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 be­causeTo the propositiō. the Protestants may haue some faith, hope, charitie, &c. [Page 11] 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. TherforeTo 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 canTo the propositiō. 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 per­petuallTo 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 inD the Prophets, are either of the outward estate thereof, as thatTo 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 shalbe 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 [Page 14] 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 Sa­uiourF. wilbe 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.

Protestant.

First vpon your proposition, thus I concludeA.

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, [Page 16] 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 takenC. 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, thoughTo 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 Assūption. vpon their owne priuate exposition of Scripture.

Then belike not vpon Luther, Caluin, Beza, &c. as some­timeD. To the as­sumption. you charge vs: vpon whom indeed we build not, but only vpō the true exposition of the Scriptures, being exami­ned according to those places, & points, which naturall rea­son, enlightned by the spirit of God, cānot 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 of1. 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 IE. 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 religiō, 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.

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: [Page 20] 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 noTo 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 witnesTo the Propositiō. 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 [Page 21] 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 dissolutiō of the world should follow, sinceD. 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 questiō; for you haue not proued that the pope cannot erre: Thē, how shal I know that the Pope teacheth this doctrine? [Page 22] 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▪ Ʋata­blus, 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 amendedAll 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 shalbe subiect to like vncertainty? Indeed, who can make reason of the sentence?

Protestant.

How you haue proued, that the ground of our beliefe isA. 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 reasō 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, thatTo 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; ITo 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. [Page 32] 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 satisfactiō 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 thē, to teach what they ought to beleeue, expresly, distinctly, &c. [Page 32] 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 theD. 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 [Page 33] 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, andLooke 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 [Page 34] 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 shalbe hidden in the [...] all the time of Antichrists tyranny? Then this wilbe [...] [...]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 cōfirmed, & strengthned for his better continuance in Christs body, which grace al that worthily [Page 36] 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 strēgth is there in this conclusiō. The Angells pray for vs; Therfore we are bound to glorifie thē, 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 [Page 39] 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 cōmunion betwixt thē & those in purgatory? yet are they al mēbers of one bo­dy: & I pray you what cōmunion 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, that1. 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 [Page 38] 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 shalbe 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 euer1. Cor. 15. 29. writ vpon it, both for the Grammar, and the sense of it. It shalbe 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 [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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 shalbe 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 [Page 43] 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 SauiourPsal. 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 natureNom. 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, whomM. 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 toIoa. [...]. 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.

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, [Page] 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.

The first of these 5. points. was charged vpon vs, as an er­rourN. 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 [Page 49] 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.

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 mētion 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 [Page 50] 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.

Protestant.

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

Protestant.

A very good comparison, whether it be of likenesse, orA. 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 [Page 59] a whit, as neuer the better. Is it not more for the glory of God, and good of the Church, that there should be conti­nuall disagreement about matters of Religion, then that all should beleeue and maintaine false doctrine? Were not Christ as good haue a troubled church, as none at all? Ho­nourable warre is better then dishonourable peace, in the iudgement of any wise States-man: And can it be more glorious to God, to haue quietnesse in the church with here­sie, yea with Antichristianisme, then truth with contention? So then this proposition, that we haue no such meanes, as the Papists haue, to end controuersies, neither disproues, nor disgraces our church. But it is worth the doing, to take a view of this rhetoricall declamation, rather then Logicall disputation, which was promist; by stripping it out of this braucry, and setting it naked, before the light of true rea­son: Thus then he disputes;

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

Controuersies may be ended, and heresies abolisht, ey­therTo the principall propositiō. by conuincing those that maintaine them, of error, or by commanding them to forbeare all medling therein: The former, being the more proper, and orderly course, may be performed by the Ministers of the word, with­out any infallible interpreter of the Scripture. For it is ve­ry possible, to vnderstand the true meaning thereof, in most places, and so to prooue it, by the Analogie of faith, groun­ded vpon euident Textes, and by the examining of the Texts that are in question, that a reasonable man shall not be able to with-hould his assent, without manifest blindnesse, if not wilfulnesse. If you aske me, what shall become of other places, that are very hard: I answere. that we need not these, for the confirming of any point of doctrine, as if without them, it could not sufficiently be done. [Page 60] Further I say, that he, which mainteines any point that he is not able to auow, by any, but some such places (as this Au­thor doth Purgatorie) is no way to be allowed or borne with. The other meanes of enioyning silence and quiet­nesse, is partly in the censures of the Church, but principal­ly in the authoritie of the Magistrate: whom God hath made Soueraigne gouernour, for the outward peace, and prospe­ritie of his church. This in order must follow the former; yet so, as that if the Magistrate commaund, before conuin­cing, he must be obeyed, by forbearance of any further pro­ceedings, vnlesse the charge be directly contrary to the commandement of God: in which case, we must answer with the Apostles, Whether it be right, in the sight of God, Act. 4. 18. & 5. 40. to obey you, rather then God, iudge you.

But the Protestants (saith he) admit the sole Scripture, as Principall assumptiō. vmpere, &c.

What course is to be held, for the interpretation of Scrip­ture;To the principall assumptiō. I haue partly shewed already, in the 2. and 3. and in this 5. article, and it shall appeare more fully, in the particular examining of this discourse, according as it is set downe.

They (saith he) that certainely beleeue the Church cannot Proofe of the princi­pall Pro­position. erre, haue meanes to settle themselues in vnity of beleefe, to end controuersies, and abolish heresies: and contrariwise, they, that do not beleeue it, haue none.

When it is proued, that the Church cannot erre, then theTo the proofe of the princi­pall pro­position. proposition shalbe 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 [Page 61] that contend, of the truth of this assertion, ere you cā worke by it, vpon their consciences. So that although this meanes (supposing the truth of it) be in it selfe effectuall: yet it cānot breed this effect in all, that at any time contend about reli­gion, but in those only, that beleeue it. For example; put case that some of the Church, being perswaded, that the Church hath not authoritie to rob the people of the Cup, should call this priuiledge of erring into question. How will your Church take vp this controuersie? will shee vrge the conclusion, I cannot erre? or will shee procure her Bishops, Abbots, Cardinals, &c. to auouch asmuch of her. What is this, but Aske my fellowe, if I bee a theefe. Yes, it is some­what worse: for it is all one, as if he that is arraigned for fel­lony, should say, I tell you, I am not a theefe: were he not worthy to be acquited, trow you? And such would your proofe be, in this question. But if the Church in this case, could bring out a Charter, and plead that for this priui­ledge: her aduersaries must needs be conuerted, or at least might be confounded: and so perhaps the Controuersie ended. Yet not by the Churches, but by the scriptures au­thoritie: which, as I must hereafter shew, is the meanes, that God hath appointed, for that purpose; but it may perhaps be1. Proofe that the Church can not erre. Propositi­on. To that propositi­on. proued, that the Church cānot erre. Let vs heare the reasons.

If they, that will not heare the Church, must be accounted as Ethnicks, and Publicans, the Church cannot erre: for if the Church could erre, then were there no reason, why hee, that would not heare her, should be so accounted of.

When the Pope sendes his Legats with pardons a beg­ging about the Countrie, commaunding them to preach to the people, of the vertue, & efficacie of those indulgences: Are they not as Ethnickes, or Publicans, or worse, that shall refuse to heare their sermons? and may I herevpon reaso­nably conclude, that therefore they, that preach them, cannot erre? Why shall I not say the like, of any Popish Priest, moncke, or fryer, being authorised by the Church of Rome to preach? who can refuse to heare them, and not [Page 62] be guiltie of contempt, against your Church Apostolicke? yet (I hope) these may erre. Wherevpon I conclude, that therefore your proposion is false, if they, that will not heare the Church must be accounted as Ethnicks, the Church can­not erre.

But he, that will not heare the Church is to be counted as an Assumptiō Ethnick.

What? simplie, if he do not heare the church? nay, ratherTo the as­sumption. if, in that case set downe by our sauiour, he do not heare her: Now the case is this, If one brother, or christian sinne against another, he, that is offended, must rebuke the other in priuate betwixt them alone. 2. If this preuaile not with him, he must the second time rebuke him and that before one, or two wit­nesses, 3. If this will not serue, he must complaine of him to the Gouernours of the Church, 4. If their censure will do no good with him, he is to be accounted no mēber of the church after excommunication. Let vs now draw an argument from this place, and see what it makes for the churches infinite au­thority. He, that, being thus proceeded withall, obeyes not the iust censure of the Gouernours of the church, to the con­fessing of his sinne, and satisfying of his brother, & the con­gregation, is to be accounted an Ethnicke. Therefore what­soeuer the church sayes must be beleeued, or therefore the Church cannot erre. Who sees not the weaknesse of this rea­son? He, that obeys not the church in a iust censure, is no longer any member of the Church; Therefore he that sim­ply in al things obeies her not, acknowledging that she can­not erre, is an Infidell.

Here it would be further considered, that by the 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 [Page 63] 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 shalbe no church in the world: because the Pope a­lone, if he be neuer so great a head, is but a head: whereas to the being of a church, a body also is necessary and not a head only.

The 2. part of the proofe of the princi­pall propo­sition. To the se­cond part of the profe of the prin­cipal pro­position. The 2. proofe that the church cānot erre. To the se­cōd proofe that the church can not erre. They, that doe not beleeue the Church cannot erre, haue no meanes to settle themselues in vnity of beleefe.

The truth of this Proposition wilbe 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: [Page 64] 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 re­maine1. Cor. 13. 9. in this vale of ignorance, where we do but see in part.

If this reason proue any thing, it makes as well for euery Pastor, and Doctor, in his seuerall charge, as for the Pope, in his pretended generall. For it cannot be doubted, but that the whole succession of the ministery is here signified, vnder the title of Pastors, & Doctors in seuerall Congre­gations; such as this, or these of the Ephesians were.

Neither can w [...] from Gods purpose, conclude the necessi­tie of the euent, since we finde the contrary in dayly experi­ence; and know by scripture, that not these, or those means, but only in generall means of saluation are prouided for them, whom God hath chosen to eternall life, though ordi­narily the word be the means.

The Princes end in making, and appointing iudges is, that true iustice may be administred to the people. Nay more then that, it is also Gods purpose, in this his owne or­dinance: yet it doth not follow hereupon, that the Iudges, or Magistrats cannot, or will not erre.

But if Christ haue promised the Church the assistance of the The 3. proofe that the church cānot erre. To the 3. proofe that the church cānot erre. holy Ghost, in such sort, that they that will not heare her, will not heare him, then the Church cannot erre.

If this promise of Christ be generall, that whosoeuer will not heare the church, in all points will not heare him, then the consequence is good.

But that we deny: because it is restrained to the scripture, according to which if the church speake not, we may not at any hand, giue eare vnto her. You will say, she neuer speakes but agreeably to the Scriptures. That is the question; which we must see how you proue in your assumption.Io [...]. 14. 17. Luc. 10. 16.

The Father shall giue you (saith Christ to his Apostles) another [Page 65] 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 [Page 66] 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 oft­times 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 shalbe 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. [Page 68] 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 PapistsB. 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 1 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 [Page 69] 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, [Page 70] 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 potētate, or prelate, or any presbytery at home, which lawfully belōgs vnto him, or by denying his authority in things indifferent.

Concerning the authoritie of Bishops, it is not an essen­tiall 2 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 3 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 essē ­tiall 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 4 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, Lēt, & 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 5 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, 7 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 8 [...]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: [Page 73] 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, [Page 74] 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 goodMat. 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 [Page 75] 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. [Page 76] 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 shalbe 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 shalbe 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 [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] 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 whichLuke. 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 shalbe 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 toPro. 28. 14 sinne is no way against faith; because faith hath receaued no promise of full freedome from sinne. Feare of punish­mentRom. 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 shalbe saued.

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 [Page 81] answeres, and reasons, which we haue made, and now doe make, in our iust, and necessary defence.

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.

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 cōscience 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 mayA. 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 wilbe 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 [Page 84] 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 exampleB. 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, and2. 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 adul­tery2. Sam. 12. 18. Psa. 32. 3. 4 & 51. 1. 2. should surely dye. For the life of the childe he prayes, fastes, and weepes, but those 2. Psalmes, I spake of, are of ano­ther nature; not once mentioning, nor once glancing at any temporall, or outward affliction. And if there be in deede a­ny such dictinction of guilt, and punishment, Dauid intreats directly and principally for the former: According to the multitude of thy mercies wash me throughly &c. Euery verse expressing the anguish of a distressed soule, for the consci­ence of sinne cōmitted against God, And whereas he makes also request to God, for deliuerance from the punishment, make me to heare ioy &c. It is manifest that this can no wayv. [...]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 [Page 87] 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 punishmēt not releast not a word, or letter. Let vs go forward, whencePsa 32. 1. v. 2. v 3. proceeded his roaring? euen frō the guilt of his sinne not felt to be pardoned, I acknowledged my sin, &c. I cōfest my wickednes vnto thee, & thou forgauest the punishment of my sinne. What pu­nishment? No doubt that, which Dauid entreated for. But the tēporall punishmēts were not forgiuē (I cal thē 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 pardō 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 mā 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 giuē.

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, [Page 89] 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, thereD. 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 assumptiō. are for giuen them.

They should indeed be so assured, and are bound to la­bourE. 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 theF. 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.

Protestant.

If this Papist would haue avoyded all slaundering, the world should not haue bin troubled with such absurd collections.

Protestant.

By an orderly course of disputation, the first syllogisme should haue bin to this effect.

If al good works, according to the Protestants religiō, be deadly sins, the Protestāts 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 conclusiō agrees not with the questiō. Your conclusiō is general of al men; wher­as your questiō 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; [Page 96] 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 pre­iudiciallRom. 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 [Page 97] 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, wilbe condemned as sinnefull, not rewarded as righte­ous; because we haue desiled 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 vnderstād 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 dead y 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. [Page 98] 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 bāquet. No, this kind of fast is so far from beeing a good worke, that it is meerely a carnall, and superst tious 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. ButHeb. 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: [Page 100] 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 corruptiō fastēs 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 experiēce 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 oftē, that it would please God to in­crease his grace in me to the subduing of this corruptiō: The like I might truly say of other good workes, but this is war­rāt ynough for me to cōclud, that the protestants are not bound in conscience to auoide al good works, though to the doing ther­of they bring an infectiō 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 [Page 101] 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 thē, 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 cōmanded 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 [Page 102] 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.

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.

Protestant.

It is more troublesome to apply this syllogisme to theA. 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 [Page 105] be iustly charged with lying damnably? I will not say, noA. 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 cōmandements.

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 [...] [Page 106] 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 thē, & 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.

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 to1. 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.

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.

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 [Page 111] 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 shalbe 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 pasle 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, & thē 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. [Page 112] 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, whoPhil. 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 [Page 113] 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 mē vp to repentance, mortification, and the practise of all vertues, to teach them, that they must deserue the first iustification of congruitie, [Page 114] 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 frō the glory of God, without the true, [Page 115] 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 childrē, 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 awhit the more to God. When the Prodigall sonneLuc. 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 weIoa. 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. [Page 116] 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 iustificatiō, 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 [Page 117] 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 con­sequencesRom. 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 wilbe 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 be­causeRom. 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 streightlyPsa. 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 shalbe 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 [Page 119] 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 thē, that receaue po­pish absolutiō; because it was a deuise, or at least, is a practise of the popish clergie, to get intelligence of al state matters in christendōe, 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 constātly 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 thē to it, by the misery of all miseries in this life, the afflictiō of conscience; which is of more force with a true christian, then al the blushing, & shame of this world put togeather. [Page 120] 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 occasiō of the most senseles I­dolatry, that euer was cōmitted. 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 [Page 121] 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 cōuince, 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, & whē we come to demand our right, [Page 122] you tel vs, our plea stands vpon negatiō 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 cōscience in the hearers: that are delighted with such vanities: neither of which seemes to haue any [Page 123] sufficient knowledge, or feeling of the true course, and vse of preaching.

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.

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 heB. 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 [Page 126] 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 [Page 117] 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 that2 Sā, 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 theExo. 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 de­nyC. 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. [Page 128] 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 slāderously 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 [Page 129] 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 motiō 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 commō 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, quocun (que) voluerit, siue ad bona, pro sua misericordiae, [Page 130] fiue ad mala, pro meritis corum: judicio vti (que) 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 [Page 131] 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.

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.

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. Namely2. 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 takē 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 Ʋrias, remained in death. In respect of that sinne, yet was hee translated from death to life, by [Page 134] 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 [...] Ʋrias, 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 ha [...]red 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.

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.

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 byGal 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 [Page 137] this assumption is vnderpropt with this reason.

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 vpō 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 [Page 138] 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 shalbe 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 [Page 139] ours already, euen in possession by Christ) but incourageth1. 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.