Answer to a Popish Pamphlet

Papists.

LOuing and reloued friend, I have recei •• ed your courteous letter, wherein you greatly wonder, that I wondered so much in our last discourse, that any man in England, endu • d with a good judgment, conjoined with a religious conscience, could either accept or affect the Protestants new coined Gospel. You request me to set down briefly such reasons as induced me thereunto; the which suite I could not deny; for both religion and affection urged me to satisfy so just a desire. For I must confess I love you as a man, and as an honest civil Gentleman, and most gladly▪ I would have occasion to love you as a Catholic Gentleman: for it is great pity, that such a multitude of detessable errors, and heinous heresies, should lodge in so rarely qualified a soul.

I have penned them after an unaccustomed manner, following the fashion of Schools in most of them, after a syllogisticall method: to the intent that if you should show them to your Ministers which swarm about you, they might not have such free scope, and liberty to range abroad with their idle discourses (as they use to take) vailing their confused conceits with a multitude of affected phrases, thereby more easily to deceive the simple, and to loath the learned.

Wherefore I beseech you, if any such itching spirit, shall attempt an answer, to entreat him to perform it briefly, orderly, and seriously. This I request, for that I perceive, that Protestants cannot answer with brevity; because their religion lacketh both certainty, and perspecuity: & extreme hard, or impossible it is, to reply without prolixity, where there is no truth, nor verity.

And therefore I request you, as you love me, to will them to consider well, before they answer ill; and not to reply with rashness, least they retreat with deliberation, to their utter shame and confusion. And that you may perceive, how my wonder rather deserved approbation, then admiration, and for that order is a fauorite of memory: I thought good to reduce all my reasons unto two heads. Wit, and Wi • l, Knowledge and affection, faith and good life; because the nature of heresy hath ever been such, as did not only inueagle the wit with errors but also seduce the will, with occasions of inordinate affections: I say then, that no excellent good wit, linked with a religious conscience, can either accept, or affect the Protestants new coined Gospel, for good wits, and judgments, assisted with God's grace, may easily perceive the truth: yea, by the force of their very natural faculties, they may judge credibly of the truth once proposed, and without great difficulty, discern the absurdity of an untrue religion: virtuous and well inclined affections, which are the bases of quiet, secure, and religious consciences, abhor, and detest such principles, as either dishonor God, abase man's nature are occasiō of sin, favor iniquity▪ or in any sort diminish devotion, or piety. And therefore all these insequent articles shall stand upon these two foundations, to wit that the Protestants religion debarreth the wit from right understanding the true faith, and the will from following of any virtue or godliness.

Protestant.

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

The Protestants allow no Gospel, but one only, which is no newer then the promise of God in the Old Testament: Neither do they challenge to themselves the name of Protestants, but of Christians. The fittest title for Heretiks is Antichristians, which notwithstanding they forbear, on the Papists behalf, because they would not offend those, that are weak amongst them, Papists indeed they call them, because of their dependence on the Pope. The name of Catholics, being unjustly challenged, they justly deny: both because in the Creed the church of Christ hath that title, of which the popish church is not so much as a • ound member: And also because the Donatists heresy restraining the church to their congregation in Africa, gave occasion to the church of Christ, to term themselves▪ by the name of Catholic, or universal, in opposition to the Heretics conceit.

As for the name of Protestants, it was given upon occasion of Protestation, made by the Duke of Saxony, and other Princes and Cities of Germany against a certain decree at Spires published by the Emperor Charles the 5. and is not a title affected by them, or any way arising from their doctrine; yet do they not disclaim it as Antichristian, or unlawful, because it is not so in it self, nor likely to breed any error, or offense in the church of God.

The manner of his penning is unaccustomed but yet such, as that reverend, and learned Divine Doctor Fulke, a good while since required of all Papists▪ and such in deed, as is most fit, for handling all controversies.

But it should seem, this writer is not much acquainted with this course; his Syllogisms are so loosely tied, and his conclusions so far from the question, but for the better understanding of this course, give me leave, as briefly as I can, to teach the reader the use, and nature of a Syllogism. All axioms, or sentences delivered for true, are either acknowledged to be so, denied, or else doubted of. If there be doubt made of the truth, it is called a question, therefore some reason must be brought for the clearing, and proning of it: whereupon trial is to be made whether this proof be sufficient or no, which is by a syllogism. Now a syllogism is a joining together of diverse Axioms, wherein the question is so disposed with the Argument, that it is necessarily concluded upon the Antecedent, so that if both the former Axioms be true, the conclusion is true also. If either of them b • false, the question resteth as yet unproved: The parts of a syllogism are two; the Antecedent, and the Consequent; the Antecedent is the former part, that disposeth the question, and the Argument together; and it hath two parts, the Proposition or Major, wherein the whole question, or at least the latter part of it, is disposed with the Argument, the Assumption, or M •• or, which is assumed, or taken out of the Proposition. The consequent, or conclusion is the latter part, which comprehends the parts of the question, and concludeth it; A syllogism is simple or compound. Simple, where the latter part of the question is disposed in the proposition, the former part in the Assumption. A simple syllogism is either contract, or explicate. A contract syllogism (so called because it is seldom, or never, found with the parts distinctly set down) is when the Argument by way of example, is so joined to a particular question, that it is the former part of the Antecedent, the Assumption being affirmative. As some confidence is a virtue, as Constancy; some confidence is not a virtue, as Audaciousnesse; the question is whether some confidence be a virtue or no. First it is proved that some confidence is a virtue: The whole syllogism stands thus.

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

In an explicate syllogism the proposition is general, or proper, and the conclusion like the Assumption, or weaker part. There are two kinds of it: the former, where the argument is always the latter part of each Axiom, one of them being negative.

Example.

The doctrine of Justification by works doth not take away boasting,

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

The doctrine of justification by works is not the true doctrine of justification.

Here the matter to be proved is, that the doctrine of Justification by works, is not the true doctrine of Justification. The Argument to prove it is, It takes not away boasting. The Argument is in the latter part of the proposition, and Assumption and the Proposition is negative. Therefore the syllogism is truly formed according to this former kind.

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

Example.

Whosoever builds his faith upon his private and singular exposition of scripture, is an Infidel. But all Protestants in England build their faith upon their own private, and singular exposition of scripture. Therefore all Protestants in England are Infidels.

The point is, that all the Protestants in England are Infidels. The argument to prove it, They build their faith upon their own private, and singular exposition of scripture. The syllogism is of the second kind, because the Argument is set in the former part of the proposition, and in the latter part of the assumption, which is also affirmative.

A Compound Syllogism is a Syllogism, wherein the whole question is one part of the Proposition being affirmative, and compound, and the argument the other part. To gainsay, in a compound Syllogism, is to make a special contradiction.

A compound Syllogism is either Connexine, or Disiunctiue.

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

Example.

If David lost his faith, then faith once had, may▪ be lost.

But David lost his faith.

Therefore faith once had, may be lost.

It is affirmed that faith once had▪ may be lost; the proof is, David lost his faith, the Syllogism is of the former kind, because the proposition is Connexiue, or Condicionall, the former part thereof avouched in the as • umption, and the latter concluded in the consequent, or conclusion.

The latter gain-says the latter part of the question, that it may gain-say the former.

Example.

If the Protestants have any faith, the world was without faith 1500. years.

But the world was not without faith 1500. years.

Therefore the Protestants, have no faith.

This Papist affirms that the Protestants have no faith: to prove it he brings this argument, that the world was not without faith 1500. years. The Syllogism is of the later kind; because the latter part of the proposition is gainsaid in the assumption, and the former in the conclusion.

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

Example.

All Protestants build their faith upon their own private exposition of the scripture, or upon the Churches exposition.

But they build not upon the Churches exposition.

Therefore they build upon their own private exposition.

The point is, that the Protestants build their faith upon their own private exposition of scripture, the proof is, that they build it not upon the Churches exposition. The Syllogism is of the former kind; because in the proposition the one part is severed from the other, the one whereof is gainsaid in the assumption, and the other, affirmed in the conclusion.

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

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

Example.

The Pope builds his faith either upon his own singular exposition, or upon the Churches.

But he doth build upon his own exposition.

Therefore not upon the Churches.

To prove that the Pope builds not his faith upon the Churches exposition, I allege this argument, he builds upon his own. My Syllogism is of the second kind▪ because the proposition being wholly affirmative, assumes the one, and gainesayes the other. It was very necessary that I should deliver the Rules of a Syllogism, because without them my course of answering cannot be thoroughly understood. If they seem hard to any man, a little pains▪ and use will make them easy, and pleasant.

His request of brevity I have satisfied, as near as I could. It is easier to tie a knot, then to vntye it, and one man hath greater dexterity, in uttering shortly that which he hath conceived, then another. For my part, I had rather, any man had answered, that can do it with shortness, then myself; rather myself, then nobody, but I hope this Papist will stand to his own ground, in his Preface, and since he holds it hard, or impossible to reply without prolixity, where there is no truth, nor verity, he will acknowledge truth, where he cannot but acknowledge shortness. His threatenings and reproaches, I do willingly, and wittingly pass over, as the heat of an angry disputer; and withal I protest to him, and all men, that I have answered (according to my small skill) briefly, orderly, and seriously; not least I should seem ignorant by silence, in saying nothing as he presumes in the end of his letter, but as I think, and believe in my conscience; For what am I, the meanest of many, and most unknown, not to the Papists only, but to our own Church also, that I should fear the suspicion of ignorance, by silence, when so many famous divines sit still, and say nothing? If he, that hath answered the first part, had thought it worth his pains, and found leisure to refute the second, I cannot say I should have wholly saved my labor (for it is not unknown to some, that I had finished all the 12. before his answer to the five first came forth) but sure I should have been eased of some pains which I have taken since, especially in writing the abridgement: and avoided all danger of further trouble. But the Lord who hath given me strength, and will to dispatch this, will (I doubt not) assist me in the defense of his truth forever: To whose gracious blessing I commend the success of this, and all other my endeavors, in Jesus Christ our Lord, and only Savior.

Answer.

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

Papist.

The Protestants have no faith, no hope, no charity, no repentance, no justification, no Church, no Altar, no Sacrifice, no Priest, no religion, no Christ.

The reason is: for if they have, then the world was without them for 1000. years (as they themselves must needs confess, videl. All that time, their Church was eclipsed) or for 1500. as we will prove by the testimony of all records of antiquity; as Histories, Councils, monuments of ancient fathers.

Whereby it plainly appeareth, that the Synagogue of the Jews was more constant in continuance, and more ample for place, then the Church of Christ; for they have had their synagogue visible in diverse countries ever since Christ's death and passion even until this day.

Which is the very path to lead men into Athiesme, as though Christ were as yet not come into the world whose admirable promises are not accomplished, whose assistance hath failed in preserving his Church unto the worlds end, whose presence was absent many hundred years, before the consummation; and consequently they open the gap to all Machiuillians, who say that our Savior was one of the deceivers of the world, promising so much concerning his Church, and performing so little.

Protestant.

How can it be truly said, that the Protestants have no faith, no hope, no charity, no repentance, no justification, no church, no altar, no sacrifice, no Priest, no religion, no Christ, when as they acknowledge Jesus Christ the natural son of God, and of the blessed Virgin Mary, to be the Redeemer of mankind, their Altar, Sacrifice, and Priest: when as they believe in him for salvation, both of soul, and body? If he mean we believe not these points truly, and so have them not in truth, true charity should have persuaded him to speak plainly, and not to make no difference between Protestants, Mohammedans, and Infidels. It is, at the best, rather hyperbolical Rhetoric, then Logical divinity, whereof there is promise, and show made in this treatise. To this figure belongs the heaping up of all those particulars, no faith, no hope, &c. whereas the two points set down in the title being proved, all the rest must needs follow; yet this shift is not the worst: For besides this he mingles truth and falsehood together; Altar, Sacrifice propitiatory, and Priest, except Christ himself, we profess we have none; but what doth Chaff with Wheat? save only that it serves to fill up the measure, and make a show, not for disproof, but disgrace of our profession. But let us see his proof.

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

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

Therefore the Protestants have no faith, hope, charity, &c.

I deny the consequence of your proposition; First because the Protestants may have some faith, hope, charity, &c. Though they have not the same that the world then had; as the Greek and Ethiopian Churches have some faith at this day, howsoever they differ both from the Protestants and the Papists in diverse points of Religion. Secondly, because the Protestants profess the same faith, and Religion, which the Church of Christ always held, till it was by little and little suppressed, and driven out of sight by Antichrist; as it appears (that I may name only those books that are extant in English) by Bishop Jewel, Doctor Fulke, Doctor Whitaker, Doctor Bilson, Doctor Reynolds, the Lord Plessy, Doctor Willet, and diverse other Protestant divines.

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

The proof they offer (and yet they do but offer it) is insufficient; for it follows not, that if these few records, we have of the East and West churches, make no mention of the Faith and Religion we profess, then they were not at all in the world. You will say, show us where they were held; nay prove you they were held nowhere; for we now are answers not replyers: and what if it could not be shown? yet we know by the Articles of our Creed, that there hath been always a true church, in which (say we) this Religion that we now profess, must of necessity have been held▪ and with us it is no inconvenience to have the true church hid: this it stands you upon to disprove; which when you attempt to do, by any particular records, you shall (God willing) have particular answers; yet we are content, for auowing the substance of our doctrine, to stand to the records of Antiquity, in these parts of the world, where we gladly, and thankfully acknowledge, that the truth of God, was (for the most part) faithfully preserved, at the least, for the first 500. years.

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

No, nor for 1000. minutes, nor for one minute. Therefore your proof in this point, might have been spared, especially being no better, then it is.

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

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

Therefore the world was not without faith &c. for 1000. years.

If your words express your meaning in good english, then in your Proposition you compare the Church of the Jews, which was before Christ, with the church of Christians, since christ: If your purpose be (as it should seem by your proof it is) to make a comparison betwixt the Jews Synagogue, and the Christian Churches, as they have been since Christ, you should have said in steed of, was, hath been.

This consequence proves nothing, because no man can be sure, that there shall not be above 1500. years from hence, to the end of the world; in which this doctrine, we now profess, shall continue: the Jews also being converted to our Religion; or barred of the exercise of their own superstition: and if that should come to pass, the Jewish Synagogue could have no cause of boasting. But I will not strive about this consequence. Let us come to the assumption.

But the Jews Synagogue (saith he) hath not been (namely since the coming of Christ) more ample, or constant.

We easily grant you this assumption, confessing a perpetual continuance of Christ's Church, from the beginning of the world to the end thereof, and believing that the number of them which have professed the truth of Christ's Gospel hath been greater, then the multitude of the Jews, since our saviors coming.

If the Jews Synagogue (saith he) hath been more constant and ample, then Christi admirable promises are not accomplished.

I deny your consequence▪ for neither the Prophets, nor our savior Christ compare this bastard Synagogue of the Jews; 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 coming, had many and excellent promises vouchsafed it by God, which yet are much inferior to those, that were promised, and are performed to the Christian church.

If the comparison must be with the Church of the Jews before Christ, the visible continuance of the Jewish Synagogue since Christ, is alleged by you to no purpose. Let us take your proposition in the best sense, and answer severally to the 3. parts of the consequence.

If the Jews Synagogue (say you) hath been more ample and constant, then Christ's admirable promises are not accomplished.

The promises of God made to the church of Christ in the Prophets, are either of the outward estate thereof, as that it should be universal, for all nations not the Jews only; that it should be maintained by Kings, Queens &c. Or of the inward, to which we must refer the peace, the glory, and the continuance forever. As for the perpetual 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, unless perhaps it may be from hence concluded, that there shall be more years from the first coming of Christ to his second, then there were in the continuance of the Jewish Synagogue under the law: which (I think) no sober Divine will affirm, howsoever it shall fall out in the event.

Then (saith he) Christ's assistance hath failed, Our Savior Mat. 16. 18. makes no promise of the continual visibility of his Church, but only promiseth that the Devil shall not prevail against any true member thereof, to break of his continuance in the state of salvation, who hath once with Peter, by a true faith confessed the Lord Jesus.

Then Christ's presence (saith he) was absent, many hundred years, before the final consummation.

There is no more promised Mat. 28. 20. but that our Savior will be with them, that believe, and namely with his ministers, till the end of the world, whensoever, and wheresoever they be. But we easily grant a perpetual continuance of the church, though we deny a necessity of visibleness. Therefore neither Atheists, nor Machiauillians have. any advantage against the church, by our doctrine, but by the Papists rather; who teach them to understand our saviors promises carnally, and falsely.

Answer.

The title is only of the learned, & of them all; the proof of the unlearned also, but of them only, that are in England.

Whosoever buildeth his faith upon his own private, and singular exposition of scripture is an infidel.

But all Protestants in England build their faith upon their own private exposition of scripture: Ergo, all the protestants of England are Infidels.

The Major cannot be denied; because faith must be infallible, and impossible to be either erroneous, or chaungeable. But faith which is built upon private exposition of scripture, is subject to error and change; and consequently, upon better advise and consideration, may be altered.

The Minor I prove; for either they build their faith upon their own private opinion, in expounding of scripture, the exposition of the church, the Fathers, or councils, but not upon these three, ergo upon their own private exposition.

Some Protestants allow the fathers, & their expositions, so far forth, as they agree with God's word, and no further: but this is nothing else, but to delude the world, for what mean they when they say they will allow them so far • orth as they agree with the scriptures? mean they perhaps, that if the fathers bring scriptures to prove any point of religiō now in controversy, to allow that point as true? if so, why then reject they Saint Augustine and other fathers, who bring scripture to prove prayer for the dead? yea and all controversies almost in religion, the fathers prove by scriptures, when they dispute upon them.

Or perhaps they mean to admit the fathers, when they allege scripture, but such, as every protestant shall allow of, so it be conformable to their fancies, and fit their new coined Gospel: and, in this sense, who seeth not, that every paltry companion will make himself not only the true Expositor of christs word: but also will prefer his exposition, before all ancient fathers, when they dance not after his pipe, and consent not with his heresies.

Protestant.

First upon your proposition, thus I conclude

Whosoever builds his faith upon his own private and singular exposition of scripture, is an Infidel

But the Pope builds his faith upon his own private, and singular exposition of scripture.

Therefore the Pope is an Infidel.

Secondly I answer to your Syllogism.

The Major, (you say) cannot be denied; And I say it cannot be proved; unless you can show, either that no private, and singular exposition of scripture can be true, or that a man is therefore an Infidel, because he buildeth his faith upon a private and singular exposition, though it be true. For, I take it, you will not wrangle with me, because I speak generally of a private and singular exposition. The reason of your mislike being, not that a man should take his own exposition, but that he should ground upon any private and singular exposition. Indeed no man is an Infidel, that builds his faith upon a true exposition of Scripture, whether it be public, or private, because the truth of belief, depends not upon the publicknes of an exposition, but upon the soundness thereof.

If faith (saith he) must be infallible, and impossible to be either erroneous or changeable, and faith built upon private exposition be subject to error, and change; Then he, that builds his faith upon his own private exposition, is an Infidel.

But faith must be infallible, and impossible to be erroneous, or changeable: And faith built upon private exposition is subject to error and change.

Therefore he, that builds his faith upon his own private exposition, is an Infidel.

His reason may be diversely concluded, but I have taken the shortest course, and yet I have set down the full force of it; which indeed is in the later part of the Assumption ( viz.) That faith built upon private exposition is subject to error, and change.

No faith built upon a true exposition of Scripture, though never so private, is subject to error, or change. For truth is, in its nature, unchangeable, and void of error; and we dispute now, not of the event, whereby it may, and doth come to pass, 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 Catholic in profession, may become an heretic, yea an Apostate, as Iul •• n did; and yet that faith of his, which he forsook, was true, and unchangeable.

But all Protestants in England (saith he) build their faith upon their own private exposition of Scripture.

Then belike not upon Luther, Calvin, Beza, &c. as sometime you charge us: upon whom indeed we build not, but only vpō the true exposition of the Scriptures, being examined according to those places, & points, which natural reason, enlightened by the spirit of God, cannot but acknowledge

In which respect the Popish interpreters, do ordinarily refuse former expositions, and deliver their own opinions, submitted to the judgment of the Church, which no Protestant ever misliked, so they take not Antichrist for Christ.

But what is it you call private exposition? do we leave every man to his own fancy, in expounding the scriptures? How can that be, when as we have certain rules, according unto which all expositions must be framed. The Analogy of faith, conference of like places, examining the originals, with diverse other, and namely, the consent of former divines; to which though we may not tie our selves, because they might, and have erred: yet we allow no man liberty to refuse their interpretations, but only where evident reason, taken from the Scriptures themselves, necessarily requires it. Indeed we think it unreasonable, that a man should, hand over head, receive whatsoever is delivered unto him, upon the credit of men; especially since we have a charge given us, to try the spirits, and means appointed us, for the trial.

Not only some, but all learned Protestants; for ought I know, or (I think) he can prove, allow the Fathers, and their expositions, so far forth, as they agree with God's 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 said to delude the world, when we profess that we allow them no farther, then they agree with God's word, and mean as we profess? yet it is not our meaning to allow every point, that some of the Fathers endeavor to prove by Scripture. Neither will any Papist, that knows the writings of the Fathers, give them such allowance. Nay it is ordinary with them in their controversies, to acknowledge, that diverse texts brought by the Fathers in main points of religiō, are not rightly alleged. Look what they prove by scriptures, that we gladly receive, not because they say it, but because the truth of God approveth it.

But then, we make our selves judges of the Fathers writings. If we do, there is more reason that every man should be made a judge of a man's writing, then any man of God's. But we do not; for we desire not to have any interpretation of Scripture allowed of, contrary to the exposition of the Fathers; but (as I said before) where evident reason taken from the Scriptures themselves doth necessarily require it: As for our private exposition, it is nothing else but a persuasion, that every man must have of the interpretation delivered, 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 slavery, not obedience, to deprive them of the spirit of God, yea more, to spoil them of all use of reason, by which enlightened by the holy Ghost, the truth of God may be, and is to be discerned.

Papist.

Whosoever relieth his faith upon the Ministers credit, and fidelity, hath no faith at all.

But all those in England, who are ignorant of the Greek, and Hebrew tongues, rely their faith upon the Ministers credit. Ergo, All those in England, who are ignorant of the Greek, and Hebrew tongues, have no faith at all.

The Major is manifest: because they themselves confess that every man may err, and doth err; neither have they any warrant why the Ministers do not err, since they constantly do defend, that whole general Councils, yea and the universal Catholic church may err, and hath erred.

The Minor I prove: for all such Protestants ground their faith upon the Bible translated into English; the which translation they know not whether it be true or false: whether the Minister Tyndale for example erred or no, either upon ignorance, as ( b) Broughton one of the greatest Linguists among the Precisions affirmeth, in an Epistle dedicated to the Lord's of the Council, or upon malice; to induce the people to Protestancy, and to cause them to leave the Catholic religion: as Gregory Martin, in his discovery, most pregnantly proveth.

( c ) And for that all the old translations are false, and the Geneuians the worst, the Ministers are now in moulding a new one; the which will have as great immunity from falsity, as the former were void of verity, that is, both be subject to semblable uncertainty.

These errors, I say they know not and consequently cannot discern a true translation from a false: and therefore must needs rely their faith upon the silly Ministers faithless fidelity; which convinceth, that they have no faith at all.

Protestants.

I • there be any force in this reason, it overthrows Papists, as well as Protestants: because the very same thing may be concluded of them; in this sort:

Whosoever builds his faith upon a man's credit and fidelity, hath no faith at all.

But every Papist builds his faith upon a man's credit:

Therefore no Papist hath faith.

The difference between my Proposition, and his, stands only in one word; He disables the Minister in particular: I every man generally, and particularly; but I keep his sense whole, and entire. For the reason, that he giveth in the proof of his Major, doth show, that therefore ministers are not to be credited, because being men they may err. And indeed whatsoever 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 proof but that, first Fathers, Councils, and Church are men, without any special privilege of not erring, 2. that at the least, the particular teachers, which tell the Papists that such, and such Councils have allowed these books for scripture, are men that may err; 3. And indeed what ground hath any learned Papist, that there have been such Councils, but the authority of men? 4. Whereupon can any unlearned Papist rely for the interpretation of the decrees of the Councils, being written in Greek or Latin (as all are) but the credit of men? 5. Nay more then that, who can tell what the signification of the Hebrew, and Greek words is, even in the Bible, but by the report of men? So that it may more truly be said of the Papists, then of the Protestants, that they build their faith upon the credit of men: yea the Papists do properly, and wholly rely upon men, viz. the Pope, and his Priests; because they believe, not by their ministry, as Christians, but by their authority, like Pythagoreans.

But shortly to make an answer to his reason, if by relying upon the ministers credit he mean that they have no ground to build upon, but that, I deny his Assumption. For the unlearned Protestant rests upon the witness of God's spirit, which persuadeth him of the general truth contained in the translation, and directeth him to, and in the trial of particulars. If to the credit of the minister, he add the witness 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 seem strange to any papist, let him remember, that popish faith requires no less revelation, then the belief of Protestants; for, according to their doctrine, no man is persuaded of the truth of the scripture, either for the text, or the interpretation, but by the especial grace of the spirit, using (as they say) the argument of the Churches authority, to beget faith in the heart: only we say, the spirit useth not the authority, but the ministry of the Church, to persuade withal. They affirm that men believe, because of the Churches authority, the spirit directing and inclining them, to rest thereupon. 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 confess that every minister, and all (except the Pope) may err, in matters of greatest substance.

We confess in deed that men may err both in possibility, and event. But that the whole catholic Church may err, no Protestant ever taught, or thought. For we profess, that the holy men departed are triumphant members of the catholic church, who are exempted from all danger of being deceived: That part of the catholic church, which is militant▪ may, and doth err, but never wholly in matters of substance; for then we know, it might come to pass, that, at some time, there should be no church at all upon the earth, whence a present dissolutiō of the world should follow, since it is continued for the elect, and, churches sake. The Protestants, you say, ground their faith upon the Bible translated into English. And the Papists say I build theirs upon the bible translated into latin, or simply upon the word of him. that preacheth unto them. They are bound upon pain of damnation, to believe, that the Pope is Christ's vicar, and cannot err; But how shall I know, that the Pope teacheth this doctrine? upon what ground is this belief built? upon the credit of him, that tells them so? But it is scripture: how shall I know that? He, that tells me so, may be deceived, But the Pope cannot: First you beg the questiō; for you have not proved that the pope cannot err: Thē, how shall I know that the Pope teacheth this doctrine? Alas, I am a poor ignorant man, and understand not either Latin, or Italian, in which the Popes judgment is set down. But, put case I did, what proof can I have, that the Pope delivered this for his judgment? How can I be s •• e he was rightly chosen? I might add a number of these doubts, of none whereof you can resolve me, but only by urging me to rest upon the authority of men. Now then, let any man weigh the • e things in the balance of reason, and try▪ whether is lighter▪ Protestants cannot tell whether Master Tindals translation of the Scripture be true, or no, neither can they discern a true translation, from a fa • se, and therefore must needs rely their faith upon the silly Ministers, faithless fidelity, which convinceth, that they have no faith at all. Papist; cannot tell whether the Latin translation of the scr • pture be true or no, neither can they discern a true translation from a false, and therefore they must need; build their faith upon a silly Priests, or Friars faithless fidelity, which con • inceth, that they have no faith at all. H • thereto are all things equal betwixt us. Now consider some differences. First we profess that Master T •• dall might, and did err, and therefore we labor every 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 upon it. Secondly we submit our translations▪ to be examined by any learned Papists, according to the Hebrew, and Greek They prefer theirs be • ore the Hebrew, and Greek. Thirdly, we bind no man's conscience to agree to our translation, upon pain of damnation, because it asks yet some better correction. They tie all men to take every title of theirs for the certain word of God, and yet daily they alter it. As it appears by the diverse editions of Sixtus, 5. & Clemens. 8. two Popes, neither of which could err, and yet either disagrees from the other. But for the further avowing of our english translation, I desire all men to observe these few points.

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

Secondly that our best translation comes a great deal nearer to the interpretation of the learned Papists, a▪ Uatablus, Pagninus, Isidorus Clarius, & Arias Montan • s, then the popish Latin doth.

Thirdly that, in all this variety of translations, no one point of Doctrine, is overthrown, by any new exposition.

Fourthly that no papist is able to find, in any of our translations, so many errors, from the sense of the Holy Ghost, as Isidorus, Clarius, a learned Papist, hath amended in their popish Latin. viz. to the number of 8000, places, everyone of which as he professeth changeth the meaning of the text.

Lastly I offer our worst translation, to be compared with the Rhemists, & affirm, that, in any reasonable man's judgment, it will appear, that we have dealt more faithfully, and plainly then they; who seem to have been afraid of nothing more, then that the text of Scripture should be easily understood, Master Broughtons skill in the Tongues, he that commends not either knows not, or envies. His misl • ke of Master Tindalls translation I will condemn when I see it disproved. As for Gregory Martin, Doctor Fulke long since stopped up the mouth of his slanders, that none of all you Papists hitherto could open it again.

E. It passeth my small skill in Logic to see how this new addicion is applied to prove the old Article. For it agreeth not, either with the Major or Minor of his Syllogism. For that all the old translations are false, the Ministers are are now in moulding a new. Therefore whosoever relieth his faith on the silly Ministers faithless fidility is an Infidel. Therefore all those in England, who are ignorant, of the Greek, and Hebrew, are Infidels.

That clause of the Geneva translation savors 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 have just occasion to amend them all. He, that so peremptorily condemns the labors of many grave, and learned Divines, before he see them, shows more obstinate prejudice, then either judgment, or conscience.

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

The comparison of equality being so little to his purpose, who can make the exposition of it serve his turn, that both shall be subject to like uncertainty? Indeed, who can make reason of the sentence?

Answer.

Such Papists, as you are, care not what they say, so it be Ad bonum Ecclesiae, for the behoove of your Lord God the Pope.

Papist.

The Protestants know not what they believe, nor why they believe. That they know not why they believe, I have shown before: for the ground of their belief is not the authority of Scripture, of Councils, of Doctors, nor of the Church: but their own fancy. And that they know not what they believe is manifest; because they have no rule, whereby to know what is matter of faith, and what is not.

Some say the sphere of their faith is extended solely, and wholly to the word of God, set down in holy writ: what there is delivered, that they believe, what there is concealed, lieth without the circumference of their belief. Alas poor ignorance! what heretic believeth not so much? Certainly few or none; so that, by this means, all damned heretics, which believe the Scriptures, believe alike: and they believe as much, as our Protestants and ours, no more then they: But the Protestant will reply, that he believeth the Scripture, in a true sense, truly expounded; and all other heretics in an erroneous sense, and falsely interpreted. And they will say as much of their religion, and belief, and hold your exposition heretical, and theirs orthodoxal. Again, are you not bound to believe the Canticles or Song of Solomon, as a part of your faith? and where find you in the scripture; delivered, that such a book is God's word, and as such an one ought by faith to be believed. That Sunday should be kept holy-day, and Saturday the Jews Sabbath profaned, in God's word is not revealed; and yet by Protestants believed. Moreover, to believe whatsoever is contained in the Scripture, is a general, confused, folded, implicit saith: when we demand what a man is bound to believe, we ask what he is obliged to believe expressly, distinctly, explicitly. To believe all the Scripture distinctly, & explicitly, cannot be performed by all Protestants, since it supposeth a perfect and distinct knowledge of all the scripture, whereunto, never mortal man attained, the Apostles (perhaps) excepted.

Some will limit their belief to their creed, saying that nothing ought to be believed, which is not in the Apostles creed. But then I would demand of them, whether we ought to believe that the Scripture is the word of God? That Baptism is a Sacrament? That in the Eucharist is the body of Christ by faith? to what article should these be reduced, seeing they are not contained in the creed? or how shall we know infalliblie, how these be matters of faith, since they are not contained in the creed.

Others deny some articles of their creed also, for the Protestants deny three, and the Puritans five.

1. The first is, the Catholic Church. Credo ecclesiam sanctā Catholicam I believe the holy catholic church; the which in very deed they do not believe; because catholic is universal, and so the church of Christ, which we are bound to believe, must be universal for all ( a ) time, comprehending all ages ( b ) & universal for place, comprehending all Nations: but that church, which the Protestants believe, was interrupted all the ages betwixt the Apostles and Luther, which was 1400. years: or in very deed was never seen before Luther's days: therefore that church they believe, cannot be catholic. Neither is it universal in place, being contained within the narrow bounds of England, which is accounted but as a corner of the world; for the Lutherans in Germany, the Hugenots in France, and the Gui • es in Flaunders, d • est their religion almost as much, as the catholicks; neither • ill they join issue with them in diverse essential points. And therefore the Protestants church, which they believe, can no more be called catholic, or universal, then England the universal world, or Kent the kingdom of England, or a pr •• ed bow a whole tree, or a dead finger a man, or a rotten tooth the whole head.

2. The second article is the communion of Saints, the which they many ways deny. First by not believing that Christ hath instituted seven sacraments; wherein the Saints of his church communicate; & specially the true & real presence of our savior Christ in the Eucharist; by which all the faithful receauers, participating of one & the self same body, are made one body: as all the parts of a man's body are made one living thing by participating of one soul.

Secondly they deny the communion of the Church militant and triumphant, by exclayming ( a ) against invocation of Saints: by which holy excercise those blessed Saints in heaven, & we in earth communicate, we by prayer glorifying them, and they by mediation obtaining our requests.

Thirdly they deny the Communion of the church militant and the souls () in purgatory; bereaving them of that Christian charity, which charitable compassion, & merciful pity requireth; & by mutual affection, the members of one body help one another.

The third Article is remission of sins, for they acknowledge no such effect in the Sacrament of Baptism: but only account it as an external sign or seal, of a prereceaued grace, or favor of God by his eternal predestination: against the express word of God: which therefore calleth this sacrament the ( c ) Lauer of regeneration, for that in it the soul, dead by sin, is newly regenerated, by grace.

Moreover they allow not the sacrament of penance, wherein all actual ( d ) sins committed after Baptism are cancelled. And that, which exceedeth all in absurdity, is to deny, that our sins are perfectly forgiven, but only not imputed, and as it were vayled, or covered with the passion of Christ: all the botches, and biles, the silth and abomination of sin still remaining, and as it were exhaling a most pestiferous sent, in the sight of God. For let them shift •• emselues, as they list, and skarfe their soars, according to their fancies, yet no veil, or mantle can cover the deformity of sin, from the eyes of God's perfect understanding, from which nothing can be concealed.

The Puritans, in effect deny, that Christ is the son of God: for they peremptorily affirm, that Christ is God of himself and not God of God. So that he received not his divinity from his father, the which position flatly taketh away the nature of a son: for the nature of a son is, to receive his substance of his father; and it implieth contradiction, that the son receiveth his person of his father, and not his substance, and essence: for the substance of God is essential to every person in Trinity.

Finally they deny the Descension of Christ into Hell, & desperately defend, that he suffered the pains of Hell, upon the cross; whereby they blaspheme most horribly that sacred humanity; as if christ had despaired of his salvation; as if God had hated him, and he hated God: as if he had been afflicted, & tormented with anguish of mind for his offenses, for which he was deprived of the sight of God, & eternally to be deprived: all which horrible punishments a •• included in the pains of hell: & whosoever ascribeth them to Christ, blasphemeth more horribly, then Arius, who denied him to be God: for less absurdity it were, to deny him to be God, then to make God the enemy of God.

Protestant.

How you have proved, that the ground of our belief is not the authority of the scripture, of Councils, of Doctors, or of the Church, let them judge that have weighed your accusation against my defense. And yet for the last three, we never meant to strive. For we build our faith upon no authoririty, but that of the scripture. Councils, & Doctors we reverence, & use, as special helps for the understanding of scripture, but authority over our faith we give to none, but the holy Ghost▪ the author of scripture.

Your reasō to prove we know not what we believe, is this.

They, that have no rule, to know what is matter of faith, and what is not, know not what they believe.

But the Protestants have no rule, whereby to know what is matter of faith, and what is not.

Ergo the Protestants know not what they believe.

He may truly be said, not to know what he believes, that either is ignorant of the particular points, he holds, or at least understands them not: such as all unlearned Papists are, by th • ir fides implicitae, their Colliers faith, which teaches them to believe as the Church doth, but never instructs them, either in all the several matters of belief, or in the understanding of those, which they know the Church maintains. And therefore every unlearned Papist believes he knows not what. But there is no reason, why a man should be said not to know what he believes: because he hath no rule to know what is matter of faith; it may come to pass hereby, that he shall believe something, that is not to be believed, or not believe something, that is to be believed, but that he should not know what he believes, by this reason it cannot be proved.

But the Protestants have no rule, to know what is matter of faith.

No more then Lawyers have, to know what is Law; I marvel to what use these men think the Scriptures serve? David made accompt, that the Scriptures, which the Church then had; were a perfect direction to all men, both for belief and practice. And can we now want a rule, when it hath pleased God to add twice so much unto the Scriptures, as then was written? Assuredly they that have 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.

They, that extend the sphere of their faith solely, and wholly to the word of God, set down in holy writ, have 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 down, &c.

Therefore the Protestants have no rule to know, &c.

Either your syllogism is false, if the conclusion be general, or else it concludes only thus much, that some Protestants, have no rule, to know what is matter of faith & what is not. If you will make your Assumption general, it is false, because you confess afterwards, that some Protestants limit their faith by the Creed, as being a diverse rule, from the scripture.

I deny your Proposition, as injurious to the scripture, by laying upon it, an imputation of insufficiency, concerning matters of faith.

They, that extend the sphere of their faith (say you) no further then all damned Heretics that believe the scripture, have 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 Heretics, that believe the scripture.

Therefore they, that extend their faith solely, and wholly to the word of God set down in holy writ, have no rule, to know what is matter of faith.

The proposition is false: for all such Heretics have the true rule, to know what is matter of faith, though ignorantly, or maliciously they abuse it, to the defense of heresy.

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 acknowledge the sufficiency of the scripture, in matter of faith, holding themselves not bound to believe any point of religion, that cannot be warranted out of the Scripture, either expressly, or by necessary consequence.

They, that have no rule (say you) to know, that the song of Solomon is God's word, and that as such an one it ought to be believed by faith, have 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 down in holy writ, have no rule to know that the song of Solomon is God's word.

Therefore they, that extend their faith, solely and wholly to the word of God, have no rule to know what is matter of Faith.

This Proposition may prove, that they have not a sufficient rule, but not, that they have no rule.

I deny your assumption: For they, that rest only upon the scripture, as the ground of faith, are not barred of the testimony of the spirit, in matters that must needs be held, for the warranting of the scriptures.▪

The first motive to the taking of that book, for the word of God, is the constant judgment of the Jewish church, before Christ, and the general approbation thereof, by the Christian church since.

The certain persuasion of this belief comes, from the s • irit of God, seconding this outward testimony of men, by his own witness in our hearts.

If this seem an inconvenience to any man, I entreat him to consider, what rule the Papists have, in this case. The authority of the Church they will say.

But what rule have I to know, whether it be a matter of faith, or not, to believe that whatsoever the church saith, is a matter of faith, is so indeed? Will you appeal to the scripture? what rule have you to know that this is scripture? The voice of the church: What is this, but to trifle? I must believe that the scripture is scripture, because the church tells me so. I must believe that the report of the church is true, because the scripture saith so: But for your better satisfactiō in this point, I refer you to my answer, in the 2. & 5. articles of this former part.

I cannot well conceive, to what purpose, this last clause is added; if to prove the Article, That the Protestants know not what they believe, it is insufficient: They that know not what they are bound to believe, expressly, distinctly, explicitly, know not what they believe. For no more is proved by this reason, But that they know not every particular; which they are bound to believe. 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 believe, expressly, distinctly, &c. And as all Protestants cannot believe all the Scripture, distinctly, explicitly; no more can all Papists so believe, what the Church delivereth, to be believed: and therefore was their fides implicita devised. Neither is it proved, that the Protestants have no rule to know what is matter of faith, what is not; because they know not expressly, distinctly, explicitly, what they are bound to believe. For a man may have a rule, though he know not how to use it; as it also falls out (ordinarily) with unlearned Papists, in the rule, that they follow, to this same purpose.

If the Creed (say you) be not the limit of belief, the Protestants have no rule, to know what is matter of faith.

I think the Protestant is yet unborn, that makes the Creed the rule of his belief, further then to acknowledge, that whatsoever is contained in the Creed, is of necessity to be believed: which I trow no Papist will deny. But if it were granted, that all Protestants do so; yet it were not proved, that the Protestants have no rule, whereby to know what is matter of faith, but that they have an imperfect rule. To be short, who knows not, that the Protestants make the whole Scriptures, the rule of their belief, holding themselves bound in conscience to acknowledge, all things contained therein, to be the most true word of God; and that, out of the Scriptures, there is nothing necessarily to be believed for salvation. Whereas the Papists disable the written word of God, to establish the fancies of mortal men: joining the unwritten traditions of, I know not whom, in equal authority, 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 belief, we are so far from denying, that we make this reason one of the grounds, whereupon we build our persuasion, that, because of the vnperfectnesse thereof, it was not penned by the Apostles: whereas if it had been, it would have been perfect, and Canonical Scripture, such as yet, it never was acknowledged to be; Howsoever we willingly grant, that there is nothing in it, but sound, and agreeable to the word of God in the Scripture. So much the more wrong hath this slanderer done us, to charge any of us with the denial, of any one Article thereof: especially since no heretics were ever charged with the denial of Scripture, because they • isinterpreted it. And yet by this Authors judgment, the Creed is not so bare, as here he would fain make it. For, in the second part of this Article, he teacheth us, that by believing the communion of Saints, we believe, first That there are seven 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 souls in Purgatory. In the fourth he tells us, that by believing the Article of remission of sins, we believe, that Baptism takes away the being of sin.

They that deny some Articles of their Creed (say you) have no rule to know, what is matter of faith.

They that deny all the Articles of their Creed, have indeed no rule (supposing that there is no other rule but the Creed) but so much of the Creed, as they deny not, they have 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 five.

He, that makes difference between the Protestants, and Puritans, in matters of faith, doth it either ignorantly, or maliciously, But to the several points.

They that believe (say you) that to be the Catholic Church, which was interrupted 1400. years, and is contained within the narrow bounds of England, deny the Catholic Church.

The Article ( I believe the holy Catholic Church ) doth not teach us, how to know which is the true Church; but enjoins us to believe, that there is a Catholic church; which we gladly acknowledge, ( viz. ) that there always hath been, is, and shall be, a holy church of Christ, which, since his breaking down of the partition wall, is no longer tied 〈◊◊〉 place, Jerusalem, Rome &c. but is spread 〈◊◊〉 the face of the whole earth. Neither can you 〈◊〉 think, that the catholicknesse of the Church requir •• continual being in all places at once; for then there 〈◊〉 as any catholic church in the world, nor I suppose 〈◊〉 . At the least, have you forgotten that (according 〈◊〉 our own doctrine) the church shall be hidden in the 〈◊〉 all the time of Antichrists tyranny? Then this will be 〈◊〉 • incible argument against the church, It is not universal 〈◊〉 • lace, therefore it is not the Holy Catholic Church: 〈◊〉 the force of your reason is very feeble in the first 〈◊〉 it, wherein the strength of it consists.

But admit we 〈◊〉 deceived, in taking that church to be universal for time and place, which is not universal; yet, as long as we confe • , 〈◊〉 there is such a Church, we cannot be justly charged, to 〈◊〉 that article of our Creed.

But the Protestant 〈◊〉 you) believe that to be the Catholic Church, which was 〈◊〉 1400. years. Therefore they deny the article of bele ••• 〈◊〉 Catholic Church.

But they do not 〈◊〉 • peares, by the answer 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 bear the 〈◊〉 in hand; as the Harmony of Confessions will prove to 〈◊〉 man, that will but vouchsafe to read it. For howsoever, 〈◊〉 some churches of Germany and us, there be some 〈◊〉 in matters of importance; yet neither are they such 〈◊〉 • rectly overthrow the foundation; And both the French 〈◊〉 Flemish churches agree with • s, in all substantial points 〈◊〉 doctrine.

They, that believe not ( 〈◊〉 ) that Christ hath instituted▪ seven sacraments, do some 〈◊〉 the communion of saints,

When it is proved, 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 real presence, which no Protestant ever denied, you mean the bodily, and carnal presence, which (besides the Papists) no man ever confessed. Therefore to this Argument the former answer 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 show of proof added: Being many we are one bread, and body all, that participate of one body, as themselves in the Rhemish Testament translate the text; by which he would persuade the simple that they, that believe not the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament, deny that the faithful are one body. But first it is to be observed that the Apostle doth not say, They are made one body by participating, but That they which participate, are one body, Secondly we must understand, that the faithful are not one body Cârnally, but Spiritually; To the which it is sufficient, that Christ be Spiritually received; and therefore the Apostle calls it Bread.

Thirdly who knows not, that all that can receive, any benefit by the Sacrament of our Savior Christ's body, and blood, are before members of his mystical body? Els all they, that die before they receive that Sacrament, are out of Christ's body, and so incapable of salvation. And if this be an effect of that Sacrament, since it is of it self, always alike effectual, it must needs be, that every time we receive it, we are made one body with Christ: yea although we have not committed any deadly sin, since the last receiving of it. But this is absurd, that he, that is the member of Christ already, should now, by receiving, become the member of Christ.

Indeed he may be confirmed, & strengthened for his better continuance in Christ's body, which grace all that worthily receive the sacrament, obtain of God, everyone in their measure: but it is impossible that he should every time of receiving, be made a member of Christ's spiritual body, being already one, when he comes to receive.

They (say you) that deny the Church militant and triumphant, by exclaiming against invocation of Saints, and prayers for the souls in purgatory, deny the article of believing the communion of saints:

But the Protestants deny the Communion of the Church militant, and triumphant, by exclaiming against invocation of saints and prayers for the souls in purgatory.

Ergo, they deny the communion of saints.

If the communion of saints, believed in the Creed, belong to the catholic Church, in the same Creed, How can it imply any fellowship with those, that are departed, whether they be in heaven or in purgatory? For by the catholic Church our papists understand not the church triumphant, but militant only; for they hold, that the catholic church, mentioned in the Creed, must always be visible and famous. And what an unworthy wrong is it to Christ, and his saints in Heaven, 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 privileges, which Christ hath purchased, by his precious blood, for his own members? But the best is, malice it self, dare not charge us with simple denying all communion betwixt the Saints in Heaven, and them in earth, but only with the denial of it, in some few points. One whereof, viz. Invocation of saints, this papist would prove by scripture. The Aagell, that delivered me from all evils, bless these children. Grace, and peace from him, that is, was, and that is to come, and from the seven spirits, which are in the sight of his throne. Jacob and John pray that we may be protected, & blessed of God by the ministry of the Angels; therefore the communion of Saints signifieth, that the Saints in Heaven pray for us, and we must pray to them.

Need I to write one word in answer to this reason? but I am desirous that all men should see the weakness of this proof. First it is doubted by very good writers, ancient, and latter, whether Jacob mean Christ, or some special Angel: whether the seven spirits signify the holy Ghost or the armies of Angels.

Secondly no Papist, that ever I read, confounds Angels with Saints, or interprets the communion of saints, by the ministry of Angels.

Thirdly these consequences are feeble, first, The Angels are ministering spirits. Therefore the saints departed pray for us. secondly, The Angels protect us, and are ministers of Grace, and peace from God to us: therefore by mediation they obtain our requests, Thirdly what strength is there in this conclusiō. The Angels pray for us; Therefore we are bound to glorify thē, by praying to them; that is to dis • onour God; by honoring them. For I demand, whether we may, at any time, pray to God without their mediation, or no? If we may not, then the Lord's prayer is taught us in vain, because that cannot belong to any Angel, or saint. If we may; I ask why not at one time, as well as at another? Why not in one matter, as well as in another? Urge not your carnal 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 thanks he should receive of us, for the granting of our requests; and us of the comfort, we might have, by the feeling persuasion of God's love, in hearing our prayers, and satisfiing our desires.

If the Prince receive my petition at my own hands, and yield unto it, I have reason to persuade myself of his love to me, and to give all thanks to him for his princely bounty: If any, besides myself, commend my suite to him, and it be obtained, I am perhaps never 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 own that kindness. Now let any reasonable man judge, whether all the poor recompense, I can make, all the thankfulness, I can show, be not due to the party, by whose graciousness with the Prince, I attained to that, I sought for; so that if I content him, in some measure, though I never honor: nor love the Prince, one jot the more: yet I do as much, as justly can be required of me. Yea, if I would enforce myself to be thankful to the Prince, both he might disdain my presumption, and he, that preferred my suite, be offended, with my unthankfulness, that would not give him all the thanks, that procured all the favor.

They (say you) that deny the communion of the church militant, and the souls 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 heaven? Is there no communion betwixt thē & those in purgatory? yet are they all menbers of one body: & I pray you what communion is there betwixt these three kinds of Saints? What do the saints in purgatory in requital of the triumphant, and militant Saints kindness? What nothing at all? Why then, what necessity is there to enforce any such duty on our parts towards the Saints in Heaven? We, as you say, do not only pray, but offer up a bodily, and spiritual sacrifice, for them in purgatory, to God: what reason is there then, they should not pray to us as well as we pray to the Saints triumphant, who do but half so much for us, and the less half too?

As for the places in the Margine, no blast, be it never so great, can kindle the fire of purgatory, by any heat, that will arise from them; the former is concerning the trial of doctrine, by the fire of God's word; Some men's works shall burn, therefore there are some in purgatory burning. Some, What? works, says the Apostle, not men. If any man's work burn, he shall loose his labor, but himself shall be saved, yet as it were by fire. Therefore there are some Saints burning in the fire of purgatory; but that neither all men's works are spoken of, nor any assay is to be made by purging fire, nor these places meant of purgatory, it may appear by these reasons.

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

Therefore are they unfit, and insufficient to prove so doubtful a matter, as this of purgatory.

2. Besides the former of them is wholly Allegorical, Foundation, Master-builder, Gould, silver, Wood, Hay, Straw; and therefore by the rules of disputation in divinity, altogether unmeet for proof of doctrine, in matters of controversy.

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

1. Because the Apostle speaks of builders only, such as himself, & Apollos verse. 6.

2. The reward, that shall be received verse. 14. is to be given, according to the labor of the Minister. verse. 8.

3. The People, what good works soever they have, are in this place considered, but as the building, or Husbandrie. verse. 9.

4. The fire of Purgatory doth not burn the work, but the soul of the worker, but this fire shall burn the work, not the workman. verse. 1. 3. 14. 15.

5. The fire of Purgatory doth not consume, but purify, this fire doth not purify, but consume verse. 15.

6. All men's works must be tried by this fire. verse. 12. 13. but not by the fire of Purgatory; for that belongs to them only, that have not made satisfaction for their sins, or not been absolved from them by the Sacrament of penance.

Since it is, for the most part, agreed upon, that the fire, verse. 13. doth not signify Purgatory, what reason shall persuade us, that this doth? verse. 15.

The other place hath troubled all the Divines, that ever writ upon it, both for the Grammar, and the sense of it. It shall be therefore sufficient for me to answer, that till the Popish interpretation be better proved, we have no reason to seek for the fire of Purgatory, in the Baptism of or for the dead; especially since no ancient writer hath so expounded it. Neither can it serve Saint Paul's purpose, being so understood. For how can the Resurrection of the body be proved, by praying for the souls in Purgatory? But oh the heat of Popish charity! that can abide to let so many souls fry in Purgatory, whereas multiplying of Masses would quench the fire, and free the poor wretches; or at least their holy father the Pope, may deliver as many as pleaseth him by plenary indulgences; and yet these men cry out upon us for want of charity, because we will not help them by prayer, for whom we are sure that all the prayers, that can be made, are either needless or bootelesse: Are these th • reasons that must persuade men of Judgment? &c.

They that acknowledge not remission of sins, as an effect in the Sacrament of Baptism, deny the Article of remission of sins.

Then it should seem the meaning of the Article is: that we believe the remission of sins, as an effect of Baptism: I marvel how many popish Priests would give a man this exposition, that should ask them the meaning of this Article of the Creed? There is more reason to say, I believe that remission of sins is a privilege belonging to the holy Catholic church, which our Savior Christ hath purchased with his blood. But if the meaning be of Baptism, then we have found in the Creed that Baptism is a Sacrament, which a little afore was denied, to show the insufficiency of the Creed, to be the rule, and limit of our belief. He that confesses, that Jesus Christ hath paid the ransom for the sins of his church, by his blood, and procured the pardon of them, cannot justly be charged with denying this article of remission, howsoever he do err in judging of the force, and use of baptism.

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

The Protestants acknowledge the same effect, in the sacrament of baptism, which the church of God acknowledged, and received in the sacrament of circumcision; that the Patriarchs, and fathers of Christ's church, before his coming received the forgiveness of sins, 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 prove; at least, this man hath not proved. But, shortly to deliver our opinion; we believe and profess, that everyone, who is effectually baptized, hath received forgiveness of all his sins, original actual; past, to come, and if you will, mortal, and venial; for the guilt, and for the punishment, for the eternal, and temporal punishment. But we deny, first, that all, which have Baptismum Fluminis, the baptism of water, have also Baptismum Flaminis the baptism of the spirit. Secondly that none have forgiveness, but they, which are baptized. Thirdly that every man that is baptized, receives forgiveness of sins, which may thus appear, because many a man baptized is everlastingly damned; but no man, that hath his sins forgiven him, is damned. If you say they were forgiven, but now are not, you destroy the nature of forgiveness▪ which depends not upon any condition to come. If it do, then can it not be truly affirmed, that a man by Baptism receives forgiveness absolutely of those sins, which are past, and yet that is your doctrine. If you answer, that all sins before baptism are absolutely pardoned; then it may come to pass, that a damned man may have more sins forgiven him, then one that is saved; that a man may have 10000. sins forgiven him, and be damned, for all that; for some one, Which is evident in the example of a man baptized, in the end of his life; who yet, after baptism, committs some deadly sin without repentance: as if, in his going from the Font he fall out with some man, and presently kill, and be killed, not having any thought of receiving absolution, by the sacrament of penance. Therefore baptism is not always accompanied with remission of sins. Now that some obtain forgiveness of sin, that never are baptized, the Papists themselves grant, in two cases at the least: For they teach, that votum baptismi, the purpose to be baptized is sufficient, when the thing it self cannot be had, and that martyrdom is instead of Baptism. Both these cases are without warrant of scripture, if we hold a necessity of Baptism absolutely to justification, as they do; but yet this they teach, be it true, or false; Baptism is indeed the Lauer of Regeneration, because all they that are baptized, and none but they, are regenerate: But we understand not by baptism, the outward washing only, but the inward especially; whereof that is nothing but a sign, and a seal: yet such a sign, and seal, as by the grace of God's spirit, confirms the Christian soul in the true belief of remission of sins. Many are saved, that never were baptized; many have been baptized, that never shall be saved: therefore baptism is in effect and force, the Lauer of regeneration, to those only, that are saved, to all other it is the sign without the thing; by reason, that they receive not grace, as well as water.

They (saith he) that allow not the sacrament of penance, &c. deny the remission of sins.

The Sacrament of Penance is a fancy of men. Our Savior, John 20. 23. ordains no such Sacrament, but only promises, that the work of the Ministry shall be effectual, to the remitting, and retaining of sins: and indeed there is no sacrament of ordinary use in the Church, which Christ himself did not either receive, or give. If you will say that Penance could not belong to him, because he never sinned after Baptism; I will affirm, with as good reason, that no more did Baptism, because he never sinned at all; for Baptism, as you here teach, is the Lauer of Regeneration, for that in it, the soul dead by sin, is newlie regenerated by Grace. But Christ's soul was never dead, neither indeed doth the Sacrament of penance serve for any purpose to him, who is washed from all his sins, by the blood of Jesus Christ, as all truly baptized are.

What Protestant ever denied that our sins are perfectly forgiven, or what Papist can better tell what it is, to have sins forgiven, then the holy Ghost in Scripture? who affirms, that reconciliation with God is made, by having sins not imputed. But what▪ says our Savior Christ: Father forgive them. How doth Stephen in other words, make the same prayer in the like case? Lord lay not this sin to their charge. But you say, the botches and Biles still remain. What botches? These are words without matter: when the Prince pardons any cr • me, what remains after the pardon? Is not original corruption pardoned in Baptism? yet by your Doctors confession it remains, though it be not, as they falsely teach, Veri & proprij nominis pecca • um, that is, truly, and properly sin: yet the botch is there still, as appears by the continual running, more or less, in the life of every Christian.

Therefore we do not seek to cover our sin with any veil, but profess, that it is truly, properly, and perfectly pardoned. But we deny (that which this man seems not to understand) that by forgiveness of sins, original, and actual sin is wholly, and at once destroyed in us; the strength of it is abated, yea the deadly wound is given to it, so that it shall never recover: but yet (weak though it be, and drawing on to the very point of death) it is the same thing it was before. Therefore whatsoever can belong to the forgiveness of sins, concerning the nature thereof, we acknowledge and profess▪ but we cannot (contrary to all experience and warrant of Scripture, yea to the very nature of a pardon) fancy to our selves an absolute deliverance from▪ the being of sin.

These 2. points, are no doctrines peculiar to those, whom this Author calls Puritans (who dissent not from their brethren, but only in some matters of discipline, and ceremony) howsoever some few make doubt of the latter. But because the former of these 2. is a matter of especial importance charged as a great heresy upon Calvin by Bellarmine, and our english Rhemists, I will answer distinctly to every part of this man's accusation.

The Papists flatly do all Protestants wrong; first by Chalenging all, save Puritans, of their own error. secondly by avouching so heinous a crime of them in part, as is altogether false; for we all with one mouth, and heart affirm, that Christ is the true, and natural son of God, having (whatsoever he hath, as he is the son) from God the father, and no whit of it, from himself. But let us examine his proof.

They (saith he) that affirm, that Christ is God of him self, and not God of God, deny, in effect, that he is the Son of God, by denying, that he received his Divinity from his father.

Indeed if it were all one thing to be God, and to be the Son, the proposition were true; but he that hath learned, that the Father, and the Son, being on • God, are 2. disstinct Persones, knows, that the Godhead belongs not to the nature of the Son. because then the Father, and the Holy Ghost, not only might be, but needs must be the Son, a • having the whole Godhead.

What he would prove by these 2. places of John it is not certain, but that he cannot prove the point in question, it is more then certain. I ask no more of any man, but to read them; Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins; For if you believe not, that I am he, you shall die in your sins. But when the spirit of truth cometh, he shall teach you all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but what things sosoeuer he shall hear, he shall speak, and the things, that are to c •• e, he shall show you.

Now let any reasonable man judge whether it can be gathered out of these places, that Christ is not God of himself, but God of God. But it may be the penner, or the Printer mistoke the number of the verses, and put. 24. for. 25. and 13. for. 14. or. 15. Let us make the best of it. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou. Jesus said to them. The beginning, who also spake unto you. I will not strive about the diverse reading, only it is to be noted, that this Papist, either ignorantly or craftily, quotes Cyril in the margin, whereas we have no Commentary of his, upon that place, but the defect thereof is supplied by Iodocus Clichthoueus a Popish Bishop, whom this man blushes not to allege in Cyrills name. Nothing can be drawn from hence, save only that Christ is God, which we deny not; except we perhaps may prove hereby, that he is God of himself, because he is the beginning. He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine, and shall show to you. All things, whatsoever the father hath, are mine. Therefore I said that he shall receive of mine, and show to you. Who can wring any word, for proof that Christ received his God-head from his father, out of this text? If you urge, That all, whatsoever the father hath, is his: What proves that? save only that he is God equal with his father, (viz) the same God with his father, which is confessed.

This Proposition (saith▪ he) That Christ received not his divinity from his father, flatly takes away the nature of a Son.

Then the distinction of the persons is thus to be conceived: that the Father is God one way, by having his divinity of himself: the Son another way, by h • uing his Divinity from his father; and the Holy Ghost a third way, by having his divinity both from the father and the son; and so we shall have as truly, and distinctly. 3. God's, as we have. 3. persons. To the proof.

What 〈◊〉 substance? then there is never a Son •• the world • 〈◊〉 we grant that the Father creates the soul, as he 〈◊〉 the body.

But if we 〈◊〉 • ache the supernatural generation of the son of God, 〈◊〉 • gree precisely with the natural generation of men▪ 〈◊〉 must needs hold, that as the human Son is a 〈◊〉 • an, from his Father, so the Son of God, in respect • 〈◊〉 substance received from his heavenly Father, is 〈◊〉 God from his father. And surely, that he is dist ••• • rom his Father, by the nature of his being a Son, 〈◊〉 cannot be doubted: but that, by the nature of his 〈◊〉 God, he is distinct from God his Father, it may 〈◊〉 hand be granted; because it necessarily impl •• a multiplying, or plurality of God's.

Neither is the • 〈◊〉 Contradiction in granting, that our Savior Ch ••• •• ceaued his person of his Father, and not his subst ••• and essence; For by substance and essence you do 〈◊◊〉 the nature of his being a Son, which we grant 〈◊〉 from the father wholly, but his divine 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 essential to every person in 〈◊〉 It doth not follow thereupon, that it is of the 〈◊〉 of the person. It is indeed thus essential, that 〈◊〉 •• son is God▪ but not that the God-head is the 〈◊〉 every person: for then (as I have often said) 〈◊〉 must be but one person, as the God-head i • •• e, 〈◊〉 God's, as there are diverse persons.

The protestants (saith 〈◊〉 ) •• emptorily affirm, that Christ is. God of himself, and n • t G •• 〈◊〉 God.

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

We deny not that the Holy council of Nice •• lie taught, that our Savior Christ is God of God, ve •• 〈◊〉 of very God; but we say, that they meant not, as yo •• •• pists do, who make our Savior, as it were an under God, receiving his Godhead of another, and not having •• •• himself. How unfitly this must needs serve those ••• ed, and godly fathers, for the proof of our Saviors • quality with God the fathe • , who sees not? when 〈◊〉 Arius might readily have answered, that he must 〈◊〉 be inferior to God the Father; because he had his God-head of himself, Christ of him; As for the word whi •• they urged, concerning the same nature of both it d •• not signify, nor intend, that Christ received 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 possibly b •• • f the one be God of himself, and the other God of him▪ •• at is God of himself. For to be of himself, and not to be of himself, but of another, are things quite contrary, which cannot be true of God, as he is God. But you will ask, perchance, whether the son be inferiou • • o the Father, touching his person▪ because he hath that 〈◊◊〉 No truly; for the generation being eternal▪ 〈◊〉 the Father having no preeminence of being, before 〈◊〉 but as the nature of relation necessarily 〈◊◊〉 is neither inferiority, nor superiority betwixt 〈◊◊〉

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

According to which meaning, Our savior is God of God, that is, the second person, being truly God, is of the father being truly God: though in respect of his God-head, he is not of the Father, but of himself, as I will prove by the reasons following.

The first of these 5. points. was charged upon us, as an error in 2. respects. because both we deny that interpretation of the Article, which the Papists have devised, and also refuse the doctrine of visible famousnes, which they would thrust upon the church. This last point is altogether of the same kind; which I note the rather; because both this, and that, are delivered in such a phrase, as the scripture knows not. To believe the Catholic church, to descend into hell, are speeches, with which the scriptures are not acquainted: and this is another reason, why learned Divines the rather persuade themselves, that this Creed was not of the Apostles penning. Yet do not we deny the truth of either of these articles, b • t only that erroneous interpretation, which the Papists make of them. Of the former I have already spoken; now let us shortly examine the latter. First we say the english word Hell doth not express the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the Latin Inferi, though we cannot rest upon the Latin whatsoever it signifies, since it is but a translation. Hell, in English, is restrained to the place of the damned, so that no english man understands by Hell, either purgatory, or limbus patrum, or infantum: but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and Inferi do signify indifferently the state, and place of the dead as Master Brough • on hath sufficiently proved Neither need it breed a doubt in any man, that descending, or going down is mentioned, because it is out of doubt, that the heathen▪ (from whom this speech is taken) place their elysium, or paradise, under the earth, as well as their Tartarus, or Hell, that lying on the right hand, this on the left as it appears in Virgil Aen • id. 6.

Secondly it is to be known, that diverse Creeds have not this article in them; which proves that it was thought either to be comprised in some of the other, or else not to be any matter of faith.

Thirdly it must be observed, that some of the ancient writers, have understood it of our Saviors burial, as Ruffinus, and Athanasius, he in plain terms avouching that it was not to be found in the Roman Creed, and that the meaning of it seemed to be nothing else, but that he was interred, or laid in his grave. Athanasius indeed hath the words; but that he takes them to signify his burial, may appear; for that he leaves out all other mention of that article of his burial.

Fourthly it must be remembered, that the maintayners of Christ's going really into hell, agree not about the matter, whether he went into the place of the damned, or only into the suburbs of it, in limbum patrum, or Infantum; nor about the end.

Fiftely we have great reason to refuse this sense which hath no ground of Scripture, whereupon it can be built, as diverse of our writers have plainly shown, and as I could, and would prove, if it agreed with this course of writing.

Sixthly we affirm, that if we shall follow the nature of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , we cannot expound it of the place, of the damned, unless it be apparent that the matter necessarily requires it, which also is to be said of the Hebrew Sheoll, commonly in the Bible translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Bucer, Carlisle, and Broughton have shown by particular induction.

Seventhly we must note this man's dealing, that makes choice of the woe • st interpretation as he accompt it; whereas he cannot be ignorant, both that there are diverse other, and that many Protestants do m • slike this, which he brings: as if he would make the world believe, that we allow not of this piece of the Creed, but only in that sense: howbeit many of our divines, do rather expound it of our Saviors subjection to death, or of the truth of his death, fully signified, not only by his burial, but by his being altogether in the state of the dead, his body, and soul being severed, and severally so disposed of, as all other dead men's bodies, and s • ules are; without any special signifying of the place, whether his soul went. But howsoever we dissent from our brethren, in the meaning of this Article, we allow the doctrine as good, and sound. For we believe, that our Savior Christ, being by imputation a sinner, though of himself most holy and pure, suffered in his soul the wrath of God, due to us sinners, and for our sins in such sort and measure, as God had appointed, and as without sin, in a finite time it could be suffered.

As for those horrible plasphemies, which are said to be included in the pains of hell, we neither avouch them all of our Savior Christ, nor acknowledge that they nessarily accompany the wrath of God, as in handling the particulars it will appear.

Christ (saith he) bare the wrath of God. Therefore he despaired of his salvation.

The consequence is false: for he knew that God loved his person, being his son, and therefore that this wrath should not be perpetual; 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 himself from continuing in death, which, but for these reasons, he must needs have endured, and which for a time he did taste, the Godhead as it were withdrawing it self, that the manhood might suffer.

Christ (saith he) suffered the wrath of God; therefore God hated him, and he God.

Of the latter clause I shall need to say nothing, having before restrained Christ's sufferings to that manner of torment, which is without sin. Neither is that hatred of God, an effect of his wrath in the damned, in whom it is natural: but by his wrath against them, that malice of theirs accidentally is increased. Which I speak upon this supposition, that the damned shall continue in sin, as well as in punishment.

The former point, if we hold the former distinction advisedly, contaynes at all no blasphemy against our savior: his person was, of it self, most tenderly beloved of God his father, though being considered as a sinner, (such as by imputation he was in the sight of God) for a time, in that respect he was to God for us, as everyone of us is in himself to God.

Christ suffered (saith he) the wrath of God; therefore he was tormented with anguish of mind for his offenses, for which &c.

The consequence should have been. Therefore he was tormented with anguish of mind for those offenses, 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 sin, had also anguish of mind for sin; not for his own (there was no suspicion, or likeness of sin 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 he knew that our sins had deserved the continuance of it forever. But the comforts I spake of before, upheld him from all danger of despayring, and delivered him from that perpetuity of torment, in which otherwise, having taken upon him our Person, he should have remained. Now this so being, we need not fear these thunder-bolts of horrible blasphemy; although we believe that Christ our savior did, for a time, endure in his soul the wrath of God, which was due to our sins. Neither do we hereby make God the enemy of God, nor of the humanity of Jesus Christ, which he ever most entirely loved, but only avouch, that God truly hated, and punished our sins, in his own son, with such a kind, and measure of his wrath, as being true, and just, was every way without sin, and finite in regard of the time. so that I take the Doctrine to be void of blasphemy; howsoever the meaning of the Article be conceived.

Protestant.

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

Papist.

As the Protestants neither know what they believe, nor why they believe: so have they no means in their church to settle them in unity of belief, nor to determine controversies; nor to abolish heresies, as hath the catholic church: for our savior Christ by his divine providence did foresee that heresies were to arise in his church, as his Apostle S. Paul doth warn us: the which, as plagues, were to infect his flock and therefore he not only forewarned us of them, but also gave us means, how to prevent and extinguish them. 1. • He willed us to hear his Church, if we would not be accounted, as Ethnics, and Publicans. 2. He ordained Pastors, and Doctors, least we should be carried away with every blast of vain doctrine. 3. He promised unto the church the assistance, of the holy Ghost, in such sort, as they which would not hear her, would not hear him. The catholicks therefore believing certainly, that the Church cannot err, that the general Councils cannot deliver false doctrine, that the Pastors, and ancient fathers, with joint consent, cannot teach untruths; when heresies spring up, presently with th • voice of the Church, pluck them up by the roots: and so ever hath practiced, and after this manner, overthrown all encounters, false opinions, and errors which the Devil, by his ministers, ever planted, or established in the world: and so they have been freed from all braules, and quarrels in matters of religion.

But the Protestants, admitting the sole scripture, as Vmpere, and judge, in matters of Controuersie, and allowing no infallible interpreter thereof, but remitting all to every man's private spirit, and singular exposition; cannot possibly, without error, wind themselves out of the Labyrinth of so many Controuersies, wherewith they are now inueagled, and intricated. And the irreconciliable jars, betwixt them, and the Puritans, in essential points of faith, give s • fficient testimony▪ that they will never have an end, holding those grounds of opinion, which they obstinately defend.

And albeit they go about to blear the people's brains, which, I know not, what unity, and conformity in matters of faith, and in the substance of religion; and that their disagreement only consisteth in points of Ceremonies, and trifles of small importance; yet, in very deed, they differ in many essential points of religion. And although this shift will, perhaps; serve, to cast a mist over the confused conceits of simple souls, & silly fools • , yet no wiseman will ever believe them: I pray you, tell me, is not the Kings supremacy a matter of faith, and a chief point of religion? And do not [unspec 1] all sound Puritans in the world, deny it and defy it? Ask Calvin the puritanicall Patriarke, what he thought of King Henry the eight for assuming of such a preeminence unto him: read the Annals of Scotland, and you shall find the presumptuous presbytery, every foot opposing themselves against our Kings authority, as though he had nothing to do with the Church. Look into the carriage of our precisians at home, and you shall find them, in show to profess it, but in deeds, and effects really to deny it. For if they approve his supremacy, with what face can they resist his ordinances, in matters of religion? why wear they not vestments, Surplices, the Cap, and Tippet? why refuse they to baptize with the sign of the Cross? why subscribe they not to the the book of common prayer? why obey they not the ecclesiastical Canons, established by his Majesty's authority? No other reason of this obstinate repugnancy can be yielded, then that in very truth, they do not, in Conscience, allow of his supremacy.

2. Is not the authority▪ of Bishops, their power to create ministers, their degree in dignity above ordinary Curates, and Pastors, a matter o • faith, and so nearly toucheth the government of the Church, that if this heretical order be abolished, the whole form of Christ's Church is presently confounded?

3. The observation of feasts, and holy days, infringed by Puritans, maintained by protestants, is it but a Ceremony? were not the obstinate impugning thereof a sufficient reason to censure them, for Heretics? did not the Council of Nice condemn the Quartodecimani for Heretics, who would only have observed their Easter day upon the 14. day of the month of March? What if they had called our Precisians to the bar, who will have it wholly abolished? Question • es they would have branded them, in a far deeper degree of Heresy, then the Quartodecimani.

4 Is not the observation of Lent, and other fasting days, a matter of more moment, then trifles, or then things indifferent? Did not S. Epiphanius censure Aërius of Heresy, for denying these prescript times for fasting? For albeit they be not precisely set down in scriptures, and therein commanded to be observed; yet they, being either ordained by the Apostles, or instituted by the church, which had authority to appoint fasts, at least as well as the puritane presbytery; wi • hout doubt he, that calleth this holy institution either doctrine of Devils, or torture of consciences, or restraint of Evangelical liberty, ought by the judgment of all true protestants, to be condemned for a pagon, and infidel: who will not submit his soul to the censure of the Church.

5. The Puritans blasphemously pronounce, and ignorantly defend, that Christ suffered the pains of hell, upon the cross; and that in this passionful agony, & agonizing grief did principally consist the satisfaction of Christ, for the redemption of man, from those eternal torments of hell, And think you this is a trifle, a rite, or ceremony? This faith the Puritans profess; this blasphemy the Protestants detest.

The descension of Christ to hell is (no doubt) but a trifle, a ceremony, a matter of small importance. It is but an article of our creed; and yet this article the puritans really deny; the which all Protestants steadfastly believe.

That the second person in Trinity received his divinity from his father, is but a trifle, a point not much material to our belief; and yet, if this be denied, the mystery of the holy trinity cannot be believed; for it absolutely taketh away the nature of a son, and consequently the admirable procession of the second person, and so overthroweth all the mystery of the Trinity. This principal part of Christianity, Protestants approve and Puritans improve.

I omit here many more petty differences, in matters of faith; the which were sufficient to make them condemn one another, not only in accidents, and ceremonies, but also in the substance, and principal partes of religion. As in that the Precisians deny, that in Baptism our sins be remitted, but only take it for a seal of that grace, God gave them by his eternal election. The Protestants confess, that in the sacrament we are washed by God's spirit from original sin.

The Puritans condemn the Communion book, as irreligious, and erroneous. The Protestants commend it as orthodoxal and religious. The Protestants use the cross in baptism, as a holy sign fit for the profession of Christ's faith, and religion: The Puritans exclaim against it, as a human invention, and a point of superstition.

The Protestants defend, that imposition of hands, in confirmation, is a sign of the favor, and goodness of God towards them: The Puritans avouch, that this is a flat lie, & that they testify therein, that God doth that, he never did.

The Protestants in fine will use Vestments, Music, Organes, surplisses, and diverse other ceremonies, in divine service, and administration of sacraments: all which the puritans condemn, as will worship, and not being commanded by God, to be superstitious. All these (I say) I omit, and many more, which are to be seen in the Puritans supplication to the Parliament, where 32. differences are assigned; and only have thought good to advertise every discreet Protestant, to consider the▪ 7. precedent differences. For there is never a one of them, which the Puritan defendeth not to be a matter of faith; and the Protestant is bound in conscience to condemn him, for obstinately maintaining the contrary, to be an heretic: and the reason is evident; for the rule, and square the Protestants, and Puritans both hold to know an heresy, is this; whatsoever is contrary to God's word is an heresy, if it be obstinately defended: but all the aforesaid 7. points in controversy, are by the one part proved contrary to God's word, and by the other avouched to be grounded upon the same. Therefore we may well conclude, that if one error in faith with obstinacy defended, sufficeth to make an heretic, what shall we judge of the Puritan, who so mainly defendeth so many? Surelie this I will auer, that they differ in substance of religion, and not only in accidents, and ceremonies.

And finally, they have no argument to prove, that they have the true Church, true religion, true faith; which all heretics, that ever were, will not bring to condemn the Church of Christ, as well as they. For example they aledge scriptures, so did the Arians: they contemn councills; the Arians did not regard them. They challenge to themselves the true interpretation: the same did all heretics to this day. And to conclude, they call themselves the little flock of Christ, to whom God hath revealed his truth, and illuminated them from above: all which the Donatists, with as good reason, and better arguments, did arrogate unto themselves. The same I say of the Pelagians, Nestorians, Eutychians, with all the rabble of other damned heretics.

And to conclude these articles of faith, I say, that if the principles of the Protestants religion be true, S. Paul himself exhorteth us to infidelity; which I prove thus:

Whosoever exhorteth us to doubt of that, which we are bound to believe by faith, exhorteth us to infidelity.

But S. Paul doth exhort us to doubt of our salvation, which we are bound to believe by faith, according to the Protestants religion. Ergo.

S. Paul exhorteth us to infidelity.

The Major is plain, for to doubt of matters in faith, is manifest infidelity: because whosoever doubteth, whether God hath revealed that, which indeed he hath revealed, being sufficiently proposed, as revealed; virtuallie doubteth, whether God saith truth, or lieth.

The Minor is proved by the testimony of S. Paul.

Cum timore, & tremore salutem vestram operamini. With fear and trembling, work your salvation. All fear, whether it be filial fear, or servile fear, includeth both, the one of sin, the other of punishment.

Protestant.

A very good comparison, whether it be of likeness, or equality: for the one is even as true as the other. As we know not what to believe, or why: So we have no mean in our Church, to settle us in unity of belief, &c. If we shall join issue in this point, upon the former trial, the matter is already answered. For all those accusations, and evidences being false, what truth can there be in this? and yet the last clause makes me grant him the conclusion: We have no such means, as the Popish Church hath. But what will he infer hereupon? That therefore we have none at all. What? because we will not acknowledge the Popes Sovereign authority, in making what he list an Article of faith: Have we no means to end controuessies? As good never a whit, as never the better. Is it not more for the glory of God, and good of the Church, that there should be continual disagreement about matters of Religion, then that all should believe and maintain false doctrine? Were not Christ as good have a troubled church, as none at all? Honorable war is better then dishonorable peace, in the judgment of any wise States-man: And can it be more glorious to God, to have quietness in the church with heresy, yea with Antichristianism, then truth with contention? So then this proposition, that we have no such means, as the Papists have, to end controversies, neither disproues, nor disgraces our church. But it is worth the doing, to take a view of this rhetorical declamation, rather then Logical 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 Judge, in matters of controversy, allowing no infallible interpreter thereof, have no means to end controversies, and abolish heresies.

Controuersies may be ended, and heresies abolished, either by convincing those that maintain them, of error, or by commanding them to forbear all meddling 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 understand the true meaning thereof, in most places, and so to prove it, by the Analogy of faith, grounded upon evident Texts, and by the examining of the Texts that are in question, that a reasonable man shall not be able to with-hold his assent, without manifest blindness, if not willfulness. If you ask me, what shall become of other places, that are very hard: I answer. that we need not these, for the confirming of any point of doctrine, as if without them, it could not sufficiently be done. Further I say, that he, which mainteines any point that he is not able to avow, by any, but some such places (as this Author doth Purgatory) is no way to be allowed or borne with. The other means of enjoining silence and quietness, is partly in the censures of the Church, but principally in the authority of the Magistrate: whom God hath made Sovereign governor, for the outward peace, and prosperity of his church. This in order must follow the former; yet so, as that if the Magistrate command, before convincing, he must be obeyed, by forbearance of any further proceedings, unless the charge be directly contrary to the commandment of God: in which case, we must answer with the Apostles, Whether it be right, in the sight of God, to obey you, rather then God, judge you.

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

What course is to be held, for the interpretation of Scripture; I have partly shown already, in the 2. and 3. and in this 5. article, and it shall appear more fully, in the particular examining of this discourse, according as it is set down.

They (saith he) that certainly believe the Church cannot err, have means to settle themselves in unity of belief, to end controversies, and abolish heresies: and contrariwise, they, that do not believe it, have none.

When it is proved, that the Church cannot err, then the proposition shall be granted: but till then, it deserves no allowance; and if it be granted: yet what heretical church may not have the same quietness, upon the same persuasion? Indeed one of the three points, even that, which the Papists stand most upon, viz. their outward quiet estate, may in part, ensue upon this belief, though it be most erroneous. For this persuasion that the Church cannot err, is sufficient to stay all controversies, when the Church hath shown her opinion of them. And yet it is with them only sufficient, that acknowledge this false privilege of the church: & therefore it follows but in part: because you must first persuade those that contend, of the truth of this assertion, ere you cā work by it, upon their consciences. So that although this means (supposing the truth of it) be in it self effectual: yet it cannot breed this effect in all, that at any time contend about religion, but in those only, that believe it. For example; put case that some of the Church, being persuaded, that the Church hath not authority to rob the people of the Cup, should call this privilege of erring into question. How will your Church take up this controversy? will she urge the conclusion, I cannot err? or will she procure her Bishops, Abbots, Cardinals, &c. to avouch as much of her. What is this, but Ask my fellow, if I be a thief. 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 thief: were he not worthy to be aquitted, trow you? And such would your proof be, in this question. But if the Church in this case, could bring out a Charter, and plead that for this privilege: her adversaries must needs be converted, or at least might be confounded: and so perhaps the Controuersie ended. Yet not by the Churches, but by the scriptures authority: which, as I must hereafter show, is the means, that God hath appointed, for that purpose; but it may perhaps be proved, that the Church cannot err. Let us hear the reasons.

If they, that will not hear the Church, must be accounted as Ethnics, and Publicans, the Church cannot err: for if the Church could err, then were there no reason, why he, that would not hear her, should be so accounted of.

When the Pope sends his Legates with pardons a begging about the Country, commanding them to preach to the people, of the virtue, & efficacy of those indulgences: Are they not as Ethnics, or Publicans, or worse, that shall refuse to hear their sermons? and may I hereupon reasonably conclude, that therefore they, that preach them, cannot err? 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 hear them, and not be guilty of contempt, against your Church Apostolic? yet (I hope) these may err. Wherevpon I conclude, that therefore your proposion is false, if they, that will not hear the Church must be accounted as Ethnics, the Church cannot err.

But he, that will not hear the Church is to be counted as an Ethnic.

What? simply, if he do not hear the church? nay, rather if, in that case set down by our savior, he do not hear her: Now the case is this, If one brother, or Christian sin against another, he, that is offended, must rebuke the other in private betwixt them alone. 2. If this prevail not with him, he must the second time rebuke him and that before one, or two witnesses, 3. If this will not serve, he must complain of him to the Governors of the Church, 4. If their censure will do no good with him, he is to be accounted no menber of the church after excommunication. Let us now draw an argument from this place, and see what it makes for the churches infinite authority. He, that, being thus proceeded withal, obeys not the just censure of the Governors of the church, to the confessing of his sin, and satisfying of his brother, & the congregation, is to be accounted an Ethnic. Therefore whatsoever the church says must be believed, or therefore the Church cannot err. Who sees not the weakness of this reason? He, that obeys not the church in a just censure, is no longer any member of the Church; Therefore he that simply in all things obeies her not, acknowledging that she cannot err, is an Infidel.

Here it would be further considered, that by the Church in this place, neither a general council, nor the Pope is meant, but the Governors of several congregations, or the whole congregations themselves, whether they be more, or fewer, so they be a church: that is of necessity more then one. Therefore whatsoever can be gathered out of this text, for the churches privilege, and sovereignty, belongs to the Pastors, and Rulers of several churches. If then by this scripture it be proved that the church cannot err, it is proved that the pastors, and governors of several charges cannot err. How then is this the special privilege of the Pope? But indeed this is a great question, and (I think) not easy by any Papist to be decided: whether the privilege of not erring, belong to the Pope, or to the church. If it were given to Peter, and his successors, why is it made common to them, with the rest of the church? If it appertain 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 err; yea and at other times too. For if it be proper to the Pope not to err, then all beside the Pope may err: and so it may come to pass, that there shall be no church in the world: because the Pope alone, if he be never 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.

They, that do not believe the Church cannot err, have no means to settle themselves in unity of belief.

The truth of this Proposition will be more fitly examined when we come to his Refutation of the scriptures sufficiency, in the mean while let us see, what these other proofs are, that follow.

If God ordained Pastors, and Doctors, least the Church should be carried away, with every blast of vain doctrine, then the Church cannot err.

What Church mean you? not the Pope? for he hath not this privilege, as he is a Pastor, or Doctor, but as he is Peters successor: nor the congregation: for the people both may, and do err. 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 God's purpose in giving Pastors, and Doctors that his children, which only are the Church, should be instructed, and established in all truth: and accordingly it comes to pass in matters of substance, and foundation: but this is done by little and little, as the Apostle witnesses in this place, knowledge being not perfect all at once, but first beginning, as in children, then by degrees receiving a continual increase, till we come to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ: which is never found in any, while we remain in this vale of ignorance, where we do but see in part.

If this reason prove anything, it makes as well for every Pastor, and Doctor, in his several charge, as for the Pope, in his pretended general. For it cannot be doubted, but that the whole succession of the ministry is here signified, under the title of Pastors, & Doctors in several Congregations; such as this, or these of the Ephesians were.

Neither can w • from God's purpose, conclude the necessity of the event, since we find the contrary in daily experience; and know by scripture, that not these, or those means, but only in general means of salvation are provided for them, whom God hath chosen to eternal life, though ordinarily the word be the means.

The Princes end in making, and appointing judges is, that true justice may be administered to the people. Nay more then that, it is also God's purpose, in this his own ordinance: yet it doth not follow hereupon, that the Judges, or Magistrates cannot, or will not err.

But if Christ have promised the Church the assistance of the holy Ghost, in such sort, that they that will not hear her, will not hear him, then the Church cannot err.

If this promise of Christ be general, that whosoever will not hear the church, in all points will not hear him, then the consequence is good.

But that we deny: because it is restrained to the scripture, according to which if the church speak not, we may not at any hand, give ear unto her. You will say, she never speaks but agreeably to the Scriptures. That is the question; which we must see how you prove in your assumption.

The Father shall give you (saith Christ to his Apostles) another comforter, even the spirit of truth, which the world cannot receive &c. If Christ promised to his Apostles, the spirit of truth, then the church cannot err.

First our Savior in this place, enforces not upon this gift of the spirit, any necessity of hearing whatsoever the Church shall deliver, but only makes this promise, by way of comfort.

Secondly, this promise is made, not to the church in general, but to the Apostles in particular.

Thirdly is is made not only to them all jointly, but also to everyone of them severally. So that if by this place anything can be concluded for the Church at this day; every particular Pastor, or Minister, may claim this privilege of not erring, and being heard, whatsoever he teach: which being most absurd, and impious; that charge to hear, and penalty for not hearing, belongs simply to the Apostles only, and to everyone 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 howsoever the persuasion that the Church cannot err, may sometimes breed an outward quietness, in the Church: yet it hath no force to establish men in the unity of true belief: since it may both deceive, and be deceived; not to end controversies, because all believe it not; nor to abolish Heresies, which, many times it may favor.

But what is it, that he adds, concerning general Councils, and ancient Fathers? Have they some privilege, the Church hath not? Or is it his meaning to exemplify that in particular, which before he wrote in general, of the impossibility, that the church should err? If it be, then all he says of these (for he brings no new reason) is already answered, in trying the Churches title, to that feigned prerogative. But cannot general Councils deliver false, doctrine? How chance then; that some wholly, others in part, have been, and are at this day rejected by the Pope? what say you to the three Councilles, that make the Pope subject to the Councils; Pisa, Constance, and Basel? What to that of Florence under Charlemaigne? which condemned worshipping of Images, and the second Council of Nice, for allowing it? Bellarmine says, they are not simply necessary, and that more heresies have been abolished without them, then by them. Nazianzen wholly mislikt them: the Council of Trent, and that of Nice ended not the Controuersies.

Now, if neither the Church have it in general, nor especially▪ General Councils; how should the Pastors, and ancient Fathers come by it? For, that which is added of their teaching on truth with joint consent, is but to blear the eyes of the ignorant. Can there be more joint consent, then in general Councils? may they err, when they seek the truth, with grave, and serious advise, in great multitudes, and can they not be deceived when they inquire after it, privately in their several studies? who knows not, that the error of someone man renowned for learning, and Godlines, draws whole Churches after it many times? especially since custom like a tyrant, rules over the wits, and wills even of learned men: who ofttimes think it more discretion, to retain a small error with quietness, then to restore the truth with great trouble, and hazard.

But where shall a man find this joint consent, you imagine? I dare be bold to say, in very few points of controversy at this day, if in any. Yet say it were ea • ilie to be found, in the writings, that now are extant: Alas! what a small number of books have we, in respect of those, that have been written? What gappes are there in the course of succession? What maymes in often copying out books by writing? What mistaking in translations? many Greek copies being lost, and the latin translation of them only remaining.

And who can tell what Indices Purgatori • have been devised, & enjoined before this last assembly of Trent? especially since▪ Canons have been foisted into ancient Councils, by Popes of Rome, for the establishing of their lawless tyranny.

Therefore, though we refuse not to make trial of our doctrine, by the Fathers writings, namely those that are indeed ancient, in the first 600. years, before the kingdom of Anthichrist: Yet we receive them, as witnesses of the truth, not Judges; and use them, as we use old Coines, not for an assay, to try by them, the pureness of met • all: but for a standard, to show what moneis were currant in several ages, and places. Where they speak according to Scripture, we acknowledge the good graces of God in them, to their deserved Commendation: Where they write of themselves, we observe examples of man's frailty, and ignorance, to which we make no doubt, but all writers, since the Apostles, and except them, have been, are, and shall be subject.

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

They cannot abide to hear, that the sole Scripture should be vmpere, and judge, in matters of controversy: Belike they have found a better: Even the Pope, to whom they attribute more, whatsoever they talk of the Church, Councils, and Fathers, then to all three together; save that by Church perhaps they mean the Pope, Whom they make the head, and husband of it, being not afraid blasphemously to write, that all the names that are given to Christ, as he is over the Church, belong to the Pope, as well as to Christ; though at the second hand, as being Christ's; or rather (as they say) God's vicar. Perhaps they will say, as good do so, as remit all to every man's private spirit, and singular exposition. Surely much about one: & yet, by this later it may come to pass, that though many err, yet many also may hold the truth: Whereas by the former, if one be deceived, all must lie in ignorance, and error; since no man may so much as say unto him, why d • st thou so? But that we permit not the interpretation of scripture to every man's private fancy, I shown in handling the 2. Article. Yet this inconvenience lies upon us, that we cannot possibly wind our selves, out of the labirinth of so many controversies, wherewith we are now inueigled, and intricated. When we lack help, we will send for their Pope; or, if need be, make one of our own: As yet things are not in so desperate an estate, that we should be enforced to seek any such remedy. For the Irreconciliable jars, betwixt us, are neither, as he slanders us, in any essential point of faith; nor such as hinder us, from agreeing in that doctrine, which is according to the word of God established amongst us, and published in the Book of Articles 1562.

That the Protestants, and the Puritans, (as the Papists term them) differ in essential points of faith, he undertakes to prove by this reason.

They, that differ about the Kings supremacy, the Bishops authority, the observation of feasts, &c. differ in essential points of [unspec 1] faith. But the Protestants and Puritans differ in these. Therefore they differ in essential points of faith.

If, by essential points of faith, all matters of truth in divinity be signified, we grant his conclusion; adding further, that the church was never yet so happy, as to be without difference of opinions amongst divines, in any one age, since the beginning of Christian Religion. If he mean, by these words, such things as are necessarily to be believed to salvation, or to the profession of christianity, I deny his Proposition in all, or the most part of it, as, in handling the particulars it shall appear. That the Protestants hold the kings supremacy to be an essential point of faith, so that he which doubteth of it, cannot be either in truth, or in profession a Christian: neither the confession of our church; no the writings of any of our divines prove. Indeed seditious Papists would bear the world in hand, that their traitorous Priests, and Jesuits, have been executed for religion, and not for treason, in denying the Kings supremacy: but neither Protestant, nor Puritan ever yet believed them. Both which do constantly, and jointly auowe, that although it be not a heresy of so high a nature; yet it is a wicked error, against the truth of God's word, and an opinion not to be tolerated in any Christian, or civil state.

There is no dissent betwixt the Protestant and the Puritan, about the Kings supremacy, but the difference that is, ariseth from the diverse conceit, each part hath of the things, by his Majesty enjoined; as it shall appear in due place.

Calvin doth not so much as charge Henry the eight with assuming the Soueraignety he speaks of; but only lays the fault upon certain men; who in an vnconsiderate zeal, 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 given to the King, seemed to inuest that whole power in the Kings person, which the Pope had usurped over the church. Secondly, Stephen Gardener Bishop of Winchester, affirmed at Ratisbon, that it was lawful for the King, to forbid eating of flesh upon this, or that day, to forbid Priests to marry, to take from the people the use of the Cup in the Supper of the Lord: The later two whereof are simply unlawful, the first only so far as it concerns putting religion in such abstinence: of which anon. And, in that sense only, did Calvin deny the Kings supremacy, 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 have now leisure to seek. But, if they have done anything, whereby it may justly be suspected, that they think the king hath nothing to do with the kirke, they have gone beyond their bounds, and shall never have either approbation, or excuse by my defense.

As for the Ministers and people, which do not yield to subscription, and conformity, I must needs labor to clear them of this imputation. To which purpose, I desire it may first be observed, 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 Majesty, under God, is the only supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other his Highness dominions, and countries, as well in all spiritual, or Ecclesiastical things, or causes, as temporal; & that no foreign Prince, person, state, or Potentate, hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority Ecclesiastical, or spiritual, within his Majesty's said Realms, dominions, and countries, according as the statute, agreeablie to the law of God, requireth.

Secondly they profess, with the rest of their Fathers, and brethren Protestants, that his Majesty hath authority to command, or forbid, in all matters whatsoever, necessary, or indifferent: and that, in both these, he is to be obeyed, upon conscience. Of his authority in matters commanded by God, we are wholly of one mind. 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 commanded, 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 died. And these are the reasons, why they dare not (as they say) approve some things in our church, by subscription, and practice: otherwise professing not only a willingness, but a desire to yield, if they might satisfy their own consciences in these doubts. So that indeed they no way deny the Kings supremacy, either by attributing that to any foreign potētate, or prelate, or any presbytery at home, which lawfully belōgs unto him, or by denying his authority in things indifferent.

Concerning the authority of Bishops, it is not an essential [unspec 2] point of faith: and besides, the best protestant divines hold, that the form of government is left to the discretion of every church, to be framed, as the civil estate may bear it: and therefore it is not denied (I think) that there may be a Presbytery, but that a Presbytery is fit for a Monarchy. So that the abolishing of Bishops in some Churches, is not a confounding of Christ's church, but a dissolving of one outward form of government.

Essentiall points of faith are matters of doctrine, wherein [unspec 3] a man may be sound, and yet fail in some parts of obedience. If therefore, by not observing, you mean, not thinking it lawful, to observe or appoint holy days, I say it is no essētiall point of faith to doubt of, or deny this authority; though the Puritans (generally) hold such denial to be an error.

If it be your meaning, to charge the Puritans with neglecting the observation of such days, I dare be bold to say, that all Puritans do more religiously observe them, then any Papist doth the Lord's day, or Sunday; which I auowe both of Ministers and people.

That it is unlawful for the church, or magistrate to appoint [unspec 4] fasts for the religious humbling of men, upon just occasions, it is a foul error for any man to hold, but not against any essential 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 days, Lēt, & the 4. ember weeks, our church, and state disclaim the appointing of them, for any use of religion, and keep them only as means, to provide for the increase of cattle, and mainteinance of shipping, Mariners, Fishermen, and Fishmongers.

Neither is this doctrine of Christ's sufferings any essential [unspec 5] point of faith, nor blasphemy, on the one part, or other; as I have 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 essential 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 substantial point, to hold, that our Savior Christ was wholly in the estate of the dead, both for soul, and body.

Of this matter also there is diversity of opinion, betwixt Protestants, and Protestants, Puritans, and Puritans, and therefore it is fondly, and falsely set down, as a point of dissent betwixt protestants, and Puritans.

The like answer is to be made to this also, save only, [unspec 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 natural son of God, coessential, Coēternall to his father, is a matter of necessity, at the least so, that the Contrary overthrows religion. But, for my part, I dare not affirm, that the distinct knowledge of all such points, is of necessity to salvation.

And surely (saving other men's better judgment) I am of opinion, that those Clauses of Athanasius Creed, which seem to shut all men out of heaven, that believe not those articles of the Creed, are to be understood of some of them only, or of the Contrary to the truth. The holy, and learned man spake according to the occasion, the heresy of Arius having made a main difference betwixt the true, and false Christians. But of these three last points, see The fourth Article.

Thus much of the main differences, which this Papist [unspec 8] • oats: now follow the petty ones, as he calls them. The first whereof is as true, as the former seven. For our agrement in the matter of Baptism may easily be known, by our joint consent, to the articles of Religion 1562. according to the subscription required by statute. Neither do the Puritans deny, that Baptism washeth away all sins, as a Sacrament, and seals up the forgiveness thereof: Neither do the protestants believe any other thing of it, or ascribe any other virtue to it.

The Puritans do not Condemne the communion book, as irreligious, but acknowledge it lawful to be used, and both have used it heretofore, and are ready to use it again, howsoever they desire to be forborne in the use of some things in it, which (to them) seem unwarrantable.

They entreat to be spared for the Cross in Baptism, And, whereas diverse of late have yielded to it, the ground of their yielding is, that it is no significant Ceremony, but only a sign betwixt man, and man, and so indifferent as they think.

That there are some differences betwixt us, we deny not, nor that this is one of them, concerning the sign in Confirmation. But this is far from being an essential point of faith.

And so is this of using Vestments, Music &c. wherein also there are diverse opinions, on either side: but, I think, 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 unlawful. In a word, there is not any difference, to my knowledge, betwixt us, which may either deprive us of salvation by the death of Christ, or bar us from living brotherly, and christianly as members of one, and the same Church.

And thus we have heard the strong arguments of this popish replyer. Who, it should seem, not resting much upon his own proof, in the end of this first parte, looks to hear some reasons from us, whereby we may approve our selves, to be the true Church. But that hath been often donne by our Divines, so far, as we profess of our selves. For none of us ever undertook to prove, that we are the true Church, as the Papists dream of the Church. We are, by the blessing, and grace of God, a part, or member of the true Church of Christ, not the, whole church. Yea we acknowledge, that diverse particular churches may refuse communion with us. and yet both they; and we, remain 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 themselves the name of the church, that they condemn all for schismatics yea for Heretics, that acknowledge not themselves to be members of the catholic Romish church, in subjection to the Pope of Rome.

The sum of our proof is, that we profess that religion, which our savior Christ hath commended unto us, in the scriptures; of which, it should seem, this man was not ignorant. For, in this very place, he excepts against this reason; because it is no other, then that, which all heretics will bring to condemn the church of Christ, This answer is insufficient: unless we shall grant that our savior brings no good reason against the Devil, in alleging scripture, because Satan himself in his temptation, replies against him by scripture. Who knows not, that in all controversies, reasons must be drawn from the arts of which the controversy is: as for example, what Lawyer will offer to defend a bad cause, but he will quote law, for his purpose? and shall this either bar him, that pleads against him, from alleging his books, or make his plea of no force? nay rather any man of mean discretion, will readily distinguish, and say, the one makes a show of law but the other hath law indeed; so is it in these points of controversy. The Papists, and other heretics pretend, that the scriptures make for them, but this may not prejudice the authority thereof, in deciding matters of controversy: neither shall any true Christian need to be ashamed of seeking to ground his faith upon the scriptures, because Heretics abuse them to their wicked purposes: no more then our savior was to allege them, though the Devil had drawn them to abett his horrible temptation. Nay, if the Papists were not too willful, they would, in divers points, acknowledge the voice of God in scriptures, it being plain, as these allegations of our Savior Christ. And, if they had been then in the Devils steed, they would not have taken those places for satisfaction, but would have come upon our savior with a second reply, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and have charged him with falsifying the text, for putting in Only. Therefore we acknowledge this to be our only hold, that by the Scriptures we are proved to be the Church of God. Let the Arians comtemne Councils; We believe, and profess, that they are excellent means allowed by God, for maintaining, and searching out the truth; only we refuse to match them in Authority, and accompt, with the infallible truth of the almighty God Will any absurd, and base flatterer affirm, that he despises Magistracy, and Princes who denies, that they have an absolute and infinite Authority?

But, I think, it would shrewdly trouble you to prove, that the Arians contemned Councils. Sure it is not likely, since themselves, within the compass of 30. years, held 10. Councils, at the least, for the establishing of their wicked heresy. True it is, that they rejected the council of Nice, wherein their heresy was justly and holyly condemned; but that therefore they regarded not Councils at all, it is not proved. But consider, I pray you, with what conscience, or rather with what malice, you write. The Arians are blamed by you, for not regarding Councils; we are charged to contemn them. Whereas you know, in your own conscience, that we receive both that Council which the Arians refused, and all the other general, and particular councills, save those, that (as we are persuaded) contain in them apparaunt falsehood, and impiety. If it be a fault not to receive all, who shall excuse you Papists, that have wholly rejected seven general Councils held at Antioch, Millaine, Ariminum, Ephesus the second, two at Constantinople against Images, and one at Pisa: and in part six other, at Sardis, at Syrmium, at Constantinople, in Tr • llo, at Frankeford, at Constance, at Basel. how justly all, or some of these are rejected, I dispute not, once it is evident they are rejected, neither have 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 reverently embrace all Councils and all Canons, and articles of all Councils, 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 selves the true interpretation of scriptures, as if it were appropriated unto us. That is your Popish Heresy. Nay we acknowledge, with thanks to God, and their just commendation, that the ancient writers have brought great light to the true understanding of scriptures. Yea that many Papists have interpreted some texts of scripture soundly, & religiously. Moreover we confess, that all, and everyone of our writers, either hath, or may have failed in his expositions. I speak the last doubtfully, because some have written but little, and myself have not examined all.

If any Heretics avow the truth of all their own interpretations, what should this prejudice our cause? Who submit whatsoever our expositions to be compared with the scriptures, & to be received, or refused, as they shall be found to agree, or disagree with, or from the word of God. I would add hereunto the general consent of the ancient writers; but that it is a longer, and more uncertain course, to try whether they be suitable unto their own writings, then whether they be framed according to the holy Ghosts meaning. For the main doubt must needs accompany that trial. viz. who shall be Judge, whether we, or the Papists rightly understand, and expound the fathers writings? If any man shall say their Books, and Commentaries are plain, and easy; I dare boldly say of him, that either he never read, what they write, or cares not, what himself says. It will not serve the turn, to bring some plain interpretations out of them, for so can we allege very many texts out of the Scripture. But he, that is desirous to judge truly of the meaning of any writer, must not snatch up a sentence here, and there, but advisedly consider both his manner of writing in other places, and the signification of diverse phrases, and custom of speech, in those times, wherein he writ, the occasion of those particular words, he would understand, and diverse other such points. Which will prove (as ere while I said) more troublesome, and less certain, then to search every corner of the text, for the true meaning of the scripture. And here, let us remember, that we are sure the scripture agrees with it self, in every place, and point: that any other writers do so, who can be assured? So that, many times, we shall beat our brains to reconcile those speeches, which indeed are very certain contrarieties Since that this difficulty remains in understanding the fathers writings, which is the only doubt in the scripture, what madness were it, to leave beating of the text, wherein we know the certain truth is to be found; and to run riot in the wild-fields of men's inventions, where perhaps there is nothing to be had but error. Let us use the help of Ancient writers to find the meaning of the holy Ghost; but not rest upon their authority therein. If they prove their interpretations by reason, let it be weighed, that it may persuade us to think, as they do. If there be none, let us labor to find some for their interpretation. If that will be not, let us see what other reason we can have, of any other exposition. If it please God to show us any, Let us crave pardon of the Fathers to dissent from them: if none, Let us rather trust them, then our selves, where there is nothing, but conjecture, without difference of likelihood.

We are far from bragging of any such special illumination, as the Donatists challenged to themselves. For we say not, that the Church of God is only in our assemblies or the spirit tied to us. Who knows not, that this is a stale popish devise, to shut up the holy Ghost in the Popes breast; so that neither all Councils, without him, can be anything worth, and he, of himself, without any of them, is all-sufficient. A little flock we are in deed, if we be compared with the huge swarms of Infidels, Papists, and other h • retickes. Yea, as many of us, as belong to the election of God, are of that small flock, to which it is God • good pleasure to give A kingdom. To be of any other Little flock, we accompt it no commendation; Nay rather we desire, and pray, that it would please God to enlarge the bounds of his Church, and to increase the number of true professors. But we are not ashamed of our small number: though the Papists twight us with all, in comparison of their huge multitudes.

Therefore, whereas this Papist likens us to the Donatists, Pelagians, Nestorians, Eutychians, with all the rabble of other damned heretics, we acknowledge it is our portion to be railed on, with our Master Christ; and so shake of this froth of a malicious stomach, with that speech of the Archangel, The Lord rebuke thee.

Now for a Conclusion, that the end might be suitable to the beginning, he labors to disgrace the principles of our Religion; by affirming, as truly, as he hath done all the rest, that if our principles be true, then Saint Paul exhorts men to infidelity. How many of our principles, think you, he overthrows by this reason? But poor one, if it were never so true, and being false, as it is, not that neither.

Whosoever exhorts us to doubt of that, which we are bound to believe by faith, exhorts us to infidelity.

The proof of this might well have been spared, and the strength, you wast • n •• , reserved for the assumption: which hath more need o • your help, then it seems, your are aware of.

But Saint Paul doth exhort us to doubt of our salvation, which we are bound to believe by faith, according to the Protestants doctrine.

Because it makes for the better understanding of this Reason, I will in few words set down what we teach, concerning this point. Namely, that it behooues every Christian to labor for the perfection, as of other graces, so of the assurance, that comes by faith also. Which stands in a full persuasion of the love of God in Jesus Christ, and the continuance thereof, to his everlasting salvation. In deed this is not the proper nature of faith, which rather is that grace; whereby we cast our selves upon Christ, to be saved by him. But it is an effect of faith, which every Christian must strive to have grounded in him self: so that, if he have it not, he fails in one duty to God. But we may not imagine, that whosoever hath not this feeling assurance of God's love to him, either is without faith, or shall be damned, for the want of this persuasion. Nay we make no question, but that both faith it self, & this effect of it, is in all, or the most part, very far from perfection, everyone having his measure allotted unto him, according to the good pleasure of God; who sees how much is necessary for everyone, in regard of the inward, and outward trials, which he shall have in this life. This must we endeavor by all good means to establish, and augment; & hereunto belongs that exhortation of the Apostles, With fear and trembling work your salvation.

There are two kinds of men, whom it doth concern. First those, that vainly deceive themselves with an opinion of of faith, whereas they have none. Let him, that thinks he stands take heed least he fall.

Then they, that in deed do truly believe: who, because their faith is imperfect, must labor daily for the perfecting thereof; which they shall never attain to, if they be careless, and do not continually stand in fear of falling, by reason of their own infirmity.

So that this exhortation doth not forbid stri • ing to perfection, but enjoin the means of attaining thereto: which is, daily to stand in fear of our corruption, because we are not perfect in faith. Blessed is the man that feareth always: fear to sin is no way against faith; because faith hath received no promise of full freedom from sin. Fear of punishment is necessarily annexed to the former, because the wages of sin is death. Whereof we may taste, in our own feeling, by reason of our weak faith, if we do not work our salvation with fear and trembling.

What his meaning should be, in his last sentence, I cannot guess. For, I think, he will not say, that this filial fear comprehends in it servile fear also; because then the distinction will scarce be currant: unless he expound himself, as I said before, that the fear of punishment follows upon the fear of sin; in which respect we need not doubt to grant, that the Apostle exhorts us to both kinds of fear: and yet so, as that he no way persuades to infidelity, though the Protestants principle be, that we are bound to believe by faith that we shall be saved.

Papist.

Articles concerning good life, and piety.

Protestant.

I may not forget to put the Reader in mind, that diverse of these Articles, as the 1. 2. 4. 5. are not points held by the Protestants, but matters charged upon their doctrine by the Papists, and that quite contrary to their direct protestation. So that, if any such thing fall out upon our opinions, we may profess, with a good conscience, that we are deceived, by the error of our judgment, not carried away by any desire to err. For proof hereof, we offer our selves to be judged by all men of any indifferency, according to our answers, and reasons, which we have made, and now do make, in our just, and necessary defense.

Papist.

The Protestants are bound in Conscience, never to ask God forgiveness of their sins.

Protestant.

The Protestants will rather abjure any point of doctrine, upon which this may follow, then, to maintain their doctrine, for bear the p • rformance of this duty: but neither of both these need, as our answer will show.

The principal syllogism for the proof of this article, omitted, I know not upon what reason, by this Author, is thus to be concluded.

Whosoever sins grievously, in asking God forgiveness of his sins, is bound in conscience never to ask it.

But the Protestants sin grievously, in asking God forgiveness of their sins.

Therefore the Protestants are bound in conscience, never to ask God forgiveness of their sins.

Instead of this syllogism, we have the proof of the assumption.

Papist.

Whosoever is assured by faith, that his sins are forgiven him▪ sinneth most grievously, in asking God pardon for them.

But all true Protestants are assured by faith, that their sins are forgiven them. Ergo.

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

The Major is evident: for who; but an Infidel, or a mad man would demand of God the creation of the world, which he is assured by faith, that God hath already created? or Christ's incarnation, which already is performed? or the institution of sacraments, which already is effected? In like manner, who, but an Infidel, or mad man, will demand pardon of his sins, which he believeth already by faith, that God hath forgiven? For it is a sign that he doubteth of that, which he is bound by faith to believe; which doubting faith is flat infidelity.

Moreover, whatsoever we demand, that we hope to obtain: but no man hopeth to obtain that, he already possesseth: as no man will demand of God his own soul, or body, because already he pos • esseth them.

The Minor is undoubted; because this is that lively faith, whereby the Protestants are justified: by this they apprehend Christ, by this they apply his merits, and Passion unto them; and, without this, no man can attain unto Salvation.

Hereupon I will infer, that no Protestant can, with a safe conscience, say the Lord's prayer. Because he cannot pray, as he ought without true faith, and call God his father; and, if he have true faith, he cannot, without note of infidelity, utter this petition, forgive us our sins: for that most assuredly he believeth, and protesteth, in the first ingress of that prayer, that he is the son of God; and consequently believeth by faith, that his sins are forgiven him.

Protestant.

The best is, we are not charged with denying, that a man is bound to ask God forgiveness of sins, but only, that we do it against that duty, to which in conscience we are bound. Therefore, if this cavil were a true challenge, we might happily be thought absurd, in holding opinions, that cannot agree together, but we could not be counted impious; since we urge, and practice continually, and daily prayer, for the obtaining of forgiveness; but this conceit is fancied by Papists, not so much as favored by our doctrine. Witnes this poor reason of theirs, and our plain, and true answer thereunto.

Whosoever is assured by faith, that his sins are forgiven, sinneth most grievously, in asking God pardon for them.

Perhaps some man will marvel, that this Papist, as it may seem unnecessarily, makes so often mention of believing by faith, and being assured by faith; because there can be no assurance, or belief but only by faith. But he doth it agreeably to their Popish doctrine: which acknowledgeth a kind of assurance, but that, not of faith, but of hope. There is (say they,) concerning every man's own salvation, Certitudo spei, Assurance of hope, but not Certitudo fidei, Assurance of faith.

The reason of this distinction is, that hope may be deceived, but faith cannot. Which they would never say, if they considered, that all true Christian hope ariseth from some promise made unto us by God in the Scriptures, whereunto we have interest by nothing, but faith. What a vain thing is it, for a man to hope for ought, at God's hands, as the world commonly doth, without any likelihood of obtaining it? and what likelihood 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 Jesus Christ. All the blessings, that Abraham the Father of the faithful, could make any claim to, were to be held by gift upon promise. Therefore if we will be his children, as we must be, if we be faithful, we have nothing to trust to, but God's promise in Jesus Christ. Faith then is the ground of Hope, and according to the measure of true believing, so is the measure of all true hoping. Let us exemplify it a little.

Do I hope for everlasting life? What reason have I to hope for it? the promise of God, that proclaimeth pardon of sin, and inheritance of Glory to all, that believe in his son Jesus Christ. But how doth that concern me? by reason of my faith in Christ. So that, if I believe not in Christ, I do but deceive myself, with a shadow of hope; for true Christian hope I have none.

But I hope I believe in Christ. But that will not serve thy turn. For so doth every man, that hath heard of Christ, and believeth the truth of the Gospel: and yet he is far from true hope, and from that, which the Papists themselves require of every Christian. Who teach that every man, by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, is actually purged from all his sins before committed: which he must certainly be persuaded, and assured of. The like they say of their sacraments of penance, and of extreme unction: Which he, that receiveth dying, having a general Catholic faith, shall surely go to heaven, though perhaps through Purgatory. In so much that if he, which is thus prepared, should doubt whether he were saved, or no, he should sin mortally. Therefore to conclude this point, which I have hit upon, this by the way I say it is plain, that faith limits hope, and that there is no true hope, or reason of hoping, but proportionably to the measure of believing. Which will easilier be acknowledged of us, if we remember, that hope in the Scriptures is applied to those things, which we must of necessity believe by faith. And in deed the true difference betwixt faith, and hope, is not in the diversity of assurance, but in the circumstance of time. Faith reaching to all times past, present, and to come: hope being restrained only to the future time. A Christian man believeth by faith, that God will bless him in all things of this life, so far forth, as it shall make for his own glory, and the believers salvation. Therefore also he hopeth for this blessing from God, not absolutely, but with those conditions, which faith observes in believing. The same man believes by faith, that because he trusts in Christ, he is now in the favor of God, and shall so continue forever. Therefore accordingly he hopes for salvation, without any other condition. Of the truth of these things I dispute not, but only bring them to show the nature of hope; which is always fitted according to the nature of the promises, which faith rests upon: Where we believe conditionally, we hope conditionally: where our faith is absolute, our hope is so too.

That the proposition is false it appears by the example of David. Who prays to God for the pardon of those sins, which he believed by faith were forgiven (for so was he assured, from the Lord, by the prophet Nathan ) unless we shall charge him with infidelity, for not believing the prophet: since the speech was so plain, that he could not but understand it. I have sinned against the Lord. A plain, and true Confession The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. As plain, and certain an absolution. Will you come in here with your vain distinctions of guilt, and punishment, of temporal, and eternal? If you do, it is to no purpose. For, whatsoever the respects were, in which David prayed for the forgiveness of sins, once this is clear, that he prayed for it: and then what remains, but that you condemn him of sinning grievously, in asking God pardon for those sins, which he believed by faith were forgiven; or of infidelity for not believing? But if David, in some regard, might crave pardon, when it was already granted, and believed by him to be so; be think yourself what will become of your proposition, and how wisely you have charged us with sinning grievously, 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 only show, that in this case, they cannot help you. Which of the former is apparent: because the Prophet precisely mentions both parts. The Lord hath taken away thy sin: There is the guilt wipt away. Thou shalt not die: There is the punishment forgiven. Yea, you will say, the eternal punishment, but not the temporal. I pray you whether of the two is it, that God threatens Adam withal? The day thou eatest thou shalt die the death.

The punishment; yea the whole penalty of the statute concerning sin is, Thou shalt die. See how God, for the comfort of David, proclaims this pardon, in the very contrary words, Thou shalt not die. Who shall persuade us now, that the pardon is less general, then the penalty.

But is the eternal punishment indeed forgiven? I think you mistake yourself, or else popish doctrine hanges but ill fauoredly together. For what is that, which you say is changed from eternal, to temporal? Is it not the punishment due to sin? how is it then forgiven, unless forgiveness of sins be nothing else, but a changing of the punishment: which if we grant, then Christ hath not obtained anymore for us, but the altering of the punishment; then God hath not pardoned our sin, but remitted somewhat of the penalty. Speak not here of the effect of baptism; for, if by forgiveness of sins therein, we are wholly acquitted from the guilt, and punishment, why should the same words after baptism, signify a change of the punishment, and not a full pardon? David therefore, in praying for pardon of those sins, which he believed by faith were already pardoned, by his practice destroyed this popish reason, long before it was hatched. Nor may you answer, that this prayer was for any temporal Calamity, which was laid upon him, for this sin, because the scriptures make these requests diverse. He was threatened by the prophet, that the child borne in adultery should surely die. For the life of the child he prays, fasts, and weeps, but those 2. Psalms, I spake of, are of another nature; not once mentioning, nor once glancing at any temporal, or outward affliction. And if there be in deed any such dictinction of guilt, and punishment, David intreats directly and principally for the former: According to the multitude of thy mercies wash me thoroughly &c. Every verse expressing the anguish of a distressed soul, for the conscience of sin committed against God, And whereas he makes also request to God, for deliverance from the punishment, make me to hear joy &c. It is manifest that this can no way advantage the Papists: because he intreats only for the assurance of forgiveness, which was to be testified unto his soul, by the feeling of God's love, and his own rejoicing therein; but what makes this for popish Purgatory after death, or proud satisfaction, in this life? for David promised no 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 joy of the spirit, doth he beg any exemption from purgatory: because a man may have that, after diverse sins committed, in some good measure, and yet be liable to the fire of purgatory: by omitting some duties, which he is enjoined by his ghostly father to perform. Now the 32. psalm runs in the same manner. Blessed is the man &c. here is mention of having wickedness forgiven, sin covered, iniquity not imputed, of punishment not releast not a word, or letter. Let us go forward, whence proceeded his roaring? even frō the guilt of his sin not felt to be pardoned, I acknowledged my sin, &c. I cōfest my wickedness unto thee, & thou forgavest the punishment of my sin. What punishment? No doubt that, which David entreated for. But the temporal punishments were not forgivē (I cal thē as the Papists do) for both the Child died, and Absalom was raised up out of David's own house, & lay with his fathers wives, in the sight of the son. What question can there be then, whether David prayed for the forgiveness of his sins, even in respect of the eternal punishment, for all he did believe, that it was granted him, according to the word of God by the prophet Nathan?

Whereupon it necessarily ensues, that the proposition is untrue, which condemns everyone of sinning grievously against God, that asks forgiveness of his sins, being assured by faith, that they are forgiven, But for the better clearing of this point, let us also shape a direct answer to his proofs, and afterwards set down, what we maintain, concerning praying for pardō of our sins. His first proof is taken from an argument of parity, or equality in this sort, or form.

If none, but an Infidel, or a mad mā would demand 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 demand pardon of his sins, which he believes already by faith, God hath forgiven.

The consequence of this proposition is feeble, because it presumes an equality, where there is none. For we have not the like measure of assurance, for the forgiveness of our sins, as we have of these other points here signified: as I have shown already, and must say again by and by, in answer to the assumption. Therefore though we should sin grievously in craving those things of God, which without all doubt we are assured he hath already done, because we should but mock him: yet do we not sin, in like sort by desiring that, whereof our weak faith must needs make some question. I grant we sin by doubting, through the weakness of our faith; but I deny we sin by praying, because of that doubting. Further, we are to consider, that there is a great difference betwixt these things, even in respect of their being past: for the three former are absolutely dispatched, the later, after a sort, is every day a doing: because howsoever, in the everlasting purpose of God, the sins of all the elect are already, from all eternity, forgiven; yet they are, in respect of us, and the actual being of them, day by day actually remitted: and therefore we may, without grievous sin, and must (unless we will sin grievously) daily crave pardon of God; because we have new sins daily to be forgiven. The point will be made more plain, in the explication of our opinion.

But none, but a mad man, or Infidel, will demand 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 givē.

If a man be fully assured, that these things are already accomplisht, he cannot without sin, demand of God the accomplishing of them: but, if there arise in his mind some doubt concerning the certainty thereof, he may, and must entreat the Lord to reveal the truth unto him, and to confirm unto him the assurance of it: though his doubting indeed is sin, yet have we no just cause, nor sufficient warrant to condemn this doubting faith of flat infidelity, as this rigorous Papist doth; who never felt, it should seem, 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 proof not being able to abide the proof; let us try the latter, which must thus be applied to the Authors purpose, for the proof of the first proposition.

Whosoever demands that, which he hopes not to obtain, sins grievously, in demanding it.

By not hoping to obtain that, which is demanded, there is no reproof implied of praying without hope; as if it were his meaning to exhort us to trust, or hope in God, for that indeed concerns not this reason; but he signifies, that a man ought not to pray for that, of the obtaining whereof there can be no hope, because we are already in possession of it: which proposition of his is only so far true, as it belongs to him, that knows he hath the thing he prays for. And that appears by his proof; 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 come; as also the words immediately before plainly show. Hope, that is seen, is not hope. Therefore he only sins grievously in praying for that, he possesses, who knows he doth possess that he prays for. But he, that stands in doubt, whether he have the thing or no, which he is desirous of, may without this blame make means to get it, though he have it already; because he is not certain that he hath it; howsoever, it may be, he hath some persuasion of the possession thereof.

But whosoever is assured by faith, that his sins are forgiu •• him, in asking God pardon demands that, which he hath no hope to obtain.

The former answer, of the measure of the assurance, argues this assumption of falsehood: because a man may by faith truly believe, that his sins are forgiven, and yet not fully, or certainly be resolved thereof, in regard whereof he may, and ought to sue for pardon.

But all true Protestants are assured by faith, that their sins are for given them.

They should indeed be so assured, and are bound to labor for such assurance: but not one of many thousands attains to that plerophorie or full persuasion: and yet everyone (as I said before) hath his proportion fitted out for him, by the spirit of God, according to the measure of trial, which God in his fatherly wisdom, will by any means make of him: so that he shall never be finally, or wholly swallowed up of despairing. And this is an effect of that justifying faith, by which we lay hold on, and apply unto our selves the sufferings of Christ; which every true Christian man feels in himself, in part, whiles he lives in this vale of misery, and wholly, at the time of his departure henco; the spirit taking from him all conscience of sin, and filling his soul with the undoubted feeling of that joy, which God hath prepared for him in Jesus Christ. Other assurance then this, or in other manner, we teach not, and namely not this; that he is not to be esteemed, as a true Christian, who makes any doubt, upon any occasion of the pardon of any sin.

Now, for a conclusion of this Article, he geathers of the former point, that no Protestant can, with a safe conscience, say the Lord's Prayer: because therein he must ask forgiveness of sins, whereas he believes already, that all are forgiven.

The reason stands thus.

He, that cannot, without note of infidelity, ask forgiveness of sins, cannot, with a safe conscience, say the Lord's Prayer.

What this note of Infidelity means, we shall more fitly examine, in the assumption. If by a safe conscience, he mean a conscience free from sin, even in the very action of prayer; we grant his conclusion. Because (as it shall appear, in the next article) no man performs any duty, in this life, unto God, but it is stained with some spot of his natural corruption. But, if by a safe conscience, he understand a conscience without sin, in respect of his praying (as I am persuaded he doth) I deny the consequence of his proposition. For though a man cannot crave pardon of sin, with a full assurance, the want whereof this Papist seems to call a note of infidelity, yet he may make that petition, with a safe conscience; that is, without any just check of conscience, for praying so.

But no Protestant can, without note of infidelity, ask forgiveness of sins.

That weak faith is not to be counted infidelity, I take it, no Christian doubts at all. And as little, that it is not a note of infidelity, to beg pardon of our sins. The assurance whereof though we should have; yet we have it, but in part. Therefore this assumption is void of truth, as the whole discourse of this article hath proved. For I make no doubt, but that by note of Infidelity, he means (as before) want of faith, in not believing, that our sins are forgiven: or in demanding that of God, which by faith we are assured, he hath already performed. All which being answered before, there remains nothing, but that I shortly declare what we hold and teach, concerning praying for forgiveness of sins. First, we believe and teach, that all our sins original, and actual; before, and after Baptism; both guilt, and punishment, temporal, and eternal, are washed away by the blood and sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, that this pardon is made effectual to us, by faith, whereby we cast our selves upon Christ, to be saved by him. Thirdly, that the assurance, which follows upon believing, is wrought in every man, according to his measure, and is in no man, ordinarily, so perfect, but that it is mixed with some doubting, more or less. How praying for pardon of sins may stand with this faith, though I have shown sufficiently already: yet it will not be amiss to declare it more fully, for answer to this accusation.

We believe, in some measure that God hath forgiven all our sins, in our savior Jesus Christ. But, because our faith is weak, we continually pray to God for pardon: or rather for the assurance of our pardon to be increased neither yet doth it follow, that then prayer for forgiveness is an effect of a weak faith; because though our faith were strong? yet the feeling of our own wretchedness, the just desert of sin, and the wrath of God due unto us, would wring out such entreaty from us: as we see the extremity which our savior Christ was in upon the Cross made him cry out so maynly, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? albeit he was fully assured, that God neither had, nor would utterly forsake him.

Ad hereunto, that we do indeed properly demand forgiveness of sin; because we are to receive actual pardon from God continually, both for our original corruption, which always, in this life, abides with us, and for actual sins, which we daily, and hourly commit against the majesty of Almighty God. If any man shall infer hereupon, that therefore the person sueing is guilty of damnation till his sin be forgiven, which must ensue upon his prayer. I answer, that in respect of God, it is pardoned, as soon, as committed, because he, that once believeth is thereby made a member of Christ's mystical body, and so hath all his sins satisfied for, by the death, and sufferings of his head Christ: But to him, that is, in his feeling, it is not by and by forgiven; namely til by repentance he have craved mercy of God for it.

But indeed the chief reason, and end of our praying to God for pardon, is, that we may always acknowledge, that every sin committed by us, deserves everlasting damnaton, of it self, and should everlastingly be punished, if that God had not accepted our savior Christ's satisfaction for us; By which though we are freed, if we rest on him by faith; yet both it is our duty, according to God's commandment, to sue for pardō for his sake, & in truth, if we do it not, we have no reason to persuade our selves, that our sins are pardoned. For howsoever it is true, that Christ our head, hath paid the price, of our ransom: yet it is also true, that we every day deserve condemnation, & must entreat God for pardon, that so we may come to that assurance, which the Lord hath enjoined us to labor and seek for. The some of all is this, that we pray for pardon of our sins, 1. because Christ hath taught, and commanded us so to pray, 2. because, by our sins, we have deserved eternal damnation, 3. because we must daily renew our repentance, as we commit new sins every day, 4. because we have not absolute assurance of the forgiveness thereof.

Some perhaps will rather answer, that we have no assurance at all, but so long, as we continue members of Christ's body; which is no longer (say they) then we refrain from great sins; for by every such sin (they say) we are cut of from Christ, and therefore have need to pray for pardon of it. But this answer both is false, in regard of that, it affirms, concerning our being out of Christ; and also doth not satisfy the whole doubt. For it shows no reason why we may pray for the forgiveness of any other sins, then those great ones. So that either we must not crave pardon for small transgressions, or else must do it needlessly? since they are already pardoned, as long as we abide in the body of our savior Christ. Wherefore I had rather rest upon the former answer, which is agreeable to the word of God, and warrantable by true reason.

Papist.

The Protestants are bound in conscience, to avoid all good works.

Protestant.

If this Papist would have avoided all slandering, the world should not have been troubled with such absurd collections.

Papist.

Every man is bound, upon pain of eternal damnation, to avoid all deadly sins. But fasting, prayer, almsdeeds, and all good works, according to the Protestants religion, are deadly sins.

Ergo, According to the Protestants religion; all men are bound, upon pain of eternal damnation, to avoid fasting, prayer, Almesdeedes, & all good works.

B. The Major is manifest▪ for the wages of deadly sin is death Stipendium peccati mors.

D. The Minor is as evident. for, according to the Protestants religion, and common exposition of this text of scripture, Facti sumns, vt immundi omnes nos, & tanquam pannus menstruat • omnes iustitiae nostr • . We are made all unclean, and all our Justices are like a stained cloth▪

That is, as they say, the best works, we can do, are infected with deadly sin; and consequently deserve eternal damnation, and therefore to be avoided:

I am not ignorant, that some wranglers, with some shifting evasions go about to answer this article; forsooth, that the stains, and imperfections, the sins, and spots, ought to be avoided; but yet the good works to be prosecuted: A silly shift, but put case it be impossible to wring out the stains, then is not this monstrous cloth to be abhorred? put case I could not give alms, but I must steal am I not bound in conscience to avoid the giving of alms? Admit I could not see mine enemy, but, by experience long proved, I should fall a quarrelling with him; am I bound in conscience to avoid his company? say that I could not eat flesh, but I should scandalize the beholders, ought I not to say, non manducabo carnes in aternum? I will not eat flesh, forever? Grant that I could not relieve the poor, but I should stain this action with vain glory;

Should I not hear of him, that cannot lie, he hath received his reward, and consequently that there remaineth no recompensation therefore in heaven? So I say, in like manner, if the corruptiō of nature, if the poison of concupiscence so stain my best actions, that whatsoever I do, or think, I cannot possibly effect them, without these infections, and corruptions; then certainly I am bound in conscience to avoid these crimes, & offenses, the which cannot possibly be performed, without these vicious circumstances; for, bonum constat ex integra causa; malum nascitur ex quolibet defectu; a good thing consisteth of all integrity; but an evil thing is caused by every defect: that a man be in health every humor must keep his temper; that he be sick it sufficeth one only exceed, & keep not his just proportion; so that a work be good, it must be effected with all due circumstances, that it be ill, one only will defile; as we commonly say, one ill herb will spoil a whole potfull of pottage.

Protestant.

By an orderly course of disputation, the first syllogism should have been to this effect.

If all good works, according to the Protestants religiō, be deadly sins, the Protestants are bound in conscience to avoid all good works.

But all good works are deadly sins, according to the Protes • ants Religion.

Therefore the protestants are bound in conscience to avoid all good works.

This, or some such syllogism, would have saved me some labor, for I should not have needed to have meddled with anything, but the matter of it: and you some blame; for the form of it would have been agreeable to logic. Whereas now I must needs take pains to find fault with the lamenes of your reason.

Every man is bound, upon pain of eternal damnation, to avoid all deadly sins.

This syllogism is faulty, because the conclusiō agrees not with the questiō. Your conclusiō is general of all men; whereas your questiō is particular of protestant • . Besides, that runs upon a penalty of eternal damnation, this speaks of being bound in conscience. If you answer, that is is all one, to be bound in conscience and to be bound upon pain of eternal damnation, either all sins deserve eternal damnation, and then what will become of your purgatory distinction betwixt mortal, and venial sins; or else no man is bound in Conscience to avoid any, but deadly sins; and then what a window do you set open to an innumerable company of sins • 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, even directly to conclude your question. But let us examine the matter of your syllogism.

The Proposition, I grant, is true, that Every man is bound in conscience, or upon pain of eternal damnation, to avoid all sin. But what needs this popish distinction of Deadly sins? Which is so alleged by you, as if it had some allowance from our Divines, whereas we wholly reject this fancy; because there is no sin, that deserves not eternal damnation. For proof whereof we need no other place of Scripture, then that which this Papist himself brings. The wages of sin is death. Neither may it be prejudicial to us; that he hath foisted in Deadly; since neither the Greek hath any such word, nor the latin, which he, according to his fond custom, to no purpose, and here also unwisely against himself, sets down. We grant there are differences, and degrees of sins; 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 signify notorious gross transgressions, he doth us wrong another way, as in the assumption it shall presently appear, which is this;

But fasting, prayer, all ••• sdeedes, and all good works according to the Protestants religion, are deadly sins.

But lying, and slandering are not, according to the popish religion, as it should seem by your practice. For surely, if you thought they were, you would never be so desperate to practice them against so manifest a truth, in matters of so great impo • tance. It is not possible you should think, that Protestants account good works to be sins, which they acknowledge both to be commanded, and also accepted of God. Yea, more then that, to be wrought in the faithful by the spirit of God, and to have a reward prepared for them in heaven.

But that, which the Protestants teach, concerning sin in good works is, that our Corruption distaines the best works of God's spirit in us; so that, not only they cannot be meritorious to the obtaining of everlasting life, but also deserve eternal damnation, in the just, district, and perfect judgment of God: in whose sight, nothing, that is any way unclean, can appear to receive allowance, but only by his merciful goodness, that pardons the sin for Christ's sake, and affords the work acceptance. Yet doth not this admixtion of our sinfulness, change the nature of the work, as if it made that duty a sin, which is of it self obedience: but takes from the particular act, all power to justify, and deserve at God's hands, which otherwise it hath, upon Covenant between God, and us. For example, Praying, giving of Alms, and such like, are not made sins by any Corruption of ours: but the actions of these virtues being performed by us imperfectly, and sinfully, as they always are, if they be examined in the severity of God's justice, will be condemned as sinful, not rewarded as righteous; because we have defiled them. And this himself acknowledgeth afterwards, for our opinion, where he says, that we affirm, the best works, we can do, are, infected with deadly sin. But it is not all one, to say that Fasting, prayer, alms deeds &c. and all good works done by us, are infected with deadly Sin, and to avouch that fasting, prayer, almsdeeds, and all good works are deadly sins. He, that says the body is infected with some disease; doth not say the body is that disease. But concerning deadly sin, if thereby he understand notorious, and willful breaking of the law of God, by some grievous transgression, we deny, that all good works are so much as infected with dead y sin. For we know, and profess, that, in the whole course of our obedience to God, we are ordinarily free from such sins, and that the Corruption, which defiles our works, proceeds rather from weakness, then willfullnes. As for those actions of ours, which have such gross sins adjoined to them, we deny that they can, any way truly challenge so much as the bare name of good works, in the sight of God. Such are those vainglorious, and hypocritical deeds of the Pharisees: Which our Savior condemns; and such, to come nearer home, are popish good works. Because they are grounded upon an evil intent; namely a purpose, and Conceit of justifying the doers thereof, & deserving Ex rigor iustitia, in the rigor of justice, everlasting glory of almighty God.

This I avouch generally of all their good works whatsoever: 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 sins. Fasting is not of it self any good work; as if it made a man more acceptable to God, then moderate eating doth; but in. 2. respects it is upon just occasion to be used, either for testifying of our humiliation, by acknowledging our selves unworthy so much, as to taste of any of God's creatures: or else for the better preparing of our selves to call upon God by prayer. But Popish fasting accounts the very abstaining from meat, a parte of holiness, and not simply from meat, but from some kinds of meat. So that a man may fully, and truly keep a popish fast, though he neither be humbled in the sense of his sin, nor consideration of God's wrath d • e thereunto, nor perform any extraordinary duty of prayer, nor have any occasion of fasting, but perhaps of the Contrary. Yea though he gorge, and glut himself with all kinds of dainties, and fill his stomach, and head too with most delicate wines. Always pro • ided, that he touch not any flesh, or whit meat. And hence it is, that a Popish fast, by way of a proverb, signifies as much, as a costly, & delicious bāquet. No, this kind of fast is so far from being a good work, that it is merely a carnal, and superst tious work of the flesh, ha • ing not so much as the outward form 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 self, God is properly honored, whether it be by petition, or thanksgiving. But Popish prayer standeth in vain repetition of Pater-nosters, Ave-maryes, Creeds, (whereof the two last also are nothing less then prayers) and that many times for a penance. And out of doubt they are not much deceived therein; for it is a grievous punishment of blindness, and senselessness, to imagine, that such toilsome lip-labor can please God. Yet all this might have the better show of prayer, if that, which is babled over, were understood: but, for the most part, the common people pray, as Parrats speak, altogether by rote, without knowledge what they say. Shall I add hereunto, that the prayers, which ordinarily are made by poor ignorant souls, are not made to God but to creatures? insomuch that it hath been held here in England, and so no doubt is yet in Popish countries, for a certain mark of an heretic, for a man to offer up his own prayers to God, in Jesus Christ, without the mediation of some Saint or other. All which considered we truly avouch, that this Popish praying is sin.

And the like we affirm of some almesgiuing; howsoever we gladly acknowledge, that the duty of it self, is one of those sacrifices, with which God is highly pleased. But to give alms, 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 impoverishing, and many times undoing, of the poor wife and children, is no better then infidelity; if the Apostle truly say, that he, which hath not care of his own, especially of his domesticals, is worse then an Infidel.

Therefore, if we speak of these works, as they are done, and allowed by the Papists, we say that they are deadly sins, not only faulty, by reason of infirmity; which, for the most part, is the estate of those good works, that the faithful in weakness perform. Yet are they not, by reason thereof, deadly sins, nor infected with deadly sin: but only, as all sins, how light account soever the Papists make of them, deserve eternal death. Neither doth it follow upon the grant of this infection, and desert, that therefore they are to be avoided, no more, then, that a sick man is bound to starve himself by fasting, as Pomponius Atticus absurdly did, because his feeding continued his disease, and that, as Hippocrates says, the more you nourish some sick bodies, the more you corrupt them. The sin indeed, which cleaving to the work defiles it, is by all means possible to be avoided; but not the work it self to be forborne. For we have an absolute charge from God, to exercise our selves in all good works, and a merciful promise of forgiveness of those infirmities, which our corruptiō fast̄s to our best indeauors. In matters indifferent, that are put to our choice, to be done or left undone, it is a good rule to refrain, because our weakness will bring forth some sin, in the doing of them. As for example, it is lawful for me to play at chesse or tennisle, but if I find by experience, that I cannot use these exercises, without some special sin, as swearing, cursing, & fretting, loss of too much time. &c. I am bound in conscience to refrain them altogether. The case stands otherwise in matters of necessary duty, as thus: I am commanded to make my supplications to God by prayer: daily experience teaches me, that I cannot pray with such a measure of faith, as I ought; that wandering thoughts, & sometimes envious, covetous, or ambitious devices cre • p into my heart, & quench my zeal in praying▪ am I therefore wholly to give over praying? Nay rather I must pray more often̄, 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 works, but this is warrant enough for me to cōclud, that the protestants are not bound in conscience to avoid all good works, though to the doing thereof they bring an infectiō of deadly sin, as all sin is deadly.

The answer to his syllogimse (if it be a syllogism) is made. as I have shown by denying the assumption, or Minor, viz. that fasting, prayer, alms-deeds, & all good works are deadly sins. In steed of proving this, in his new edition he falls to discourse of a distinction, and so leaves his argument still without proof, as before it was. The distinction is, that good works, being enjoyed by God, are not to be forborne, though some imperfection distaine thē, in the working: but the imperfection only. He would seem to take away this distinction, by giving particular instance against the truth thereof. The general syllogism may be thus framed.

If a man be bound in conscience to forbear the doing of some good works, because he cannot do them without some grievous sin, then he is bound to avoid all good works, because some imperfections always accompany them.

But a man is bound in conscience to avoid some good works, because he cannot do them, without some grievous sin.

Therefore he is bound in conscience to avoid all good works, because some imperfections always accompany them.

I deny the consequence of your proposition. First because all good works, are not of the same kind, some being absolutely commanded, some only upon condition; such as Giving of Alms is, whereof in answer to the assumption. Secondly because the imperfections are, for the most part, without our consent, and against our liking: whereas most grievous sins are outward actions of disobedience; as stealing to give alms, which is your own, though a most unfit example.

I grant your assumption, upon this supposition (which notwithstanding I take to be very false) that there are some things, a man cannot do without grievous sin; and I come to the examining of your particulars which are brought to prove this assumption.

Giving of alms is one of those good works, which are commanded conditionally, if a man be able, He that hath this worlds good &c. Beside we speak not of sinning before the good deed, but in the act it self; and so this example is not to the purpose.

You are bound in conscience to refrain your enemies company upon that supposal, unless there be necessity of coming into it, for the performance of some duty of your general, or particular calling.

It would also be remembered that coming into your enemies company is no good work commaun • ed by God, and therefore not pertinent to our question.

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

Neither am I to refrain Releeuing of the poor, because I cannot do it without vain glory, and so shall have no reward in heaven; neither is the reward had here, or lost in heaven for vain-glory: but only when a man makes that his end; not when it winds in it self, by our corruption, against our liking.

If I cannot effect my best actions (say you) without the infections of my natural corruption, I am boundia conscience to avoid those crimes, and offenses, which cannot possibly be performed without these vicious circumstances.

But I cannot effect my best actions without such infections.

Therefore I an bound in Conscience to avoid those crimes, and offenses, which cannot possibly be performed without these vicious circumstances.

I will never strive with you about this syllogism; which belongs nothing at all to the matter in question, only give me leave to wonder at this strange course of disputing. Your reason, added to prove I know not what, but I am sure proving neither part of your syllogism, seems to conclude that, which we deny not, namely, that Every least corruption is sufficient to make the work not to be perfectly good; This I granted before, and withal shown, that it did not follow hereupon, that Therefore these good works were to be avoided; since it pleaseth God both to pardon the imperfection, and reward the work though imperfect.

Papist.

The Protestants either have no faith at all, or lie most damnablie, in denying that a man assisted by God's grace, can keep the commandments.

Protestant.

It may appear by my answer to the former Article▪ that a true Christian both can, and doth perform acceptable obedience unto God, by keeping his commandments. But this obedience is imperfect: our works being good in the sight of God, not by their own value, but by God's acceptation. Our Papists, that are set upon magnifying themselves, more then glorifying God, cannot abide to hear of any imperfection in their works, which may impeach or impair the merit of them. Therefore they rail at us, as this Author here doth, because we say it is not possible for a man, compassed about with natural corruption, to keep the Commandments of God fully, and perfectly: upon which Doctrine of ours we are charged, in this Article, either to have no faith at all, or to lie most damnably, in denying, that a man assisted by God's grace can keep the Commandments.

Papist.

Whosoever knoweth God, keeps his commandments. But all true Protestants know God.

Ergo All true • Protestants keep his Commandments. The Ma • or is express Scripture. Qui • icit se nosse Deum, & mandata eius non custodit, mendax est, & in eo veritas non est. He that saith he knoweth God, and heepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and Truth is not in him.

The Minor no Protestant doubteth of. For this knowledge of God is nothing else, but a lively faith, wherewith all Zealous Protestants (as they say) are endued. Hence from manifestly it followeth, that either the most Zealous Protestants lack a lively faith, and so are Infidels: or, if they have a lively faith, and deny that they keep, or can keep God's commandments, they are damnable liars; If they choose the first, they are Pagans, Heretics, or Jews: if they take the second, they are damnable seducers, and imposters in religion; and consequently their faith is false.

Protestant.

It is more troublesome to apply this syllogism to the question, then hard to answer it: but we must needs do both. The syllogism, for the proof of the Article, must be thus framed.

If all, that have a lively faith keep God's commandments, either the most Zealous Protestants lack a lively faith, because they keep not God's commandments; or if they have a lively faith, and keep them they lie damnably, in denying that a man can keep them.

But all, that have a lively faith, keep God's commandments.

Therefore the most zealous Protestants either have not a lively faith, because they keep not God's commandments, or, if they have a lively faith, and keep them, they lie damnably, in denying that a man can keep them.

I deny the Consequence of your proposition: because this disjunction follows not, upon that antecedent. For though it be true, according to Saint John's meaning, whereof in the assumption, that all, which have a lively faith, keep God's Commandments: Yet neither do the Protestants lack a lively faith (for they keep the Commandments) neither do they lie in denying, that a man can keep them perfectly; which it is your purpose to prove: But let us put the case, that they could, and did keep God's commandments most perfectly, and withal denied, that either they did, or any man could keep them; might they be justly charged with lying damnably? I will not say, no charitable, but no reasonable man would so gather. For it is not a damnable lie to be deceived, in judging what belongs to the perfect keeping of the commandments; or, upon that error to affirm, that no man can keep them perfectly. You cannot be ignorant, that the reason of this our denial, arises from the persuasion, that the defect, and disorder of some circumstances, which always (as we think) accompany our actions, doth make our obedience imperfect. And shall we hereupon be charged with lying damnably? For example; suppose that the idle fancies which arise in a man's heart, while he is praying, being presently misliked, and suppressed, did not, in truth, make the performance of his duty imperfect, but that, only in his opinion, that doth so pray, the duty be stained with imperfections: might we charge him to lie damnably, for avouching, in the error of his judgment, that his prayers are imperfect? Yet Protestants will not be so uncharitable, as to say, that a Papist lies damnablie, who affirms, though upon a false persuasion, that a man assisted by God's grace can keep the commandments.

But all that have a lively faith, keep God's commandments.

Assuredly they do; but not in perfection. For proof whereof I appeal to you Papists; who dip your works in the blood of Christ, to make them meritorious, which either you would not, or at least, should not do, if you held them to be perfect of themselves. For life everlasting is due to the perfect obedience of the law by covenant; This do, and thou shalt live. So that he, which can fulfill the law, needs not the blood of Christ, to make his obedience acceptable unto God. And indeed if we have sufficient grace from Christ to keep the law, and use this grace to perfect obedience, though the grace be wholly, and only from Christ; yet the merit is altogether from our works; to which heaven is due of right, as wages to a hired laborer, that hath done his task. This perfection we dare no • ascribe to our works: for we know that the most righteous men, even after justification, disclaim their own righteousness. Our desire, and endeavor is to keep all God's commandments, in thought, word, and deed: but we fail many ways of this purpose. Sometimes (as in running of a gole) being turned out of the way: sometimes fainting in the way; yet, as David was said to be a man after God's heart, because his soul was set upon obedience to God, though he fell many times, and that grievously: so is every true Christian said to keep God's commandments, because his intent, & resolution is to keep thē, & his practice answerable thereto, howsoever with manifold & great infirmities.

The principal syllogism being answered; we must come to that, which is s • t down in this article, but it is impossible to make that serve for proof of the former, as it is apparent; because it concludes neither the proposition, nor assumption thereof. And, to make short, we grant him the whole syllogism. For all true Protestants do indeed keep God's commandments, in such sort, as before I shown. If thereupon he will infer that distinction, which is in the title of this article, he must reason thus.

If all true Protestants keep God's commandments, either the most zealous Protestants lack a lively faith, or, if they have a lively faith, and deny that they keep God's commandments, they lie damnablie.

To which, the same answer will serve, which was shaped to the former syllogism; that the disjunction follows not upon the antecedent, for the reasons there delivered: further we must add, that the former part of this consequence is absurd, because impossible: for it presumes that all true Protestants keep God's commandments, and yet that some be dest • tute of a lively faith. Whereas there is no obedience either acceptable, or possible, without a lively faith.

Whosoever knows God, (saith he) keeps his commandments.

But all true Protestants know God. Ergo.

All true Protestants keep his commandments.

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

Therefore all, that have a lively faith, keep God's commandments.

To the proposition whereof I answer, as before, concerning the truth, but imperfection of obedience; and to the proof I add further, that the holy Apostle speaks of no other keeping, then that, which I have granted. For his speech is general of all Christians whatsoever, that know God to everlasting life; and that not of their ability, what they can do, but of their practice, what they do; and I hope no Papist thinks, that every true Christian keeps all the commandments wholly, and perfectly. For then what shall become of the Sacrament of penance, and extreme unction? But you will say, they may keep them, though they do not; I would believe it, if you could show me an example of any that ever did it. But these places, I alleged a little before, manifestly prove, that they, that are renowned for holiness, were privy to their own unrighteousness.

Nay, what Saints story have you, anything largely set down 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 honorable to God, and comfortable to Christians, truly to acknowledge the imperfection of their own works, and the perfection of God's mercy, who vouchsafes a reward to those poor endeavours, which, of themselves, by reason of the corruption, wherewith they are defiled, deserve, in the rigor of his justice, everlasting condemnation.

There needs no farther examination of the proof of his syllogism.

Papist.

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

Protestant.

If the pointes, we hold, Be warrantable by the scriptures, fear of what may follow thereupon, must not make us provide for conceited holiness, by denying a certain truth.

Papist.

This article may be proved by a general induction, in all such matters, as now the Protestants cal in questiō. First they say, that man hath no free will to do good, but all goodness proceedeth so frō grace, that it lieth not in his power, neither to have it, nor resist it, but, of necessity, • tmust have effect.

To what other end tendeth this senseless doctrine, and fatal fancy, but to make men negligent in disposing, and preparing their souls to receive God's grace, and to rouse it up, and put it in execution, after they have it? making man not much unlike a sick asse, who neither can dispose, nor prepare himself to seek for his medicine, but, of necessity, must expect, till his Master thrusteth it into his throat; neither, after he hath druncke it, can cause it cure his disease, but carelessly letteth it work, as it will.

Secondly, they defend, that men be justified by faith alone. The which solifidian portion overthroweth flatly true repentance, sorrow for sins, mortification of passions, and all other virtues; which tend to the perfect reconciliation of the soul with God; causing men only to procure a certain false fantastical apprehension of Christ's death, and passion, the which faith although they erroneously aver, cannot be severed from charity, virtues, & good works: yet both experience teacheth that it may (or else few or none of them have faith: because few or none of them have these works) and the Scriptures plainly prove, that all faith: yea and the most noble faith, which hath force to remove mountains, may be without charity.

D. Thirdly they assure us, that faith once had, can never be lost; the which vain security openeth the gap to all libertine sesuality: for if a man be certain, that he hath true faith, if it be impossible he should loose it, if he be secured that by it alone, he shall be saved: why may he not wallow in all licentious pleasures in this life: & never doubt of glory in the other? Could ever Epicurus have found a better ground to plant his Epicureanism? Could ever Heliogabalus have better patronized his sensuality? Could Bacchus, or Venus have ever forged better reasons, to enlarge their Dominion?

Fourthly, they say a man cannot keep all the commandments: for what other cause, I pray you? but thereby to make men negligent in the keeping of them; to pretend an excuse of impossibility, whensoever they transgress them.

Fifthly why deny they the Sacrament of penance? but to make men careless how they live, and never regard the avoiding of sins, as though they were never to render an account of them. To hinder that shame, and blushing, which men conceive in discovering their sins; the which are most excellent means to deter men from sinning another time: to shuffle up Restitution & satisfaction of injuries committed against our neighbors, to draw men from remorse of conscience by burying their sins in eternal oblivion, the soars whereof Confession rubbeth, and causeth remembrance.

Sixthly why exclude they the true and real body of Christ from the blessed Sacrament of the Altar; but for that they perceived how, by the presence thereof, they were deterred from sin, and wickedness? For they knew well that sinful lives consorted not with those sacred mysteries, and therefore they rather resolved to banish Christ from the Sacrament, then sin from their souls.

Finally for what other cause have they coined a new negative religion? wholly standing upon Negation of Sacraments, Ceremonies, Rites, Laws, Customs, and other principal points of the Catholic Church; but for Fasting, to bring an Feasting; for Praying, Playing, for Devotion, Dissolution; for Religious fear of God, vain Security; for zeal, and mortification, a number of vain verbal sermons; and, to conclude, for a positive working, a flat denial almost of all points of faith, and religion.

Protestant.

In deed a general, or rather a particular induction of all matters, that Protestants call in question, is of necessity to the proof of this Article. But neither, if such an Induction were made could any such thing be done: and that not being done, there is not so much as any reasonable course taken for the proof of it; for what if all these points here set down tend to looseness of life? Alas, 7. are neither all, nor the most part, nor anything near the most part of those points wherein we dissent from the Papists. So that if it it were true of everyone of these, as it is of never a one of them, that they tend to looseness: yet were this author as far from proving that, he hath undertaken, as 7. is from seven score, that I may be sure to speak within my compass: what shall we judge then of this proof, where, from the first to the last, there is not one true point? as by special examination it will appear.

They say that man hath not free will.

Nay more then that, we say that free will is a mere fancy, a bare name, without anything answerable unto it, in the nature of man, at the least, since his fall in Adam. But if it be his meaning to charge us with a purpose to bring in looseness of life, and carnal liberty, by the teaching of this Doctrine, we appeal from this unjust slanderer; First to the judgment of God, that searcheth the hearts, and the rains; then to the testimony of our conscience, and lastly to the preaching of our Ministers, and conversation of our people, even of as many, as are indeed true Christians according to the practice of our doctrine.

But, to come nearer to the point, we are to understand that the Protestants Doctrine of free will is, that no man hath power by nature, either (without the grace of God's spirit) to do anything acceptable unto God, or to procure this grace to himself, or to receive it when it is offered. For our present purpose, it shall be enough to speak a word or two of the last point, not by way of proof, but declaration. Whereas then we deny a man po • er to receive the grace of God being offered, we do not mean that this grace works upon him, as on a stone, or block, but as on a reasonable creature. No man believes but willingly; only the question is, how it comes to pasle that, when two men have grace offered them, the one believes, the other doth n • t. The Papist, in this case, fetcheth the difference fr • the good use of his free will, that believes, we ascribe it to the diverse working of God's spirit in his heart; not denying that he useth his free will (to speak as they do) better then the other, but acknowledging that therefore he so useth it, because the spirit of God teacheth, and inclines, and inevitably brings him so to use 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 blind, as not to see, I will venture the loss of so much time, and labor, as may serve to show him: You ask us, why we say that men are saved by God's grace & not by their own freewill. Forsooth because we would have God reap the glory of their salvation; the pride of man's nature beaten down, & thē more beholding to God then to themselves. None of which can be, if a man, by his own free will, make difference betwixt himself; and another, to the receiving of faith. For he may truly say to God, that he is no more beholding to him, then many a one, that is everlastingly damned; nay then everyone might have been, if he would. For what did God for him, that he was not as ready to do for another? how many have had as much grace offered them, as he, and yet are not justified? No more had he been, if he had not, by his own free-will, helped himself in special manner, whereas God failed him, leaving all to his choice to be saved, or not to be saved. Is this to teach carnal liberty? you will say, yea; because it maketh a man negligent in disposing and preparing his soul. How so? for the difference is made by God. What then? to what purpose is it, form to prepare myself? I marvel you ask not, to what purpose it is for you, to believe. Are you yet to learn, that although the cause of all goodness be grace; yet God requires our endeavours, as means, to the receiving of this grace? Did you never hear, that we hold it for a monstrous absurdity, to promise our selves anything from God, without using the means to obtain it? The same also I answer to the doing of good works after sanctification: the success, and event proceeds only, and certainly from the spirit of God, who works in us both to will, and to do. Yet are we bound to use all good means, for the stirring our selves up to holiness; and freely, and willingly do we whatsoever good work, we do by the grace of God's spirit. Therefore this similitude of the sick Ass, showeth the Authors dangerous sickness, either of ignorance, if he know not the truth we hold, or of malice, if, against this knowledge, he willfully pervert it.

They defend (say you) that men are justified by faith alone. That is, we defend that God requireth nothing of man to his justification, but only, that by faith he rest upon Jesus Christ, to be justified by his sufferings.

The general ground of this opinion, is the end of all things created; viz. the glory of God, that man may have nothing to boast of, but simply ascribe the praise of his justification to God that justified him. Neither doth this doctrine (scorn God in rejecting it, as much as you list) either flatly overthrow, or in any part diminish true repentance, sorrow for sins, mortification of passions, and all other virtues, which will plainly appear both before and after justification; for what though we be justified only by faith? who knows not, that it is impossible for any man (ordinarily) to cast of this natural, and Popish confidence, which he hath in his own righteousness, and to feel necessity of being justified by Christ, If first he discern not his damnable estate, and being moved with horror thereof, she from himself to Christ for justification, by pardon of sin? Now after a man is justified, can the knowledge of the means, by which he is justified, kill these virtues in him? Let the means, and cause of his justification be what you will; If he may believe he is justified (and the Papists grant some men have known, and more may know it, at least by revelation) by your reason this effect must ensue. So that it ariseth not from the doctrine of the means, but from that of knowledge or assurance. But how should these virtues be abolished by justification, by faith only? when as every man that is justified, is also sanctified.

Whosoever hath his sins forgiven him, hath withal the power of sin abated in him. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? No man hath any encouragement, by free justification through faith, to continue in sin. For, if he be not sanctified, he is not justified. If he be sanctified, he is dead to sin, and alive to righteousness. True it is that profane wretches will object against the Gospel 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 denied, or suppressed, for wicked men's abusing it, to their own damnation. Yet perhaps you will reply, that it is a more likely means to stir mē up to repentance, mortification, and the practice of all virtues, to teach them, that they must deserve the first justification of congruity, by their good preparation, and fully make up the measure of their second justification, by deserving of condignity, for their good works, everlasting life. First let us suppose it be likely in our corrupt judgment, yet may we not gratify God with a lie, nor do evil that good may come of it. And why should not we follow the practice of the Apostles; whose course is in all their Epistles, still to urge grace in justification, and good works for thankfulness, not for merit? yet we deny not, but it is both warranted by the Scriptures, and most convenient to add an edge to the works of sanctification, by threatening condemnation to sinners, and promising reward to the righteous. But we deny, that either of these enforcements of such exhortation, in any part, weakens the doctrine of free justification by only resting upon Jesus Christ. Which he may easily conceive, that hath a sincere purpose to glorify God, by the salvation of his chosen. For he knows, that as much as is given to man for justifying himself, is taken from God. God, and man, after this reckoning, may part stakes. God may have glory for affording means of salvation, and ability to use those means: man may be proud of the well using of that ability, and justifying of himself by the means afforded. Yet, if all men, that are enabled, did so help themselves, there were less cause of boasting, & more reason to give God the glory of justification. For it might well seem to proceed from the grace, that God imparts to them, that they are justified. But when some use it well, some ill, and this difference of well, or ill using it, flows from the free-will of men, by their own power; what a small part of glory is left to God, in the several justification of those, that are saved? Hence it follows, that the doctrine of justification by works preparatory, before a man is at all justified, & by works meritorious, after he is begun to be justified, is dishonorable to God, & the death of all goodness in those very works, that are done. Because the intent, which our Papists magnify so much, is directly derogatory frō the glory of God, without the true, and sincere purpose whereof, no works of any man baptized, are one iott better, then the moral actions of heathen men. But the sons of the bondwoman, being of a servile nature, respecting themselves either only, or principally, being ignorant, and without feeling of the affection of childrē, can never be persuaded, that any son of God will perform duties of kindness, and thankfulness to his father: but must needs do that he doth, like a hireling, for love of wages. And by such means our Papists would procure, and deserve the perfect reconciliation of their souls with God; as if we were not perfectly reconciled in Christ, in whom God reconciled the world to himself, not imputing their sins. What is it to be reconciled to God, but to have God's displeasure removed, & his favor, & fatherly love vouchsafed to us? This hath Christ procured, by his death, and blood-shedding; the increase of our sanctification in us, by the daily dying unto sin, and rising again unto newness of life, restores more perfectly the image of God decayed in us, by natural corruption, and manifold actual transgressions, but reconciles us never awhit the more to God. When the Prodigal son came home to his father, starved, and evil coloured in his body, ragged, and torn in his apparel, 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 every day came better and better, as his color mended, and waxed more fresh, when he was arrayed, according to his estate, he did more lively represent the son of such a father. The same is our case in Christ: by his sufferings are we wholly reconciled unto God. For we are made his Children; but we begin daily, more and more to resemble him, as we grow in holiness of nature, and conversation. Therefore let the Papists imagine that they reconcile themselves to God by mortification of passions, and I know not what supposed virtues: It is sufficient for us, that Christ hath, by his blood, made our peace, and put us in possession of his fathers love and favor. If this be a false fantastical apprehension of Christ's death, and passion, to rely wholly upon him for reconciliation with God, by his blood, and propitiation; then his dying, the Apostles preaching, and our believing is all in vain. How then doth this Doctrine tend to looseness? especially, if it be remembered, that we shut all men out from iustificatiō, that are not sanctified by the spirit of Christ.

They tell us (saith he) that faith, an • good works cannot be severed.

Would you know what faith he means? only a persuasion of the truth of the Scripture; even such an one as the Diuil is said to have, and that with a Popish preparatory good work, namely Fear. The diuills believe, and tremble. But, if they would speak anything to the purpose, they should prove these 3. things 1. that to believe in Jesus Christ, i • nothing else, but to be persuaded, that these points, that the Scriptures teach of Christ, are true: Which will never be done, as long as that famous distinction is retemed, Credere Deum, deo in deum; To believe there is a God, to believe that all, that God says is true; to believe, or trust in God, or to rest upon him: and as our Nor theme men speak, very plainly, and significantly, to believe on God. Secondly, that a man, thus relying upon Christ to be saved by him▪ for all this believing is not justified: contrary to the whole course of the Gospel. Thirdly they must show us, that a man may be justified, and yet not sanctified; then which nothing is more repugnant to popery. For the popish Doctors teach us, that to be justified is To have sin abolished, and grace infused into us; whereby, and for which, we are (as they say) truly, and habitually just in the sight of God. If they answer, that these ma • ters have been already proved, by their Diuins, we reply, that ours have shown the insufficiency of their proofs, and that, if either this accuser, or any other Papist will urge those scriptures (that have been aledged to this end) any further, or bring any, that yet have not been brought, he shall receive, by the grace of God, true and sufficient satisfaction, if truth will satisfy him. In the mean while, it shall suffice to put this Author in mind, that his experience fails him, being made not of those, that believe in Christ, but of them, that believe Christ, or at the most give credit to those things, which are spoken of him, in the Gospel. Whereunto I ad, that neither faith, which hath force to remove mountains, is so noble, as that, which makes a man heir of heaven, nor, because that▪ faith can be without Charity; Therefore either he, that believes in Christ, can be without justification; or he, that is justified, without sanctification.

They assure us (saith he) that faith once had, can never be lost.

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

If he speak of the event, all experience refuts him; because no men live more soberly, and Christianly, then they, that have the greatest measure of this persuasion. And, indeed, it cannot be otherwise. For this is nowhere, 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 liberty, which he imagines it may afford, let him call to mind what consequences flesh, and blood gather, upon the doctrine of free justification, and what answer the Apostle makes to such objections: and then he will be ashamed to ask, why a man may not wallow in all licentious pleasures, in this life, and never doubt of glory, in the other, if he be certain, that he have true faith. For first, he will understand, that he is bound to the obedience of the law, though he be freed from the damnation of it. Secondly he shall feel, that having true faith, it is not possible for him to live in sin because he is dead, and buried thereto.

If he will say then; I am sure, I have true faith, and that can never be lost; therefore I may sin, 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. Whosoever is justified, 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 Thieves, nor Covetous, nor Drunkards, nor Raylers, nor Extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. But thou art such a one, therefore there is no place for thee in heaven. What inconvenience follows now upon this doctrine.

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

I answer, I am sure, if thou let sin reign in thee, thou ca • st not be saved; As it is not possible, that he, that believes truly, should be dammned; so is it also impossible that he, Which lives with delight, in presumptuous sin, should believe truly. But our servile, and proud Papists, cannot be brought to perform any obedience, or refrain any sin, except they see Hell gaping to swallow them below, and heavenly glory set as deserved wages above For the love, and honor of God they will do nothing, but with especial respect to themselves.

They say (saith he) that a man cannot keep all the commandments. No not perfectly, as he ought to do. For then many men might stand, though God should straitly examine what is done amiss; Then we need not Christ's blood, whereof before, to dippe our works in. But you demand, for what cause we say so; because God hath taught us so; not (as you would have the world imagine) thereby To make men negligent in keeping them. Nay rather, for the quite contrary; that knowing how far they shall be from performing their duty, when they have done, all they can, they may never cease to be doing, neither can they be discouraged, as long as they know, that God, of his gracious mercy in Jesus Christ, accepts of his children's endeavors, in their imperfections, for Christ's sake. and will rewa •• them abundantly, in the kingdom of heaven. In the •• ane while, this knowledge of continual sinning must stir us up to continual carefulness, and pre • isenesse; must humble us under the hand of God; must enforce us to be earnest with God, for the pardon of our transgressions, both in committing evil, and omitting good; must make us feel the infinite mercy, and love of God towards us, in accepting so graciously of our poor, & weak good will, and lastly must drive us to cleave fast to Jesus Christ, and his obedience, because we have no other righteousness to present God withal; so far are we, in this matter, from teaching men to pretend an excuse of impossibility, whensoever they transgress the commandments. Yea indeed we plainly affirm, that there is no man, but fails very much of that pains, and care, I will not say that he ought, but that he might bestow, in fitting himself to true obedience,

Why den • they (saith he) the sacrament of penance?

Because it is a patch of Antichrists sowing, to the fair broad cloth of God's holy word: because it brings a slavery, and snare upon men's consciences: because it makes men leave trusting to Jesus Christ's satisfaction, and rest upon their own, because it breeds security in thē, that receive popish absolutiō; because it was a devise, or at least, is a practice of the popish clergy, to get intelligence of all state matters in christendōe, for their own advantage. These, & many other such reasons of our denial, this Papist will not see: but faines to himself an absurd, & impossible conceat; That we would have men careless how they live, & never regard the avoiding of sins, as though they were never to render an account of them, whereas we constantly avouch 1▪ that he, that is careless to bring forth the fruits of sanctification, hath not the root of faith to justification, whereas we teach, that every venial sin of the Papists, is by desert, even in the regenerate, punishable with everlasting damnation; That God looks for repentance at his children's hands, & is fain, 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 all the blushing, & shame of this world put together. As for restitution, and satisfaction to men, we do not only urge it, upon all occasions, but hold it so necessary, as that without it, where there are means to perform it, there can be no assurance of pardon to him, that knows he hath done wrong, either in this life, or in your purgatory. And here we say, no shame, of what estate soever a man be, may keep him from making satisfaction. Whereas, with you Papists, if a man perform some penance enjoined him by his ghostly father; though quite of another nature from satisfaction to his offended brother, and namely, if he fill your Corban, he shall have absolution a culpa, et p • na, by your devised sacrament of penance. Now he, that by daily confession of sins unto God, of whom he receives not, by and by, absolution, as of your priest, but is fain to beg the assurance, oft times again, and again, with many tears, deep sighs, horror of conscience, and such like, will never be brought to any true repentance, by telling a Priest of his sins past, since he shall find it so easy a matter to buy out any penance, at the Popes price, as it is set down 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 sin: That God may have the glory of their humiliation, and the whole thanks for their pardon.

You mean, why do they deny, that Christ is bodily present in the sacrament? because there is neither scripture, nor reason to prove it. Because to hold he is there, in that sort, it is untrue, unreasonable, and impossible to be true; because it destroys the nature of Christ's humanity; because it makes his manhood God, because it is an occasiō of the most senseless Idolatry, that ever was committed. And because of many other such reasons aleadged by our divines heretofore, whereof this of his is none; being indeed without all show of likelihood. For how doth the bodily presence of Christ deter any man from sin, and wickedness? nay rather it encourages him thereto. For who would fear, or respect such a God, as hath neither eye to see, nor ear to hear; that is crushed up together into the compass a baggage Wafer cake, which he may, and must eat, and if he be afraid of any displeasure by it, he may throw it to the Dogs, 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 advantage get we, by removing Christ's bodily presence from the Sacrament, as long as we confess, that both God-head, and manhood are truly received of all faithful believers in that blessed communion? How unreasonable an absurdity were it, to imagine that the bodily presence of Christ can worse consort with sinful lives, then his spiritual? Whereas we are sure, that while he lived, he was bodily present with sinners, and Publicans, but spiritually never had any communion, or conversation with any such, until his grace had, in some measure, purged them. Papists indeed absurdly dream, that the wicked receive Christ in the Sacrament: and yet have no benefit by Christ's being in them.

For what cause (saith he) have they coined a new negative Religion?

First prove they have, and then require an answer. But that is impossible, unless your skill will serve you to persuade men, that the Scriptures are newly coined; and as true is your charge, that our religion is negative; otherwise then the Scriptures are, which are profitable to teach, to convince, to correct, to instruct in righteousness. But what a toye is this, to object that to us, in disgrace of our Religion, which the Jews, with as good reason, might have objected to our Savior, and the Gentiles, to his holy Apostles? for did not he, and they, utterly take away the Sacraments, ceremonies, rites, laws, customs of the Jews, and all heathenish points of the Gentiles superstition, and Idolatry? you deal with us, in this case, as a man would deal with the right heir to lands, which he injuriously detained. You have forged new deeds, & conueiances, & whē we come to demand our right, you tell us, our plea stands upon negatiō of evidences, deeds, conueiances, whereas we bring the most ancient record of Scripture to prove our title, as our proper plea, and deal with your forgeries no further, then the necessity of clearing our right, and the truth enforceth us. which also drives me, at this time, to make a short answer to your slanders. How do we bring in Feasting for fasting? When neither you Papists have any true fasts among you, neither do we (ordinarily) use any feasting, upon those days, which being superstitiously left to us by you, are Ciuilly retained by us, with more moderation, then yourselves used Save only, that we make it no matter of conscience, to forbear flesh at such times appointed. In steed of galloping over Pater nosters, Ave maries, and Creeds, with many Idolatrous, & some blasphemous adiurations, without understanding, or affection: we have restored the true use of praying; which is to confess our sins, and with hearty sorrows to crave pardon of God, in the name of Jesus Christ, for his sake, and in his only mediation. That is popish devotion, the dissolution whereof, in deed we have by all means, procured, and, by the gracious, & mighty providence of God, performed. Not to make men more vainly secure, but more religiously devout, in giving the honor to God only, which Papists rob him of, to worship their own Idolatrous inventions: this we continually teach, and urge, not without zeal in verbal sermons, (how glad would you be, if it were so, and how well would you like such sermons?) But with evidence of truth, proving by the scriptures, that the Pope is that very great Antichrist, prophesied of, by Paul and John; That popery is an Idollatrous service, patched up together, by little and little, as the devil could, from time to time, devise and procure allowance of such points, as were fit for the advanc • ng, & establishing of his eldest son Antichrist. But, if any of our sermons be verbal, they are those, that are botcht up out of your postills: foaming up a little froath of carnal wit, withour zeal in the speaker, or conscience in the hearers: that are delighted with such vanities: neither of which seems to have any sufficient knowledge, or feeling of the true course, and use of preaching.

Papist.

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

Protestant.

The Protestants make the devil, and man, the only Authors, and committers of all sin; and namely of these heresies, and slanders, wherewith you have stult this malicious pamphlet.

Papist.

Whosoever defendeth, that God commandeth, persuadeth, urgeth, impelleth to sin, maketh God the cause of sin.

But all Protestants say, that God commandeth, persuadeth, urgeth, impelleth to sin. Ergo.

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

The major I prove: for if God persuade, or impell men to sin, as for example, Judas to sel Christ, Saint Peter to deny Christ, the Jews to crucify Christ; questionless he intended the sacrilege of Judas, the negation of Peter, the murder of the Jews; and this much more effectually, then Judas, Peter or the Jews. for who can resist his impulsion, or who can frustrate his intention. Voluntati euis quis resistet? who is able to oppose himself against his will? yea what mā is he, that in conscience were not bound, to cōform his will unto the will of God, who is the author of all good wills, & the first rule, & square of all regular wills? Judas, Peter, & the Jews, if they had followed the motions of God, who could have blamed them for following him, who could not err, in impelling, nor sin, in persuading them?

But some will say, God moved them for a good end, videlicet, the redemption of man, and they intended an ill end, to wit, lucre, revenge, or some other sinister effect. Yet this snift will not salve the soar. For evil may not be done, that good may follow. Non su • t facienda mala, vt inde veniant bona. For otherwise, a man might steal to give alms, be drunk for a merriment, commit adultrie to beget Children. Moreover why might not Judas, Peter, or the Jews intend that good end, that God intended, and have sold, & denied, and crucified Christ, conforming their intentions to his; they being instruments, and he the first mover.

Agane, it cannot be said, but that God indirectly and most effectually, intended their sins. For he, that intendeth any effect, wherewith another effect is necessarily conjoined, consequently intendeth it as for example, He, that intendeth to burn a ship in the midst of the sea, intendeth consequently the death of all the men, which be in her. In like m • ner, if God intended, that Judas should sell Christ, unto which action sin was necessarily adjoined, consequently God intended the sin, as well as the selling.

The Minor is to to evident: for the Protestants deride God's permission; they say, that all his actions are energetical, or effectual, they desperately aver, that Paul's conversion, & David's adultery, were in like manner the works of God; and as he elected some to Glory, before the preuision of works, so he rejected some from glory, before the preuision of sins.

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

Next, that he is the only author of sin, for that he enforceth men, upon necessity to sin, and they, as instruments, follow the motion of their first cause.

Again, that man sinneth not. For where there is necessity of sinning, there is no sin. For sin is free, or no sin Besides how can man sin, in conforming his will, to God's will?

Finally God is worse then the devil. For that the wickedness of the devil principally consisteth, in the moving, persuading and inducing of men to sin, the which, by the Protestants confession, God performeth more effectually, then the Devil; because the motions of God are more forcible, & less resistible, then the illusions, or suggestions of the devil. Many sins moreover are acted, without the temptations of the devil; some of ignorance, some of passion; but none without the motions of God; so that God is worse then the Devil: both in causing greater multitude of sins, then the devil, and in the forcible manner of causing sins. Which the devil cannot attain unto. The which doctrine, is as good a ground for Atheism, as ever hell could devise: for were it not much more reasonable, to say, there were no God at all, then to believe there were such a God, as commandeth, persuadeth, urgeth, impelleth men to sin: and yet, for the same sins, will torment them with the inexplicable pains of hell?

Protestant.

Whosoever defends that God Commaunds, persuades, vrges, impells to sin, makes God the cause of sin. Of this proposition there is no question, betwixt the Papists, and us. Yet I hold it necessary, to speak a word or two of it, not by way of refutation, but of explication. If a man command, urge &c. to that, which is evil, and the effect ensue thereupon, he is justly to be charged with that sin as the Author of it.

In God's Commaunding it is otherwise. For that, which he commands, being otherwise evil, changes the nature by his commandment; so that neither he, that commands, nor the party that obeies, commit any sin, in commanding or obeying. For example, it is unlawful for a man to offer up his Child for a burnt sacrifice, yet God commands Abraham to do so, and Abraham is ready to fulfill the comm • undement. Both without sin: because the will of God is the rule of righteousness, and he, that gave man a law, hath reserved authority to himself, to dispence with that law, when, and as it pleaseth him. and as this Papist saith truly; Every man is bound in Conscience to Conforme his will, to the will of God. But yet this is not simply true. For admit that Judas had known, that it was God's will, that our Savior should be betrayed to the Jews by him; might he therefore the doing of it? At no hand for he was to have received a warrant for it, that it might be lawful, whereas he had the contrary charge in the 6. Commandment Thou shalt not kill. But, if God had given him commission to do it, as he did to abraham, for the offering of his son, then he had been bound to yield obedience to this commandment of God, and had not sinned in obeying. So much doth it concern a man, to live in obedience to those laws, which God hath prescribed to all, and every man generally, and particularly. Abraham hath a commandment not to kill; if it be God's will he should kill without sinning thereby, God will give him warrant, and charge to kill: without which (howsoever God's will stand) Abraham cannot do it lawfully. And therefore it had not ben warrantable for Judas, Pilate, or the Jews, intending that good end, which God intended, to have done contrary to the general commandment of God without a special commission to that purpose: which is more then a knowledge, that God would have it done. This being understood, we disclayme, as needless, all such excuses for God, as this Papist seemeth to make, on our behalf.

For we say not, that God moved them, for a good end, but that he did not move them at all, and yet there is a great deal of difference betwixt moving, and commanding, persuading, urging, impelling, since he may truly be said to move a man that offers him the outward occasions, whereby he may be provoked to the doing of anything; which (I suppose) God doth, and you will grant may do, without being guilty of sin, for so doing.

But, if we would maintain, that God moved them, it it were no hard matter to answer your strong proof. For neither doth God bind him self to those laws, which he gives to man; and, his will being the rule of Justice, that which he will have done, by his willing of it, ceasses to be evil. So that, he cannot do any evil, though he may command that to be done, which till he commanded it, could not be done without sin. But you urge us further, that God indirectly, and most effectually intended their sins. Of his effectual intending by and by, in answer to the Assumption: Now only of his direct intending which we are so far from denying, that we hold it absurd to make any question of it. For what is more plain in the scripture, then that God would have David sin to the end that he might by his sin, have occasion to punish the people as he did.

Doth not Michah profess, that it was God's purpose, that Ahab should fall at Ramoth Gile • d, by hearkening to the false prophesies of them, whom a lying spirit was to seduce? Go, saith God thou shalt prevail. And, to come to your own example, did not God intend, & decree, that our savior Christ should be treacherously betrayed by Judas, falsely accused by the Priests, unjustly condemned by Pilate? If he did not certainly determine these things, so that the even could not but ensue thereupon, he did not certainly provide for the salvation of his children: because it might have come to pass that Christ should not have been betrayed, accused, nor executed, since it depended wholly upon their free will, without any determination on God's, part. Wherefore it is not to be denied, that it is God's will that there should be sins committed in the world; as all men grant, that acknowledge God's most just judgment in hardening Pharoes heart, and giving up the wicked to a senseless mind, that they may do those things, that are not convenient. I dispute not as yet of the means, whereby this purpose of GOD is brought to pass, but only urge that there is such a purpose.

But all Protestants (saith he) say, that God commandeth, persuadeth, urgeth, and imp • lleth to sin &c.

All Protestants say, nay rather all true Protestants deny it; as absurd, and blasphemous; which if this Papist had not known, I think he would not have used so many sleights to prove it. The first whereof is, that the Protestants deride God's permission, and therefore say, that he commandeth, urgeth, persuadeth, &c. Nay the Protestants deride only heathenish fancies of permission, which with Epicurus make God sit by, & look on, in worldly matters, as it were setting all at six, and seven, for the present being of things. Contrary to which we teach, that nothing falls out, one way, or other, in this world, but according to the council, and determination of God's everlasting providence. To make the matter more plain. God, when he would punish Pharoes pride, did not carelessly leave him to himself, permitting him to sin or not to sin; but had before resolved, that he should increase his sin, to the glory of God, and his own just damnation. How then you will say, Did God command or persuade, or urge, or impell him to sin? Nothing less. For indeed there never was, nor never is need of any such work of God, for the punishing of sin by sin. Because the state of men unregenerate is such, that the devil, by their own corruptition, can easily bring them to the committing of sin, without any Enforcement, or persuasion, or commandment of God. Yet dare not we undertake curiously to inquire, and boldly to determine, by what means this will of God is performed, but we content our selves with that, which is evident, that it is God's will, that such sins should be committed. Neither do we hereunto apply any effectual, or energeticall action of God, to the enforcing of this sin, but only affirm that this will of God, must needs take effect; and yet without any work of God upon the souls of the wicked, to command, persuade, urge, or impell them to sin.

And therefore the point, that followeth, is not desperately auerred by us, but Diuillishly, that is slāderously devised by you. For we constantly affirm, that God works by, and in, the godly: but by the wicked only, not in them. Paul's conversion was wholly the work of God who inclined & bowed his will, to the obeying of the truth, which of himself he did willingly, and cruelly persecute: But Dauides Adultery, occasioned by the sight of Bathsheba, proceeded from his own concupiscence, without any inclining of his heart thereto, on God's part. Yet we deny not, but both the one & the other, was willed of God, & could not but take effect, though in diverse sorts, & by diverse means. God would that Paul should be converted, and this he did like of as a good, and holy thing, nay not so only, but by his almighty power he wrought it, and (without forcing of Paul's will) made him of unwilling willing; it was also the will of God that David should commit that Adultery, but God neither approved this fact of David, as good, not stirred up the motiō in his heart, nor wrought his heart to the liking of it but only gave him up, for a time, to the devil & his own corruption. Cal it permission if you will, we mislike not you should do so, so that withal you grant, that the end of this permission was, that the thing might come to pass, as it did.

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

To the proof whereof, your great Doctor Thomas of Aquin, many times applies these similitudes. As there can be no reason yielded (saith Thomas) why this part of materi • prima, the first matter of natural things, becomes fire, that water, rather then that fire, this water, save only the will of the creator; and as it depends wholly upon the will of the builder, that this brick lies above, that below, and not that above this below: so why Peter is chosen to glory, Judas refused, no reason can be alleged, but the will of him that chooseth. Noli Iudicare (saith Austi • ) Si non vis errare. Offer not to judge what the reason of this difference is, unless you desire to err. This is that monstrous opinion forsooth, for which the Papists charge us, with I cannot tell what blasphemies, what would they do, trow you, if any later Protestant had written, as the Ancient Austin hath.

Deus operatur in cordibus hominum, ad inclinandas • orum • oluntates, quocun{que} voluerit, sieve ad bona, pro sua misericordiae, five 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 soever it pleaseth him, either to good things, of his own mercy, or to evil things, upon their desert; which judgment of his, in respect of the reason thereof, is sometimes evident, sometimes secret, but always just. Let our Papists go now, and rail upon this ancient, and learned Protestant, for making God the Author of sin; for avouching that man sinneth not, that God is worse then the devil. For if these points follow upon our doctrine, much more do they upon Austin's. Who, though for the substance of his matter, he speak the truth, in that former sentence: yet in words affirms that, which hath need of a very favorable construction. But let us examine these consequents.

You must bring better proof of your Antecedent, ere your consequents will be granted. For all Protestants deny, that God impells, either effectually, or at all to sin. How then can he be the only Author of it? or how can men be said not to sin, but as Instruments, when by the corruption of their nature, they conceive, and with consent, and liking of their will, bring forth sin; and that freely, without any force, though the event be certainly foreappointed by God? neither will it serve their turn to say, that they conform their wills to God's will, and therefore cannot sin. When as they neither do that, they do, with any purpose to fulfill the will of God, and if they did, yet ought they not to do so, without warrant from him, in every matter, contrary to his revealed commandments.

Blasphemous therefore, and not be thought on by any Christian, much less uttered, are these consequents, and especially the last of them: which infers, that God is worse, then the devil. Because neither doth God, as I have often said, impell, or induce any man to sin, and though he should, for causes known only to himself, incline (as Austin saith) the hearts of men to evil things: yet were it still blasphemous, to deny the justice of his judgment, whatsoever profane flesh, and blood imagines. O man what art thou, that disputest with God! shall the clay, &c.

Papist.

That faith once had may be lost.

Protestant.

This point, it should seem, sticks in this man's stomach, he is so much troubled with it. Art. 5 in the extravagant syllogism; Art, 4. the third point; and here it makes a whole article.

The principal syllogism is thus to be framed.

If David l • st his faith, then faith once had may be lost.

But David lost his faith.

Therefore faith once had may be lost.

The assumption of this syllogism he offers to prove, in this manner.

Papist:

Whosoever leeseth his charity, leeseth his faith.

But David when he killed Uriah, lost his charity.

Ergo, David, when he killed Uriah, lost his faith.

The Major is a principle undoubted of, in the Schools of Protestants. For they peremptorily affirm, that true faith, such as was in David one of God's elected, can no more be severed from charity, then heat from fire, or light from the Sun; and therefore if David, killing Urias, lost his charity, no doubt but therewithal he lost his faith.

The Minor I prove: for whosoever remaineth in death, is without charity. But David, when he killed Urias, remained in death. Ergo, David, when he killed Urias, was without charity. If he was without that, which once he had, no doubt but then he lost it: for he was deprived thereof, for his sin.

The Major Proposition of this last Syllogism, thus I prove. For charity is the life of the soul, and it is as impossible, for a man to have charity, and remain in death, as it is impossible, for a man to be dead in body, and yet endued with a reasonable soul.

The Minor cannot be denied; to wit, that David, by killing Uriah, remained in death. For it is the express word of God. Qui non diligit, manet in morte. He that lo • eth not his neighbor remaineth in death▪ but certain it is that David loved not Uriah, when he killed him. Ergo likewise certain it is, that David remained in death.

The same position might easily be proved out of Ezekiel. Si autem a • erterit se iustus a iusticia sua &c.

Protestant.

Whosoever looseth his Charity, looseth his faith: If by Charity you understand an absolute being without sanctification, which is signified by Charity, because Love is the fulfilling of the Law, your proposition is true, but your assumption is false. If thereby you mean, not performing some act of Charity, or doing the contrary, your proposition is false. For not everyone, that fails in the performance of some duties of love, or doth something contrary to the rule of Love, by such omission of good, or committing of evil, looseth, nor in deed may truly be said to loose his Charity: though he sin against the law of Charity, in so doing,

Your proof, being grounded upon a misconceauing of the Protestants principle, which I expounded in the 4. Article, is of no force. True faith, such as we confess David's was, always after his calling, can no more be without love, then the sun without light, or the fire without heat.

But • et he, that hath this faith, and love, may sometimes neglect some duties of this love, and do some works of hatred. Because his sanctification being imperfect his obedience also must needs be so. But it neither falls out, that such a man becomes again wholly unregenerate: by which means only, and by none other, sanctification, or love, can be altogether lost.

But David, when he killed Uriah, lost his Charity. Nay rather, if Charity can be lost, he then lost it, when he committed Adultery▪ unless we shall say, that either Adultery is not against Charity or that murder only, & not Adultery procures a d • privation of Charity. But David did not loose his Charity by either, or both of them; though in each he grievously sinned against the love of his neighbor. Which for murder this man grants: for Adultery that parable, that Nathan brings, proves undoubtedly.

Whosoever remains in death is without Charity. Namely so far, as he is in death. If he be altogether in death, he is wholly without Charity. But a man may, in respect of some sinful action, be in death: and yet, for all that, be truly sanctified, though not thoroughly. In regard whereof he may & must be takē for a sanctified man, as in truth he is, howsoever he do something contrary to the grace of sanctification according to the lusts of his natural corruption. He, that hath some of his members dead, as his hands, or his feet, in respect of these parts is dead; and yet may be alive in all the other. How much more may he then be truly said to have living charity in him, which failing in someone duty, and that but of one part, for a time, brings forth notwithstanding many fruits of love, even of the same kind, of which that sin against love is. What needs any further answer to your proof, then hath already been given? For in deed it is of no force. Vnles that be granted, which is the question, that every act contrary to love; draws love out of the soul, so that a man thereby ceasses to have any part of regeneration in h • m. And this answer were sufficient, though Charity were in deed the life of the soul. Which is but an Idle popish fancy, or rather a sudden conceit of this quick disputer. If there be any other life of the soul then God, surely it is faith, rather then love. by which the righteous man liveth. Is it not enough for our Papists to make Love the form of faith, but that they must have it also, the life of the soul?

David, when he killed Urias, remained in death. In respect of that sin, yet was he translated from death to life, by believing in the Messias to come, and accordingly brought forth the f •• its of sanctification, in obeying both the other commandments, and that also o • not kill • ing, which, by the murder o • Urias, he brake. So tha • the proof, which follows, is insufficient. Because that David could not be charged simply with the want of love, though he did not love Uriah, in that action. Which yet proceeded not so much from the ha • red of his person, as from David's fear to have his former sin of adultery discovered, If by Uriah death it were not otherwise provided for. And, that the place of Scripture by him alleged, is not to be wrested according to his fancy, it may appear by the 3. chap. 17. verse, where it is said, that he, which shuts up his bowels of compassion from his brother, that hath • eed, hath not the love of God abiding in him. Yet, I think, this Papist will not condemn every man as void of the love of God, upon the refusal at someone time, to give alms to him, that stands in need? Though it cannot be denied, but such a refusal is a breach of the law of God. So then, by this reason it is not proved, that David lost his faith, or that faith may be lost. If it could as easily have been proved out of Ezekiel, 18. as said, no doubt we should have had it to the full. But you shall give us leave to believe it, when we see it done. In the mean while it is enough to stop your mouth, that your proof may as easily be answered▪ as you Imagine it may be made. Especially if you remember, that Ez • chiels speech is conditional, & Conditionalis • ihil poni • in esse, A thing is not proved to be, because if it be such or such an event shall follow thereupon.

Papist.

The Protestants shall never have life everlasting; because they will have no merits, for which everlasting life is given.

Protestant.

Miserable Protestants, if the Pope had given that place, and office to this man, which he hath bestowed upon Saint Peter, to make him porter of heaven gates.

Papist.

The major; or first proposition may be declared after this manner. For example, her Majesty may bestow 1000. pounds a year upon some suitor, either gratis, of mere liberality, & so it is called a gift, Donum, a grace, or favor▪ or upon conditiō, if he behave himself manfully in the wars of I • eland▪ & in this case the revenue is called Merces wages, Remuneratio, Stipendium, a reward, or payment. And although her Majesty did show him a grace, & favor, to promise such a reward for performing such a work, the which he was bound upon his allegiance otherwise to perform; yet once having promised, and the work being performed, her Majesty, is bound upon her fidelity, & justice, to pay that, she promised.

In like manner, God may give us the kingdom of heaven, without any respect, or regard of works; as he giveth it to little Children, that are baptized, and so it is a mere gift, & a pure grace. Or he may give it, with some respect unto our works, & so he giveth it to all them▪ who having use of discretion keep his commandments: & for this cause, it is called wages, M • rces, a reward; and thus the major must be understood, to wit, that Whatsoever God giveth as wages is given for works; and such wages are called merits; wages then, & merits, have a mutual relation: for what are wages, but a reward of merits? & what are merits, but a desert of wages.

The minor is most plain, & inculcated in scriptures. Voca operarios, & red illis mercedem. Call the workmen, & pay them their wages. Ecce ego venio, & merces mea mecū est, reddere vnicui{que}, secundū opera sua; • oe I come, & my wages with me, to give to everyone, according to his works. Vnusquis{que} propriam mercedem accipiet, secundum suum laborem. Every on shall receive proper wages, according to his labor. The like we have in twenty other places of scripture; all which infallibly prove, that the kingdō of heavē is given as wages, for merits, and consequently, that Protestants, who are enemies to merits, shall never attain to the kingdom of heaven, which is purchased by good works, and merits and for such men we may well say that heaven was never made, no more then learning for him, that will never study, nor virtue for him, who despiseth the exercise thereof.

Protestant.

Any man may see with half an eye, that the point in question is not concluded in this syllogism. 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 heaven be given for works, and the Protestants will have no merits, the Protestants shall never have the kingdom of heaven.

But the kingdom of heaven is given for works, and the Protestants will have no merits.

Therefore the Protestants shall never have the kingdom of heaven.

See this popish sleight of confounding works, & merits, as if they were all one. Indeed the ancient Latin writers put meritum, desert or merit, for opus work sometimes, & mereri, to deserve, sometimes for consequi, to obtain, or to be vouchsafed a thing. But neither are they all one in truth: and the scripture, that speaks much of works, never utters any word of merit. Therefore the consequence of this proposition is little worth. Neither is the assumption of this syllogism any better, as being altogether false. For how can the kingdom of heaven be given for works, when as it is an Inheritance, & not a purchase. For as many as are redeemed by Christ, receive the adoption of sins, and all God's sons are heirs, even fellow heirs with Jesus Christ. Now to the heir, the inheritance is due, as descending upon him, neither can he make purchase of that, which already is his own by law. Hireling indeed work for wages, & yet many of them c • not justly plead desert, in claiming their wages. But whatsoever their plea be, it is strange divinity, & law too, for children to deserve their own inheritance. The weakness of this assumption is vnderpropt with this reason.

This is your proof, to the which at the last we are come. But you forget yourself much therein. For the question is not of works, but of desert by working; so that if the conclusion of this syllogism be granted, the kingdom of heaven is given for works; yet are you far enough from proving your article, that everlasting life is given for merits. Since something may be due vpō promise by covenant, which notwithstanding is no way deserved. And this, it should seem you saw well enough, and therefore chose rather to bring a weak similitude, then to make offer of any sound proof. You tell us a tale, what the Lord may do, utterly to no purpose. Wherein I note only these two things.

First, that if all you ask be granted, it helps you nothing: for what if everlasting life be given for works? how often must you be told, that working and deserving are not all one? We deny not, that God will reward every least good work of any of his children; but we cannot grant, that either the reward he will give, is everlasting life, or that any works of his children deserve that reward, which he will give. I doubt not (which is the second thing I note in his similitude) but you Papists yourselves would think it extreme presumption, for any subject to claim, as of merit, that 1000. pound a year, which was promised by the Prince, for good service in Ireland: especially if it may be truly objected against such claim, that though some few actions have been valiantly performed in part; yet both in the best there hath been defect, and for one thing well done, twenty have been left undone. How then shall any man proudly vaunt of merit, that knows what God's law requires, and what his own deserts are? It is the infinite goodness of God our father in Jesus Christ, that he doth accept of our imperfect obedience, & crown it with glory, for all the imperfections thereof.

But everlasting life (saith he) is called wages, and given as wages.

As if we denied, that good works shall receive reward, and need every foot put you in mind of the difference of works, and merits. But indeed everlasting life, or the kingdom of heaven is never, I think, called wages in Scripture. There is a reward promised by God, viz. an increase of glory, which shall be imparted to the faithful, proportionably to the measure of grace, and use thereof in this life, according to works. But the kingdom of heaven is an inheritance, belonging to all the faithful, as members of Jesus Christ their head, whose first, and properly it is. This I proved a little before, and therefore will now only set it out more plainly by a similitude, or likeness.

The son and heir of a King hath interest in the kingdom, by right of inheritance, the Kings mo • eables may either, in his life time by gift, or by legacy, after his decease be disposed of to whom he please. The King to incite his son to valure, and love of virtue, promiseth him that he will give him some special reward, for every valiant exploit, or attempt, with true martial discretion, and resolution. This reward is to be raised out of his moveables, given indeed for works, but not to be claimed upon desert, in regard of some just exception, which the King his father may take against all such his enterprises, and atchiuements. Such is our estate, in matters of everlasting life, by resting upon Jesus Christ to be saved by him, we become members of his mystical body, sons of God his father, and ours by him, heirs of everlasting life, which is his inheritance, and ours as members of him. God our Father hath made promise to us being now sons, and heirs, and having thereby interest in his kingdom, of reward of all things, that we shall valourously achieve, or resolutely undertake, for the glorifying of his name, according to his will. This promise conueyes not to us any title to the kingdom (for that is ours already, even in possession by Christ) but encourageth us to Christian obedience, to be steadfast, unmovable, abundant always in the work of the Lord, for as much as we know, that our labor is not in vain in the Lord. And yet this is not our only, or greatest motive to good works: For that ariseth from our Child-like affection to so kind, and bountiful a father. Which if the Papists have not, let them not therefore deny, that there is any such thing: like the mole, that will not believe, that any beast can see, because she her self is blind. What if they, like hirelings, will do nothing but for wages? The sons of God in this life, take as great pleasure in their present obedience, as in their future reward: which notwithstanding they most assuredly look for, according to his promise, that cannot fail, ever God our Father; To whom with the son, and Holy Ghost be all obedience, thanks, and glory, from this time forever, and ever Amen.

A Conclusion unto his most special friend, Master F. T.

THus (my dear friend) I have set down those reasons, which induced me to receive the Catholic faith, and for which I continue therein. Consider, I pray you, whether they be not so substantial, and weighty, as any wise man might accept, and allow of, or at least might cause a reasonable doubt of religion arise in his mind, concerning the Protestants faith, for if these be true, as questionless they are most true, what man of judgment, will hazard his soul upon a religion, pestered with so many notorious absurdities and palpable errors: Eternal damnation is a matter of no small moment: when the soul is once plunged into those flames, it is past recovery: far he • eapes, and ill he lights, that iumpeth into hell; and questionless, without true faith, you shall never come to Heaven. Urge your Ministers therefore to satisfy your conscience, in answering these articles. Will them to reply with maturity, and cause them answer distinctly, and as they think in their consciences: For I fear they will rather do it for a form, to seem to say something, then they will be judged ignorant by silence, in saying nothing. And with this I rest at your devotion, expecting what your new Evangelists can answer to these just accusations, of their erroneous religion. From my chamber in Antwerpe this first of March, your loving friend H. T.

ART. 1.

ART. 2.

Article. 3.

Article 4.

Article 5.

Article. I.

The Protestants are bound in conscience never to ask God forgiveness of their sins.

Whosoever is assured by faith, that his sins are forgiven him, sinneth most grievously in asking GOD pardon for them.

But all true Protestants are assured by faith, that their sins are forgiven them.

Ergo all true Protestants sin grievously in asking pardon of God for them.

Article. 2.

Art. 3.

Art 4.

Article 5.

Article 6.

Article. 7.