Answer to a Popish Pamphlet, Abridgment
The abridgement of the former anſwer.
ART. 1.
Papist.
THe Proteſtants hauehave no faith, nor Religion.
Proteſtant.
The queſtion is, whether the Proteſtants, by their doctrine, profeſſe any faith or religion.
Papiſt.
If the Proteſtants hauehave any faith, charity, repentance, Iuſtification, church, altar, ſacrifice, priest, religion, Christ, then the world was without them, for fifteene hundred yeeres.
But the world was not without them for 1500. yeares.
Therefore the proteſtants hauehave no faith, no hope, no charity, no repentance, no iuſtification, no church, no altar, no ſacrifice, no prieſt, no religion, no Christ.
Proteſtant.
I deny the conſequence of your propoſition, neither doe we confeſſe any ſuch eclipſe of our Church, for a thouſand yeares, (& yet the ſame being eclipſed, ceaſes not thereby to be in the world; but rather is proued to be) neither can you proue any ſuch thing as you brag of; Trie when you will.
ART. 2.
Papist.
The learned Protestants are Infidels.
Whoſoeuer buildeth his faith vponupon his owne priuate & ſingular expoſition, of Scripture, is an Infidell.
But all Proteſtants in England do build their faith vponupon their owne priuate expoſition of Scripture;
Ergo, all the Proteſtants of England are Infidels.
Proteſtant.
I deny your whole antecedent, firſt your propoſition, for the truth of faith depends not vponupon the publickneſſe of an expoſition, but vponupon the ſoundneſſe thereof.
Papiſt.
If faith must be infallible, and vnpoſſible to be either erroneous, or changeable; and faith, built vponupon priuate expoſition, be ſubiect to error and change, then he that builds his faith vponupon his owne priuate expoſition, is an Infidell.
But faith muſt be infallible, and impoſſible to be …, … changeable; and faith built vpo… priuate …, is ſubiect to error, and change.
Therefore he, that builds his faith vponupon his owne priuat expoſition, is an Infidell.
Papiſt.
I deny your aſſumption. Becauſe the latter part of it is falſe. For a true expoſition, though it be priuate, is not ſubiect to error, or change: we diſpute not of the euent, whereby it may, and doth come to paſſe, that true doctrine is changed, but of the nature of that doctrine, which is true. I am ſure no Papiſt wil deny, that a true Catholick in profeſſion, may become an hereticke, yet an apoſtata; and yet that faith of his, which he forſooke, was true, and vnchangeable.
Your principall aſſumption is alſo falſe; for no proteſtant builds vponupon any priuat interpretation; but vponupon ſuch, as is warranted by the analogy of faith publickly acknowledged, and the circumſtances of the particular Scriptures, aduiſedly weighed.
Papiſt.
All proteſtants build their faith vponupon their owne priuas opinion, or vponupon the expoſition of the Church, the fathers, or councills.
But they build not their faith vponupon any of theſe three therfore vponupon their owne priuat opinion:
Proteſtant.
I deny your diſiunction in your propoſitiō, as inſufficient: for we build vponupon the euidence of truth in it ſelfe, reuealed in the ſcriptures by going, from things manifeſt, to thoſe that are leſſe manifeſt in themſelues, but become manifeſt, by being compared with, and examined by the other, we allow of no expoſition contrary to the fathers; but where euident reaſon taken from the ſcriptures themſelues, neceſſarily requires it.
Article. 3.
Papiſt.
All proteſtants, who are Ignorant of the Greeke, and Latin tongues, are Infidells.
Whoſoeuer re…eth his faith vponupon the miniſters credit, and fidelity, hath no faith at all.
But all thoſe, that are ignorant of the Greeke, and Hebrew tongues, rely their faith vponupon the miniſters credit.
Ergo all thoſe in England, who are ignorant of the Greeke, and Hebrew tongues, hauehave no faith at all.
Proteſtant.
If, by relying vponupon the Miniſters credit, you meane, they hauehave no ground to build vpō, but that, I deny your aſſumption. For the vnlearned Proteſtants reſt vponupon the witneſſe of Gods ſpirit, which perſwades them of the generall truth contained in the tranſlation, & directs them to, and in the triall of particulars.
If to the Credit of the Miniſter you adde the witnes of the ſpirit, I ſay the Propoſition is falſe. For he hath true faith, that relye… vponupon the Credit of the Miniſter, being directed by the ſpirit of God ſo to doe, and perſwaded by him of the truth, that is deliuered.
Beſides, this reaſō makes as much againſt the Papiſts, learned, and vnlearned, who rely one the Popes credit: being at the moſt, but a learned man, oftentimes not ſo much.
Article 4.
Papiſt.
The Proteſtants know not what they beleeue.
They, that hauehave no rule to know what is matter of faith, know not what they beleeue.
But the Proteſtants hauehave no rule to know what is matter of faith,
Therefore the proteſtants know not what they beleeue.
Proteſtant.
I deny your whole antecedent. Firſt your propoſition; for a man may know what he beleeues, without a rule to knowe what is matter of faith: though he may, by that want beleeue that he ſhould not, & faile in not beleeuing that he ſhould.
Your Aſſumption alſo is falſe. For we hauehave the whole Scripture to be our Rule. Therefore this diſcourſe needed not. All the Articles whereof are faithfully beleeued ioyntely by Proteſtants, and Puritans, that is by thoſe that diſſent in opinion, about the outward gouernment, or ceremonies of the church.
Papiſt.
They, that beleeue that to be the catholick church, which hath not bene, is, and ſhalbe vniuerſall, for all times, and places, deny the article of beleeuing the catholick church.
But the Proteſtants doe beleeue that to be the catholick church, which hath not beene, is, and ſhalbe vniuerſall, for all times, and places. Therefore they deny the article of beleeuing the catholicke church.
Proteſtant.
I deny your whole antecedent againe. Firſt your propoſition: becauſe the Article of beleeuing the catholick Church, requires not the acknowledging, that this, or that congregation is the church But onelyonly beleeuing, that from the beginning of the world to the end there alwayes hath bene, is, and ſhalbe a holy church of Chriſt, which, ſince his aſcenſion, hath not bene tied to any place, but is diſperſed vniuerſally, amongſt all nations.
Your aſſumption alſo I deny, becauſe the Proteſtants do not hold that the church in England, is the catholick church, but onelyonly that it is a part of the Catholicke Church. Which reaches to all times, and places. And, in one word, we deny not to the Church, the neceſſitie of Catholickneſie, but of viſibleneſſe.
Papist.
They, that beleeue not that Christ hath inſtituted 7. Sacraments, and eſpecially the Reall preſence of our Sauiour in the Eucharist, do deny the article of the communion of Saints.
But the Proteſtants beleeue not that Chriſt hath Inſtituted 7. Sacraments, and the Reall preſence of Christ in the Eucharist: Therefore the Proteſtants deny the article of beleeuing the communion of Saints.
Proteſtant
Any man may make as good a reaſon of ſeauen ſcore, ſeauen hundred, or ſeauen thouſand; or of the Reall preſence in Baptiſme.
The Reall preſence wee beleeue, the Carnall and bodily preſence no Papiſt can proue. If the faithfull be made one body by receauing, ſo may they be though there be no ſuch preſence. Therefore the Apoſtle calls it Bread: all that participate of one bre… not of one body carnally; beſides, if by receiuing they bee made one body, then they were not one body, till they receiued: then they are made ſuch eueryevery time they receaue: both which are manifeſtly falſe.
Papiſt.
They, that deny the communion of the Church militant, &, triumphant, by exclaiming againſt inuocation of Saints, and prayers for the ſoules in purgatory, deny the Article of beleeuing the communion of Saints.
But the Proteſtants deny the communion of the Church militant, and triumphant, by exclaiming againſt inuocation of Saints, and prayer for the ſoules in purgatory. Therefore the Proteſtants deny the Article of beleeuing the communion of Saints.
Proteſtant.
The propoſition is falſe. Becauſe there is no ſuch communion. your profe is nothing. Iacob and Iohn praied to God, that the Church may be protected, and bleſſed by the miniſtery of Angells; therfore the Saints departed pray for vsus, and wee muſt pray to them.
1. Whie not rather to God, as Iacob, and Iohn did?
2. It followes not, becauſe they protect vsus, therefore they pray for vsus. 3. That, if they pray for vsus wee muſt pray to them. 4. That if the Angells be miniſtering ſpirits, Therfore the Saints departed are ſo. 2. Neither is there any Communion with ſoules in purgatory; becauſe there is no purgatory.1. Cor. 3. 15. Saint Paul ſpeaks not of purgatory. For the fire thereof burnes the worke men, not the worke; but the fire there mētioned burnes the works. not all works neither, but onelyonly falſe doctrine. The latter place being vnderſtood1. Cor. 15. 29. 2. of purgatory, will not ſerue the Apoſtles purpoſe. How can the reſurrection of the body be proued, by praying for the ſoules, in purgatory?
Papist.
They that acknowledge not that Remiſſion of ſinnes, is an effect of Baptiſme, deny the article of beleeuing the remiſſion of ſinnes.
But the Proteſtants acknowledge not that remiſſion of ſinnes is an effect of Baptiſme. Therefore the Proteſtants deny the article of beleeuing the remiſſion of ſinnes.
Proteſtant.
The propoſition is falſe: becauſe not all hauehave Baptiſmum flaminis, the Baptiſme of the ſpirit, that hauehave Baptiſmum fluminis, the baptiſme of water; we acknowledge, that whoſoeuer is baptiſed by the ſpirit, hath receiued forgiueneſſe of ſinnes, which no man hath, which ſhalbe damned, as many ſhalbe, that hauehave bene baptiſed. Baptiſme is the Lauer of regeneration, to as many, as hauehave the ſpirit added therevnto, becauſe then they hauehave remiſſion of ſinnes ſealed vp vntounto them.
The Sacrament of penance is a Popiſh fancie: our SauiourI…. 20. 23. ordained no ſuch Sacrament; but onelyonly affirmed, that the worke of the miniſtery ſhalbe effectuall, to the remitting, and retaining of ſinne.
We deny not that our ſinnes are perfectly forgiuen, but that, by forgiueneſſe of ſinnes, the power of ſinne is wholy deſtroyed in vsus, at once: for the deſtruction of ſinne comes by ſanctification, not by iuſtification; and it is alwaies in this life imperfect.
Papiſt.
They that affirme that Chriſt is God of himſelfe, and not God of God: deny that he is the ſonne of God.
But the proteſtants affirme that Christ is God of himſelfe, and not God of God. Therefore the Proteſtants deny, that Christ is the ſonne of God.
Proteſtant.
I deny your propoſition. For Chriſt is not the ſonne of God in reſpect of the Godhead: if he be, then muſt the father and the holy Ghoſt alſo be the ſonne, becauſe they are one and the ſame God with the ſonne. He that preciſely vrgeth the naturall generation of man, as a paterne of the ſpirituall begeting of the ſonne of God, will make the ſonne a diuers God, from the father. The ſubſtance of God is eſſentiall to eueryevery perſon in Trinitie, onelyonly thus farre, that eueryevery perſon is God: not that the God-head is the eſſence of eueryevery perſon.
The Proteſtants beleeue and confeſſe, with the councill of Nice, that Chriſt is God of God, very God of very God: not that he hath his God-head from the father: for then they ſhould giuegive aduantage to Arius, who was condemned by that councill: for he would readily anſwer, that Chriſt muſt needs be inferiour to God his father, becauſe the father hath his God-head of himſelfe, and the ſonne not of himſelfe, but of his father. Beſides, hereby we ſhould make two diſtincte Gods; one that hath the God-head of himſelfe, and another, that hath it not of himſelfe, but of him, that hath it of himſelfe.
Papist.
They, that deny that by deſcending into hell is meant, that Chriſt went in ſoule into the place of the damned, deny the articles of deſcenſion into hell.
But the Proteſtants deny, that by deſcending into hell is meant, that Christ went in ſoule into the place of the damned.
Therefore the proteſtants deny the article of deſcenſion into hell.
Proteſtant.
I deny your propoſition. Becauſe foreign properly ſignifies nothing but the eſtate of the dead, and is not to be expounded hell, but onelyonly where the circumſtances of the place, in which it is vſed, doe neceſſarily require that expoſition: but here there is no ſuch neceſſitie. The proteſtants doe not interpret (the deſcent) of ſuffering the wrath of God in ſoule; though they acknowledge that doctrine to be ſound; and thus anſwere this cauillers illations.
Papiſt.
Christ bare the wrath of God. Therefore he deſpaired of his ſaluation.
Proteſtant.
I deny the conſequence. For Chriſt knew both that God loued his perſon, becauſe he was his ſonne, and that, by the power of his Godhead he was to free himſelfe from eternall damnation.
Papiſt.
Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God, therefore God hated him, & he hated God.
Proteſtant.
Againe I deny your conſequence. Our Sauiours perſon was dearely beloued of God his father, though being conſidered as a ſinner, ſuch as by imputation he was, for a time, he was, in that reſpect, to God for vsus, as eueryevery on of vsus is, in himſelfe to God. It is not certaine, that in the puniſhment of the damned, there ſhall be hatred of God, as a part thereof, and if it were, yet Chriſt is exempted from ſo much of the puniſhment, as cannot be without ſinne.
Papiſt.
Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God, therefore he was tormented with anguiſh of mind for his offences.
Proteſtant.
The conſequence ſhould be, therefore he was tormented with anguiſh of minde for thoſe offences, for which he felt the wrath of God. But theſe were not his ſinnes; in whom there was not the leaſt Tainte of ſinne but ours.
Article 5.
Papiſt.
The Proteſtants hauehave no means to determine controuerſies, and aboliſh hereſies.
Proteſtant.
The propoſitiō is falſe, for the ſcripture hath light enough in it ſelfe, to diſcouer and aboliſh hereſies, which they that wil, may by conference of diuerſe places diſcerne off. Looke my anſwere to the ſecond, and third Articles. There follows an extrauagant ſyllogiſme, which belongs to the 6. Article of the ſecond part: this it is,
Papiſt.
Whoſoeuer exhorteth vsus to doubt of that, which we are bound to beleeue by faith, exhorteth vsus to infidelity.
But S. Paule exhorteth vsus to doubt of our ſaluation, which we are bound to beleeue, by faith, according to the Proteſtants Religion.
Ergo S. Paule exhorteth vsus to infidelity.
Proteſtant,
I deny your aſſumption. S. Paule doth not exhort vsus to doubt of our ſaluation; but commaunds vsus to vſe the meanes, whereby we may come to aſſurance, viz. ſtill to ſtand in feare, and watch ouer our ſelues, leaſt by careleſneſſe we fall to ſinning: to which we are alwayes ſubiect, in this life.
The Proteſtants doe not teach, that whoſoeuer is not aſſured of his ſaluation, without any doubting, is in the ſtate of damnation: But that eueryevery man muſt labour to come to the perfection, as of all other graces, ſo of aſſurance too: the meanes of attaining whereto are feare and trembling: by which wee may be kept from ſinning, and ſo, ſtrengthned in aſſurance of ſaluation.
Papiſt.
Articles concerning good life and piety.
Article. I.
The Proteſtants are bound in conſcience neuer to aske God forgiuenes of their ſinnes.
Whoſoeuer is aſſured by faith, that his ſinnes are forgiuen him, ſinneth moſt greeuouſly in asking GOD pardon for them.
But all true Protestants are aſſured by faith, that their ſinnes are forgiuen them.
Ergo all true Proteſtants ſinne grieuouſly in asking pardon of God for them.
Proteſtant.
The principall ſyllogiſme for the proofe of the Article, omitted, I know not vponupon what reaſon, by this author is thus to be concluded.
Whoſoeuer ſynne greeuouſly in asking God forgiueneſſe of their ſynnes, are bound in conſcience neuer to aske him forgiueneſſe.
But the Proteſtants ſynne greeuouſly, in asking God forgiuenes of their ſinnes.
Therefore the Proteſtants, are bound in conſcience, neuer to aske God forgiueneſſe of their ſinnes.
The Aſſumption of this ſyllogiſme he proues thus.
Papiſt.
Whoſoeuer is aſſured by faith, that his ſinnes are forgiuen, ſinnes greeuouſly in asking God pardon for them.
But all true Protestants are aſſured by faith, that their ſinnes are forgiuen them.
Therefore all true Protestants ſinne greeuouſly in asking God forgiueneſſe of their ſinnes.
Proteſtant.
That the propoſition is falſe, it appeares by the practiſe ofPſal. 32. 1. & 51. 1. 2. Dauid, who prayed to God for the pardon of that ſinne, which he beleeued by faith was forgiuen, for ſo was he aſſured2. Sam. 12. 13. before, from the Lord by the Prophet Nathan.
Papiſt.
If none but an Infidell, or a mad man would demaund of God, the creation of the world, or Chriſts incarnation, or the inſtitution of Sacraments, which already is effected, then none but ſuch a one, would aske of God, pardō for his ſinns, being aſſured by faith, that they are forgiuen him.
But none but an Infidell, or a mad man would demaund of God, the creation of the world, or Chriſts incarnation, or the inſtitution of the ſacraments.
Therefore none but a mad man, or an Infidell, would aske of God pardon for his ſynnes; being aſſured by faith, they are alreadie forgiuen them.
Proteſtant.
I deny your conſequence, becauſe it preſumes of an equality where there is none. For we do not beleeue the later with ſo great aſſurance, as the former, beſides, we hauehave a commaundement for the latter, but not for the former.
Papiſt.
Whoſoeuer demaunds that, which he hopes not to obtaine, ſynns greuouſly by demaunding it.
But whoſoeuer is aſſured by faith, that his ſinnes are forgiuen him, in asking pardon, demaunds that, which he hath no hope to obtaine.
Therefore whoſoeuer is aſſured by faith, that his ſynnes are forgiuen him, ſynnes greeuouſly in asking pardon for them.
Proteſtant.
I deny your propoſition, for he only ſinnes greeuouſly, in praying for that, he poſſeſſeth, who beleeues certainly that he doth poſſeſſe that, he prayeth for: not he, which hauing ſome true perſwaſion, hath alſo ſome doubt withall.
Neither is the aſſumption true. Becauſe with the aſſurance there is ſome doubt, euen in thoſe, that beleeue truly the forgiueneſſe of their ſinnes. The doubt is ſinne, but the asking pardon, becauſe of this doubt, is noe ſinne.
The Proteſtants do not teach, that all Chriſtians hauehave this abſolute aſſurance, but that they ought to labour for it. VponUpon this reaſon he gathers this concluſion.
Papiſt.
He, that cannot without note of Infidelity aske forgiueneſſe of ſynnes, cannot, with a ſafe conſcience, ſay the Lords prayer.
But no proteſtant can without note of infidelity, aske forgiueneſſe of ſynnes.
Therefore no Proteſtant can, with a ſafe conſcience, ſay the Lords prayer.
Proteſtant.
If by note of Infidelity, you meane ſinning by weakeneſſe of faith; your propoſition is falſe. For a man that doubts of pardon, may craue it, without ſinne, though he cannot doubt without ſynne.
If by it, you vnderſtand being an Infidell, becauſe of aſking that, which he is ſure he hath; your aſſumption is falſe: for a true Proteſtant is not an Infidell, by ſuch doubting, though he ſhould not doubt.
Article. 2.
Papiſt.
The proteſtants are bound in conſcience … auoide all good workes.
EueryEvery man is bound, vponupon paine of eternall damnation; to auoide all deadly ſinnes.
But faſting, praier, allmeſdeeds, and all good works, according to the Proteſtants Religion, are deadly ſinnes.
Ergo, according to the proteſtants religion, all men are bound, vponupon paine of eternall damnation, to auoyd faſting, prayer, and all good workes.
Proteſtant.
By an orderly courſe of proceeding in diſputation, the firſt ſyllogiſme ſhould be to this effect.
EueryEvery man is bound, vponupon paine of eternall damnation, to auoyd all good workes.
But the Proteſtants are bound in conſcience, to auoide that, which eueryevery man is bound, vponupon paine of eternall damnation, to auoyde.
Therefore the Proteſtants are bound in conſcience to auoide all good workes.
Inſtead of that, he hath ſet vsus downe the proofe of the propoſition. The aſſumption whereof I vtterly deny; as falſe in it ſelfe, and ſlaunderous to our doctrine. For neither Faſting, praying, almeſdeeds, &c. are deadly ſinnes, neither doe we teach any ſuch thing; but onelyonly (as this man himſelfe confeſſes, in expounding that place of Eſa. 64. 6.) that the beſt workes we can doe, are infected with deadly ſinne. And it is one thing (I trow) to ſay that a man in his beſt health is neuer without an Ague, and another thing to ſay, that a mans beſt health is an Ague.
Further, we muſt obſerue theſe two points, in this matter; that by deadly ſinne we meane not as the Papiſts doe, the groſſe breaches of Gods commaundements. For the good workes of a regenerate man, are (ordinarily) voide of all ſuch tranſgreſſions; but ſlippes of infirmity, by which w… defile theſe good workes. To which if any man replie, that we are bound to refraine all ſuch ſinnes; I willingly ſubſcribe vntounto him. But withall I deny; that we are bound to auoide all good workes, becauſe we can doe none without this taint of corruption. For the workes are commanded, and accepted of God, and ſhalbe rewarded, for all this infirmity of ours; which cleaues vntounto them, and would make both them, and vsus for them, hatefull vntounto God, but that it hath pleaſed him to pardon it in Ieſus Chriſt.
Art. 3.
Papist.
The Proteſtants either hauehave no faith at all, or els lye moſt damnably, in denying that a man aſſiſted by grace, can keepe the commandements.
Whoſoeuer knoweth God, keepeth his Commaundements.
But all true proteſtants know God.
Ergo, all true proteſtants keepe his commandements.
Proteſtant.
It is more troubleſome to apply this Syllogiſme to the queſtion, then hard to anſwere it. But I hauehave performed that taske, in my larger diſcourſe, and now onelyonly ſpeake to his ſyllogiſme, as it lyes.
Where, firſt I graunt him the concluſion, according to S. Iohns minde. For indeed eueryevery true proteſtant keepes Gods commaundements; though not perfectly. Which imperfection, our papiſts muſt needes graunt, as long as they runne to dip their beſt workes in Chriſts bloud: which needed not, if they were perfect of themſelues.
Secondly, I ſay, the text of Saint Iohn doth proue, that he is not to be vnderſtood of perfect obedience; becauſe he ſpeakes, without exception, of all Chriſtians, that know God to euerlaſting life. Many whereof, yea euen the beſt, as Dauid, oftentimes ſinne greeuouſly.
Art 4.
Papiſt.
The moſt points, wherein the proteſtants diſſent from Catholickes, tend to looſneſſe of life, and carnall liberty.
If the … points following tend to looſneſſe of life, & carnall … then the most points, wherein the Proteſtants diſſent from Catholicks, do ſo.
But the ſeauen points following tend to looſeneſſe of life, and carnall liberty.
Therfore the moſt points, wherein the Proteſtants diſſent from Catholicks, tend to looſneſſe of life, and carnall liberty.
Proteſtant.
Firſt I anſwere to the whole ſyllogiſme; that if the Proteſtants teach nothing in theſe points of diſſent, which is not warranted by the Scriptures, then it skils not what, in the corrupt iudgement of man, may be argued to enſueRom. 6. 1. & 9. 19. therevpon.
Secondly, I ſay the conſequence of the propoſition is falſe. For theſe ſeauen points are not the ſeauenth part of thoſe, wherein we diſſent from the papiſts.
Thirdly, I deny that any of theſe points tends to looſeneſſe of life.
Papist.
If man hauehave not free-will to do good, he may be negligent in preparing his ſoule to ſerue God.
But man hath not free-will, as the proteſtants teach.
Therefore he may be negligent in preparing his ſoule to ſerue God.
Proteſtant.
I deny the conſequence of the propoſition. For God, that commaunds a man to be carefull in preparing his ſoule to ſerue him, muſt be obeyed ſimply▪ though we ſee not the particular reaſon of the commaundement.
But indeed wee deny not, but men freely both prepare their ſoules, and receaue Gods grace: but we ſay, that it is God, which makes difference betwixt the beleeuers, and vnbeleeuers: yet not without their owne labour and willingneſſe, to which they are ſtirred vp, in reſpect of the euent, neceſſarily.
Papist.
The doctrine of Iuſtification by faith, onelyonly tends to looſeneſſe of life.
You would neuer ſay ſo if you knew, that we beleeue and teach, that no man is iuſtified, but he, that is alſo ſanctified, and no man is ſanctified, but he, that walkes in obedience to God. We hold a neceſſity of workes, but not to iuſtification; and we looke for a reward of workes, but not vponupon deſert. Wherein we diſſent from the Papiſts, without preaching carnall liberty.
Wherefore though faith once had, can neuer be loſt: yet where there is no holineſſe of life, there neuer was faith; and where there is not a conſcience of refraining all ſinne, there is no holineſ…e a… all. Therefore he, that is giuen to carnall liberty, hath no faith to looſe
Neither doth our want of liberty to keepe the commaundements, euer a whit diſcourage, or withdraw vsus from indeuouring to doe well; ſince that God both accepts of our willingneſſe, and we acknowledge our ſelues bound to perfect obedience; which we muſt ſtriue to, ſo much the more, by how much the leſſe we can attaine to it.
The ſacrament of penance we refuſe; becauſe it is a patch of Antichriſt: becauſe it brings a ſ…auery, and ſ…are vponupon mens conſciences: becauſe it makes men ceaſe to truſt in Chriſts ſatiſfactions, and truſt to their owne: becauſe it breedes ſecuritie in them, that receaue Popiſh abſolution.
Wee deny the carnall preſence in the Sacrament, becauſe there is neither Scripture, nor reaſon to prooue it: becauſe it is an occaſion of moſt ſenſleſſe Idolatrie: and ſurely it is ſo farre from reſtraining men from ſinne: that rather it encourages them to deſpiſe ſuch a God, as is cruſht vp into a bagage Cake, and whom, if they ſhould be afraid of him, they might caſt into the fire, and burne, as one of your Popes did.
Laſtly, wee neither hauehave coyned any Religion, nor 7. hauehave a negatiue religion, but we hold the truth of God reuealed in the ſcriptures: and reiect your popiſh errors contrary thereto.
The Iewes by the ſame reaſon condemned our Sauiour Chriſt, and the Gentils accuſed his Apoſtles for bringing in a new Religion, whereby they denyed and abolliſhed the hereſies of the one, and the Idolatry of the other.
Article 5.
Papiſt.
The Proteſtants make God the author of ſynne, the onelyonly cauſe of ſynne, that man ſynneth not, that God is worſe, then the Diuil. Whoſoeuer defendeth that God commaundeth, perſwadeth, vrgeth, & impelleth to ſinne, maketh God the author of ſynne.
But all protestants ſay, that God commaundeth, perſwadeth, vrgeth, and impelleth to ſynne.
Ergo the Proteſtants make God the author of ſynne.
Proteſtant.
The propoſition, in the 3. latter points, is altogeather true▪ in the former thus it is to be conceiued of; that if God commaund that, which by ſome law of his owne is ſinne, as that Abraham ſhould kill his ſonne, he is not the Authour of ſinne, but onelyonly ſo farre, as he commaunds that, which of it ſelfe, without that ſpeciall diſpenſation of his, were ſinne; but by that it ceaſeth to be ſinne.
The aſſumption is falſe, no Proteſtant defends any ſuch thinge; howſoeuer we all acknowlege, that it was Gods will, that Iudas ſhould betray Chriſt. &c.
But we deny, that either Iudas had any commaundement, or warrant from God, or that God put that wicked thought into his heart, or that he inclined him to the liking of it. Neither do wee deride any permiſſiue will in God, but that which makes him an Idle beholder of things, without any determination of their being, or not being, but onelyonly ſuch as d…pend…s wholly, or principally vponupon the creature. We beleeue, and profeſſe, that God workes otherwiſe by the wicked, then by the godly: in theſe by putting in good thoughtes and bringing thē to effect, by their wil, & labour.
In the wicked he doth not worke, but onelyonly by them bringing his owne purpoſe to paſſe, without commaunding, perſwading, vrging, or impelling to ſinne, this latter you▪ may (if you will) call permiſſion, without feare of being derided by any Proteſtant; yea with the good liking of all Proteſtants; ſo you acknowledge a neceſſity of euent.
Article 6.
Papiſt.
That faith once had may be loſt:
Whoſoeuer looſeth his charity looſeth his faith.
But Dauid, when he killed Vrias, loſt his charity.
Ergo Dauid when he killed Ʋrias loſt his faith.
Proteſtant.
As before, ſo here alſo, he leaues out the principall ſyllogiſme; which I thus ſupply,
If Dauid l…ſt his faith, then faith once had may be loſt.
But Dauid loſt his faith.
Therefore faith once had may be loſt.
The aſſumption is falſe: which he labours to confirme notwithſtanding, by the reaſon afore rehearſed. To the which I anſwere, firſt by diſtinguiſhing on the propoſition; whoſoeuer leeſeth his charity altogeather, that there remains no grace of ſanctificatiō, hath no faith; but it is not true, that whoſoeuer commits ſome greeuous ſinne againſt the law of Charity, thereby leeſeth his faith.
I deny your aſſumption, Dauid loſt not his charity; becauſe he was ſtill ſanctified; though he fell grie…ouſly.
Papiſt.
Whoſoeuer remaineth in death is without charity:
But Dauid when he killed Vrias remained in death:
Therefore Dauid when he killed Vrias was without charity.
Proteſtant.
I diſtinguiſh againe vponupon your propoſition; hee that remaines in death, is ſo farre without charity, as he remaines in death.
But a man may▪ in reſpect of ſome ſinfull actions, be in death, and, for all that, be truely ſanctified, though not throughly: as the hand may be dead to any motion towards the head, and yet aliue to all motions downward. The proofe is both falſe and abſurd. For if there be any life in theHeb. 10. 38. ſoule, abiding in it as a quality, that muſt be faith. Some Papiſts call chairty, the life of faith, but none that euer I read, or heard of, the life of the ſoule.
The aſſumption not only may be, but muſt be denyed, becauſe it is vntrue 1. Ioh. 3. 14. is to be expounded by the 17. where it is ſaid, He that ſh…s vp his bowels of compaſſion from his brethren, that hath need, hath not the lo…e of God in him. And yet no Papiſt wil ſay that a man is void of the louelove o… God, vpō the refuſal at ſomtimes, to giuegive almes to him that ſtands in need He that is quite without louelove, that is, he, that hath not in him the louelove of his neighbour, is without ſanctification, and Iuſtification; but this a man may hauehave, and Dauid had, in ſome good meaſure, though he faile, as he did, in that one particular of louelove towards Ʋria…. When you bring any proofe out of that place of Ezechiell, 18. 24. you ſhall hauehave an anſwer to it.
In the meane while I ſay no more but this, that conditionalis nihil p…it in eſſe: a thing is not proued to be, becauſe if it be, ſuch or ſuch an euent ſhall follow therupon.
Article. 7.
Papiſt.
The Proteſtants ſhall neuer hauehave life euerlaſting; Becauſe they will hauehave no merits, for which euerlaſting life is giuen.
Whatſoeuer is giuen as wages, is giuen for workes.
But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages.
Therefore the kingdom… of heauen is giuen for workes.
Proteſtant.
Any man may eaſily perceiue, that the queſtion is not concluded in this ſyllogiſme. But I will not, in this ſhort anſwer, trouble my ſelfe with any more; then anſwering to the point.
Papiſt.
Whatſoeuer is giuen as wages, is giuen for workes.
But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages.
Ergo the kingdome of heauen is giuen for workes.
Proteſtant.
If we graunt him the whole ſyllogiſme, he gets nothing by it▪ vnleſſe he can proue, that workes and merits are all one; which is vtterly falſe.
I deny your aſſumption: which none of theſe places you bring doth proue; the firſt is a parable, ſignifying that the Gentiles ſhall hauehave place in heauen aſwell as the Iewes, though they came later to the knowledge of the truth. The other two, mention reward, but not wages: and theſe two, are your common …rrors in moſt of your arguments, concerning the queſtion o… workes, that you without all authority of Scripture, or reaſon, confound workes, with merits; and reward, with wages. Which you profeſſing a ſchollerlike diſputation, ſhould not hauehave done, without ſome ſpeciall proofe of their being all one; eſpecially ſince you can hardly be ignorant, that we alwaies diſtinguiſh the one from the other, not without reaſon, as we ſurely perſwade our ſelues.
FINIS.
End of the text · Anthony Wotton, Answer to a Popish Pamphlet (1605)