christ , is alledged by you to no purpose . Let vs take your proposition in the best sense , and answere seuerally to the 3. parts of the consequence .

If the Iewes Synagogue ( say you ) hath bene more ample and constant , then Christs admirable promises are not accomplished .

The promises of God made to the church of Christ in D the Prophets , are either of the outward estate thereof , as that To the proofe of the Assumption . it should be vniuersall , for all nations not the Iewes only ; that it should be maintayned by Kings , Queenes &c. Or of the inward , to which we must referre the peace , the glory , and the continuance for euer . As for the perpetuall visibility , and famousnesse in the world , there is neither mention , nor signification of any such matter in the Prophets : and namely not in this place , vnlesse perhaps it may be from hence concluded , that there shal be more years from the first comming of Christ to his second , then there were in the continuance of the Iewish Synagogue vnder the law : which ( I thinke ) no sober Diuine will affirme , howsoeuer it shall fall out in the euent .

Then ( saith he ) Christs assistance hath fayled , Our Sauiour Mat. 16. 18. makes no promise of the continuall visibilitie of his Church , but onely promiseth that the Diuell shall not preuaile against any true member thereof , to breake of his continuance in the state of saluation , who hath once with Peter , by a true faith confest the Lord Iesus .

Then Christs presence ( saith he ) was absent , many hundred yeares , before the finall consummation .

There is no more promised Mat. 28. 20. but that our Sauiour F. wil be with them , that beleeue , and namely with his ministers , till the end 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 ●orth as they agree with the scriptures ? meane they perhaps , that if the fathers bring scriptures to proue any point of religion now in controuersie , to allow that point as true ? if so , why then reiect they a 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 controuersies 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 ●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 Iul●●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 Assumption . 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 vpon the true exposition of the Scriptures , being examined according to those places , & points , which naturall reason , enlightned by the spirit of God , cannot but acknowledge

In which respect the Popish interpreters , do ordinarily refuse former expositions , and deliuer their owne opinions , submitted to the iudgement of the Church , which no Protestant euer misliked , so they take not Antichrist for Christ .

But what is it you call priuate exposition ? doe we leaue euery man to his owne fancie , in expounding the scriptures ? How can that be , when as we haue certaine rules , according vnto which all expositions must be framed . The Analogie of faith , conference of like places , examining the originals , with diuers other , and namely , the consent of former diuines ; to which though we may not tie our selues , because they might , and haue erred : yet we allow no man libertie to refuse their interpretations , but onely where euident reason , taken from the Scriptures themselues , necessarily requires it . Indeed we thinke it vnreasonable , that a man should , hand ouer head , receiue whatsoeuer is deliuered vnto him , vpon the credit of 1. Ioa. 4. 1. men ; especially since we haue a charge giuen vs , to trie the spirits , and meanes appointed vs , for the tryall .

Not onely some , but all learned Protestants ; for ought I E. know , or ( I thinke ) he can prooue , allow the Fathers , and their expositions , so farre forth , as they agree with Gods word . And do any Papists allow them further ? If they do , they allow false expositions of Scripture . For such are all , that agree not with the word of God .

But how can we be sayd to delude the world , when we professe that we allow them no farther , then they agree with Gods word , and meane as we professe ? yet it is not our meaning to allow euery point , that some of the Fathers endeuour to prooue by Scripture . Neither will any Papist , that knowes the writings of the Fathers , giue them such allowance . Nay it is ordinary with them in their controuersies , to acknowledge , that diuers texts brought by the Fathers in maine points of religion , 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 translation , because that , which now is in vse in England is full of errors . E c ●n the conference at Hamp●on 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 .

I● 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 Proposition . 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 teach that the credit of the doctrine ariseth from the minister . And yet they cannot , but confesse that euery minister , and all ( except the Pope ) may erre , in matters of greatest substance .

We confesse in deede that men may erre both in possibility , C. and euent . But that the whole catholick Church may erre , no Protestant euer taught , or thought . For we professe , that the holy men departed are triumphant members of the catholick church , who are exempted from all daunger of being deceaued : That part of the catholick church , which is militant ▪ may , and doth erre , but neuer wholy in matters of substance ; for then we know , it might come to passe , that , at some time , there should be no church at all vpon the earth , whence a present dissolution of the world should follow , since D. it is continued for the elect , and , churches sake . The Protestants , you say , ground their faith vpon the Bible translated into English . And the Papists say I build theirs vpon the bible translated into latine , or simply vpon the word of him . that preacheth vnto them . They are bound vpon paine of damnation , to beleeue , that the Pope is Christs vicar , and cannot erre ; But how shall I know , that the Pope teacheth this doctrine ? vpon what ground is this beleefe built ? vpon the credit of him , that tells them so ? But it is scripture : how shall I know that ? He , that tells me so , may be deceiued , But the Pope cannot : First you begge the question ; for you haue not proued that the pope cannot erre : Then , how shal I know that the Pope teacheth this doctrine ? Alas , I am a poore ignorant man , and vnderstand not either Latine , or Italian , in which the Popes iudgement is set downe . But , put case I did , what proofe can I haue , that the Pope deliuered this for his iudgement ? How can I be s●●e he was rightly chosen ? I might adde a number of these doubts , of none whereof you can resolue me , but only by vrging me to rest vpon the authority of men . Now then , let any man weigh the●e things in the ballance of reason , and trye ▪ whether is lighter ▪ Protestants cannot tell whether Maister Tindals translation of the Scripture bee true , or no , neither can they discerne a true translation , from a fa●se , and therefore must needs relye their faith vpon the silly Ministers , faithlesse fidelitie , which conuinceth , that they haue no faith at all . Papist ; cannot tell whether the Latine translation of the scr●pture be true or no , neyther can they discerne a true translation from a false , and therfore they must need ; build their faith vpon a silly Priests , or Fryers faithlesse fidelity , which con●inceth , that they haue no faith at all . H●therto are all things equall betwixt vs . Now consider some differences . First we professe that Maister T●●dall might , and did erre , and therefore we labour euery day to amend our translations . They acknowledge theirs to be faulty , but they accurse them to the pit o● Hell , that will not , for all that rest vpon it . Secondly we submit our translations ▪ to be examined by any learned Papists , according to the Hebrew , and Greeke They preferre theirs be●ore the Hebrewe , and Greeke . Thirdly , we binde no mans conscience to agree to our translation , vpon paine of damnation , because it askes yet some better correction . They tye all men to take euery title of theirs for the certaine word of God , and yet dayly they alter it . As it appears by the diuers editions of Sixtus , 5. & Clemens . 8. two Popes , neither of which could erre , and yet either disagrees from the other . But for the further avowing of our english translation , I desire all men to obserue these fewe points .

First that these parts of scripture , which are worst translated , as the Psalmes , are most agreeable to the popish Latine .

Secondly that our best translation comes a great deale neerer to the interpretation of the learned Papists , a ▪ Vatablus , Pagninus , Isidorus Clarius , & Arias Montan●s , then the popish Latin doth .

Thirdly that , in all this variety of translations , no one poynte of Doctrine , is ouerthrowne , by any newe exposition .

Fourthly that no papist is able to finde , in any of our translations , so many errors , from the sense of the Holy Ghost , as Isidorus , Clarius , a learned Papist , hath amended All these 8000. faults remaine still in their vulgar translation . in their popish Latine . viz. to the number of 8000 , places , euery one of which as he professeth changeth the meaning of the text .

Lastly I offer our worst translation , to be compared with the Rhemists , & affirme , that , in any reasonable mans iudgment , it will appeare , that we haue delt more faithfully , and plainly then they ; who seeme to haue bin afraide of nothing more , then that the text of Scripture should be easely vnderstood , Maister Broughtons skill in the Tongues , he that commends not either knowes not , or enuies . His misl●ke of Maister Tindalls translation I wil condemne when I see it disproued . As for Gregorie Martine , Doctor Fulke long since stopt vp the mouth of his slaunders , that none of all you Papists hitherto could open it againe .

E. It passeth my small skill in Logick to see how this newe addicion is applied to proue the old Article . For it agreeeth not , either with the Maior or Minor of his Syllogisme . For that all the old translations are false , the Ministers are are now in moulding a new . Therefore whosoeuer relyeth his faith on the silly Ministers faithlesse fidility is an Infidell . Therfore all those in England , who are ignorant , of the Greek , and Hebrew , are Infidells .

That clause of the Geneua translation sauours of malice more then reason ; for though that translation , were the best by many degrees ( as it may be , for ought that was said at the conference , where the notes , not the text were condemned ) yet might the Ministers haue iust occasion to amend them all . He , that so peremptorily condemnes the labours of many graue , and learned Diuines , before he see them , shewes more obstinate preiudice , then either iudgement , or conscience .

But who will helpe me to vnderstand this strange sentence ? The translation in hand will haue as great immunitie from falsitie , as the former were voide of veritie , that is , If I shall make reason of it ; as much as the former were voide of veritie , so great immunitie will this haue from falsitie . This exposition will admit no conclusion but to the Authors great disgrace . For if I assume thus , But the former were wholy voide of veritie ; then must the conclusion be , Therefore this translation will be altogether free from falsitie . If otherwise ; But the former were not voide of veritie ; Then indeed I may conclude , Therefore this will not be free from falsitie . But here the Assumption makes as much against him , as the conclusion doth for him .

The comparison of equalitie being so little to his purpose , who can make the exposition of it serue his turne , that both shal be subiect to like vncertainty ? Indeed , who can make reason of the sentence ?

Art. 4. The Protestants know not what they beleeue .

Answere . Glosta in extrau . 102 , 22. de verborum signif. c. quum inter non●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 sanctam 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 Gui●es in Flaunders , d●est their religion almost as much , as the catholicks ; neither ●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 pr●●ed bowe a whole tree , or a dead finger a man , or a rotten tooth the whole head . 2. ● .

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 communicate ; & 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. Gen. ●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. ●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 committed 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 filth and abhomination of sinne still remayning , and as it were exhaling a most pestiferous sent , in the sight of God . For let them shift ●●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 contendeth to proue it in h●s aunswer to this article , albeit he vnderstand not the reason heere alleaged , for if he did , he were too absurd to deni● it . If you vnderstood his aunswer , you would neuer say so fo● shame . God : for they peremptorily affirme , that Christ is God of himselfe and not God of God . So that he receiued not his diuinity from his father , the which position flatly taketh away the nature of a sonne : for the nature of a sonne is , to receaue his substance of his father ; and it implyeth contradiction , that the sonne receaueth his person of his father , and not his substance , and essence : for the substance of God is essentiall to euery person in Trinity .

* * 5. N. Finally they deny the Descension of Christ into Hell , & desperately defend , that he suffered the paines of Hell , vpon the crosse ; whereby they blaspheme most horribly that sacred humanitie ; as if christ had despaired of his saluation ; as if God had hated him , and he hated God : as if he had bin afflicted , & tormented with anguish of minde for his offences , for which he was depriued of the sight of God , & eternally to be depriued : all which horrible punishments a●● 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 reason 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 th●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 s●irit of God , seconding this outward testimony of men , by his owne witnesse in our hearts .

If this seeme an inconuenience to any man , I intreat him to consider , what rule the Papists haue , in this case . The authority of the Church they will say .

But what rule haue I to know , whether it be a matter of faith , or not , to beleeue that whatsoeuer the church saith , is a matter of faith , is so indeed ? Wil you appeale to the scripture ? what rule haue you to know that this is scripture ? The voice of the church : What is this , but to trifle ? I must beleeue that the scripture is scripture , because the church tels me so . I must beleeue that the report of the church is true , because the scripture saith so : But for your better satisfaction 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 them , 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 ●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 requir●● 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 〈◊〉 ●incible argument against the church , It is not vniuersall 〈◊〉 ●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 bele●●● 〈◊〉 Catholick Church .

But they do not 〈◊〉 ●peares , by the aunswere to the first Article ; besides , ●●● Protestants do not hold , that the church in England is 〈◊〉 ●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 〈◊〉 ●rectly ouerthrow the foundation ; And both the French 〈◊〉 Flemish churches agree with ●s , in all substantiall points 〈◊〉 doctrine .

They , that beleeue not ( 〈◊〉 ) that Christ hath instituted ▪ G. seauen sacraments , do some 〈◊〉 the communion of saints ,

When it is proued , that there were 〈◊〉 instituted by Christ , I will grant this propo● 〈◊〉 then , any man may make as good a reason , of 〈◊〉 , 700. or 7000.

By true , and reall presence , which no Protestant euer denyed , you meane the bodily , and carnall presence , which ( besides the Papists ) no man euer confest . Therefore to this Argument the former answere sufficeth , and so to both the other : But for the further confirmation of this bodily presence , because it is the Papists darling , there is some shew of proofe added : Being many we are one bread , and body all , that participate 1. Cor. ●● . 17. of one body , as themselues in the Rhemish Testament translate the text ; by which he would perswade the simple that they , that beleeue not the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament , deny that the faithfull are one body . But first it is to be obserued that the Apostle doth not say , They are made one body by participating , but That they which participate , are one body , Secondly we must vnderstand , that the faithfull are not one body Cârnally , but Spiritually ; To the which it is sufficient , that Christ be Spiritually receaued ; and therefore the Apostle calles it Bread .

Thirdly who knowes not , that all that can receaue , any benefit by the Sacrament of our Sauiour Christs body , and bloud , are before members of his mysticall body ? Els all they , that dye before they receaue that Sacrament , are out of Christs body , and so vncapable of saluation . And if this be an effect of that Sacrament , since it is of it selfe , alwaies alike effectuall , it must needes be , that euery time we receaue it , we are made one body with Christ : yea although we haue not committed any deadly sinne , since the last receauing of it . But this is absurd , that he , that is the member of Christ already , should now , by receauing , become the member of Christ .

Indeed he may be confirmed , & strengthned for his better continuance in Christs body , which grace al that worthily receiue the sacrament , obtaine of God , euery one in their measure : but it is vnpossible that he should euery time of receauing , be made a member of Christs spiritual body , being already one , when he comes to receaue .

They ( say you ) that deny the Church militant and triumphant , H. by exclaiming against inuocation of Saints , and praiers 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 prayers for the soules in purgatory .

Ergo , they deny the communion of saints .

If the communion of saints , beleeued in the Creed , belong to the catholicke Church , in the same Creed , How can it implie any fellowship with those , that are departed , whether they be in heauen or in purgatory ? For by the catholicke Church our papists vnderstand not the church triumphant , but militant only ; for they hold , that the catholick church , mentioned in the Creed , must alwaies be visible and famous . And what an vnworthy wrong is it to Christ , and his saints in Heauen , for any man to imagine , that the Reprobate in earth , of whom there is no small store , in the outward congregations , do communicate with the elect departed in the priuiledges , which Christ hath purchased , by his precious bloud , for his owne members ? But the best is , malice it selfe , dare not charge vs with simple denying all communion betwixt the Saints in Heauen , and them in earth , but only with the deniall of it , in some few points . One whereof , viz. Inuocation of saints , this papist would proue by scripture . The Gen. 48. 16. Apoc. 1. 4. Aagell , that deliuered me from all euills , blesse these children . Grace , and peace from him , that is , was , and that is to come , and from the seauen spirits , which are in the sight of his throne . Iacob and Iohn pray that we may be protected , & blessed of God by the ministery of the Angells ; therefore the communion of Saints signifieth , that the Saints in Heauen pray for vs , and we must pray to them .

Need I to write one word in answere to this reason ? but I am desirous that all men should see the weakenesse of this proofe . First it is doubted by very good writers , ancient , and latter , whether Iacob meane Christ , or some speciall Angell : whether the seauen spirits signifie the holy Ghost or the armies of Angells .

Secondly no Papist , that euer I read , confounds Angells with Saints , or interprets the communion of saints , by the ministery of Angells .

Thirdly these consequences are feeble , first , The Angells are ministring spirits . Therefore the saints departed pray for vs . secondly , The Angells protect vs , and are ministers of Grace , and peace from God to vs : therefore by mediation they obtaine our requests , Thirdly what strength is there in this conclusion . The Angells pray for vs ; Therfore we are bound to glorifie them , by praying to them ; that is to dis●onour God ; by honouring them . For I demaund , whether we may , at any time , pray to God without their mediation , or noe ? If we may not , then the Lords prayer is taught vs in vaine , because that cannot belong to any Angel , or saint . If we may ; I aske why not at one time , as wel as at another ? Why not in one matter , as wel as in an other ? Vrge not your carnall comparison betwixt God , and earthly Princes ; for both it is as forcible for one time , and matter , as another , and thereby you rob God of the glory , and thankes he should receaue of vs , for the granting of our requests ; and vs of the comfort , we might haue , by the feeling perswasion of Gods loue , in hearing our praiers , and satisfiing our desires .

If the Prince receaue my petition at my owne hands , and yeeld vnto it , I haue reason to perswade my selfe of his loue to mee , and to giue all thankes to him for his princely bounty : If any , besides my selfe , commend my suite to him , and it be obtained , I am perhaps neuer a whit beholding to him ; because , it may be , he knows not me , nor cares what I am ; but only doth some fauorite of his owne that kindnesse . Now let any reasonable man iudge , whether all the poore recompence , I can make , all the thankfulnesse , I can shew , be not due to the partie , by whose graciousnesse with the Prince , I attayned to that , I sought for ; so that if I content him , in some measure , though I neuer honour : nor loue the Prince , one iot the more : yet I do as much , as iustly can be required of me . Yea , if I would enforce my selfe to be thankfull to the Prince , both he might disdayne my presumption , and he , that preferred my suite , be offended , with my vnthankfulnesse , that would not giue him all the thanks , that procured all the fauour .

They ( say you ) that deny the communion of the church militant , and the soules in purgatory , deny the communion of saints , some way .

Then belike there be saints in purgatory , and the members of the Church militant are Saints . But why say you nothing of the saints in heauen ? Is there no communion betwixt them & those in purgatory ? yet are they al members of one body : & I pray you what communion is there betwixt these three kindes of Saints ? What do the saints in purgatorie in requitall of the triumphant , and militant Saints kindnesse ? What nothing at all ? Why then , what necessity is there to inforce any such duty on our parts towards the Saints in Heauen ? We , as you say , do not only pray , but offer vp a bodily , and spirituall sacrifice , for them in purgatorie , to God : what reason is there then , they should not pray to vs as well as wee praye to the Saints triumphant , who do but halfe so much for vs , and the lesse halfe too ?

As for the places in the Margine , no blast , be it neuer so great , can kindle the fire of purgatory , by any heate , that 1. Cor. 3. 13. 15. will arise from them ; the former is concerning the tryall of doctrine , by the fire of Gods word ; Some mens workes shall burne , therefore there are some in purgatorie burning . Some , What ? workes , sayes the Apostle , not men . If any mans worke ver. 15. burne , he shall loose his labour , but himselfe shall be saued , yet as it were by fire . Therefore there are some Saints burning in the fire of purgatory ; but that neither all mens workes are spoken of , nor any assay is to be made by purging fire , nor these places meant of purgatory , it may appeare by these reasons .

1. There are not any two places , in all the new testament , of any one point , so full of controuersy for interpretation as these .

Therefore are they vnfit , and vnsufficient to proue so doubtfull a matter , as this of purgatory .

2. Besides the former of them is wholly Allegoricall , Theologia symbolic a non est argum entatiua . Foundation , Maister-builder , Gould , siluer , Wood , Hay , Straw ; and therefore by the rules of disputation in diuinitie , altogeather vnmeete for proofe of doctrine , in matters of controuersie .

3. The fire of Purgatory purges all bad workes , this here medles with nothing , but false doctrine , as it is manifest .

1. Because the Apostle speakes of builders onely , such as himselfe , & Apollos vers. 6.

2. The reward , that shal be receaued vers. 14. is to be geuen , according to the labour of the Minister . vers. 8.

3. The People , what good workes soeuer they haue , are in this place considered , but as the building , or Husbandrie . vers. 9.

4. The fire of Purgatory doth not burne the worke , but the soule of the worker , but this fire shall burne the worke , not the workeman . vers. 1. 3. 14. 15.

5. The fire of Purgatory doth not consume , but purifie , this fire doth not purifie , but consume vers. 15.

6. All mens workes must be tryed by this fire . vers. 12. 13. but not by the fire of Purgatory ; for that belongs to them onely , that haue not made satisfaction for their sinnes , or not bin absolued from them by the Sacrament of penance .

Since it is , for the most part , agreed vpon , that the fier , vers. 13. doth not signifie Purgatory , what reason shall perswade vs , that this doth ? vers. 15.

The other place hath troubled all the Diuines , that euer 1. Cor. 15. 29. writ vpon it , both for the Grammar , and the sense of it . It shal be therefore sufficient for me to answere , that till the Popish interpretation be better proued , we haue no reason to seeke for the fier of Purgatory , in the Baptisme of or for the dead ; especially since no ancient writer hath so expounded it . Neither can it serue Saint Paules purpose , being so vnderstood . For how can the Resurrection of the body be proued , by praying for the soules in Purgatorie ? But oh the heate of Popish charitie ! that can abide to let so many soules frie in Purgatory , whereas multiplying of Masses would quench the fire , and free the poore wretches ; or at least their holy father the Pope , may deliuer as many as pleaseth him by plenarie indulgences ; and yet these men crie out vpon vs for want of charitie , because we will not helpe them by prayer , for whom we are sure that all the prayers , that can be made , are either needlesse or bootelesse : Are these th● reasons that must perswade men of Iudgment ? &c.

They that acknowledge not remission of sinnes , as an effect in K. the Sacrament of Baptisme , denie the Article of remission of sinnes .

Then it should seeme the meaning of the Article is : that we beleeue the remission of sinnes , as an effect of Baptisme : I maruell how many popish Priests would giue a man this exposition , that should aske them the meaning of this Article of the Creed ? There is more reason to say , I beleeue that remission of sinnes is a priuiledge belonging to the holy Catholicke church , which our Sauiour Christ hath purchased with his bloud . But if the meaning be of Baptisme , then we haue found in the Creed that Baptisme is a Sacrament , which a little afore was denyed , to shew the insufficiencie of the Creed , to be the rule , and limit of our beleefe . He that confesses , that Iesus Christ hath paide the ransome for the sinnes of his church , by his bloud , and procured the pardon of them , cannot iustly be charged with denying this article of remission , howsoeuer he do erre in iudging of the force , and vse of baptisme .

But the Protestants ( say you ) acknowledge not remission of sinnes , as an effect , of the Sacrament of Baptisme ,

The Protestants acknowledge the same effect , in the sacrament of baptisme , which the church of God acknowledged , and receaued in the sacrament of circumcision ; that the Patriarches , and fathers of Christs church , before his comming receaued the forgiuenesse of sinnes , no Christian can doubt ; that either they had it by the effect of the sacrament , or that your sacrament hath another effect , in substance , then theirs had , no Papist can proue ; at least , this man hath not proued . But , shortly to deliuer our opinion ; we beleeue and professe , that euery one , who is effectually baptised , hath receaued forgiuenesse of all his sinnes , originall actuall ; past , to come , and if you will , mortall , and veniall ; for the guilt , and for the punishment , for the eternall , and temporall punishment . But we deny , first , that al , which haue Baptismum Fluminis , the baptisme of water , haue also Baptismum Flaminis the baptisme of the spirit . Secondly that none haue forgiuenesse , but they , which are baptised . Thirdly that euery man that is baptised , receaues forgiuenesse of sinnes , which may thus appeare , because many a man baptised is euerlastingly damned ; but no man , that hath his sinnes forgeuen him , is damned . If you say they were forgiuen , but now are not , you destroy the nature of forgiuenesse ▪ which depends not vpon any condition to come . If it do , then can it not be truly affirmed , that a man by Baptisme receaues forgiuenesse absolutely of those 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 cr●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 pecca●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 on● 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 , a● 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. ● . 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 c●●e , he shall shew you .

Now let any reasonable man iudge whether it can be gathered out of these places , that Christ is not God of himselfe , but God of God . But it may bee the penner , or the Printer mistoke the number of the verses , and put . 24. for . 25. and 13. for . 14. or . 15. Let vs make the best of it . They said therefore Ioa. 8. 25. vnto him , Who art thou . Iesus said to them . The beginning , who also spake vnto you . I will not striue about the diuers reading , only it is to bee noted , that this Papist , either ignorantly or craftely , quotes Cyrill in the margine , whereas wee haue no Commentary of his , vpon that place , but the defect thereof is supplyed by Iodocus Clichthoueus a Popish Bishop , whom this man blushes not to alledge in Cyrills name . Nothing can bee drawne from hence , saue only that Christ is God , which wee deny not ; except wee perhaps may proue hereby , that hee is God of himselfe , because he is the beginning . Hee shall glorifie me , because he shall receaue Ioa 16. 14. 15. of myne , and shall shew to you . All things , whatsoeuer the father hath , are mine . Therefore I said that hee shall receaue of mine , and shew to you . Who can wring any word , for proofe that Christ receaued his God-head from his father , out of this text ? If you vrge , That all , whatsoeuer the father hath , is his : What proues that ? saue onely that hee is God equall with his father , ( viz ) the same God with his father , which is confest .

This Proposition ( saith ▪ hee ) That Christ receaued not his diuinitie from his father , flatly takes awaye the nature of a Sonne .

Then the distinction of the persons is thus to bee conceaued : that the Father is God one way , by hauing his diuinitie of himselfe : the Sonne another waie , by h●uing his Diuinitie from his father ; and the Holy Ghost a third way , by hauing his diuinitie both from the father and the sonne ; and so wee shall haue as truely , and distinctly . 3. Godes , as wee haue . 3. persons . To the proofe .

The nature of a sonne ( saith hee ) is to receaue his substance from his father .

What 〈◊〉 substance ? then there is neuer a Sonne ●● the world● 〈◊〉 we grant that the Father creats the soule , as he 〈◊〉 the body .

But if we 〈◊〉 ●ake the supernaturall generation of the sonne of God , 〈◊〉 ●gree precisely with the naturall generation of men ▪ 〈◊〉 must needes hold , that as the humane Sonne is a 〈◊〉 ●an , from his Father , so the Sonne of God , in respect● 〈◊〉 substance receaued from his heauenly Father , is 〈◊〉 God from his father . And surely , that he is dist●●●●rom his Father , by the nature of his being a Sonne , 〈◊〉 cannot be doubted : but that , by the nature of his 〈◊〉 God , he is distinct from God his Father , it may 〈◊〉 hand be graunted ; because it necessarily impl●● a multiplying , or pluralitie of Gods .

Neyther is the● 〈◊〉 Contradiction in graunting , that our Sauiour Ch●●●●●ceaued his person of his Father , and not his subst●●● and essence ; For by substance and essence you doe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the nature of his being a Sonne , which we graunt 〈◊〉 from the father wholly , but his diuine nature , wh●● 〈◊〉 much differing from that , as that the Father , the So●●● 〈◊〉 the Holy Ghost , being all three one in substa●●● 〈◊〉 three distinct persons , or subsistences . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

For what though● 〈◊〉 substance of God be essentiall to euery person in 〈◊〉 It doth not follow therevpon , that it is of the 〈◊〉 of the person . It is indeed thus essentiall , that 〈◊〉 ●●son is God ▪ but not that the God-head is the 〈◊〉 euery person : for then ( as I haue often said ) 〈◊〉 must be but one person , as the God-head i●●●e , 〈◊〉 Gods , as there are diuers persons .

The protestants ( saith 〈◊〉 ) ●●emptorily affirme , that Christ is . God of himselfe , and n●t G●● 〈◊〉 God .

That , Christ is God ▪ 〈◊〉 ●●●selfe we affirme constantly , and certainly : but this peremptorine●● 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that Synagogue , which thunde ▪ ● out 〈◊〉〈◊〉dently , and ordinarily against all men , tha● 〈◊〉 otherwise , then it teaches , th●●gh 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 ly .

We deny not that the Holy councill of Nice ●●ly taught , that our Sauiour Christ is God of God , ve●● 〈◊〉 of very God ; but wee saye , that they ment not , as yo●●●●pists do , who make our Sauiour , as it were an vnder God , receauing his Godhead of another , and not hauing ●●●● himselfe . How vnfitly this must needes serue those ●●●ed , and godly fathers , for the proofe of our Sauiours ●qualitie with God the fathe● , who sees not ? when 〈◊〉 Arrius might readily haue answered , that he must 〈◊〉 be inferiour to God the Father ; because he had his God-head of himselfe , Christ of him ; As for the word whi●● they vrged , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . concerning the same nature of both it d●● not signifie , nor intend , that Christ receaued his God-head of the Father , but that he was the same God with his Father . So that he being of God , was the same God with him , of whom he was ; Which cannot possiblie b●●●f the one be God of himselfe , and the other God of him ▪ ●●at is God of himselfe . For to be of himselfe , and not to be of himselfe , but of another , are things quite contrary , which cannot be true of God , as he is God . But you will aske , perchance , whether the sonne be inferiou●●o the Father , touching his person ▪ because he hath that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 No truely ; for the generation being eternall ▪ 〈◊〉 the Father hauing no preheminence of being , before 〈◊〉 but as the nature of relation necessarily 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is neither inferioritie , nor superioritie betwixt 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Yet may the Father truely be said to be the first 〈◊〉 and the fountaine of the Trinity , and if you will 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tie , also , in this sense , because either person being of 〈◊〉 truly God .

According to which meaning , Our sauiour is God of God , Deu●●● deo perennis . Deus ex vtroque m●s●us . Prudentius in hymno ante somnum . that is , the second person , being truely God , is of the father being truely God : though in respect of his God-head , he is not of the Father , but of himselfe , as I will proue by the reasons following .

1. He , that is Ieho●ah , is God of himselfe , not of another .

But Christ is Ieho●ah .

Therefore Christ is God of himselfe , not of another .

2. If all that is the fathers , is Christs also , then Christ is God of himselfe , for the father is God of himselfe .

But all that is the fathers is Christs .

Therefore Christ is God of himselfe .

3. If Christ receaue his Godhead of his father , as he doth his person , then must he be a distinct God , as he is a distinct person .

But he must not be a distinct God .

Therefore he receaues not his Godhead of his father .

4. If Christ receaue his Godhead , then may the Godhead be distinguished , by being begotten , and vnbegotten .

But the Godhead may not be so distinguished ; for that is proper to the person .

Therefore Christ receaues not his Godhead from his Father ; but hath it of himselfe .

5. It is somewhat yet for a man to belike himselfe .

The first of these 5. points . was charged vpon vs , as an errour N. in 2. respects . because both we denie that interpretation of the Article , which the Papists haue 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 , b●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 Brough●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 Aen●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 mention 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 wo●st interpretation as he accompt it ; whereas he cannot be ignorant , both that there are diuers other , and that many Protestants do m●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 s●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 ; h●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 comforts I spake of before , vpheld him from all daunger of despayring , and deliuered him from that perpetuity of torment , in which otherwise , hauing taken vpon him our Person , hee should haue remained . Now this so being , we need not feare these thunder-bolts of horrible blasphemy ; although wee beleeue that Christ our sauiour did , for a time , indure in his soule the wrath of God , which was due to our sinnes . Neither doe we hereby make God the enemie of God , nor of the humanitie of Iesus Christ , which he euer most entirely loued , but only auouch , that God truly hated , and punisht our sinnes , in his owne sonne , with such a kinde , and measure of his wrath , as being true , and iust , was euery way without sinne , and finite in regard of the time . so that I take the Doctrine to be voide of blasphemy ; howsoeuer the meaning of the Article bee conceiu'd .

Article . 5. The Protestants haue no meane to determine Controuersies , and abolish heresies .

Protestant .

No more then they haue a rule ; to know what is matter of Faith .

Papist .

As the Protestants neither know what they beleeue , nor A. why they beleeue : so haue they no meanes in their church to settle them in vnity of beleefe , nor to determine controuersies ; nor to abolish heresies , as hath the catholick church : for our sauiour Christ by his diuine prouidence did foresee that heresies were to arise in his church , as his Apostle S. Paule doth warne vs : * * 1. Cor ▪ 11 Profe that the church cannot ●r●e . Mat. 18. 17 Eph. 4. 11. Ioh. 14. 17 Luk. 10. 16 § Profe of the principall proposition . Act ▪ ●5 . the which , as plagues , were to infect his flocke and therefore he not only forewarned vs of them , but also gaue vs meanes , how to preuent and extinguish them . 1. ● He willed vs to heare his Church , if we would not be accounted , as Ethnicks , and Publicans . 2. He ordeined Pastors , and Doctors , least we should be carried away with euery blast of vaine doctrine . 3. He promised vnto the church the assistance , of the holy Ghost , in such sort , as they which would not heare her , would not heare him . The catholicks therefore beleeuing certainly , that the Church cannot erre , that the generall Councils cannot deliuer false doctrine , that the Pastors , and ancient fathers , with ioynt consent , cannot teach vntruths ; when heresies spring vp , presently with th● voice of the Church , pluck them vp by the rootes : a a In the first Nicene councel was condemned Arrius . in the councell of Constantinople Macedonius . In the councel of Ephesus , Nestorius . In the councel of Calcedon Eutiches . vide Aug. lib. 2. retract . ca. 50 and so euer hath practised , and after this maner , ouerthrowne all encounters , false opinions , and errours which the Diuill , by his ministers , euer planted , or established in the world : and so they haue bin freed from all braules , and quarrels in matters of religion .

But the Protestants , admitting the sole scripture , as Vmpere , Principall proposition and Assumption . and iudge , in matters of Controuersie , and allowing no infallible interpreter thereof , but remitting all to euery mans priuate spirit , and singular exposition ; cannot possiblie , without errour , wind themselues out of the Labyrinth of so many Controuersies , wherewith they are now inueagled , and intricated . And the irreconciliable iarres , betwixt them , and the Puritans , in essentiall points of faith , geue s●fficient testimony ▪ that they will neuer haue an end , holding those grounds of opinion , which they obstinately defend . B.

And albeit they goe about to bleare the peoples braines , I haue heard of blearing the peoples eyes , but neuer till now , of blearing their braines . which , I know not , what vnity , and conformity in matters of faith , and in the substance of religion ; and that their disagreement only consisteth in points of Ceremonies , and trifles of small importance ; yet , in very deed , they differ in many essentiall points of religion . And although this shift will , perhaps ; serue , to cast a mist ouer the confused conceipts of simple soules , & silly fooles● , yet no wiseman wil euer beleeue them : I pray you , tell me , is not the Kings supremacie a matter of faith , and a chiefe point of religion ? And do not all sound Puritans in the world , denie it and defie it ? Aske Caluin . 7. Amos. Caluin the puritanicall Patriarke , what he thought of King Henry the eight for assuming of such a preheminence vnto him : read the Annales of Scotland , and you shall finde the presumptuous presbytery , euery foot opposing themselues against our Kings authority , as though he had nothing to doe with the Kirke . Looke into the carriage of our precisians at home , and you shall find them , in shew to professe it , but in deeds , and effects really to deny it . For if they approue his supremacie , with what face can they resist his ordinances , in matters of religion ? why weare they not vestments , Surplisses , the Cap , and Tippet ? why refuse they to baptise with the signe of the Crosse ? why subscribe they not to the the booke of common praier ? why obey they not the ecclesiasticall Canons , established by his Maiesties authoritie ? No other reason of this obstinate repugnancie can be yeelded , then that in very truth , they doe not , in Conscience , allow of his supremacy .

2. Is not the authority ▪ of Bishops , their power to create ministers , their degree in dignity aboue ordinary Curats , and Pastors , a matter o● faith , and so neerely toucheth the gouernment of the Church , that if this hereticall order be abolished , Perhaps he would haue said hierarchicall . the whole forme of Christs Church is presently confounded ?

3. The obseruation of feasts , and holy dayes , infringed by Puritans , maintayned by protestants , is it but a Ceremony ? were not the obstinate impugning thereof a sufficient reason to censure them , for Heretikes ? did not the Councill of Nice condemne the Quartodecimani for Heretickes , who would only haue obserued their Easter day vpon the 14. day of the moneth of March ? What if they had called our Precisians to the barre , who will haue it wholy abolished ? Question●es they would haue branded them , in a farre deeper degree of Heresie , then the Quartodecimani .

4 Is not the obseruation of Lent , and other fasting days , a matter of more moment , then trifles , or then things indifferent ? Did not S. Epiphanius censure Aërius of Heresie , for denying these prescript times for fasting ? For albeit they be not precisely set downe in scriptures , and therein commaunded to be obserued ; yet they , being either ordeyned by the Apostles , or instituted by the church , which had authoritie to appoint fastes , at least as well as the puritane presbytery ; wi●hout doubt he , that calleth this holy institution either doctrine of Diuils , or torture of consciences , or restraint of Euangelical libertie , ought by the iudgement of all true protestants , to be condemned for a pagon , and infidell : who wil not submit his soule to the censure of the Church .

5. The Puritans blasphemously pronounce , and ignorantly defende , that Christ suffred the paines of hell , vpon the crosse ; and that in this passionful agony , & agonizing griefe did principally consist the satisfaction of Christ , for the redemption of man , from those eternall torments of hell , And thinke you this is a trifle , a rite , or ceremonie ? This faith the Puritans professe ; this blasphemie the Protestants detest .

The descension of Christ to hell is ( no doubt ) but a trifle , a ceremonie , a matter of small importance . It is but an article of our creed ; and yet this article the puritanes really deny ; the which al Protestants stedfastly beleeue .

That the second person in Trinitie receaued his diuinitie from his father , is but a trifle , a point not much materiall to our beleefe ; and yet , if this bee denied , the mysterie of the holy trinitie can not bee beleeued ; for it absolutely taketh away the nature of a sonne , and consequently the admirable procession of the second person , and so ouerthroweth all the mysterie of the Trinitie . This principall part of Christianitie , Protestants approue and Puritans improue .

I omit here many more petty differences , in matters of faith ; the which were sufficient to make them condemne one another , not onely in accidents , and ceremonies , but also in the substance , and principall partes of religion . As in that the Precisians denie , that in Baptisme our sinnes bee remitted , but onely take it for a seale of that grace , God gaue them by his eternal election . The Protestants confesse , that in the sacrament we are washed by Gods spirite from originall sinne .

The Puritans condemne the Communion booke , as irreligious , and erroneous . The Protestants commend it as orthodoxall and religious . The Protestants vse the crosse in baptisme , as a holy signe fitt for the profession of Christs faith , and religion : The Puritanes exclaime against it , as a humane inuention , and a point of superstition .

The Protestants defend , that imposition of handes , in confirmation , is a signe of the fauour , and goodnes of God towards them : The Puritans auouch , that this is a flat lie , & that they testifie therein , that God doth that , he neuer did .

The Protestants in fine will vse Vestments , Musicke , Organes , surplisses , and diuerse other ceremonies , in diuine seruice , and administration of sacraments : all which the puritanes condemne , as will worship , and not being commaunded by God , to bee superstitious . All these ( I say ) I omitt , and many more , which are to bee seene in the Puritanes supplication to the Parliament , where 32. differences are assigned ; and onely haue thought good to aduertise euery discreete Protestant , to consider the ▪ 7. precedent differences . For there is neuer a one of them , which the Puritane defendeth not to bee a matter of faith ; and the Protestant is bound in conscience to condemne him , for obstinatly maintayning the contrarie , to bee an heretick : and the reason is euident ; for the rule , and square the Protestants , and Puritanes both hould to know an heresie , is this ; whatsoeuer is contrarie to Gods word is an heresie , if it be obstinately defended : but all the aforesaid 7. points in controuersie , are by the one part proued contrary to Gods word , and by the other auouched to bee grounded vpon the same . Therefore we may well conclude , that if one error in faith with obstinacy defended , sufficeth to make an heretick , what shall we iudge of the Puritan , who so mainely defendeth so manie ? Surelie this I will auer , that they differ in substance of religion , and not only in accidents , and ceremonies .

And finally , they haue no argument to proue , that they C. haue the true Church , true religion , true faith ; which al hereticks , that euer were , will not bring to condemne the Church of Christ , as well as they . For example they aledge scriptures , so did the Arrians : they contemne councills ; the Arrians did not regard them . They challenge to themselues the true interpretation : the same did all hereticks to this day . And to conclude , they call themselues the litle flock of Christ , to whom God hath reuealed his truth , and illuminated them from aboue : all which the Donatists , with as good reason , and better arguments , did arrogate vnto themselues . The same I say of the Pelagians , Nestorians , Eutychians , with all the rable of other damned hereticks .

And to conclude these articles of faith , I say , that if the D principles of the Protestants religion be true , S. Paul himselfe exhorteth vs to infidelitie ; which I proue thus :

Whosoeuer exhorteth vs to doubt of that , which we are bound to beleeue by faith , exhorteth vs to infidelitie .

But S. Paule doth exhort vs to doubt of our saluation , which we are bound to beleeue by faith , according to the Protestants religion . Ergo.

S. Paule exhorteth vs to infidelitie .

The Maior is plaine , for to doubt of matters in faith , is manifest infidelitie : because whosoeuer doubteth , whether God hath reuealed that , which indeed he hath reuealed , being sufficiently proposed , as reuealed ; virtuallie doubteth , whether God saith trueth , or lyeth .

The Minor is proued by the testimonie of S. Paule . 1. Cor. 2.

Cum timore , & tremore salutem vestram operamini . With feare and trembling , worke your saluation . All feare , whether it be filial feare , or seruile feare , includeth both , the one of sinne , the other of punishment .

Protestant .

A very good comparison , whether it be of likenesse , or A. equalitie : for the one is euen as true as the other . As we know not what to beleeue , or why : So we haue no meane in our Church , to settle vs in vnitie of beleefe , &c. If we shall ioyne issue in this point , vpon the former tryall , the matter is already answered . For all those accusations , and euidences being false , what truth can there be in this ? and yet the last clause makes me graunt him the conclusion : We haue no such meanes , as the Popish Church hath . But what will he inferre herevpon ? That therefore wee haue none at all . What ? because we will not acknowledge the Popes Soueraigne authoritie , in making what he list an Article of faith : Haue we no meanes to end controuessies ? As good neuer a whit , as neuer the better . Is it not more for the glory of God , and good of the Church , that there should be continuall disagreement about matters of Religion , then that all should beleeue and maintaine false doctrine ? Were not Christ as good haue a troubled church , as none at all ? Honourable warre is better then dishonourable peace , in the iudgement of any wise States-man : And can it be more glorious to God , to haue quietnesse in the church with heresie , yea with Antichristianisme , then truth with contention ? So then this proposition , that we haue no such meanes , as the Papists haue , to end controuersies , neither disproues , nor disgraces our church . But it is worth the doing , to take a view of this rhetoricall declamation , rather then Logicall disputation , which was promist ; by stripping it out of this braucry , and setting it naked , before the light of true reason : Thus then he disputes ;

They ( saith he ) that admit the sole Scripture , as Vmpere and Principall proposition . Iudge , in matters of controuersie , allowing no infallible interpreter thereof , haue no meanes to end controuersies , and abolish heresies .

Controuersies may be ended , and heresies abolisht , eyther To the principall proposition . 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 assumption . vmpere , &c.

What course is to be held , for the interpretation of Scripture ; To the principall assumption . 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 can worke by it , vpon their consciences . So that although this meanes ( supposing the truth of it ) be in it selfe effectuall : yet it cannot 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 cannot 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 Assumption 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 member 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 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 cannot erre . To the second 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 cannot erre . To the 3. proofe that the church cannot 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 Pope subiect to the Councills ; Pisa , Constance , and Basill ? What to that of Florence vnder Charlemaigne ? which condemned worshipping of Images , and the second Councill of Nice , for allowing it ? Bellarmine saies , they are not simply necessary , and that more heresies haue bene abolisht without them , then by them . Nazianzen wholy mislikt them : the Councill of Trent , and that of Nice ended not the Controuersies .

Now , if neither the Church haue it in generall , nor especially ▪ Generall Councills ; how should the Pastors , and ancient Fathers come by it ? For , that which is added of their teaching on truth with ioynt consent , is but to bleare the eyes of the ignorant . Can there bee more ioynt consent , then in generall Councills ? may they erre , when they seeke the truth , with graue , and serious aduise , in great multitudes , and can they not be deceaued when they enquire after it , priuately in their seuerall studies ? who knowes not , that the error of some one man renowned for learning , and Godlines , drawes whole Churches after it many times ? especially since custome like a tyrant , rules ouer the witts , and wills euen of learned men : who oft-times thinke it more discretion , to retaine a small error with quietnes , then to restore the truth with great trouble , and hazard .

But where shall a man finde this ioynt consent , you imagine ? I dare bee bould to say , in very few points of controuersie at this day , if in any . Yet say it were ea●ilie to be found , in the writinges , that now are extant : Alas ! what a small number of bookes haue wee , in respect of those , that haue bin written ? What gappes are there in the course of succession ? What maymes in often copying out bookes by writing ? What mistaking in translations ? many greeke copies being lost , and the latine translation of them onely remaining .

And who can tell what Indices Purgatori● haue bene deuised , & enioyned before this last assemblie of Trent ? especially since ▪ Canons haue bene foisted into ancient Councills , by Popes of Rome , for the establishing of their lawlesse tyranny .

Therefore , though we refuse not to make triall of our doctrine , by the Fathers writings , namely those that are indeed auntient , in the first 600. yeeres , before the kingdome of Anthichrist : Yet we receaue them , as witnesses of the truth , not Iudges ; and vse them , as we vse old Coines , not for an assay , to trye by them , the purenes of met●all : but for a standard , to shew what moneis were currant in seuerall ages , and places . Where they speake according to Scripture , we acknowledge the good graces of God in them , to their deserued Commendation : Where they write of themselues , we obserue examples of mans frailety , and ignorance , to which we make no doubt , but all writers , since the Apostles , and except them , haue bin , are , and shal be subiect .

To what tryall then shall we be take our cause ? To what else but to the Scriptures of God ? Would a man thinke , there should be any professed Christian found , that would mislike of this course ? And yet our Papistes doe .

They cannot abide to heare , that the sole Scripture should be vmpere , and iudge , in matters of controuersie : Belike they haue found a better : Euen the Pope , to whome they attribute more , whatsoeuer they talke of the Church , Councills , and Fathers , then to all three together ; saue that by Church perhaps they meane the Pope , Whom they make the head , and husband of it , being not afraide blasphemously to write , that all the names that are giuen to Christ , as he is ouer the Church , belong to the Pope , as well as to Christ ; though at the second hand , as beeing Christs ; or rather ( as they say ) Gods vicar . Perhaps they will say , as good do so , as remit all to euery mans priuat spirit , and singular exposition . Surely much about one : & yet , by this later it may come to passe , that though many erre , yet many also may hold the truth : Whereas by the former , if one bee deceaued , all must lie in ignorance , and error ; since no man may so much as say vnto him , why d●st thou so ? But that we permit not the interpretation of scripture to euery mans priuate fancy , I shewed in handling the 2. Article . Yet this inconuenience lyes vpon vs , that we can not possiblie winde our selues , out of the labirinth of so many controuersies , wherewith wee are now inueigled , and intricated . When we lacke helpe , we will send for their Pope ; or , if neede bee , make one of our owne : As yet things are not in so desperat an estate , that we should be enforced to seeke any such remedie . For the Irreconciliable iarres , betwixt vs , are neither , as he slanders vs , in any essentiall point of faith ; nor such as hinder vs , from agreeing in that doctrine , which is according to the word of God established amongst vs , and published in the Booke of Articles 1562.

That the Protestants , and the Puritans , ( as the Papists B. terme them ) differ in essentiall points of faith , he vndertakes to proue by this reason .

They , that differ about the Kings supremacie , the Bishops authoritie , the obseruation of feasts , &c. differ in essentiall points of faith . But the Protestants and Puritans differ in these . Therefore they differ in essentiall points of faith .

If , by essentiall points of faith , all matters of truth in diuinitie be signified , we graunt his conclusion ; adding further , that the church was neuer yet so happy , as to be without difference of opinions amongst diuines , in any one age , since the beginning of christian Religion . If he meane , by these words , such things as are necessarilie to be beleeued to saluation , or to the profession of christianitie , I deny his Proposition in all , or the most part of it , as , in handling the particulars it shall appeare . That the Protestants hold the kings supremacie to be an essentiall point of faith , so that he which doubteth of it , cannot be either in truth , or in profession a christian : neither the confession of our church ; no the writings of any of our diuines prooue . Indeed seditious Papists would beare the world in hand , that their traiterous Priests , and Iesuits , haue beene executed for religion , and not for treason , in denying the Kings supremacie : but neither Protestant , nor Puritan euer yet beleeued them . Both which doe constantly , and ioyntly auowe , that although it be not a heresie of so high a nature ; yet it is a wicked error , against the truth of Gods word , and an opinion not to be tollerated in any Christian , or ciuill state .

There is no dissent betwixt the Protestant and the Puritan , about the Kings supremacie , but the difference that is , ariseth from the diuers conceit , each part hath of the things , by his Maiestie enioyned ; as it shall appeare in due place .

Caluin doth not so much as charge Henrie the eight with assuming the Soueraignety he speakes of ; but onely layes the fault vpon certaine men ; who in an vnconsiderate zeale , as he saith , ascribed such a power to him , as by the word of God is not warrantable . Wherein , these two points made him mislike the matter . First , that he was called Supreame head of the Church ; which title being taken from the Pope , and giuen to the King , seemed to inuest that whole power in the Kings person , which the Pope had vsurped ouer the church . Secondly , Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester , affirmed at Ratisbon , that it was lawfull for the King , to forbid eating of flesh vpon this , or that day , to forbid Priests to marry , to take from the people the vse of the Cup in the Supper of the Lord : The later two whereof are simply vnlawfull , the first only so farre as it concernes putting religion in such abstinence : of which anon . And , in that sense onely , did Caluin denie the Kings supremacie , in this point , taking it to be all one with the Popes . What opposition the Presbyterie of Scotland hath made against the King : I neither know , nor haue now leasure to seeke . But , if they haue done any thing , whereby it may iustly be suspected , that they thinke the king hath nothing to do with the kirke , they haue gone beyond their bounds , and shall neuer haue eyther approbation , or excuse by my defense .

As for the Ministers and people , which doe not yeeld to subscription , and conformitie , I must needs labour to cleere them of this imputation . To which purpose , I desire it may first be obserued , that they acknowledge both by word and writing , and that ex animo , not like you Papists , with I know not what aequiuocations , that the Kings Maiestie , vnder God , is the onely supreame Gouernour of this Realme , and of all other his Highnesse dominions , and countries , as well in all spirituall , or Ecclesiasticall things , or causes , as temporall ; & that no forraine Prince , person , state , or Potentate , hath , or ought to haue any iurisdiction , power , superioritie , preheminence , or authoritie Ecclesiasticall , or spirituall , within his Maiesties said Realmes , dominions , and countries , according as the statute , agreeablie to the law of God , requireth .

Secondly they professe , with the rest of their Fathers , and brethren Protestants , that his Maiestie hath authoritie to commaund , or forbid , in all matters whatsoeuer , necessarie , or indifferent : and that , in both these , he is to be obeyed , vpon conscience . Of his authoritie in matters commanded by God , we are wholy of one minde . About the matters in question , there are these two differences . Whether they be indifferent or no : whether , supposing them to be indifferent , they may be commaunded , and done , in case they be thought to nourish superstition in many , and to be an occasion of stumbling , and destruction to many a one , for whom Christ hath dyed . And these are the reasons , why they dare not ( as they say ) approue some things in our church , by subscription , and practise : otherwise professing not onely a willingnesse , but a desire to yeeld , if they might satisfie their owne consciences in these doubts . So that indeed they no way deny the Kings supremacie , either by attributing that to any forrain potentate , or prelate , or any presbytery at home , which lawfully belongs vnto him , or by denying his authority in things indifferent .

Concerning the authoritie of Bishops , it is not an essentiall point of faith : and besides , the best protestant diuines holde , that the forme of gouernment is left to the discretion of euery church , to be framed , as the ciuill estate may beare it : and therefore it is not denyed ( I thinke ) that there may be a Presbytery , but that a Presbytery is fit for a Monarchie . So that the abolishing of Bishops in some Churches , is not a confounding of Christs church , but a dissoluing of one outward forme of gouernment .

Essentiall points of faith are matters of doctrine , wherein a man may be sound , and yet faile in some parts of obedience . If therefore , by not obseruing , you meane , not thinking it lawfull , to obserue or appoint holy daies , I say it is no essentiall point of faith to doubt of , or deny this authority ; though the Puritans ( generally ) hold such deniall to be an error .

If it be your meaning , to charge the Puritans with neglecting the obseruation of such daies , I dare be bold to say , that all Puritans do more religiously obserue them , then any Papist doth the Lords day , or Sunday ; which I auowe both of Ministers and people .

That it is vnlawfull for the church , or magistrat to appoint fasts for the religious humbling of men , vpon iust occasions , it is a foule error for any man to hold , but not against any essentiall point of faith , required to the being of a christian , either in truth or profession .

Both Protestants & Puritans agree ( generally ) about this point : as for the weekly fish daies , Lent , & the 4. ember weeks , our church , and state disclaime the appointing of them , for any vse of religion , and keepe them only as meanes , to prouide for the encrease of cattell , and mainteinance of shipping , Mariners , Fishermen , and Fishmongers .

Neither is this doctrine of Christs suffrings any essentiall point of faith , nor blasphemy , on the one part , or other ; as I haue s●ewed before in the fourth article . This makes no difference betwixt Protestants & Puritants , because many , on either side , are of this opinion , many of the contrary .

Of this I say , as of the former ; that , taking it in such a sense , as this Papist doth , it is no essentiall point of faith ; but in the true meaning of the article , it is ; for it belongs to to the truth of Christian Religion , as a substantiall point , to hold , that our Sauiour Christ was wholly in the estate of the dead , both for soule , and bodie .

Of this matter alsoe there is diuersitie of opinion , betwixt Protestants , and Protestants , Puritans , and Puritans , and therefore it is fondly , and falsly set downe , as a point of dissent betwixt protestants , and Puritans .

The like answere is to be made to this also , saue onely , that it may be doubted , whether any Protestant agree with the Papists , in this point or no ; generally I am sure the Puritans , and the Protestants are of one opinion in this matter . To hold that Christ is God of God , the naturall sonne of God , coessentiall , Coēternall to his father , is a matter of necessitie , at the least so , that the Contrary ouerthrowes religion . But , for my part , I dare not affirme , that the distinct knowledge of all such points , is of necessity to saluation .

And surely ( sauing other mens better iudgment ) I am of opinion , that those Clauses of Athanasius Creed , which seeme to shut all men out of heauen , that beleeue not those articles of the Creed , are to be vnderstood of some of them onely , or of the Contrary to the truth . The holy , and learned man spake according to the occasion , the heresie of Arrius hauing made a maine difference betwixt the true , and false Christians . But of these three last points , see The fourth Article .

Thus much of the maine differences , which this Papist ●oats : now followe the petty ones , as hee calls them . The first whereof is as true , as the former seauen . For our agrement in the matter of Baptisme may easilie be knowne , by our ioynt consent , to the articles of Religion 1562. according to 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 Tr●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 h●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 God● 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 wast●n●● , reserued for the assumption : which hath more need o● 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 . First those , that vainely deceaue themselues with an opinion of of faith , wheras they haue none . Let him , that thinks he stands take heed least he fall .

Then they , that in deed do truely beleeue : who , because their faith is vnperfect , must labour dayly for the perfecting thereof ; which they shall neuer attaine to , if they bee careles , and do not continually stand in feare of falling , by reason of their owne infirmity .

So that this exhortation doth not forbid stri●ing to perfection , but inioyne the meanes of attaining thereto : which is , dayly to stand in feare of our corruption , because we are not perfect in faith . Blessed is the man that feareth alway : feare to Pro. 28. 14 sinne is no way against faith ; because faith hath receaued no promise of full freedome from sinne . Feare of punishment Rom. 6. 23. is necessarily annexed to the former , because the wages of sinne is death . Whereof we may taste , in our owne feeling , by reason of our weake faith , if we doe not worke our saluation with feare and trembling .

What his meaning should be , in his last sentence , I cannot gesse . For , I thinke , he will not say , that this filiall feare comprehends in it seruile feare also ; because then the distinction will scarce be currant : vnlesse he expound himselfe , as I sayd before , that the feare of punishment followes vpon the feare of sinne ; in which respect we neede not doubt to graunt , that the Apostle exhorts vs to both kinds of feare : and yet so , as that he no way perswades to infidelitie , though the Protestants principle be , that we are bound to beleeue by faith that we shal be saued .

Papist .

Articles concerning good life , and pietie .

Protestant .

I may not forget to put the Reader in minde , that diuers of these Articles , as the 1. 2. 4. 5. are not points held by the Protestants , but matters charged vpon their doctrine by the Papists , and that quite contrary to their direct protestation . So that , if any such thing fall out vpon our opinions , we may professe , with a good conscience , that we are deceaued , by the error of our iudgement , not carryed away by any desire to erre . For proofe hereof , we offer our selues to be iudged by all men of any indifferencie , according to our answeres , and reasons , which we haue made , and now doe make , in our iust , and necessary defence .

Article . 1.

Papist .

The Protestants are bound in Conscience , neuer to aske God forgiuenesse of their sinnes .

Protestant .

The Protestants will rather abiure any point of doctrine , vpon which this may follow , then , to maintaine their doctrine , for beare the p●rformance of this duty : but neither of both these need , as our answer will shew .

The principall syllogisme for the proofe of this article , omitted , I know not vpon what reason , by this Author , is thus to be concluded .

Whosoeuer sinnes grieuously , in asking God forgiuenesse of his sinnes , is bound in conscience neuer to aske it .

But the Protestants sinne grieuously , in asking God forgiuenes of their sinnes .

Therefore the Protestants are bound in conscience , neuer to aske God forgiuenes of their sinnes .

Instead of this syllogisme , we haue the proofe of the assumption .

Papist .

Whosoeuer is assured by faith , that his sinnes are forgiuen A. B. Bucer . in lib. de con. art. de ●ustifi Calum in a●●d . concil ●es . 6. & lib. 3. iustit c. 2 ● 16. 17. & 18 Kem●● in exam. con. Tru● . ●est . 6 him ▪ sinneth most grieuously , in asking God pardon for them .

But all true Protestants are assured by faith , that their sinnes are forgiuen them . Ergo.

All true Protestants sinne greiuously , in asking pardon of God for them .

The Maior is euident : for who ; but an Infidell , or a mad man would demaund of God the creation of the world , which he is assured by faith , that God hath already created ? or Christs incarnation , which already is performed ? or the institution of sacraments , which alreadie is effected ? In like maner , who , but an Infidell , or mad man , will demaund pardon of his sinnes , which he beleeueth already by faith , that God hath forgeuen ? For it is a signe that he doubteth of that , which hee is bound by faith to beleeue ; which doubting faith is flat infidelitie . D.

Moreouer , whatsoeuer we demaund , that we hope to obtaine : Nam quod videt quis , quid ●perat●d Rom. 6. but no man hopeth to obtaine that , he alreadie possesseth : as no man will demaund of God his owne soule , or body , because already he pos●esseth them .

The Minor is vndoubted ; because this is that liuely faith , whereby the Protestants are iustified : by this they apprehend Christ , by this they applie his merits , and Passion vnto them ; and , without this , no man can attaine vnto Saluation .

Hereupon I will inferre , that no Protestant can , with a safe conscience , say the Lords prayer . Because he cannot pray , as hee ought without true faith , and call God his father ; and , if he haue true faith , he cannot , without note of infidelitie , vtter this petition , forgiue vs our sinnes : for that most assuredly he beleeueth , and protesteth , in the first ingresse of that praier , that he is the sonne of God ; and consequently beleueth by faith , that his sinnes are forgiuen him .

Protestant .

The best is , we are not charged with denying , that a man is bound to aske God forgiuenes of sinnes , but only , that we do it against that duty , to which in conscience we are bound . Therefore , if this cauil were a true challenge , we might happily be thought absurd , in holding opinions , that cannot agree togeather , but we could not be counted impious ; since we vrge , and practize continually , and daily praier , for the obtayning of forgiuenes ; but this conceit is fancied by Papists , not so much as fauored by our doctrine . Witnes this poore reason of theirs , and our plaine , and true answere thereunto .

Whosoeuer is assured by faith , that his sinnes are forgiuen , sinneth Proposition . most greuously , in asking God pardon for them .

Perhaps some man will maruell , that this Papist , as it may A. seeme vnnecessarily , makes so often mention of beleeuing by faith , and being assured by faith ; because there can be no assurance , or beleefe but only by faith . But he doth it agreeably to their Popish doctrine : which acknowledgeth a kinde of assurance , but that , not of faith , but of hope . There is ( say they , ) concerning euery mans owne saluation , Certitudo spei , Assurance of hope , but not Certitudo fidei , Assurance of faith .

The reason of this distinction is , that hope may be deceaued , but faith cannot . Which they would neuer say , if they considered , that all true Christian hope ariseth from some promise made vnto vs by God in the Scriptures , whervnto we haue interest by nothing , but faith . What a vaine thing is it , for a man to hope for ought , at Gods hands , as the world commonly doth , without any likelyhood of obteining it ? and what likelyhood can there be , where there is a flat protestation to the contrary ? namely , that nothing is to be looked for at the hands of God , either by faith , or hope , but in , and for 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 committed against God , And whereas he makes also request to God , for deliuerance from the punishment , make me to heare ioy &c. It is manifest that this can no way v. ●1. aduantage the Papists : because he intreats onely for the assurance of forgiuenes , which was to be testified vnto his soule , by the feeling of Gods loue , and his owne reioycing therein ; but what makes this for popish Purgatory after death , or proud satisfaction , in this life ? for Dauid promised noe satisfaction , but a contrite spirit , and a broken heart : which is no more ; then the first entrance into popish absolution , neither , by praying for the ioy of the spirit , doth hee beg any exemption from purgatory : because a man may haue that , after diuers sinnes committed , in some good measure , and yet be lyable to the fire of purgatory : by omitting some duties , which he is enioyned by his ghostly father to performe . Now the 32. psalme runs in the same maner . Blessed is the man &c. here is mention of hauing wickednes forgiuen , sinne couered , iniquity not imputed , of punishment not releast not a word , or letter . Let vs go forward , whence Psa 32. 1. v. 2. v 3. proceeded his roaring ? euen from the guilt of his sinne not felt to be pardoned , I acknowledged my sin , &c. I confest my wickednes vnto thee , & thou forgauest the punishment of my sinne . What punishment ? No doubt that , which Dauid entreated for . But the temporall punishments were not forgiuen ( I cal them as the Papists do ) for both the Child dyed , and Absolon was raised vp out of Dauids owne house , & lay with his fathers wiues , in the sight of the sonne . What question can there be then , whether Dauid 2. Sam. 12. 14. 18. 2. Sam. 12. 11. & . 16. 22. prayed for the forgiuenesse of his sinnes , euen in respect of the eternall punishment , for al he did beleeue , that it was granted him , according to the word of God by the prophet Nathan ?

Whereupon it necessarily ensues , that the proposition is vntrue , which condemns euery one of sinning grieuously against God , that askes forgiuenes of his sins , being assured by faith , that they are forgiuen , But for the better cleering of this point , let vs also shape a direct answer to his proofes , and afterwards set downe , what we maintaine , concerning praying for pardon of our sinnes . His first proofe is taken from an argument of parity , or equality in this sort , or forme .

If none , but an Infidell , or a mad man would demaund of God the creation of the world , the incarnation of Christ , the institution of the Sacraments , all which he is assured by faith are performed already , then none , but such an one , will demaund pardon of his synnes , which he beleeues already by faith , God hath forgiuen .

The consequence of this proposition is feeble , because it presumes an equalitie , where there is none . For we haue not the like measure of assurance , for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes , as we haue of these other points here signified : as I haue shewed already , and must say againe by and by , in answere to the assumption . Therefore though we should sinne greeuously in crauing those things of God , which without all doubt we are assured he hath already done , because we should but mocke him : yet do we not sinne , in like sort by desiring that , wherof our weake faith must needs make some question . I graunt we sinne by doubting , through the weaknesse of our faith ; but I deny we sinne by praying , because of that doubting . Further , we are to consider , that there is a great difference betwixt these things , euen in respect of their being past : for the three former are absolutely dispatcht , the later , after a sort , is euery day a doing : because howsoeuer , in the euerlasting purpose of God , the sinnes of all the elect are already , from all eternitie , forgiuen ; yet they are , in respect of vs , and the actuall being of them , day by day actually remitted : and therefore we may , without grieuous sinne , and must ( vnlesse we will sinne greeuously ) daily craue pardon of God ; because we haue new sinnes dayly to be forgiuen . The point will be made more plaine , in the explication of our opinion .

But none , but a mad man , or Infidell , will demaund of God the creation of the world , the incarnation of Christ , the institution of the Sacraments , all which he is assured by faith , are already giuen .

If a man be fully assured , that these things are already accomplisht , he cannot without sinne , demaund of God the accomplishing of them : but , if there arise in his minde some doubt concerning the certainety thereof , he may , and must entreate the Lord to reueale the truth vnto him , and to confirme vnto him the assurance of it : though his doubting indeed is sinne , yet haue we no iust cause , nor sufficient warrant to condemne this doubting faith of flatte infidelitie , as this rigorous Papist doth ; who neuer felt , it should seeme , what conflicts there are betwixt faith and frailty .

Now the Proposition , and assumption being both faulty , how can the conclusion be without fault ? Therefore , this former proofe not being able to abide the proofe ; let vs trie the latter , which must thus be applyed to the Authors purpose , for the proofe of the first proposition .

Whosoeuer demaunds that , which he hopes not to obtaine , sinnes grieuously , in demaunding it .

By not hoping to obtaine that , which is demanded , there D. is no reproofe implyed of praying without hope ; as if it were his meaning to exhort vs to trust , or hope in God , for that indeed concernes not this reason ; but he signifies , that a man ought not to pray for that , of the obteyning whereof there can be no hope , because we are already in possession of it : which proposition of his is onely so farre true , as it belongs to him , that knowes he hath the thing he prayes for . And that appeares by his proofe ; for that , which a man sees , wherefore doth he hope it ? That is , a man hath no reason to hope for that , which he is sure he hath . For hope is of things to Rom. 8. 24 come ; as also the words immediatly before plainely shew . Hope , that is seene , is not hope . Therefore he onely sinnes grieuously in praying for that , he possesses , who knowes he doth possesse that he prayes for . But he , that stands in doubt , whether he haue the thing or no , which he is desirous of , may without this blame make meanes to get it , though he haue it already ; because he is not certaine that he hath it ; howsoeuer , it may be , he hath some perswasion of the possession thereof .

But whosoeuer is assured by faith , that his sinnes are forgiu●● him , in asking God pardon demaunds that , which he hath no hope to obtaine .

The former answer , of the measure of the assurance , argues this assumption of falshood : because a man may by faith truly beleeue , that his sinnes are forgiuen , and yet not fully , or certainly be resolued thereof , in regarde whereof he may , and ought to sue for pardon .

But all true Protestants are assured by faith , that their sinnes Principall assumption . are for giuen them .

They should indeed be so assured , and are bound to labour E. for such assurance : but not one of many thousands attaines to that plerophorie or full perswasion : and yet euery one ( as I sayd before ) hath his proportion fitted out for him , by the spirit of God , according to the measure of tryall , which God in his fatherly wisedome , will by any meanes make of him : so that he shall neuer be finally , or wholy swallowed vp of despairing . And this is an effect of that iustifying faith , by which we lay hold on , and apply vnto our selues the sufferings of Christ ; which euery true Christian man feeles in himselfe , in part , whiles he liues in this vale of misery , and wholly , at the time of his departure henco ; the spirit taking from him all conscience of sinne , and filling his soule with the vndoubted feeling of that ioy , which God hath prepared for him in Iesus Christ . Other assurance then this , or in other maner , we teach not , and namely not this ; that he is not to be esteemed , as a true Christian , who makes any doubt , vpon any occasion of the pardon of any sinne .

Now , for a conclusion of this Article , he geathers of the F. former point , that no Protestant can , with a safe conscience , say the Lords Prayer : because therein he must aske forgiuenesse of sinnes , whereas he beleeues already , that all are forgiuen .

The reason stands thus .

He , that cannot , without note of infidelitie , aske forgiuenesse of sinnes , cannot , with a safe conscience , say the Lords Prayer .

What this note of Infidelitie meanes , we shall more fitlie examine , in the assumption . If by a safe conscience , hee meane a conscience free from sinne , euen in the very action of prayer ; we graunt his conclusion . Because ( as it shall appeare , in the next article ) no man performes any dutie , in this life , vnto God , but it is stained with some spot of his naturall corruption . But , if by a safe conscience , he vnderstand a conscience without sinne , in respect of his praying ( as I am perswaded he doth ) I deny the consequence of his proposition . For though a man cannot craue pardon of sinne , with a full assurance , the want whereof this Papist seemes to call a note of infidelitie , yet he may make that petition , with a safe conscience ; that is , without any iust checke of conscience , for praying so .

But no Protestant can , without note of infidelitie , aske forgiuenesse of sinnes .

That weake faith is not to be counted infidelitie , I take it , no Christian doubts at all . And as little , that it is not a note of infidelitie , to begge pardon of our sinnes . The assurance whereof though we should haue ; yet we haue it , but in part . Therefore this assumption is voide of truth , as the whole discourse of this article hath proued . For I make no doubt , but that by note of Infidelitie , he meanes ( as before ) want of faith , in not beleeuing , that our sinnes are forgiuen : or in demaunding that of God , which by faith we are assured , he hath already performed . All which being answered before , there remaines nothing , but that I shortly declare what we hould and teach , concerning praying for forgiuenesse of sinnes . First , we beleeue and teach , that all our synnes originall , and actuall ; before , and after Baptisme ; both guilt , and punishment , temporall , and eternall , are washt away by the bloud and sufferings of the Lord Iesus Christ . Secondly , that this pardon is made effectuall to vs , by faith , whereby we cast our selues vpon Christ , to be saued by him . Thirdly , that the assurance , which followes vpon beleeuing , is wrought in euery man , according to his measure , and is in no man , ordinarily , so perfect , but that it is mixed with some doubting , more or lesse . How praying for pardon of sinnes may stand with this faith , though I haue shewed sufficiently already : yet it will not be amisse to declare it more fully , for answer to this accusation .

We beleeue , in some measure that God hath forgiuen all our sinnes , in our sauiour Iesus Christ . But , because our faith is weake , we continually pray to God for pardon : or rather for the assurance of our pardon to be encreased neither yet doth it follow , that then prayer for forgiuenesse is an effect of a weake faith ; because though our faith were strong ? yet the feeling of our owne wretchednesse , the iust desert of sin , and the wrath of God due vnto vs , would wring out such entreatie from vs : as we see the extremity which our sauiour Christ was in vpon the Crosse made him cry out so maynly , My God , my God , why hast thou forsaken me ? albeit he was fully assured , that God neither had , nor would vtterly forsake him .

Ad hereunto , that we do indeed properly demaund forgiuenesse of sinne ; because we are to receaue actual pardon from God continually , both for our originall corruption , which alwaies , in this life , abides with vs , and for actuall sins , which we dayly , and hourely commit against the maiestie of Almighty God . If any man shall inferre hereupon , that therfore the person sueing is guilty of damnation till his sinne be forgiuen , which must ensue vpon his prayer . I answer , that in respect of God , it is pardoned , as soone , as committed , because he , that once beleeueth is thereby made a member of Christs mystical body , and so hath all his sinnes satisfied for , by the death , and suffrings of his head Christ : But to him , that is , in his feeling , it is not by and by forgiuen ; namely til by repentance he haue craued mercy of God for it .

But indeed the chiefe reason , and end of our praying to God for pardon , is , that we may alwayes acknowledge , that euery sinne committed by vs , deserues euerlasting damnaton , of it selfe , and should euerlastingly be punisht , if that God had not accepted our sauiour Christs satisfaction for vs ; By which though wee are freed , if we rest on him by faith ; yet both it is our duty , according to Gods commaundement , to sue for pardon for his sake , & in truth , if we doe it not , we haue no reason to perswade our selues , that our sinnes are pardoned . For howsoeuer it is true , that Christ our head , hath paid the price , of our ransome : yet it is also true , that we euery day deserue condemnation , & must entreate God for pardon , that so we may come to that assurance , which the Lord hath enioyned vs to labour and seeke for . The some of all is this , that we pray for pardon of our sinnes , 1. because Christ hath taught , and commaunded vs so to pray , 2. because , by our sinnes , we haue deserued eternall damnation , 3. because wee must dayly renew our repentance , as we commit new sinnes euery day , 4. because we haue not absolute assurance of the forgiuenesse thereof .

Some perhaps will rather answere , that we haue no assurance at all , but so long , as we continue members of Christs body ; which is no longer ( say they ) then we refraine from great sinnes ; for by euery such sinne ( they say ) we are cut of from Christ , and therefore haue need to pray for pardon of it . But 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. ● . 4. &c. 14 §. 19. Mclarch . locc . tit. de . peccat . Confess . Augusti articl● . 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 menstruat● omnes iustitiae nostr● . 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 experience 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 corruption of nature , if the poyson of concupiscence 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 religion , be deadly sins , the Protestants are bound in conscience to auoid al good works .

But al good works are deadly syns , according to the Protes●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 conclusion agrees not with the question . Your conclusion is general of al men ; wheras your question is particular of protestant● . 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 ● 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 , al●●●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 impo●tance . It is not possible you should thinke , that Protestants account good works to bee sinnes , which they acknowledge both to be commaunded , and also accepted of God . Yea , more then that , to be wrought in the faithfull by the spirit of God , and to haue a reward prepared for them in heauen .

But that , which the Protestants teach , concerning sinne in good works is , that our Corruption distaines the best works of Gods spirit in vs ; so that , not only they cannot be meritorious to the obteining of euerlasting life , but also deserue eternall damnation , in the iust , district , and perfect iudgement of God : in whose sight , nothing , that is any way vncleane , can appeare to receaue allowance , but onely by his mercifull goodnes , that pardons the sinne for Christes sake , and affords the worke acceptance . Yet doth not this admixtion of our sinnefulnesse , change the nature of the worke , as if it made that dutie a sinne , which is of it selfe obedience : but takes from the particular act , all power to iustifie , and deserue at Gods hands , which otherwise it hath , vpon Couenant betwene God , and vs . For example , Praying , geuing of Almes , and such like , are not made sinnes by any Corruption of ours : but the actions of these vertues being performed by vs vnperfectly , and sinfully , as they alwayes are , if they bee examined in the seueritie of Gods iustice , wil be condemned as sinnefull , not rewarded as righteous ; because we haue defiled them . And this himselfe acknowledgeth afterwards , for our opinion , where he sayes , that wee affirme , the best works , wee can do , are , infected with deadly sinne . But it is not all one , to say that Fasting , praier , almes deeds &c. and all good works done by vs , are infected with deadly Sin , and to auouch that fasting , prayer , almesdeeds , and all good works are deadly sinnes . He , that sayes the body is infected with some disease ; doth not say the body is that disease . But concerning deadly sinne , if thereby hee vnderstand notorious , and willfull breaking of the law of God , by some greiuous transgression , we deny , that all good works are so much as infected with deadly sinne . For we knowe , and professe , that , in the whole course of our obedience to God , wee are ordinarily free from such sinnes , and that the Corruption , which defiles our works , proceeds rather from weakenes , then willfullnes . As for those actions of ours , which haue such grosse sinnes adioyned to them , wee deny that they can , any way truely challenge so much as the bare name of good workes , in the sight of God . Such are those vaineglorious , and hypocriticall deeds of the Pharisies : Which our Sauiour condemnes ; and such , to come neerer home , are popish good works . Because they are grounded vpon an euill intent ; namely a purpose , and Conceit of iustifying the doers thereof , & deseruing Ex rigore iustitia , in the rigor of iustice , euerlasting glory of almighty God .

This I auouch generally of all their good workes whatsoeuer : and particularly of all the. 3. here named , I say further , that , in some part , for the very substance of them , they are no better , nor other then sinnes . Fasting is not of it selfe any good worke ; as if it made a man more acceptable to God , then moderate eating doth ; but in . 2. respects it is vpon iust occasion to bee vsed , either for testifying of our humiliation , by acknowledging our selues vnworthy so much , as to taste of any of Gods creaturs : or els for the better preparing of our selues to call vpon God by prayer . But Popish fasting accounts the very absteining from meat , a parte of holines , and not simply from meat , but from some kinds of meat . So that a man may fully , and truely keepe a popish fast , though he neither be humbled in the sense of his sinne , nor consideration of Gods wrath d●e thereunto , nor performe any extraordinary dutie of praier , nor haue any occasion of fasting , but perhaps of the Contrary . Yea though he gorge , and glut himselfe with all kinds of dainties , and fill his stomacke , and head too with most delicate wines . Alwaies pro●ided , that hee touch not any flesh , or whit meat . And hence it is , that a Popish fast , by way of a prouerb , signifies as much , as a costly , & delicious banquet . No , this kind of fast is so far from beeing a good worke , that it is meerely a carnall , and worke of the flesh , ha●ing not so much as the outward forme of a fast , which consists in refraining all kind of sustenance , not this , or that only .

Prayer indeed is of another nature , as being a duty by which in it selfe , God is properly honored , whether it be by petition , or thanksgiuing . But Popish prayer standeth in vaine repetition of Pater-nosters , Aue-maryes , Creeds , ( whereof the two last also are nothing lesse then prayers ) and that many times for a penance . And out of doubt they are not much deceaued therein ; for it is a grieuous punishment of blindnesse , and senselesnesse , to imagine , that such toylesome lip-labour can please God . Yet all this might haue the better shew of prayer , if that , which is babled ouer , were vnderstood : but , for the most part , the common people pray , as Parrats speake , altogether by rote , without knowledge what they say . Shall I adde herevnto , that the prayers , which ordinarily are made by poore ignorant soules , are not made to God but to creatures ? insomuch that it hath bene held here in England , and so no doubt is yet in Popish countries , for a certaine marke of an heretick , for a man to offer vp his owne prayers to God , in Iesus Christ , without the mediation of some Saint or other . All which considered we truly auouch , that this Popish praying is sinne .

And the like we affirme of some almesgiuing ; howsoeuer we gladly acknowledge , that the duty of it selfe , is one of those sacrifices , with which God is highly pleased . But Heb. 13. 16. to giue almes , first , to be prayed for after death : secondly , to the singing of Masses , and Di●●ges ; thirdly , to the mainteinance of idle bellies : fourthly , to the impouerishing , and many times vndoing , of the poore wife and children , is no better then infidelitie ; if the Apostle truely say , that he , 1. Tim. 5. 8. which hath not care of his owne , especially of his domesticals , is worse then an Infidell .

Therefore , if we speake of these workes , as they are done , and allowed by the Papists , we say that they are deadly sinnes , not only faulty , by reason of infirmitie ; which , for the most part , is the estate of those good workes , that the faithfull in weaknesse performe . Yet are they not , by reason thereof , deadly sinnes , nor infected with deadly sinne : but only , as all sinnes , how light account soeuer the Papists make of them , deserue eternall death . Neither doth it follow vpon the graunt of this infection , and desert , that therefore they are to be avoyded , no more , then , that a sicke man is bound to starue himselfe by fasting , as Pomponius Atticus absurdly did , because his feeding continued his disease , and that , as Hippocrates says , the more you nourish some sycke bodyes , the more you corrupt them . The sinne indeed , which cleauing to the worke defiles it , is by all meanes possible to be auoyded ; but not the worke it selfe to be forborne . For we haue an absolute charge from God , to exercise our selues in all good workes , and a merciful promise of forgiuenesse of those infirmities , which our corruption fastens to our best indeauors . In matters indifferent , that are put to our choise , to be done or left vndone , it is a good rule to refraine , because our weaknesse will bring forth some sinne , in the doing of them . As for example , it is lawfull for me to play at chesse or tennisle , but if I find by experience , that I cannot vse these exercises , without some special sinne , as swearing , cursing , & fretting , losse of too much time . &c. I am bound in conscience to refraine them altogether . The case stands otherwise in matters of necessary duty , as thus : I am commaunded to make my supplications to God by prayer : daily experience teaches me , that I cannot pray with such a measure of faith , as I ought ; that wandring thoughts , & somtimes enuious , couetous , or ambicious deuices cre●p into my heart , & quench my zeale in praying ▪ am I therfore wholy to giue ouer praying ? Nay rather I must pray more often , that it would please God to increase his grace in me to the subduing of this corruption : The like I might truly say of other good workes , but this is warrant ynough for me to conclud , that the protestants are not bound in conscience to auoide al good works , though to the doing therof they bring an infection of deadly sin , as all sinne is deadly .

The answer to his syllogimse ( if it be a syllogisme ) is made . D as I haue shewed by denying the assumption , or Minor , viz. that fasting , prayer , almes-deeds , & all good workes are deadly sinnes . In steed of prouing this , in his new edition he falles to discourse of a distinction , and so leaues his argument still without proofe , as before it was . The distinction is , that good workes , being enioyed by God , are not to be forborne , though some imperfection distaine them , in the working : but the imperfection onely . He would seeme to take away this distinction , by giuing particular instance against the truth thereof . The generall syllogisme may be thus framed .

If a man be bound in conscience to forbeare the doing of some good workes , because he cannot doe them without some greiuous synne , then he is bound to auoyd al good workes , because some imperfections alwaies accompany them .

But a man is bound in conscience to auoide some good workes , because he cannot do them , without some grieuous sinne .

Therefore he is bound in conscience to avoide al good workes , because some imperfections alwayes accompany them .

I deny the consequence of your proposition . First because all good workes , are not of the same kinde , some being absolutely commaunded , some onely vpon condition ; such as Giuing of Almes is , whereof in answere to the assumption . Secondly because the imperfections are , for the most part , without our consent , and against our liking : whereas most grieuous sinnes are outward actions of disobedience ; as stealing to giue almes , which is your owne , though a most vnfit example .

I graunt your assumption , vpon this supposition ( which notwithstanding I take to be very false ) that there are some things , a man cannot doe without grieuous sinne ; and I come to the examining of your particulars which are brought to proue this assumption .

Giuing of almes is one of those good workes , which are commanded conditionally , if a man be able , He that hath this 1. Ioa. 3. 17 worlds good &c. Beside wee speake not of sinning before the good deede , but in the act it selfe ; and so this example is not to the purpose .

You are bound in conscience to refraine your enemies company vpon that supposall , vnlesse there be necessitie of comming into it , for the performance of some dutie of your general , or particular calling .

It would also be remembred that comming into your enemies company is no good worke commaun●ed by God , and therefore not pertinent to our question .

Eating of flesh is a thing indifferent ; and therefore , vpon duty to God , and our bretheren , to be forborne , when they shall be scandalized by it . What is this to good works ?

Neither am I to refraine Releeuing of the poore , because I can not doe it without vaine glory , and so shall haue no reward in heauen ; neither is the reward had here , or lost in heauen for vaineglory : but onely when a man makes that his end ; not when it windes in it selfe , by our corruption , against our liking .

If I can not effect my best actions ( say you ) without the infections of my naturall corruption , I am boundia conscience to auoide those crimes , and offences , which can not possibly be performed without these vitious circumstances .

But I can not effect my best actions without such infections .

Therefore I an bound in Conscience to auoide those crimes , and offences , which can not possibly be perfourmed without these vitious circumstances .

I will neuer striue with you about this syllogisme ; which belonges nothing at all to the matter in question , onely geue me leaue to wonder at this strange course of disputing . Your reason , added to proue I know not what , but I am sure prouing neither part of your syllogisme , seemes to conclude that , which we deny not , namely , that Euery least corruption is sufficient to make the worke not to be perfectly good ; This I granted before , and withall shewed , that it did not follow herevpon , that Therefore these good workes were to be auoided ; since it pleaseth God both to pardon the imperfection , and reward the worke though imperfect .

Article . 3.

Papist .

The Protestants either haue no faith at all , or lie most damnablie , in denying that a man assisted by Gods grace , can keepe the commaundements .

Protestant .

It may appeare by my answere to the former Article ▪ that a true Christian both can , and doth performe acceptable obedience vnto God , by keeping his commaundements . But this obedience is vnperfect : our workes being good in the sight of God , not by their owne value , but by Gods acceptation . Our Papists , that are sett vpon magnifying themselues , more then glorifying God , cannot abide to heare of any imperfection in their workes , which may impeach or impaire the merite of them . Therefore they raile at vs , as this Author here doth , because we say it is not possible for aman , compassed about with naturall corruption , to keepe the Commaundements of God fully , and perfectly : vpon which Doctrine of ours we are charged , in this Article , either to haue no faith at al , or to lie most damnably , in denying , that a man assisted by Gods grace can keepe the Commaundements .

Papist .

Whosoeuer knoweth God , keepes his commaundements . But A all true Protestants know God .

Ergo All tru● Protestants keepe his Commaundements . The B. Ioh ep. ● . Chap. 5. 4. Ma●or is expresse Scripture . Qui ●icit se nosse Deum , & mandata eius non custodit , mendax est , & in eo veritas non est . Hee that saieth he knoweth God , and heepeth not his commaundements , is a liar , and Truth is not in him .

The Minor no Protestant doubteth of . For this knowledge of God is nothing els , but a liuely faith , wherewith all Zealous Protestants ( as they say ) are indued . Hence from manifestly it followeth , that either the most Zealous Protestants lack a liuely faith , and so are Infidells : or , if they haue a liuely faith , and deny that they keepe , or can keepe Gods commaundements , they are damnable liers ; If they choose the first , they are Pagans , Hereticks , or Iewes : if they take the second , they are damnable seducers , and imposters in religion ; and consequently their faith is false .

Protestant .

It is more troublesome to apply this syllogisme to the A. question , then hard to answere it : but wee must needs do both . The syllogisme , for the proofe of the Article , must be thus framed .

If all , that haue a liuely faith keepe Gods commaundements , either the most Zealous Protestants lack a liuely faith , because they keepe not Gods commaundements ; or if they haue a liuely faith , and keepe them they lye damnably , in denying that a man can keepe them .

But all , that haue a liuely faith , keepe Gods commaundements .

Therefore the most zealous Protestants either haue not a liuely faith , because they keepe not Gods commaundements , or , if they haue a liuely faith , and keepe them , they lie damnably , in denying that a man can keepe them .

I deny the Consequence of your proposition : because this disiunction followes not , vpon that antecedent . For though it be true , according to Saint Iohns meaning , whereof in the assumption , that all , which haue a liuely faith , keepe Gods Commaundements : Yet neither do the Protestants lacke a liuely faith ( for they keepe the Commaundements ) neither do they lie in denying , that a man can keepe them perfectly ; which it is your purpose to proue : But let vs put the case , that they could , and did keepe Gods commaundements most perfectly , and withall denied , that either they did , or any man could keepe them ; might they be iustly charged with lying damnably ? I will not say , no A. charitable , but no reasonable man would so gather . For it is not a damnable lye to be deceiued , in iudging what belongs to the perfect keeping of the commandements ; or , vpon that error to affirme , that no man can keepe them perfectly . You cannot be ignorant , that the reason of this our denyall , arises from the perswasion , that the defect , and disorder of some circumstances , which alwayes ( as we thinke ) accompany our actions , doth make our obedience vnperfect . And shall we herevpon be charged with lying damnably ? For example ; suppose that the idle fancies which arise in a mans heart , while he is praying , being presently misliked , and supprest , did not , in truth , make the performance of his duty vnperfect , but that , onely in his opinion , that doth so pray , the duty be stained with imperfections : might we charge him to lye damnably , for auouching , in the error of his iudgement , that his prayers are vnperfect ? Yet Protestants will not be so vncharitable , as to say , that a Papist lyes damnablie , who affirmes , though vpon a false perswasion , that a man assisted by Gods grace can keepe the commandements .

But all that haue a liuely faith , keepe Gods commaundements .

Assuredly they doe ; but not in perfection . For proofe whereof I appeale to you Papists ; who dip your workes in the bloud of Christ , to make them meritorious , which eyther you would not , or at least , should not doe , if you held them to be perfect of themselues . For life euerlasting is due to the perfect obedience of the law by couenant ; This doe , Rom. 10. 5. and thou shalt liue . So that he , which can fulfill the lawe , needes not the bloud of Christ , to make his obedience acceptable vnto God . And indeed if we haue sufficient grace from Christ to keepe the lawe , and vse this grace to perfect obedience , though the grace be wholy , and onely from Christ ; yet the merit is altogether from our workes ; to which heauen is due of right , as wages to a hired labourer , that hath done his taske . This perfection we dare no● ascribe to our workes : for we know that the most righteous men , euen after iustification , disclaime their owne righteousnesse . Our desire , and endeuour is to keepe all Gods commandements , in thought , word , and deed : but we faile many wayes of this purpose . Sometimes ( as in running of a gole ) being turned out of the way : sometimes fainting in the way ; yet , as Dauid was said to be a man after Gods heart , because his soule was set vpon obedience to God , though he fell many times , and that grieuously : so is euery true Christian said to keepe Gods commandements , because his intent , & resolution is to keepe them , & his practise answerable thereto , howsoeuer with manifold & great infirmities .

The principall syllogisme being answered ; we must come to that , which is s●t downe in this article , but it is vnpossible to make that serue for proofe of the former , as it is apparant ; because it concludes neither the proposition , nor assumption thereof . And , to make short , we graunt him the whole syllogisme . For all true Protestants doe indeed keepe Gods commandements , in such sort , as before I shewed . If therevpon he will inferre that distinction , which is in the title of this article , he must reason thus .

If all true Protestants keepe Gods commandements , either the most zealous Protestants lacke a liuely faith , or , if they haue a liuely faith , and deny that they keepe Gods commandements , they lye damnablie .

To which , the same answere will serue , which was shaped to the former syllogisme ; that the disiunction followes not vpon the antecedent , for the reasons there deliuered : further we must adde , that the former part of this consequence is absurd , because vnpossible : for it presumes that all true Protestants keepe Gods commaundements , and yet that some be dest●tute of a liuely faith . Whereas there is no obedience eyther acceptable , or possible , without a liuely faith .

Whosoeuer knowes God , ( saith he ) keepes his commaundements . B

But all true Protestants know God . Ergo.

All true Protestants keepe his commandements .

If we will , in any reasonable sort , apply this syllogisme to the purpose , it must be a proofe of the first assumption , not as it is here formed , but after this maner .

Whosoeuer knowes God keepes his commaundements . But all , that haue a liuely faith know God .

Therefore all , that haue a liuely faith , keepe Gods commandements .

To the proposition whereof I answere , as before , concerning the truth , but imperfection of obedience ; and to 1. Ioa. 2. 4. the proofe I adde further , that the holy Apostle speakes of no other keeping , then that , which I haue granted . For his speech is generall of all Christians whatsoeuer , that know God to euerlasting life ; and that not of their abilitie , what they can doe , but of their practise , what they doe ; and I hope no Papist thinkes , that euery true Christian keepes all the commaundements wholy , and perfectly . For then what shall become of the Sacrament of penance , and extreame vnction ? But you will say , they may keepe them , though they doe not ; I would beleeue it , if you could shew me an example of any that euer did it . But these places , I alledged a little before , manifestly proue , that they , that are renowned for holinesse , were priuie to their owne vnrighteousnesse .

Nay , what Saints story haue you , any thing largely set downe in the Scriptures , whose life is not tainted with some disobedience ? did those worthies faint sometimes , and can we stand without snaking ? It is more honourable to God , and comfortable to Christians , truely to acknowledge the imperfection of their owne workes , and the perfection of Gods mercy , who vouchsafes a reward to those poore endeuours , which , of themselues , by reason of the corruption , wherewith they are defiled , deserue , in the rigour of his iustice , euerlasting condemnation .

There needs no farther examination of the proofe of his syllogisme .

Article . 4.

Papist .

The most points , wherein the Protestants dissent from Catholikes , tend to loosenes of life , and carnell liberty .

Protestant .

If the pointes , we hold , Be warrantable by the scriptures , feare of what may follow thereupon , must not make vs prouide for conceited holinesse , by denying a certaine truth .

Papist .

This article may be proued by a generall induction , in all Luther in asser . art. 36. Melanc . in locis communibus . Perkins in his reformed catholike the 1. controuersie . such matters , as now the Protestants cal in question . First they say , that man hath no free wil to do good , but all goodnesse proceedeth so from grace , that it lieth not in his power , neither to haue it , nor resist it , but , of necessitie , ●tmust haue effect .

To what other end tendeth this senselesse doctrine , and fatall fancy , but to make men negligent in disposing , and preparing their soules to receaue Gods grace , and to rouse it vp , and put it in execution , after they haue it ? making man not much vnlike a sicke asse , who neither can dispose , nor prepare himselfe to seeke for his medicine , but , of necessitie , must expect , till his Maister thrusteth it into his throat ; neither , after he hath druncke it , can cause it cure his disease , but carelesly letteth it worke , as it will .

Secondly , they defend , that men be iustified by faith alone . C. The which solifidian portion ouerthroweth flatly true repentance , sorrow for sinnes , mortification of passions , and all other vertues ; which tend to the perfect reconciliation of the soule with God ; causing men onely to procure a certaine false fantasticall apprehension of Christs death , and passion , the which faith although they erroneously auerre , cannot be seuered from charity , vertues , & good workes : yet both experience teacheth that it may ( or else 1. Cor. 13. Whitacherus contra camp . aut fides perpetua est , aut nulla est . And it is one of the 11. art. enacted and decreed of by the bishops at Lamber ● some 4. yeares ago . few or none of them haue faith : because few or none of them haue these workes ) and the Scriptures playnely proue , that all faith : yea and the most noble faith , which hath force to remoue mountaines , may be without charity .

D. Thirdly they assure vs , that faith once had , can neuer be lost ; the which vaine security openeth the gappe to al libertine sesuality : for if a man be certaine , that he hath true faith , if it be impossible he should loose it , if he be secured that by it alone , he shal be saued : why may he not wallowe in all licencious pleasures in this life : & neuer doubt of glory in the other ? Could euer Epicurus haue found a better ground to plant his Epicurisme ? Could euer Heliogabalus haue better patronized his sensuality ? Could Bacchus , or Venus haue euer forged better reasons , to enlarge their Dominion ?

Fourthly , they say a man can not keepe all the commaundements : ● for what other cause , I pray you ? but thereby to make men negligent in the keeping of them ; to pretend an excuse of impossibility , whensoeuer they transgresse them . F

Fiftly why deny they the Sacrament of penance ? but to make men carelesse how they liue , and neuer regard the avoyding of sinnes , as though they were neuer to render an account of them . To hinder that shame , and blushing , which men conceaue in discouering their sinnes ; the which are most excellent meanes to deterre men from sinning another time : to shuffle vp Restitution & satisfaction of iniuries committed against our neighbours , to drawe men from remorse of conscience by burying their sinnes in eternal obliuion , the soares whereof Confession rubbeth , and causeth remembrance .

Sixtly why exclude they the true and reall body of G Christ from the blessed Sacrament of the Altar ; but for that they perceaued how , by the presence thereof , they were deterred from sinne , and wickednesse ? For they knew well that sinnefull liues consorted not with those sacred mysteries , and therfore they rather resolued to banish Christ from the Sacrament , then sinne from their soules .

Finally for what other cause haue they coyned a new negatiue H. religion ? wholly standing vpon Negation of Sacraments , Ceremonies , Rites , Lawes , Customes , and other principal points of the Catholicke Church ; but for Fasting , to bring an Feasting ; for Praying , Playing , for Deuotion , Dissolution ; for Religious feare of God , vaine Security ; for zeale , and mortification , a number of vaine verball sermons ; and , to conclude , for a positiue working , a flat denyall almost of all points of faith , and religion . A.

Protestant .

In deed a generall , or rather a particular induction of all matters , that Protestants call in question , is of necessity to the proofe of this Article . But neither , if such an Induction were made could any such thing bee done : and that not being done , there is not so much as any reasonable course taken for the proofe of it ; for what if all these points here set down tend to loosenesse of life ? Alas , 7. are neither all , nor the most part , nor any thing neere the most part of those points wherein we dissent from the Papists . So that if it it were true of euery one of these , as it is of neuer a one of them , that they tend to loosenesse : yet were this authour as farre from proving that , he hath vndertaken , as 7. is from seauen score , that I may be sure to speake within my compasse : what shall we iudge then of this proofe , where , from the first to the last , there is not one true point ? as by speciall examination it will appeare .

They say that man hath not free will . B.

Nay more then that , wee say that free will is a mere fancie , a bare name , without any thing answerable vnto it , in the nature of man , at the least , since his fall in Adam . But if it be his meaning to charge vs with a purpose to bring in loosenesse of life , and carnall liberty , by the teaching of this Doctrine , we appeale from this vniust slaunderer ; First to the iudgement of God , that searcheth the hearts , and the raines ; then to the testimony of our conscience , and lastly to the preaching of our Ministers , and conuersation of our people , euen of as many , as are indeed true Christians according to the practise of our doctrine .

But , to come neerer to the point , we are to vnderstand that the Protestants Doctrine of free wil is , that no man hath power by nature , either ( without the grace of Gods spirit ) to do any thing acceptable vnto God , or to procure this grace to himselfe , or to receaue it when it is offered . For our present purpose , it shal be ynough to speake a word or two of the last point , not by way of proofe , but declaration . Whereas then we deny a man po●er to receaue the grace of God being offred , we do not meane that this grace workes vpon him , as on a stone , or block , but as on a reasonable creature . No man beleeues but willingly ; onely the question is , how it comes to passe that , when two men haue grace offred them , the one beleeues , the other doth n●t . The Papist , in this case , fetcheth the difference fr● the good vse of his free will , that beleeues , we ascribe it to the diuers working of Gods spirit in his heart ; not denying that he vseth his free will ( to speake as they doe ) better then the other , but acknowledging that therefore he so vseth it , because the spirit of God teacheth , and inclines , and ineuitably brings him so to vse it : that the difference may be from God , and not from man .

To what end ( saith he ) tends this doctrine ?

If it be possible that any man should be so blinde , as not to see , I will venture the losse of so much time , and labour , as may serue to shew him : You aske vs , why we say that men are saued by Gods grace & not by their owne freewill . Forsooth because we would haue God reape the glory of their saluation ; the pride of mans nature beaten down , & then more beholding to God then to themselues . None of which can be , if a man , by his owne free will , make difference betwixt himselfe ; and another , to the receauing of faith . For he may truly say to God , that he is no more beholding to him , then many a one , that is euerlastingly damned ; nay then euery one might haue bene , if he would . For what did God for him , that he was not as ready to doe for another ? how many haue had as much grace offred them , as he , and yet are not iustified ? No more had he bene , if he had not , by his owne free-will , helpt himselfe in speciall maner , wheras God failed him , leauing all to his choise to be saued , or not to be saued . Is this to teach carnall libertie ? you will say , yea ; because it maketh a man negligent in disposing and preparing his soule . How so ? for the difference is made by God . What then ? to what purpose is it , forme to prepare my selfe ? I maruell you aske not , to what purpose it is for you , to beleeue . Are you yet to learne , that although the cause of all goodnesse be grace ; yet God requires our endeuours , as meanes , to the receauing of this grace ? Did you neuer heare , that we holde it for a monstrous absurditie , to promise our selues any thing from God , without vsing the meanes to obtaine it ? The same also I answere to the doing of good workes after sanctification : the successe , and euent proceeds onely , and certainly from the spirit of God , who Phil. 2. 13. workes in vs both to will , and to doe . Yet are we bound to vse all good meanes , for the stirring our selues vp to holynesse ; and freely , and willingly doe we whatsoeuer good worke , we do by the grace of Gods spirit . Therefore this similitude of the sicke Asse , sheweth the Authors dangerous sicknesse , eyther of ignorance , if he know not the truth we holde , or of malice , if , against this knowledge , he wilfully peruert it .

They defend ( say you ) that men are iustified by faith alone . That is , we defend that God requireth nothing of man to his iustification , but only , that by faith he rest vpon Iesus Christ , to be iustified by his suffrings .

The generall ground of this opinion , is the end of all things created ; viz. the glory of God , that man may haue nothing to boast of , but simply ascribe the praise of his iustification to God that iustified him . Neither doth this doctrine ( scorne God in reiecting it , as much as you list ) eyther flatly ouerthrow , or in any part diminish true repentance , sorrowe for sinnes , mortification of passions , and all other vertues , which will plainely appeare both before and after iustification ; for what though we be iustified onely by faith ? who knowes not , that it is vnpossible for any man ( ordinarily ) to cast of this naturall , and Popish confidence , which he hath in his owne righteousnesse , and to feele necessitie of being iustified by Christ , If first he discerne not his damnable estate , and being moued with horror thereof , she from himselfe to Christ for iustification , by pardon of sinne ? Now after a man is iustified , can the knowledge of the meanes , by which he is iustified , kill these vertues in him ? Let the meanes , and cause of his iustification be what you will ; If he may beleeue he is iustified ( and the Papists graunt some men haue knowne , and more may know it , at least by reuelation ) by your reason this effect must ensue . So that it ariseth not from the doctrine of the meanes , but from that of knowledge or assurance . But how should these vertues be abolisht by iustification , by faith only ? when as euerie man that is iustified , is also sanctified .

Whosoeuer hath his sinnes forgiuen him , hath withall the power of sinne abated in him . How shall we , that are dead Rom. 6. 2. to sinne , liue any longer therein ? No man hath any incouragement , by free iustification through faith , to continue in sinne . For , if he be not sanctified , he is not iustified . If he be sanctified , he is dead to sinne , and aliue to righteousnesse . True it is that prophane wretches will obiect against the Gospell now , as they did in the Apostles time . But this was not then , nor is now , any sufficient reason , why the truth of God should be denyed , or supprest , for wicked mens abusing it , to their owne damnation . Yet perhaps you will reply , that it is a more likly meanes to stir men vp to repentance , mortification , and the practise of all vertues , to teach them , that they must deserue the first iustification of congruitie , by their good preparation , and fully make vp the measure of their second iustification , by deseruing of condignitie , for their good workes , euerlasting life . First let vs suppose it be likely in our corrupt iudgment , yet may we not gratifie God with a lye , nor doe euill that good may come of it . And why should not we follow the practise of the Apostles ; whose course is in all their Epistles , still to vrge grace in iustification , and good workes for thankfulnesse , not for merit ? yet we deny not , but it is both warranted by the Scriptures , and most conuenient to adde an edge to the workes of sanctification , by threatning condemnation to sinners , and promising reward to the righteous . But we deny , that eyther of these enforcements of such exhortation , in any part , weakens the doctrine of free iustification by onely resting vpon Iesus Christ . Which he may easily conceaue , that hath a sincere purpose to glorifie God , by the saluation of his chosen . For he knowes , that as much as is giuen to man for iustifying himselfe , is taken from God . God , and man , after this reckoning , may part stakes . God may haue glory for affording meanes of saluation , and abilitie to vse those meanes : man may be proud of the well vsing of that abilitie , and iustifying of himselfe by the meanes afforded . Yet , if all men , that are inabled , did so helpe themselues , there were lesse cause of boasting , & more reason to giue God the glory of iustification . For it might well seeme to proceed from the grace , that God imparts to them , that they are iustified . But when some vse it well , some ill , and this difference of well , or ill vsing it , flowes from the free-will of men , by their owne power ; what a small part of glory is left to God , in the seuerall iustification of those , that are saued ? Hence it follows , that the doctrine of iustification by workes preparatorie , before a man is at all iustified , & by workes meritorious , after he is begun to be iustified , is dishonorable to God , & the death of all goodnesse in those very workes , that are done . Because the intent , which our Papists magnifie so much , is directly derogatorie from the glory of God , without the true , and sincere purpose whereof , no workes of any man baptised , are one iott better , then the morall actions of heathen men . But the sonnes of the bond-woman , being of a seruile nature , respecting themselues either only , or principally , being ignorant , and without feeling of the affection of children , can neuer be perswaded , that any sonne of God will performe duties of kindnesse , and thankfulnesse to his father : but must needs doe that he doth , like a hireling , for loue of wages . And by such meanes our Papists would procure , and deserue the perfect reconciliation of their soules with God ; as if we were not perfectly reconciled in Christ , in whom God reconciled the world to himselfe , not imputing their sinnes . What is it to be reconciled to God , but to haue Gods displeasure remoued , & his fauor , & fatherly loue vouchsafed to vs ? This hath Christ procured , by his death , and bloud-shedding ; the increase of our sanctification in vs , by the dayly dying vnto sinne , and rising againe vnto newnesse of life , restores more perfectly the image of God decayed in vs , by naturall corruption , and manifold actuall transgressions , but reconciles vs neuer a whit the more to God . When the Prodigall sonne Luc. 15. 20 came home to his father , starued , and euill coloured in his body , ragged , and torne in his apparrell , who can doubt , for all this , but he was fully reconciled to his father , when he fell on his neck , kissed , embraced , and entertained him : but as his flesh euery day came better and better , as his colour mended , and waxed more fresh , when he was arrayed , according to his estate , he did more liuely represent the sonne of such a father . The same is our case in Christ : by his suffrings are we wholy reconciled vnto God . For we are made his Children ; but we begin dayly , more and more to resemble him , as we Ioa. 1. 12. Gal. 4. 4. 5. growe in holinesse of nature , and conuersation . Therefore let the Papists imagine that they reconcile themselues to God by mortification of passions , and I know not what supposed vertues : It is sufficient for vs , that Christ hath , by his bloud , made our peace , and put vs in possession of his fathers loue and fauour . If this be a false fantasticall apprehension of Christs death , and passion , to relie wholy vpon him for reconcilation with God , by his bloud , and propitiation ; then his dying , the Apostles preaching , and our beleeuing is all in vaine . How then doth this Doctrine tend to loosenesse ? especially , if it be remembred , that we shut al men out from iustification , that are not sanctified by the spirit of Christ .

They tell vs ( saith hee ) that faith , an● good workes can not be seuered .

Would you knowe what faith he meanes ? only a perswasion of the truth of the Scripture ; euen such an one as the Diuil is said to haue , and that with a Popish preparatorie good worke , namely Feare . The diuills beleeue , and tremble . Iac. 2. 19. But , if they would speake any thing to the purpose , they should proue these 3. things 1. that to beleeue in Iesus Christ , i● nothing els , but to be perswaded , that these points , that the Scriptures teach of Christ , are true : Which will neuer be done , as long as that famous distinction is retemed , Credere Deum , deo in deum ; To beleeue there is a God , to beleeue that all , that God sayes is true ; to beleeue , or trust in God , or to rest vpon him : and as our Nor theme men speake , very plainely , and significantly , to beleeue on God . Secondly , that a man , thus relying vpon Christ to be saued by him ▪ for al this beleuing is not iustified : contrary to the whole course of the Gospell . Thirdly they must shew vs , that a man may be iustified , and yet not sanctified ; then which nothing is more repugnant to popery . For the popish Doctors teach vs , that to be iustified is To haue sinne abolisht , and grace infused into vs ; whereby , and for which , wee are ( as they say ) truely , and habitually iust in the sight of God . If they answere , that these ma●ters haue bin already proued , by their Diuins , we reply , that ours haue shewed the insufficiency of their proofes , and that , if either this accuser , or any other Papist will vrge those scriptures ( that haue bin aledged to this end ) any further , or bring any , that yet haue not bin brought , he shall receaue , by the grace of God , true and sufficient satisfaction , if truth will satisfie him . In the meane while , it shall suffice to put this Author in minde , that his experience failes him , beeing made not of those , that beleeue in Christ , but of them , that beleeue Christ , or at the most geue credit to those things , which are spoken of him , in the Gospell . Whereunto I ad , that neither faith , which hath force to remoue mountaines , is so noble , as that , which makes a man heire of heauen , nor , because that ▪ faith can be without Charitie ; Therefore either he , that beleeues in Christ , can bee without iustification ; or he , that is iustifyed , without sanctification .

They assure vs ( saith he ) that faith once had , can neuer be lost .

What then ? This vaine securitie ( saith he ) opens the gap to all libertine sensuality .

If he speake of the euent , all experience refuts him ; because no men liue more soberly , and Christianly , then they , that haue the greatest measure of this perswasion . And , indeed , it cannot bee otherwise . For this is no where , but where the spirit of God is , and where he is , there only is true sanctification .

If he blame the doctrine , in respect of some libertie , which he imagines it may afford , let him call to minde what consequences Rom. 6. 1. 2. 1● . flesh , and bloud gather , vpon the doctrine of free iustification , and what answere the Apostle makes to such obiections : and then he wil be ashamed to aske , why a man may not wallow in all licencious pleasures , in this life , and neuer doubt of glory , in the other , if he be certaine , that he haue true faith . For first , hee will vnderstand , that hee is bound to the obedience of the lawe , though hee bee freed from the damnation of it . Secondly he shall feele , that hauing true faith , it is not possible for him to liue in sinne because Rom. 6. 2. 3. he is dead , and buried thereto .

If he will say then ; I am sure , I haue true faith , and that can neuer be lost ; therefore I may sinne , as I lift , without danger of damnation .

He must be answered : I am sure thou hast no true faith . For that makes no such reasons . Whosoeuer is iustified , is also sanctified . Thou wantest the late● therefore thou hast not the former . Neither Wh●rem●ngers , nor Idolaters nor Adulterers , nor Wantons , nor Buggerers , nor Theeues , nor Couetous , 1. Cor. 6. 9. 10. nor Drunkards , nor Raylers , nor Extortioners shall inherit the kingdome of God . But thou art such a one , therefore there is no place for thee in heauen . What inconuenience followes now vpon this doctrine .

Thou wilt say , I am sure , if I haue faith , I cannot be damned .

I answere , I am sure , if thou let sinne raigne in thee , thou ca●st not be saued ; As it is not possible , that he , that beleeues truly , should be dammned ; so is it also vnpossible that hee , Which liues with delight , in presumptuous sinne , should beleeue truly . But our seruile , and proud Papists , cannot be brought to performe any obedience , or refraine any sinne , except they see Hell gaping to swallow them below , and heauenly glory set as deserued wages aboue For the loue , and honour of God they will do nothing , but with especial respect to themselues .

They say ( saith he ) that a man cannot keepe all the commaundements . E. No not perfectly , as he ought to doe . For then many men might stand , though God should streightly Psa. 143. 2. examine what is done amisse ; Then we need not Christs bloud , whereof before , to dippe our workes in . But you demaund , for what cause wee say so ; because God hath taught vs so ; not ( as you would haue the world imagine ) thereby To make men negligent in keeping them . Nay rather , for the quite contrary ; that knowing how farre they shal be from performing their duty , when they haue done , all they can , they may neuer cease to be doing , neither can they be discouraged , as long as they know , that God , of his gracious mercy in Iesus Christ , accepts of his childrens indeauours , in their imperfections , for Christs sake . and will rewa●● them aboundantly , in the kingdome of heauen . In the ●●ane while , this knowledge of continuall sinning must stir vs vp to contynuall carefulnesse , and pre●isenesse ; must humble vs vnder the hand of God ; must enforce vs to be earnest with God , for the pardon of our transgressions , both in committing euill , and omitting good ; must make vs feele the infinite mercy , and loue of God towardes vs , in accepting so graciously of our poore , & weake good will , and lastly must driue vs to cleaue fast to Iesus Christ , and his obedience , because we haue no other righteousnesse to present God withall ; so far are we , in this matter , from teaching men to pretend an excuse of impossibilitie , whensoeuer they transgresse the commaundements . Yea indeed wee plainely affirme , that there is no man , but failes very much of that paynes , and care , I will not say that hee ought , but that he might bestow , in fitting himselfe to true obedience ,

Why den● they ( saith he ) the sacrament of penance ? F.

Because it is a patch of Antichrists sowing , to the faire broad cloth of Gods holy word : because it brings a slauery , and snare vpon mens consciences : because it makes men leaue trusting to Iesus Christs satisfaction , and rest vpon their owne , because it breeds security in them , that receaue popish absolution ; because it was a deuise , or at least , is a practise of the popish clergie , to get intelligence of al state matters in christendome , for their own aduantage . These , & many other such reasons of our denyal , this Papist wil not see : but faines to himselfe an absurd , & impossible conceat ; That we would haue men careles how they liue , & neuer regard the auoyding of sinnes , as though they were neuer to render an account of them , wheras we constantly auouch 1 ▪ that he , that is careles to bring forth the fruits of sanctification , hath not the roote of faith to iustification , wheras we teach , that euery veniall sinne of the Papists , is by desert , euen in the regenerate , punishable with euerlasting damnation ; That God lookes for repentance at his childrens hands , & is fayne , many times , to draw them to it , by the misery of all miseries in this life , the affliction of conscience ; which is of more force with a true christian , then al the blushing , & shame of this world put togeather . As for restitution , and satisfaction to men , we do not only vrge it , vpon all occasions , but hold it so necessary , as that without it , where there are meanes to performe it , there can bee no assurance of pardon to him , that knowes hee hath done wronge , either in this life , or in your purgatory . And here we say , no shame , of what estate soeuer a man be , may keepe him from making satisfaction . Whereas , with you Papists , if a man performe some penance enioyned him by his ghostly father ; though quite of an other nature from satisfaction to his offended brother , and namely , if he fill your Corban , he shall haue absolution a culpa , et p●na , by your deuised sacrament of penance . Now he , that by dayly confession of sinnes vnto God , of whom he receaues not , by and by , absolution , as of your priest , but is faine to beg the assurance , oft tymes againe , and againe , with many teares , deep sighs , horror of conscience , and such like , will neuer be brought to any true repentance , by telling a Priest of his finnes past , since he shall finde it so easie a matter to buy out any penance , at the Popes price , as it is set downe in his bocke of Rates for indulgences : Our end therefore , in denying your forged Sacrament of penance , is to enforce men to a true and hearty sorrow for their sinne : That God may haue the glory of their humiliation , and the whole thankes for their pardon .

You meane , why do they deny , that Christ is bodily present in G. the sacrament ? because there is neither scripture , nor reason to prove it . Because to hould he is there , in that sort , it is vntrue , vnreasonable , and vnpossible to be true ; because it destroies the nature of Christs humanity ; because it makes his manhood God , because it is an occasion of the most senseles Idolatry , that euer was committed . And because of many other such reasons aleadged by our diuines heretofore , whereof this of his is none ; being indeed without all shew of likelihood . For how doth the bodily presence of Christ deterre any man from sinne , and wickednesse ? nay rather it incourages him thereto . For who would feare , or respect such a God , as hath neither eye to see , nor eare to heare ; that is crusht vp togeather into the compasse a baggage Wafer cake , which he may , and must eate , and if he be afraide of any displeasure by it , he may throw it to the Dogges , or cast it into the fire as one of your Popes did . Miserable Idolaters , that worship such a breaden created God ! But , I pray you , what aduantage get we , by remouing Christs bodily presence from the Sacrament , as long as we confesse , that both God-head , and manhood are truely receiued of all faithfull beleeuers in that blessed communion ? How vnreasonable an absurditie were it , to imagine that the bodily presence of Christ can worse consort with sinfull liues , then his spirituall ? Whereas we are sure , that while he liued , he was bodily present with sinners , and Publicans , but spiritually neuer had any communion , or conuersation with any such , vntill his grace had , in some measure , purged them . Papists indeed absurdly dreame , that the wicked receiue Christ in the Sacrament : and yet haue no benefit by Christs being in them .

For what cause ( saith he ) haue they coyned a new negatiue Religion ?

First proue they haue , and then require an answere . But that is vnpossible , vnlesse your skill will serue you to perswade men , that the Scriptures are newly coyned ; and as true is your charge , that our religion is negatiue ; otherwise then the Scriptures are , which are profitable to teach , to conuince , 2. Tim. 3. 16. to correct , to instruct in righteousnesse . But what a toye is this , to obiect that to vs , in disgrace of our Religion , which the Iewes , with as good reason , might haue obiected to our Sauiour , and the Gentiles , to his holy Apostles ? for did not he , and they , vtterly take away the Sacraments , ceremonies , rites , lawes , customes of the Iewes , and all heathenish points of the Gentiles superstition , and Idolatry ? you deale with vs , in this case , as a man would deale with the right heire to lands , which he iniuriously deteyned . You haue forged new deeds , & conueiances , & when we come to demand our right , you tel vs , our plea stands vpon negation of euidences , deeds , conueiances , whereas we bring the most ancient record of Scripture to proue our title , as our proper plea , and deale with your forgeries no further , then the necessitie of cleering our right , and the truth enforceth vs . which also driues me , at this time , to make a short answere to your slaunders . How doe we bring in Feasting for fasting ? When neither you Papists haue any true fasts among you , neither do we ( ordinarily ) vse any feasting , vpon those dayes , which being superstitiously left to vs by you , are Ciuilly retained by vs , with more moderation , then your selues vsed Saue only , that we make it no matter of conscience , to forbeare flesh at such times appointed . In steed of galloping ouer Pater nosters , Aue maries , and Creeds , with many Idolatrous , & some blasphemous adiurations , without vnderstanding , or affection : we haue restored the true vse of praying ; which is to confesse our sinnes , and with hearty sorrowes to craue pardon of God , in the name of Iesus Christ , for his sake , and in his only mediation . That is popish deuotion , the dissolution whereof , in deed we haue by all meanes , procured , and , by the gracious , & mighty prouidence of God , performed . Not to make men more vainely secure , but more religiously deuout , in geuing the honor to God only , which Papists rob him of , to worship their owne Idolatrous inuentions : this we continually teach , and vrge , not without zeale in verball sermons , ( how glad would you be , if it were so , and how well would you like such sermons ? ) But with euidence of truth , prouing by the scriptures , that the Pope is that very great Antichrist , prophecied of , by Paule and Iohn ; That popery is an Idollatrous seruice , patcht vp togeather , by little and little , as the diuill could , from time to time , deuise and procure allowance of such points , as were fitt for the aduanc●ng , & establishing of his eldest sonne Antichrist . But , if any of our sermons be verball , they are those , that are botcht vp out of your postills : foaming vp a little froath of carnall wit , withour zeale in the speaker , or conscience in the hearers : that are delighted with such vanities : neither of which seemes to haue any sufficient knowledge , or feeling of the true course , and vse of preaching .

Article . 5.

Papist .

The Protestants make God the Author of sinne , the only cause of sinne , that man sinneth not , that God is worse , then the diuell .

Protestant .

The Protestants make the diuill , and man , the onely Authors , and committers of all sinne ; and namly of these heresies , and slaunders , wherewith you haue stult this malicious pamphlet .

Papist .

Whosoeuer defendeth , that God commaundeth , perswadeth , vrgeth , impelleth to sinne , maketh God the cause of sinne .

But all Protestants say , that God commaundeth , perswadeth , Calu lib. 1. instit c 17. sect. 11. &c 18. sect 4 li. 3. c. 23. sect 7. 8. 9. Zuingl serd . prouidentia . Beza aphoris . vrgeth , impelleth to sinne . Ergo.

The Protestants make God the cause , and author of sinne .

The maior I proue : for if God perswade , or impell men to sinne , as for example , Iudas to sel Christ , Saint Peter to deny Christ , the Iewes to crucifie Christ ; questionles he intended the sacriledge of Iudas , the negation of Peter , the murder of the Iewes ; and this much more effectually , then Iudas , Peter or the Iewes . for who can resist his impulsion , or who can frustrat his intention . Voluntati euis quis resistet ? who is able to oppose himselfe against his wil ? yea what man is he , that in conscience were not bound , to conforme his will vnto the wil of God , who is the author of al good wills , & the first rule , & square of al regular wils ? Iudas , Peter , & the Iewes , if they had followed the motions of God , who could haue blamed them for following him , who could not erre , in impelling , nor sinne , in perswading them ?

But some will say , God moued them for a good end , videlicet , the redemption of man , and they intended an ill end , to wit , lucre , reuenge , or some other sinister effect . Yet this Ad Rom. 3 v. 8. snift will not salue the soare . For euill may not be done , that good may follow . Non su●t facienda mala , vt inde veniant bona . For otherwise , a man might steale to giue almes , be drunke for a meriment , commit adultrie to beget Children . Moreouer why might not Iudas , Peter , or the Iewes intend that good end , that God intended , and haue sold , & denied , and crucified Christ , conforming their intentions to his ; they being instruments , and he the first mouer .

Agane , it cannot be said , but that God indirectly and most effectually , intended their sinnes . For he , that intendeth any effect , wherewith an other effect is necessarily conioyned , consequently intendeth it as for example , He , that intendeth to burne a ship in the middest of the sea , intendeth consequently the death of all the men , which be in her . In like m●ner , if God intended , that Iudas should sell Christ , vnto which action sinne was necessarily adioyned , consequently God intended the sinne , as well as the selling . C. Cal. lib. 1. institution . C. 18. §. 1.

The Minor is to to euident : for the Protestants deride Gods permission ; they say , that all his actions are energetical , or effectual , they desperatly auerre , that Pauls conuersion , & Dauids adultry , were in like maner the works of God ; and as he elected some to Glory , before the preuision of workes , so he reiected some from glory , before the preuision of sinnes .

Here hence I inferre , that , according to the Protestants principles , God is most properly the author of sinne ; because he impelleth most effectually thereunto .

Next , that he is the only author of sinne , for that he inforceth D. men , vpon necessity to sinne , and they , as instruments , follow the motion of their first cause .

Againe , that man sinneth not . For where there is necessitie of sinning , there is no sinne . For sinne is free , or no sinne Besides how can man sinne , in conforming his will , to Gods will ?

Finally God is worse then the diuell . For that the wickednes of the diuell principally consisteth , in the mouing , perswading and inducing of men to sin , the which , by the Protestants confession , God performeth more effectually , then the Diuell ; because the motions of God are more forcible , & lesse resistable , then the illusions , or suggestions of the diuell . Many sinnes moreouer are acted , without the temptations of the diuell ; some of ignorance , some of passion ; but none without the motions of God ; so that God is worse then the Diuell : both in causing greater multitude of sinnes , then the diuell , and in the forcible maner of causing sinnes . Which the diuell cannot attaine vnto . The which doctrine , is as good a ground for Atheisme , as euer hell could deuise : for were it not much more reasonable , to saye , there were no God at all , then to beleeue there were such a God , as commaundeth , perswadeth , vrgeth , impelleth men to sinne : and yet , for the same sinnes , will torment them with the inexplicable paines of hell ?

Protestant .

Whosoeuer defends that God Commaunds , perswades , vrges , A. impells to sinne , makes God the cause of sinne . Of this proposition there is no question , betwixt the Papists , and vs . Yet I hold it necessary , to speake a word or two of it , not by way of refutation , but of explication . If a man commaund , vrge &c. to that , which is euill , and the effect ensue therevpon , he is iustly to be charged with that sinne as the Author of it .

In Gods Commaunding it is otherwise . For that , which he B. commaunds , being otherwise euill , chaunges the nature by his commaundement ; so that neither he , that commaunds , nor the partie that obeies , commit any sinne , in commaunding or obeying . For example , it is vnlawfull for a man to offer vp his Child for a burnt sacrifice , yet God commaunds Abraham to do so , and Abraham is ready to fulfill the comm●undement . Both without sinne : because the will of God is the rule of righteousnes , and he , that gaue man a lawe , hath reserued authoritie to himselfe , to dispence with that lawe , when , and as it pleaseth him . and as this Papist saith truely ; Euery man is bound in Conscience to Conforme his will , to the will of God . But yet this is not simply true . For admit that Iudas had knowne , that it was Gods will , that our Sauiour should be betraied to the Iewes by him ; might he therefore the doing of it ? At no hand for he was to haue receaued a warrant for it , that it might be lawful , wheras he had the contrary charge in the 6. Commaundement Thou shalt not kill . But , if God had geuen him commission to do it , as he did to abraham , for the offring of his sonne , then he had bin bound to yeeld obedience to this commaundement of God , and had not sinned in obeying . So much doth it concerne a man , to liue in obedience to those lawes , which God hath prescribed to all , and euery man generally , and particularly . Abraham hath a commaundement not to kill ; if it be Gods wil he should kill without sinning therby , God wil giue him warrant , and charge to kil : without which ( howsoeuer Gods wil stand ) Abraham cannot do it lawfully . And therefore it had not ben warrantable for Iudas , Pilate , or the Iewes , intending that good end , which God intended , to haue done contrary to the generall commaundement of God without a speciall commission to that purpose : which is more then a knowledge , that God would haue it done . This being vnderstood , we disclayme , as needelesse , all such excuses for God , as this Papist seemeth to make , on our behalfe .

For we say not , that God moued them , for a good end , but that he did not moue them at all , and yet there is a great deale of difference betwixt mouing , and commaunding , perswading , vrging , impelling , since he may truly be said to moue a man that offers him the outward occasions , whereby he may be prouoked to the doing of any thing ; which ( I suppose ) God doth , and you will graunt may do , without being guilty of sinne , for so doing .

But , if we would maintaine , that God moued them , it it were no hard matter to answer your strong proofe . For neither doth God binde him selfe to those lawes , which he giues to man ; and , his will being the rule of Iustice , that which he will haue done , by his willing of it , ceasses to be euill . So that , he cannot doe any euill , though he may commaund that to be done , which till he commaunded it , could not be done without sinne . But you vrge vs further , that God indirectly , and most effectually intended their sinnes . Of his effectuall intending by and by , in answere to the Assumption : Now only of his direct intending which we are so farre from denying , that we hold it absurd to make any question of it . For what is more plaine in the scripture , then that 2 Sam , 24. 1. God would haue Dauid sinne to the end that he might by his sinne , haue occasion to punish the people as he did .

Doth not Michah professe , that it was Gods purpose , 1. Reg. 22. 22. 23. that Achab should fall at Ramoth Gile●d , by hearkening to the false prophesies of them , whom a lying spirit was to seduce ? Goe , saith God thou shalt preuaile . And , to come to your owne example , did not God intend , & decree , that our sauiour Christ should be treacherously betrayed by Iudas , falsely accused by the Priests , vniustly condemned by Pilate ? If he did not certainly determine these things , so that the euen could not but ensue thereupon , he did not certainly prouide for the saluation of his children : because it might haue come to passe that Christ should not haue bene betrayed , accused , nor executed , since it depended wholy vpon their free will , without any determination on Gods , part . Wherefore it is not to be denyed , that it is Gods will that there should be sinnes committed in the world ; as all men graunt , that acknowledge Gods most iust iudgement in hardening Pharoes heart , and giuing vp the Exo. 7. 3. 4. Rom. 1. 24. 26. wicked to a senselesse minde , that they may doe those thinges , that are not conuenient . I dispute not as yet of the meanes , whereby this purpose of GOD is brought to passe , but onely vrge that there is such a purpose .

But all Protestants ( saith he ) say , that God commaundeth , perswadeth , vrgeth , and imp●lleth to sinne &c.

All Protestants say , nay rather all true Protestants deny C. it ; as absurd , and blasphemous ; which if this Papist had not knowne , I thinke he would not haue vsed so many sleights to proue it . The first whereof is , that the Protestants deride Gods permission , and therefore say , that he commaundeth , vrgeth , perswadeth , &c. Nay the Protestants deride only heathenish fancies of permission , which with Epicurus make God sit by , & looke on , in worldly matters , as it were setting all at six , and seaven , for the present being of things . Contrary to which wee teach , that nothing falls out , one way , or other , in this world , but according to the councell , and determination of Gods euerlasting prouidence . To make the matter more plaine . God , when he would punish Pharoes pride , did not carelesly leaue him to himselfe , permitting him to sinne or not to sinne ; but had before resolued , that he should increase his sinne , to the glory of God , and his owne iust damnation . How then you will say , Did God commaund or perswade , or vrge , or impell him to sinne ? Nothing lesse . For indeed there neuer was , nor neuer is neede of any such worke of God , for the punishing of sinne by sinne . Because the state of men vnregenerate is such , that the diuill , by their owne corruptition , can easily bring them to the committing of sinne , without any Enforcement , or perswasion , or commaundement of God . Yet dare not we vndertake curiously to inquire , and boldly to determine , by what meanes this wil of God is performed , but we content our selues with that , which is euident , that it is Gods will , that such sinnes should be committed . Neither do we hereunto apply any effectuall , or energeticall action of God , to the enforcing of this sinne , but onely affirme that this will of God , must needs take effect ; and yet without any worke of God vpon the soules of the wicked , to commaund , perswade , vrge , or impell them to sinne . D.

And therefore the poynt , that followeth , is not desperatly auerred by vs , but Diuillishly , that is slanderously deuised by you . For we constantly affirme , that God workes by , and in , the godly : but by the wicked only , not in them . Paules conuersion was wholly the worke of God who enclined & bowed his will , to the obeying of the truth , which of himselfe hee did willingly , and cruelly persecute : But Dauides Adultery , occasioned by the sight of Bathsheba , proceeded from his owne concupiscence , without any inclining of his heart thereto , on Gods part . Yet we deny not , but both the one & the other , was willed of God , & could not but take effect , though in diuers sorts , & by diuers meanes . God would that Paule should be conuerted , and this he did like of as a good , and holy thing , nay not so onely , but by his almighty power he wrought it , and ( without forcing of Paules will ) made him of vnwilling willing ; it was also the will of God that Dauid should commit that Adultery , but God neither approued this fact of Dauid , as good , not stirred vp the motion in his heart , nor wrought his heart to the liking of it but only gaue him vp , for a time , to the diuill & his owne corruption . Cal it permission if you wil , we mislike not you should do so , so that withall you graunt , that the end of this permission was , that the thing might come to passe , as it did .

The last point is added ignorantly , because it is the common doctrine of the Papists , aswel as of the Protestants , that there can be no reason giuen , why God chooseth one , and refuseth another , but his owne will .

To the proofe whereof , your great Doctor Thomas of Aquin , many times applies these similitudes . As there can be no reason yeelded ( saith Thomas ) why this part of materi● prima , the first matter of naturall things , becomes fire , that water , rather then that fire , this water , saue onely the will of the creator ; and as it depends wholly vpon the will of the builder , that this brick lyes aboue , that below , and not that aboue this below : so why Peter is chosen to glory , Iudas refused , no reason can be alledged , but the will of him that chooseth . Noli Iudicare ( saith Austi● ) Si non vis errare . Offer not to iudge what the reason of this difference is , vnlesse you desire to erre . This is that monstrous opinion forsooth , for which the Papists charge vs , with I cannot tell what blasphemies , what would they do , trow you , if any later Protestant had written , as the Ancient Austin hath . August . de gr● . & lib. art. cap. 20.

Deus operatur in cordibus hominum , ad inclinandas ●orum ●oluntates , quocunque voluerit , siue ad bona , pro sua misericordiae , fiue ad mala , pro meritis corum : judicio vtique suo , aliquando aperto , aliquando occulto , semper autem iusto . God worketh ( saith Austin ) in the hearts of men , to the inclining of their willes , whether soeuer it pleaseth him , eyther to good things , of his owne mercy , or to euill things , vpon their desert ; which iudgement of his , in respect of the reason thereof , is sometimes euident , sometimes secret , but alwayes iust . Let our Papists goe now , and raile vpon this auncient , and learned Protestant , for making God the Author of sinne ; for auouching that man sinneth not , that God is worse then the diuill . For if these points follow vpon our doctrine , much more doe they vpon Austins . Who , though for the substance of his matter , he speake the trueth , in that former sentence : yet in wordes affirmes that , which hath neede of a very fauourable construction . But let vs examine these consequents .

You must bring better proofe of your Antecedent , ere your consequents wil be granted . For all Protestants deny , that God impells , eyther effectually , or at all to sinne . How then can he be the onely Author of it ? or how can men be said not to sinne , but as Instruments , when by the corruption of their nature , they conceaue , and with consent , and liking of their will , bring forth sinne ; and that freely , without any force , though the euent be certainly foreappointed by God ? neither will it serue their turne to say , that they conforme their wills to Gods will , and therefore cannot sinne . When as they neither doe that , they do , with any purpose to fulfill the will of God , and if they did , yet ought they not to doe so , without warrant from him , in euery matter , contrary to his reuealed commaundements .

Blasphemous therefore , and not be thought on by any christian , much lesse vttered , are these consequents , and especially the last of them : which inferres , that God is worse , then the diuill . Because neither doth God , as I haue often said , impell , or induce any man to sinne , and though he should , for causes knowne onely to himselfe , incline ( as Austin saith ) the hearts of men to euill things : yet were it still blasphemous , to denie the iustice of his iudgement , whatsoeuer prophane flesh , and bloud imagines . O man Rom. 9. 19. 20. what art thou , that disputest with God ! shall the clay , &c.

Article 6.

Papist .

That faith once had may be lost .

Protestant .

This point , it should seeme , stickes in this mans stomack , he is so much troubled with it . Art. 5 in the extrauagant syllogisme ; Art , 4. the third point ; and here it makes a whole article .

The principall syllogisme is thus to be framed .

If Dauid l●st his faith , then faith once had may be lost .

But Dauid lost his faith .

Therefore faith once had may be lost .

The assumption of this syllogisme he offers to proue , in this maner .

Papist :

Whosoeuer leeseth his charitie , leeseth his faith . A.

But Dauid when he killed Vrias , lost his charitie .

Ergo , Dauid , when he killed Vrias , lost his faith .

The Maior is a principle vndoubted of , in the Schooles of Protestants . For they peremptorily affirme , that true faith , such as was in Dauid one of Gods elected , can no more be seuered from charitie , then heate from fire , or light from the Sunne ; and therefore if Dauid , killing Vrias , lost his charitie , no doubt but therewithall he lost his faith .

The Minor I proue : for whosoeuer remaineth in death , B. is without charitie . But Dauid , when he killed Vrias , remained in death . Ergo , Dauid , when he killed Vrias , was without charitie . If he was without that , which once he had , no doubt but then he lost it : for he was depriued thereof , for his sinne .

The Maior Proposition of this last Syllogisme , thus I prooue . For charity is the life of the soule , and it is as impossible , for a man to haue charity , and remaine in death , as it is impossible , for a man to be dead in body , and yet indewed with a reasonable soule .

The Minor cannot be denied ; to wit , that Dauid , by killing Vrias , remained in death . For it is the expresse word of God . Qui non diligit , manet in morte . He that lo●eth not his neighbour remaineth in death ▪ but certaine it is that Dauid loued not Vrias , when he killed him . Ergo likewise certaine it is , that Dauid remained in death .

The same position might easily be proued out of Ezekiel . Ezech. c. 18. ver. 24. Si autem a●erterit se iustus a iusticia sua &c.

Protestant .

Whosoeuer looseth his Charity , looseth his faith : If by Charity A. Rom. 13. 10. you vnderstand an absolute being without sanctification , which is signified by Charity , because Loue is the fullfilling of the Law , your proposition is true , but your assumption is false . If thereby you meane , not performing some act of Charity , or doing the contrary , your proposition is false . For not euery one , that failes in the performance of some duties of loue , or doth some thing contrary to the rule of Loue , by such omission of good , or committing of euill , looseth , nor in deed may truely bee said to loose his Charity : though he sinne against the lawe of Charity , in so doing ,

Your proofe , being grounded vpon a misconceauing of the Protestants principle , which I expounded in the 4. Article , is of no force . True faith , such as wee confesse Dauids was , alwaies after his calling , can no more be without loue , then the sunne without light , or the fire without heat .

But ●et he , that hath this faith , and loue , may sometimes neglect some duties of this loue , and do some works of hatred . Because his sanctification being vnperfect his obedience also must needs be so . But it neither falls out , that such a man becomes againe wholy vnregenerate : by which meanes onely , and by none other , sanctification , or loue , can bee altogeather lost .

But Dauid , when he killed Vrias , lost his Charity . Nay rather , if Charity can be lost , he then lost it , when he committed ● . Adultery ▪ vnles we shall say , that either Adultery is not against Charity or that murther only , & not Adultery procures a d●priuation of Charitie . But Dauid did not loose his Charitie by either , or both of them ; though in each he greuously sinned against the loue of his neighbour . Which for murder this man grants : for Adultery that parable , that Nathan brings , prooues vndoubtedly .

Whosoeuer remaines in death is without Charity . Namely 2. Sam. 12. 1. 2. so farre , as he is in death . If he be altogeather in death , he is wholy without Charity . But a man may , in respect of some sinnefull action , be in death : and yet , for all that , bee truely sanctified , though not throughly . In regard whereof he may & must be taken for a sanctified man , as in truth he is , howsoeuer hee doe some thing contrary to the grace of sanctification according to the lusts of his naturall corruption . He , that hath some of his members dead , as his hands , or his feete , in respect of these parts is dead ; and yet may be aliue in all the other . How much more may he then be truely said to haue liuing charity in him , which failing in some one duty , and that but of one part , for a time , brings forth notwithstanding many fruits of loue , euen of the same kind , of which that sinne against loue is . What needs any further answere to your proofe , then hath already bin geuen ? For in deed it is of no force . Vnles that be granted , which is the question , that euery act contrary to loue ; drawes loue out of the soule , so that a man thereby ceasses to haue any part of regeneration in h●m . And this answere were sufficient , though Charity were in deed the life of the soule . Which is but an Idle popish fancy , or rather a sudden conceipt of this quick disputer . Rom. 1. 17. If there be any other life of the soule then God , surely it is faith , rather then loue . by which the righteous man liueth . Is it not inough for our Papists to make Loue the forme of faith , but that they must haue it also , the life of the soule ?

Dauid , when he killed Vrias , remained in death . In respect of that sinne , yet was hee translated from death to life , by beleeuing in the Messias to come , and accordingly brought forth the f●●its of sanctification , in obeying both the other commaundements , and that also o● not kil●ing , which , by the murther o● Vrias , he brake . So tha● the proofe , which followes , is vnsufficient . Because that Dauid could not be charged simply with the want of loue , though he did not loue Vrias , in that action . Which yet proceeded not somuch from the hatred of his person , as from Dauids feare to haue his former sinne 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 ●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 Ez●chiels speach is conditionall , & Conditionalis ●ihil poni● 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 condition , if he behaue himselfe manfully in the warres of I●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 bound 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 , M●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 ; wages 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. v●rs . ● . 1. 1. Tim. 5. vers. 18. operarios , & redde illis mercedem . Call the workemen , & pay them their wages . Ecce ego venio , & merces mea mecum est , reddere vnicuique , secundum opera sua ; ●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 twenty other places of scripture ; al which infallibly proue , that the kingdom of heauen 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 c●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 vpon 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 aske be graunted , it helpes you nothing : for what if euerlasting life be giuen for workes ? how often must you be told , that working and deseruing are not all one ? We deny not , that God will reward euery least good worke of any of his children ; but we cannot graunt , that eyther the reward he will giue , is euerlasting life , or that any workes of his children deserue that reward , which he will giue . I doubt not ( which is the second thing I note in his similitude ) but you Papists your selues would thinke it extreame presumption , for any subiect to claime , as of merit , that 1000. pound a yeare , which was promised by the Prince , for good seruice in Ireland : especially if it may be truely obiected against such claime , that though some fewe actions haue bene valiantly performed in part ; yet both in the best there hath beene defect , and for one thing well done , twentie haue beene left vndone . How then shall any man proudly vaunt of merit , that knowes what Gods law requires , and what his owne deserts are ? It is the infinite goodnesse of God our father in Iesus Christ , that he doth accept of our vnperfect obedience , & crowne it with glory , for all the imperfections thereof .

But euerlasting life ( saith he ) is called wages , and giuen as wages .

As if we denied , that good workes shall receaue reward , and need euery foote put you in minde of the difference of workes , and merites . But indeed euerlasting life , or the kingdome of heauen is neuer , I thinke , called wages in Scripture . There is a reward promised by God , viz. an increase of glory , which shal be imparted to the faithfull , proportionably to the measure of grace , and vse thereof in this life , according to workes . But the kingdome of heauen is an inheritance , belonging to all the faithfull , as members of Iesus Christ their head , whose first , and properly it is . This I proued a little before , and therefore will now onely set it out more plainely by a similitude , or likenesse .

The sonne and heire of a King hath interest in the kingdome , by right of inheritance , the Kings mo●eables may eyther , in his life time by guift , or by legacie , after his decease be disposed of to whom he please . The King to incite his sonne to valure , and loue of vertue , promiseth him that he will giue him some speciall reward , for euery valiant exploit , or attempt , with true martiall discretion , and resolution . This reward is to be raised out of his moueables , giuen indeed for workes , but not to be claimed vpon desert , in regard of some iust exception , which the King his father may take against all such his enterprises , and atchiuements . Such is our estate , in matters of euerlasting life , by resting vpon Iesus Christ to be saued by him , we become members of his mysticall body , sonnes of God his father , and ours by him , heires of euerlasting life , which is his inheritance , and ours as members of him . God our Father hath made promise to vs being now sonnes , and heires , and hauing thereby interest in his kingdome , of reward of all things , that we shall valourously atchieue , or resolutely vndertake , for the glorifying of his name , according to his will . This promise conueyes not to vs any title to the kingdome ( for that is ours already , euen in possession by Christ ) but incourageth 1. Cor. 15. 58. vs to Christian obedience , to be stedfast , vnmoueable , aboundant alwayes in the worke of the Lord , for as much as we know , that our labour is not in vaine in the Lord . And yet this is not our onely , or greatest motiue to good workes : For that ariseth from our Child-like affection to so kind , and bountifull a father . Which if the Papists haue not , let them not therfore deny , that there is any such thing : like the mole , that will not beleeue , that any beast can see , because she her selfe is blind . What if they , like hirelings , will doe nothing but for wages ? The sonnes of God in this life , take as great pleasure in their present obedience , as in their future reward : which notwithstanding they most assuredly looke for , according to his promise , that can not faile , euer God our Father ; To whome with the sonne , and Holy Ghost bee all obedience , thanks , and glory , from this time for euer , and euer Amen .

A Conclusion vnto his most speciall friend , Maister F. T.

THus ( my deare friend ) I haue sett downe those reasons , which induced me to receaue the Catholick faith , and for which I continue therein . Consider , I pray you , whether they be not so substantiall , and waightie , as any wise man might accept , and allow of , or at least might cause a reasonable doubt of religion arise in his minde , concerning the Protestants faith , for if these bee true , as questionlesse they are most true , what man of iudgment , will hazard his soule vpon a religion , pestered with so many notorious absurdities and palpable errors : Eternall damnation is a matter of no small moment : when the soule is once plunged into those flames , it is past recouery : farre he ●eapes , and ill he lights , that iumpeth into hell ; and questionles , without true faith , you shall neuer come to Heauen . Vrge your Ministers therefore to satisfie your conscience , in answering these articles . Will them to reply with maturitie , and cause them answere distinctly , and as they thinke in their consciences : For I feare they will rather do it for a forme , to seeme to say some thing , then they wil be iudged ignorant by silence , in saying nothing . And with this I rest at your deuotion , expecting what your newe Euangelists can answere to these iust accusations , of their erroneous religion . From my chamber in Antwerpe this first of March , your louing freind H. T.

FINIS .

As much of this post-script , as hath any need of answere is touched in my Preface . I will therefore loose no more time in examining such discourses .

The abridgement of the former answer .

ART. 1.

Papist .

THe Protestants haue no faith , nor Religion .

Protestant .

The question is , whether the Protestants , by their doctrine , professe any faith or religion .

Papist .

If the Protestants haue any faith , charity , repentance , Iustification , church , altar , sacrifice , priest , religion , Christ , then the world was without them , for fifteene hundred yeeres .

But the world was not without them for 1500. yeares .

Therefore the protestants haue no faith , no hope , no charity , no repentance , no iustification , no church , no altar , no sacrifice , no priest , no religion , no Christ .

Protestant .

I deny the consequence of your proposition , neither doe we confesse any such eclipse of our Church , for a thousand yeares , ( & yet the same being eclipsed , ceases not thereby to be in the world ; but rather is proued to be ) neither can you proue any such thing as you brag of ; Trie when you will .

ART. 2.

Papist .

The learned Protestants are Infidels .

Whosoeuer buildeth his faith vpon his owne priuate & singular exposition , of Scripture , is an Infidell .

But all Protestants in England do build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of Scripture ;

Ergo , all the Protestants of England are 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 〈◊〉 , ●● changeable ; and faith built vpo● 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 proposition , 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 re●●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 vpon , 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 relye● 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 reason 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 bre●● 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 . 3. That , if they pray for vs wee must pray to them . 4. That if the Angells be ministering spirits , Therfore the Saints departed are so . 2. Neither is there any Communion with soules in purgatory ; because there is no purgatory . 1. Cor. 3. 15. Saint Paul speaks not of purgatory . For the fire thereof burnes the worke men , not the worke ; but the fire there mentioned burnes the works . not all works neither , but onely false doctrine . The latter place being vnderstood 1. Cor. 15. 29. 2. of purgatory , will not serue the Apostles purpose . How can the resurrection of the body be proued , by praying for the soules , in purgatory ?

Papist .

They that acknowledge not that Remission of sinnes , is an effect of Baptisme , deny the article of beleeuing the remission of sinnes .

But the Protestants acknowledge not that remission of sinnes is an effect of Baptisme . Therefore the Protestants deny the article of beleeuing the remission of sinnes .

Protestant .

The proposition is false : because not all haue Baptismum flaminis , the Baptisme of the spirit , that haue Baptismum fluminis , the baptisme of water ; we acknowledge , that whosoeuer is baptised by the spirit , hath receiued forgiuenesse of sinnes , which no man hath , which shal be damned , as many shal be , that haue bene baptised . Baptisme is the Lauer of regeneration , to as many , as haue the spirit added therevnto , because then they haue remission of sinnes sealed vp vnto them .

The Sacrament of penance is a Popish fancie : our Sauiour I●● . 20. 23. ordained no such Sacrament ; but onely affirmed , that the worke of the ministery shal be effectuall , to the remitting , and retaining of sinne .

We deny not that our sinnes are perfectly forgiuen , but that , by forgiuenesse of sinnes , the power of sinne is wholy destroyed in vs , at once : for the destruction of sinne comes by sanctification , not by iustification ; and it is alwaies in this life imperfect .

Papist .

They that affirme that Christ is God of himselfe , and not God of God : deny that he is the sonne of God .

But the protestants affirme that Christ is God of himselfe , and not God of God . Therefore the Protestants deny , that Christ is the sonne of God .

Protestant .

I deny your proposition . For Christ is not the sonne of God in respect of the Godhead : if he be , then must the father and the holy Ghost also be the sonne , because they are one and the same God with the sonne . He that precisely vrgeth the naturall generation of man , as a paterne of the spirituall begeting of the sonne of God , will make the sonne a diuers God , from the father . The substance of God is essentiall to euery person in Trinitie , onely thus farre , that euery person is God : not that the God-head is the essence of euery person .

The Protestants beleeue and confesse , with the councill of Nice , that Christ is God of God , very God of very God : not that he hath his God-head from the father : for then they should giue aduantage to Arius , who was condemned by that councill : for he would readily answer , that Christ must needs be inferiour to God his father , because the father hath his God-head of himselfe , and the sonne not of himselfe , but of his father . Besides , hereby we should make two distincte Gods ; one that hath the God-head of himselfe , and another , that hath it not of himselfe , but of him , that hath it of himselfe .

Papist .

They , that deny that by descending into hell is meant , that Christ went in soule into the place of the damned , deny the articles of descension into hell .

But the Protestants deny , that by descending into hell is meant , that Christ went in soule into the place of the damned .

Therefore the protestants deny the article of descension into hell .

Protestant .

I deny your proposition . Because 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 properly signifies nothing but the estate of the dead , and is not to be expounded hell , but onely where the circumstances of the place , in which it is vsed , doe necessarily require that exposition : but here there is no such necessitie . The protestants doe not interpret ( the descent ) of suffering the wrath of God in soule ; though they acknowledge that doctrine to be sound ; and thus answere this cauillers illations .

Papist .

Christ bare the wrath of God . Therefore he despaired of his saluation .

Protestant .

I deny the consequence . For Christ knew both that God loued his person , because he was his sonne , and that , by the power of his Godhead he was to free himselfe from eternall damnation .

Papist .

Christ suffered the wrath of God , therefore God hated him , & he hated God .

Protestant .

Againe I deny your consequence . Our Sauiours person was dearely beloued of God his father , though being considered as a sinner , such as by imputation he was , for a time , he was , in that respect , to God for vs , as euery on of vs is , in himselfe to God . It is not certaine , that in the punishment of the damned , there shall be hatred of God , as a part thereof , and if it were , yet Christ is exempted from so much of the punishment , as cannot be without sinne .

Papist .

Christ suffered the wrath of God , therefore he was tormented with anguish of mind for his offences .

Protestant .

The consequence should be , therefore he was tormented with anguish of minde for those offences , for which he felt the wrath of God . But these were not his sinnes ; in whom there was not the least Tainte of sinne but ours .

Article 5.

Papist .

The Protestants haue no means to determine controuersies , and abolish heresies .

Protestant .

The proposition is false , for the scripture hath light enough in it selfe , to discouer and abolish heresies , which they that wil , may by conference of diuerse places discerne off . Looke my answere to the second , and third Articles . There follows an extrauagant syllogisme , which belongs to the 6. Article of the second part : this it is ,

Papist .

Whosoeuer exhorteth vs to doubt of that , which we are bound to beleeue by faith , exhorteth vs to infidelity .

But S. Paule exhorteth vs to doubt of our saluation , which we are bound to beleeue , by faith , according to the Protestants Religion .

Ergo S. Paule exhorteth vs to infidelity .

Protestant ,

I deny your assumption . S. Paule doth not exhort vs to doubt of our saluation ; but commaunds vs to vse the meanes , whereby we may come to assurance , viz. still to stand in feare , and watch ouer our selues , least by carelesnesse we fall to sinning : to which we are alwayes subiect , in this life .

The Protestants doe not teach , that whosoeuer is not assured of his saluation , without any doubting , is in the state of damnation : But that euery man must labour to come to the perfection , as of all other graces , so of assurance too : the meanes of attaining whereto are feare and trembling : by which wee may be kept from sinning , and so , strengthned in assurance of saluation .

Papist .

Articles concerning good life and piety .

Article . I.

The Protestants are bound in conscience neuer to aske God forgiuenes of their sinnes .

Whosoeuer is assured by faith , that his sinnes are forgiuen him , sinneth most greeuously in asking GOD pardon for them .

But all true Protestants are assured by faith , that their sinnes are forgiuen them .

Ergo all true Protestants sinne grieuously in asking pardon of God for them .

Protestant .

The principall syllogisme for the proofe of the Article , omitted , I know not vpon what reason , by this author is thus to be concluded .

Whosoeuer synne greeuously in asking God forgiuenesse of their synnes , are bound in conscience neuer to aske him forgiuenesse .

But the Protestants synne greeuously , in asking God forgiuenes of their sinnes .

Therefore the Protestants , are bound in conscience , neuer to aske God forgiuenesse of their sinnes .

The Assumption of this syllogisme he proues thus .

Papist .

Whosoeuer is assured by faith , that his sinnes are forgiuen , sinnes greeuously in asking God pardon for them .

But all true Protestants are assured by faith , that their sinnes are forgiuen them .

Therefore all true Protestants sinne greeuously in asking God forgiuenesse of their sinnes .

Protestant .

That the proposition is false , it appeares by the practise of Psal. 32. 1. & 51. 1. 2. Dauid , who prayed to God for the pardon of that sinne , which he beleeued by faith was forgiuen , for so was he assured 2. Sam. 12. 13. before , from the Lord by the Prophet Nathan .

Papist .

If none but an Infidell , or a mad man would demaund of God , the creation of the world , or Christs incarnation , or the institution of Sacraments , which already is effected , then none but such a one , would aske of God , pardon for his sinns , being assured by faith , that they are forgiuen him .

But none but an Infidell , or a mad man would demaund of God , the creation of the world , or Christs incarnation , or the institution of the sacraments .

Therefore none but a mad man , or an Infidell , would aske of God pardon for his synnes ; being assured by faith , they are alreadie forgiuen them .

Protestant .

I deny your consequence , because it presumes of an equality where there is none . For we do not beleeue the later with so great assurance , as the former , besides , we haue a commaundement for the latter , but not for the former .

Papist .

Whosoeuer demaunds that , which he hopes not to obtaine , synns greuously by demaunding it .

But whosoeuer is assured by faith , that his sinnes are forgiuen him , in asking pardon , demaunds that , which he hath no hope to obtaine .

Therefore whosoeuer is assured by faith , that his synnes are forgiuen him , synnes greeuously in asking pardon for them .

Protestant .

I deny your proposition , for he only sinnes greeuously , in praying for that , he possesseth , who beleeues certainly that he doth possesse that , he prayeth for : not he , which hauing some true perswasion , hath also some doubt withall .

Neither is the assumption true . Because with the assurance there is some doubt , euen in those , that beleeue truly the forgiuenesse of their sinnes . The doubt is sinne , but the asking pardon , because of this doubt , is noe sinne .

The Protestants do not teach , that all Christians haue this absolute assurance , but that they ought to labour for it . Vpon this reason he gathers this conclusion .

Papist .

He , that cannot without note of Infidelity aske forgiuenesse of synnes , cannot , with a safe conscience , say the Lords prayer .

But no protestant can without note of infidelity , aske forgiuenesse of synnes .

Therefore no Protestant can , with a safe conscience , say the Lords prayer .

Protestant .

If by note of Infidelity , you meane sinning by weakenesse of faith ; your proposition is false . For a man that doubts of pardon , may craue it , without sinne , though he cannot doubt without synne .

If by it , you vnderstand being an Infidell , because of asking that , which he is sure he hath ; your assumption is false : for a true Protestant is not an Infidell , by such doubting , though he should not doubt .

Article . 2.

Papist .

The protestants are bound in conscience ●● auoide all good workes .

Euery man is bound , vpon paine of eternall damnation ; to auoide all deadly sinnes .

But fasting , praier , allmesdeeds , and all good works , according to the Protestants Religion , are deadly sinnes .

Ergo , according to the protestants religion , all men are bound , vpon paine of eternall damnation , to auoyd fasting , prayer , and all good workes .

Protestant .

By an orderly course of proceeding in disputation , the first syllogisme should be to this effect .

Euery man is bound , vpon paine of eternall damnation , to auoyd all good workes .

But the Protestants are bound in conscience , to auoide that , which euery man is bound , vpon paine of eternall damnation , to auoyde .

Therefore the Protestants are bound in conscience to auoide all good workes .

Instead of that , he hath set vs downe the proofe of the proposition . The assumption whereof I vtterly deny ; as false in it selfe , and slaunderous to our doctrine . For neither Fasting , praying , almesdeeds , &c. are deadly sinnes , neither doe we teach any such thing ; but onely ( as this man himselfe confesses , in expounding that place of Esa. 64. 6. ) that the best workes we can doe , are infected with deadly sinne . And it is one thing ( I trow ) to say that a man in his best health is neuer without an Ague , and another thing to say , that a mans best health is an Ague .

Further , we must obserue these two points , in this matter ; that by deadly sinne we meane not as the Papists doe , the grosse breaches of Gods commaundements . For the good workes of a regenerate man , are ( ordinarily ) voide of all such transgressions ; but slippes of infirmity , by which w● defile these good workes . To which if any man replie , that we are bound to refraine all such sinnes ; I willingly subscribe vnto him . But withall I deny ; that we are bound to auoide all good workes , because we can doe none without this taint of corruption . For the workes are commanded , and accepted of God , and shal be rewarded , for all this infirmity of ours ; which cleaues vnto them , and would make both them , and vs for them , hatefull vnto God , but that it hath pleased him to pardon it in Iesus Christ .

Art. 3.

Papist .

The Protestants either haue no faith at all , or els lye most damnably , in denying that a man assisted by grace , can keepe the commandements .

Whosoeuer knoweth God , keepeth his Commaundements .

But all true protestants know God .

Ergo , all true protestants keepe his commandements .

Protestant .

It is more troublesome to apply this Syllogisme to the question , then hard to answere it . But I haue performed that taske , in my larger discourse , and now onely speake to his syllogisme , as it lyes .

Where , first I graunt him the conclusion , according to S. Iohns minde . For indeed euery true protestant keepes Gods commaundements ; though not perfectly . Which imperfection , our papists must needes graunt , as long as they runne to dip their best workes in Christs bloud : which needed not , if they were perfect of themselues .

Secondly , I say , the text of Saint Iohn doth proue , that he is not to be vnderstood of perfect obedience ; because he speakes , without exception , of all Christians , that know God to euerlasting life . Many whereof , yea euen the best , as Dauid , oftentimes sinne greeuously .

Art 4.

Papist .

The most points , wherein the protestants dissent from Catholickes , tend to loosnesse of life , and carnall liberty .

If the 〈◊〉 points following tend to loosnesse of life , & carnall 〈◊〉 then the most points , wherein the Protestants dissent from Catholicks , do so .

But the seauen points following tend to loosenesse of life , and carnall liberty .

Therfore the most points , wherein the Protestants dissent from Catholicks , tend to loosnesse of life , and carnall liberty .

Protestant .

First I answere to the whole syllogisme ; that if the Protestants teach nothing in these points of dissent , which is not warranted by the Scriptures , then it skils not what , in the corrupt iudgement of man , may be argued to ensue Rom. 6. 1. & 9. 19. therevpon .

Secondly , I say the consequence of the proposition is false . For these seauen points are not the seauenth part of those , wherein we dissent from the papists .

Thirdly , I deny that any of these points tends to loosenesse of life .

Papist .

If man haue not free-will to do good , he may be negligent in preparing his soule to serue God .

But man hath not free-will , as the protestants teach .

Therefore he may be negligent in preparing his soule to serue God .

Protestant .

I deny the consequence of the proposition . For God , that commaunds a man to be carefull in preparing his soule to serue him , must be obeyed simply ▪ though we see not the particular reason of the commaundement .

But indeed wee deny not , but men freely both prepare their soules , and receaue Gods grace : but we say , that it is God , which makes difference betwixt the beleeuers , and vnbeleeuers : yet not without their owne labour and willingnesse , to which they are stirred vp , in respect of the euent , necessarily .

Papist .

The doctrine of Iustification by faith , onely tends to loosenesse of life .

You would neuer say so if you knew , that we beleeue and teach , that no man is iustified , but he , that is also sanctified , and no man is sanctified , but he , that walkes in obedience to God . We hold a necessity of workes , but not to iustification ; and we looke for a reward of workes , but not vpon desert . Wherein we dissent from the Papists , without preaching carnall liberty .

Wherefore though faith once had , can neuer be lost : yet where there is no holinesse of life , there neuer was faith ; and where there is not a conscience of refraining all sinne , there is no holines●e a● all . Therefore he , that is giuen to carnall liberty , hath no faith to loose

Neither doth our want of liberty to keepe the commaundements , euer a whit discourage , or withdraw vs from indeuouring to doe well ; since that God both accepts of our willingnesse , and we acknowledge our selues bound to perfect obedience ; which we must striue to , so much the more , by how much the lesse we can attaine to it .

The sacrament of penance we refuse ; because it is a patch of Antichrist : because it brings a s●auery , and s●are vpon mens consciences : because it makes men cease to trust in Christs satisfactions , and trust to their owne : because it breedes securitie in them , that receaue Popish absolution .

Wee deny the carnall presence in the Sacrament , because there is neither Scripture , nor reason to prooue it : because it is an occasion of most senslesse Idolatrie : and surely it is so farre from restraining men from sinne : that rather it encourages them to despise such a God , as is crusht vp into a bagage Cake , and whom , if they should be afraid of him , they might cast into the fire , and burne , as one of your Popes did .

Lastly , wee neither haue coyned any Religion , nor 7. haue a negatiue religion , but we hold the truth of God reuealed in the scriptures : and reiect your popish errors contrary thereto .

The Iewes by the same reason condemned our Sauiour Christ , and the Gentils accused his Apostles for bringing in a new Religion , whereby they denyed and abollished the heresies of the one , and the Idolatry of the other .

Article 5.

Papist .

The Protestants make God the author of synne , the onely cause of synne , that man synneth not , that God is worse , then the Diuil . Whosoeuer defendeth that God commaundeth , perswadeth , vrgeth , & impelleth to sinne , maketh God the author of synne .

But all protestants say , that God commaundeth , perswadeth , vrgeth , and impelleth to synne .

Ergo the Protestants make God the author of synne .

Protestant .

The proposition , in the 3. latter points , is altogeather true ▪ in the former thus it is to be conceiued of ; that if God commaund that , which by some law of his owne is sinne , as that Abraham should kill his sonne , he is not the Authour of sinne , but onely so farre , as he commaunds that , which of it selfe , without that speciall dispensation of his , were sinne ; but by that it ceaseth to be sinne .

The assumption is false , no Protestant defends any such thinge ; howsoeuer we all acknowlege , that it was Gods will , that Iudas should betray Christ . &c.

But we deny , that either Iudas had any commaundement , or warrant from God , or that God put that wicked thought into his heart , or that he inclined him to the liking of it . Neither do wee deride any permissiue will in God , but that which makes him an Idle beholder of things , without any determination of their being , or not being , but onely such as d●pend●s wholly , or principally vpon the creature . We beleeue , and professe , that God workes otherwise by the wicked , then by the godly : in these by putting in good thoughtes and bringing them to effect , by their wil , & labour .

In the wicked he doth not worke , but onely by them bringing his owne purpose to passe , without commaunding , perswading , vrging , or impelling to sinne , this latter you ▪ may ( if you will ) call permission , without feare of being derided by any Protestant ; yea with the good liking of all Protestants ; so you acknowledge a necessity of euent .

Article 6.

Papist . That faith once had may be lost : Whosoeuer looseth his charity looseth his faith . But Dauid , when he killed Vrias , lost his charity .

Ergo Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his faith .

Protestant .

As before , so here also , he leaues out the principall syllogisme ; which I thus supply ,

If Dauid l●st his faith , then faith once had may be lost .

But Dauid lost his faith .

Therefore faith once had may be lost .

The assumption is false : which he labours to confirme notwithstanding , by the reason afore rehearsed . To the which I answere , first by distinguishing on the proposition ; whosoeuer leeseth his charity altogeather , that there remains no grace of sanctification , hath no faith ; but it is not true , that whosoeuer commits some greeuous sinne against the law of Charity , thereby leeseth his faith .

I deny your assumption , Dauid lost not his charity ; because he was still sanctified ; though he fell grie●ously .

Papist . Whosoeuer remaineth in death is without charity : But Dauid when he killed Vrias remained in death :

Therefore Dauid when he killed Vrias was without charity .

Protestant .

I distinguish againe vpon your proposition ; hee that remaines in death , is so farre without charity , as he remaines in death .

But a man may ▪ in respect of some sinfull actions , be in death , and , for all that , be truely sanctified , though not throughly : as the hand may be dead to any motion towards the head , and yet aliue to all motions downward . The proofe is both false and absurd . For if there be any life in the Heb. 10. 38. soule , abiding in it as a quality , that must be faith . Some Papists call chairty , the life of faith , but none that euer I read , or heard of , the life of the soule .

The assumption not only may be , but must be denyed , because it is vntrue 1. Ioh. 3. 14. is to be expounded by the 17. where it is said , He that sh●●s vp his bowels of compassion from his brethren , that hath need , hath not the lo●e of God in him . And yet no Papist wil say that a man is void of the loue o● God , vpon the refusal at somtimes , to giue almes to him that stands in need He that is quite without loue , that is , he , that hath not in him the loue of his neighbour , is without sanctification , and Iustification ; but this a man may haue , and Dauid had , in some good measure , though he faile , as he did , in that one particular of loue towards Vria● . When you bring any proofe out of that place of Ezechiell , 18. 24. you shall haue an answer to it .

In the meane while I say no more but this , that conditionalis nihil p●●it in esse : a thing is not proued to be , because if it be , such or such an euent shall follow therupon .

Article . 7.

Papist .

The Protestants shall neuer haue life euerlasting ; Because they will haue no merits , for which euerlasting life is giuen .

Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages , is giuen for workes . But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages . Therefore the kingdom● of heauen is giuen for workes .

Protestant .

Any man may easily perceiue , that the question is not concluded in this syllogisme . But I will not , in this short answer , trouble my selfe with any more ; then answering to the point .

Papist . Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages , is giuen for workes . But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages . Ergo the kingdome of heauen is giuen for workes .

Protestant .

If we graunt him the whole syllogisme , he gets nothing by it ▪ vnlesse he can proue , that workes and merits are all one ; which is vtterly false .

I deny your assumption : which none of these places you bring doth proue ; the first is a parable , signifying that the Gentiles shall haue place in heauen aswell as the Iewes , though they came later to the knowledge of the truth . The other two , mention reward , but not wages : and these two , are your common ●rrors in most of your arguments , concerning the question o● workes , that you without all authority of Scripture , or reason , confound workes , with merits ; and reward , with wages . Which you professing a schollerlike disputation , should not haue done , without some speciall proofe of their being all one ; especially since you can hardly be ignorant , that we alwaies distinguish the one from the other , not without reason , as we surely perswade our selues .

FINIS .