Answer to a Popish Pamphlet, Article 5
Article. 5. The Protestants hauehave no meane to determine Controuerſies, and aboliſh hereſies.
Proteſtant.
No more then they hauehave a rule; to know what is matter of Faith.
Papist.
As the Proteſtants neither know what they beleeue, norA. why they beleeue: ſo hauehave they no meanes in their church to ſettle them in vnity of beleefe, nor to determine controuerſies; nor to aboliſh hereſies, as hath the catholick church: for our ſauiour Chriſt by his diuine prouidence did foreſee that hereſies were to ariſe in his church, as his Apoſtle S. Paule doth warne vsus: *1. Cor▪ 11 Profe that the church cānot …r…e. Mat. 18. 17 Eph. 4. 11. Ioh. 14. 17 Luk. 10. 16 § Profe of the principall propoſition. Act▪ …5.the which, as plagues, were to infect his flocke and therefore he not only forewarned vsus of them, but alſo gaue vsus meanes, how to preuent and extinguiſh them. 1. … He willed vsus to heare his Church, if we would not be accounted, as Ethnicks, and Publicans. 2. He ordeined Paſtors, and Doctors, leaſt we ſhould be carried away with eueryevery blaſt of vaine doctrine. 3. He promiſed vntounto the church the aſſiſtance, of the holy Ghoſt, in ſuch ſort, as they which would not heare her, would not heare him. The catholicks therefore beleeuing certainly, that the Church cannot erre, that the generall Councils cannot deliuer falſe doctrine, that the Paſtors, and ancient fathers, with ioynt conſent, cannot teach vntruths; when hereſies ſpring vp, preſently with th… voice of the Church, pluck them vp by the rootes: aIn the firſt Nicene coūcel was cōdemned Arrius. in the coūcell of Conſtā tinople Macedonius. In the coū cel of Epheſus, Neſtorius. In the coū cel of Calcedon Eutiches. vide Aug. lib. 2. retract. ca. 50and ſo euer hath practiſed, and after this maner, ouerthrowne all encounters, falſe opinions, and errours which the Diuill, by his miniſters, euer planted, or eſtabliſhed in the world: and ſo they hauehave bin freed from all braules, and quarrels in matters of religion.
But the Proteſtants, admitting the ſole ſcripture, as Vmpere,Principall propoſitiō and Aſſumption. and iudge, in matters of Controuerſie, and allowing no infallible interpreter thereof, but remitting all to eueryevery mans priuate ſpirit, and ſingular expoſition; cannot poſſiblie, without errour, wind themſelues out of the Labyrinth of ſo many Controuerſies, wherewith they are now inueagled, and intricated. And the irreconciliable iarres, betwixt them, and the Puritans, in eſſentiall points of faith, geue ſ…fficient teſtimony▪ that they will neuer hauehave an end, holding thoſe grounds of opinion, which they obſtinately defend.B.
And albeit they goe about to bleare the peoples braines, I hauehave heard of blearing the peoples eyes, but neuer till now, of blearing their braines.which, I know not, what vnity, and conformity in matters of faith, and in the ſubſtance of religion; and that their diſagreement only conſiſteth in points of Ceremonies, and trifles of ſmall importance; yet, in very deed, they differ in many eſſentiall points of religion. And although this ſhift will, perhaps; ſerue, to caſt a miſt ouer the confuſed conceipts of ſimple ſoules, & ſilly fooles…, yet no wiſeman wil euer beleeue them: I pray you, tell me, is not the Kings ſupremacie a matter of faith, and a chiefe point of religion? And do not all ſound Puritans in the world, denie it and defie it? AskeCaluin. 7. Amos. Caluin the puritanicall Patriarke, what he thought of King Henry the eight for aſſuming of ſuch a preheminence vntounto him: read the Annales of Scotland, and you ſhall finde the preſumptuous presbytery, eueryevery foot oppoſing themſelues againſt our Kings authority, as though he had nothing to doe with the Kirke. Looke into the carriage of our preciſians at home, and you ſhall find them, in ſhew to profeſſe it, but in deeds, and effects really to deny it. For if they approue his ſupremacie, with what face can they reſiſt his ordinances, in matters of religion? why weare they not veſtments, Surpliſſes, the Cap, and Tippet? why refuſe they to baptiſe with the ſigne of the Croſſe? why ſubſcribe they not to the the booke of common praier? why obey they not the eccleſiaſticall Canons, eſtabliſhed by his Maieſties authoritie? No other reaſon of this obſtinate repugnancie can be yeelded, then that in very truth, they doe not, in Conſcience, allow of his ſupremacy.
2. Is not the authority▪ of Biſhops, their power to create miniſters, their degree in dignity aboue ordinary Curats, and Paſtors, a matter o… faith, and ſo neerely toucheth the gouernment of the Church, that if this hereticall order be aboliſhed,Perhaps he would hauehave ſaid hierarchicall. the whole forme of Chriſts Church is preſently confounded?
3. The obſeruation of feaſts, and holy dayes, infringed by Puritans, maintayned by proteſtants, is it but a Ceremony? were not the obſtinate impugning thereof a ſufficient reaſon to cenſure them, for Heretikes? did not the Councill of Nice condemne the Quartodecimani for Heretickes, who would only hauehave obſerued their Eaſter day vponupon the 14. day of the monethmonth of March? What if they had called our Preciſians to the barre, who will hauehave it wholy aboliſhed? Queſtion…es they would hauehave branded them, in a farre deeper degree of Hereſie, then the Quartodecimani.
4 Is not the obſeruation of Lent, and other faſting days, a matter of more moment, then trifles, or then things indifferent? Did not S. Epiphanius cēſure Aërius of Hereſie, for denying theſe preſcript times for faſting? For albeit they be not preciſely ſet downe in ſcriptures, and therein commaunded to be obſerued; yet they, being either ordeyned by the Apoſtles, or inſtituted by the church, which had authoritie to appoint faſtes, at leaſt as well as the puritane presbytery; wi…hout doubt he, that calleth this holy inſtitution either doctrine of Diuils, or torture of conſciences, or reſtraint of Euangelical libertie, ought by the iudgement of all true proteſtants, to be condemned for a pagon, and infidell: who wil not ſubmit his ſoule to the cenſure of the Church.
5. The Puritans blaſphemouſly pronounce, and ignorantly defende, that Chriſt ſuffred the paines of hell, vponupon the croſſe; and that in this paſſionful agony, & agonizing griefe did principally conſiſt the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, for the redemption of man, from thoſe eternall torments of hell, And thinke you this is a trifle, a rite, or ceremonie? This faith the Puritans profeſſe; this blaſphemie the Proteſtants deteſt.
The deſcenſion of Chriſt to hell is (no doubt) but a trifle, a ceremonie, a matter of ſmall importance. It is but an article of our creed; and yet this article the puritanes really deny; the which al Proteſtants ſtedfaſtly beleeue.
That the ſecond perſon in Trinitie receaued his diuinitie from his father, is but a trifle, a point not much materiall to our beleefe; and yet, if this bee denied, the myſterie of the holy trinitie can not bee beleeued; for it abſolutely taketh away the nature of a ſonne, and conſequently the admirable proceſsion of the ſecond perſon, and ſo ouerthroweth all the myſterie of the Trinitie. This principall part of Chriſtianitie, Proteſtants approue and Puritans improue.
I omit here many more petty differences, in matters of faith; the which were ſufficient to make them condemne one another, not onelyonly in accidents, and ceremonies, but alſo in the ſubſtance, and principall partes of religion. As in that the Preciſians denie, that in Baptiſme our ſinnes bee remitted, but onelyonly take it for a ſeale of that grace, God gaue them by his eternal election. The Proteſtants confeſſe, that in the ſacrament we are waſhed by Gods ſpirite from originall ſinne.
The Puritans condemne the Communion booke, as irreligious, and erroneous. The Proteſtants commend it as orthodoxall and religious. The Proteſtants vſe the croſſe in baptiſme, as a holy ſigne fitt for the profeſsion of Chriſts faith, and religion: The Puritanes exclaime againſt it, as a humane inuention, and a point of ſuperſtition.
The Proteſtants defend, that impoſition of handes, in confirmation, is a ſigne of the fauour, and goodnes of God towards them: The Puritans auouch, that this is a flat lie, & that they teſtifie therein, that God doth that, he neuer did.
The Proteſtants in fine will vſe Veſtments, Muſicke, Organes, ſurpliſſes, and diuerſe other ceremonies, in diuine ſeruice, and adminiſtration of ſacraments: all which the puritanes condemne, as will worſhip, and not being commaunded by God, to bee ſuperſtitious. All theſe (I ſay) I omitt, and many more, which are to bee ſeene in the Puritanes ſupplication to the Parliament, where 32. differences are aſsigned; and onelyonly hauehave thought good to aduertiſe eueryevery diſcreete Proteſtant, to conſider the▪ 7. precedent differences. For there is neuer a one of them, which the Puritane defendeth not to bee a matter of faith; and the Proteſtant is bound in conſcience to condemne him, for obſtinatly maintayning the contrarie, to bee an heretick: and the reaſon is euident; for the rule, and ſquare the Proteſtants, and Puritanes both hould to know an hereſie, is this; whatſoeuer is contrarie to Gods word is an hereſie, if it be obſtinately defended: but all the aforeſaid 7. points in controuerſie, are by the one part proued contrary to Gods word, and by the other auouched to bee grounded vponupon the ſame. Therefore we may well conclude, that if one error in faith with obſtinacy defended, ſufficeth to make an heretick, what ſhall we iudge of the Puritan, who ſo mainely defendeth ſo manie? Surelie this I will auer, that they differ in ſubſtance of religion, and not only in accidents, and ceremonies.
And finally, they hauehave no argument to proue, that theyC. hauehave the true Church, true religion, true faith; which al hereticks, that euer were, will not bring to condemne the Church of Chriſt, as well as they. For example they aledge ſcriptures, ſo did the Arrians: they contemne councills; the Arrians did not regard them. They challenge to themſelues the true interpretation: the ſame did all hereticks to this day. And to conclude, they call themſelues the litle flock of Chriſt, to whom God hath reuealed his truth, and illuminated them from aboue: all which the Donatiſts, with as good reaſon, and better arguments, did arrogate vntounto themſelues. The ſame I ſay of the Pelagians, Neſtorians, Eutychians, with all the rable of other damned hereticks.
And to conclude theſe articles of faith, I ſay, that if theD principles of the Proteſtants religion be true, S. Paul himſelfe exhorteth vsus to infidelitie; which I proue thus:
Whoſoeuer exhorteth vsus to doubt of that, which we are bound to beleeue by faith, exhorteth vsus to infidelitie.
But S. Paule doth exhort 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 infidelitie.
The Maior is plaine, for to doubt of matters in faith, is manifeſt infidelitie: becauſe whoſoeuer doubteth, whether God hath reuealed that, which indeed he hath reuealed, being ſufficiently propoſed, as reuealed; virtuallie doubteth, whether God ſaith trueth, or lyeth.
The Minor is proued by the teſtimonie of S. Paule.1. Cor. 2.
Cum timore, & tremore ſalutem veſtram operamini. With feare and trembling, worke your ſaluation. All feare, whether it be filial feare, or ſeruile feare, includeth both, the one of ſinne, the other of puniſhment.
Proteſtant.
A very good compariſon, whether it be of likeneſſe, orA. equalitie: for the one is euen as true as the other. As we know not what to beleeue, or why: So we hauehave no meane in our Church, to ſettle vsus in vnitie of beleefe, &c. If we ſhall ioyne iſſue in this point, vponupon the former tryall, the matter is already anſwered. For all thoſe accuſations, and euidences being falſe, what truth can there be in this? and yet the laſt clauſe makes me graunt him the concluſion: We hauehave no ſuch meanes, as the Popiſh Church hath. But what will he inferre herevpon? That therefore wee hauehave none at all. What? becauſe we will not acknowledge the Popes Soueraigne authoritie, in making what he liſt an Article of faith: HaueHave we no meanes to end controuesſies? As good neuer a whit, as neuer the better. Is it not more for the glory of God, and good of the Church, that there ſhould be continuall diſagreement about matters of Religion, then that all ſhould beleeue and maintaine falſe doctrine? Were not Chriſt as good hauehave a troubled church, as none at all? Honourable warre is better then diſhonourable peace, in the iudgement of any wiſe States-man: And can it be more glorious to God, to hauehave quietneſſe in the church with hereſie, yea with Antichriſtianiſme, then truth with contention? So then this propoſition, that we hauehave no ſuch meanes, as the Papiſts hauehave, to end controuerſies, neither diſproues, nor diſgraces our church. But it is worth the doing, to take a view of this rhetoricall declamation, rather then Logicall diſputation, which was promiſt; by ſtripping it out of this braucry, and ſetting it naked, before the light of true reaſon: Thus then he diſputes;
They (ſaith he) that admit the ſole Scripture, as Vmpere and Principall propoſitiō.Iudge, in matters of controuerſie, allowing no infallible interpreter thereof, hauehave no meanes to end controuerſies, and aboliſh hereſies.
Controuerſies may be ended, and hereſies aboliſht, eytherTo the principall propoſitiō. by conuincing thoſe that maintaine them, of error, or by commanding them to forbeare all medling therein: The former, being the more proper, and orderly courſe, may be performed by the Miniſters of the word, without any infallible interpreter of the Scripture. For it is very poſſible, to vnderſtand the true meaning thereof, in moſt places, and ſo to prooue it, by the Analogie of faith, grounded vponupon euident Textes, and by the examining of the Texts that are in queſtion, that a reaſonable man ſhall not be able to with-hould his aſſent, without manifeſt blindneſſe, if not wilfulneſſe. If you aske me, what ſhall become of other places, that are very hard: I anſwere. that we need not theſe, for the confirming of any point of doctrine, as if without them, it could not ſufficiently be done. Further I ſay, that he, which mainteines any point that he is not able to auow, by any, but ſome ſuch places (as this Author doth Purgatorie) is no way to be allowed or borne with. The other meanes of enioyning ſilence and quietneſſe, is partly in the cenſures of the Church, but principally in the authoritie of the Magiſtrate: whom God hath made Soueraigne gouernour, for the outward peace, and proſperitie of his church. This in order muſt follow the former; yet ſo, as that if the Magiſtrate commaund, before conuincing, he muſt be obeyed, by forbearance of any further proceedings, vnleſſe the charge be directly contrary to the commandement of God: in which caſe, we muſt anſwer with the Apoſtles, Whether it be right, in the ſight of God, Act. 4. 18. & 5. 40.to obey you, rather then God, iudge you.
But the Proteſtants (ſaith he) admit the ſole Scripture, as Principall aſſumptiō.vmpere, &c.
What courſe is to be held, for the interpretation of Scripture;To the principall aſſumptiō. I hauehave partly ſhewed already, in the 2. and 3. and in this 5. article, and it ſhall appeare more fully, in the particular examining of this diſcourſe, according as it is ſet downe.
They (ſaith he) that certainely beleeue the Church cannot Proofe of the principall Propoſition.erre, hauehave meanes to ſettle themſelues in vnity of beleefe, to end controuerſies, and aboliſh hereſies: and contrariwiſe, they, that do not beleeue it, hauehave none.
When it is proued, that the Church cannot erre, then theTo the proofe of the principall propoſition. propoſition ſhalbe granted: but till then, it deſerues no allowance; and if it be granted: yet what hereticall church may not hauehave the ſame quietneſſe, vponupon the ſame perſwaſion? Indeed one of the three points, euen that, which the Papiſts ſtand moſt vponupon, viz. their outward quiet eſtate, may in part, enſue vponupon this beleefe, though it be moſt erroneous. For this perſwaſion that the Church cannot erre, is ſufficient to ſtay all controuerſies, when the Church hath ſhewed her opinion of them. And yet it is with them only ſufficient, that acknowledge this falſe priuiledge of the church: & therfore it follows but in part: becauſe you muſt firſt perſwade thoſe that contend, of the truth of this aſſertion, ere you cā worke by it, vponupon their conſciences. So that although this meanes (ſuppoſing the truth of it) be in it ſelfe effectuall: yet it cānot breed this effect in all, that at any time contend about religion, but in thoſe only, that beleeue it. For example; put caſe that ſome of the Church, being perſwaded, that the Church hath not authoritie to rob the people of the Cup, ſhould call this priuiledge of erring into queſtion. How will your Church take vp this controuerſie? will ſhee vrge the concluſion, I cannot erre? or will ſhee procure her Biſhops, Abbots, Cardinals, &c. to auouch aſmuch of her. What is this, but Aſke my fellowe, if I bee a theefe. Yes, it is ſomewhat worſe: for it is all one, as if he that is arraigned for fellony, ſhould ſay, I tell you, I am not a theefe: were he not worthy to be acquited, trow you? And ſuch would your proofe be, in this queſtion. But if the Church in this caſe, could bring out a Charter, and plead that for this priuiledge: her aduerſaries muſt needs be conuerted, or at leaſt might be confounded: and ſo perhaps the Controuerſie ended. Yet not by the Churches, but by the ſcriptures authoritie: which, as I muſt hereafter ſhew, is the meanes, that God hath appointed, for that purpoſe; but it may perhaps be1. Proofe that the Church can not erre. Propoſition. To that propoſition. proued, that the Church cānot erre. Let vsus heare the reaſons.
If they, that will not heare the Church, muſt be accounted as Ethnicks, and Publicans, the Church cannot erre: for if the Church could erre, then were there no reaſon, why hee, that would not heare her, ſhould be ſo accounted of.
When the Pope ſendes his Legats with pardons a begging about the Countrie, commaunding them to preach to the people, of the vertue, & efficacie of thoſe indulgences: Are they not as Ethnickes, or Publicans, or worſe, that ſhall refuſe to heare their ſermons? and may I herevpon reaſonably conclude, that therefore they, that preach them, cannot erre? Why ſhall I not ſay the like, of any Popiſh Prieſt, moncke, or fryer, being authoriſed by the Church of Rome to preach? who can refuſe to heare them, and not be guiltie of contempt, againſt your Church Apoſtolicke? yet (I hope) theſe may erre. Wherevpon I conclude, that therefore your propoſion is falſe, if they, that will not heare the Church muſt be accounted as Ethnicks, the Church cannot erre.
But he, that will not heare the Church is to be counted as an AſſumptiōEthnick.
What? ſimplie, if he do not heare the church? nay, ratherTo the aſſumption. if, in that caſe ſet downe by our ſauiour, he do not heare her: Now the caſe is this, If one brother, or chriſtian ſinne againſt another, he, that is offended, muſt rebuke the other in priuate betwixt them alone. 2. If this preuaile not with him, he muſt the ſecond time rebuke him and that before one, or two witneſſes, 3. If this will not ſerue, he muſt complaine of him to the Gouernours of the Church, 4. If their cenſure will do no good with him, he is to be accounted no mēber of the church after excommunication. Let vsus now draw an argument from this place, and ſee what it makes for the churches infinite authority. He, that, being thus proceeded withall, obeyes not the iuſt cenſure of the Gouernours of the church, to the confeſſing of his ſinne, and ſatisfying of his brother, & the congregation, is to be accounted an Ethnicke. Therefore whatſoeuer the church ſayes muſt be beleeued, or therefore the Church cannot erre. Who ſees not the weakneſſe of this reaſon? He, that obeys not the church in a iuſt cenſure, is no longer any member of the Church; Therefore he that ſimply in al things obeies her not, acknowledging that ſhe cannot erre, is an Infidell.
Here it would be further conſidered, that by the Church in this place, neither a generall council, nor the Pope is ment, but the Gouernours of ſeuerall congregations, or the whole congregations themſelues, whether they be more, or fewer, ſo they be a church: that is of neceſſity more then one. Therfore whatſoeuer can be gathered out of this text, for the churches priuiledge, and ſoueraignty, belongs to the Paſtors, and Rulers of ſeuerall churches. If then by this ſcripture it be proued that the church cannot erre, it is proued that the paſtors, and gouernours of ſeuerall charges cannot erre. How then is this the ſpeciall priuiledge of the Pope? But indeed this is a great queſtion, and (I thinke) not eaſie by any Papiſt to be decided: whether the priuiledge of not erring, belong to the Pope, or to the church. If it were giuen to Peter, and his ſucceſſors, why is it made common to them, with the reſt of the church? If it appertaine to the whole church, why is it appropriated to the Pope? If it reſt in the Pope, what becomes of it, Sede vacante, when there is no Pope? At ſuch times be like the church may erre; yea and at other times too. For if it be proper to the Pope not to erre, then all beſide the Pope may erre: and ſo it may come to paſſe, that there ſhalbe no church in the world: becauſe the Pope alone, if he be neuer ſo great a head, is but a head: whereas to the being of a church, a body alſo is neceſſary and not a head only.
*The 2. part of the proofe of the principall propoſition. To the ſecond part of the profe of the principal propoſition. The 2. proofe that the church cānot erre. To the ſecōd proofe that the church can not erre.They, that doe not beleeue the Church cannot erre, hauehave no meanes to ſettle themſelues in vnity of beleefe.
The truth of this Propoſition wilbe more fitly examined when we come to his Refutation of the ſcriptures ſufficiency, in the meane while let vsus ſee, what theſe other proofes are, that follow.
If God ordained Paſtors, and Doctors, leaſt the Church ſhould be carried away, with eueryevery blaſt of vaine doctrine, then the Church cannot erre.
What Church meane you? not the Pope? for he hath not this priuiledge, as he is a Paſtor, or Doctor, but as he is Peters ſucceſſor: nor the congregation: for the people both may, and doe erre. What then? Theſe Paſtors, and Doctors? But they are not all Popes. I trow, that they ſhould be exempted, from poſſibility of erring.
It was indeed Gods purpoſe in giuing Paſtors, and Doctors that his children, which only are the Church, ſhould be inſtructed, and eſtabliſhed in all truth: and accordingly it comes to paſſe in matters of ſubſtance, and foundation: but this is done by little and little, as the Apoſtle witneſſes in this place, knowledge being not perfect all at once, but firſt beginning, as in children, then by degrees receauing a continual increaſe, till we come to the meaſure of the age of the fulneſſe of Christ: which is neuer found in any, while we remaine1. Cor. 13. 9. in this vale of ignorance, where we do but ſee in part.
If this reaſon proue any thing, it makes as well for eueryevery Paſtor, and Doctor, in his ſeuerall charge, as for the Pope, in his pretended generall. For it cannot be doubted, but that the whole ſucceſſion of the miniſtery is here ſignified, vnderunder the title of Paſtors, & Doctors in ſeuerall Congregations; ſuch as this, or theſe of the Epheſians were.
Neither can w… from Gods purpoſe, conclude the neceſſitie of the euent, ſince we finde the contrary in dayly experience; and know by ſcripture, that not theſe, or thoſe means, but only in generall means of ſaluation are prouided for them, whom God hath choſen to eternall life, though ordinarily the word be the means.
The Princes end in making, and appointing iudges is, that true iuſtice may be adminiſtred to the people. Nay more then that, it is alſo Gods purpoſe, in this his owne ordinance: yet it doth not follow hereupon, that the Iudges, or Magiſtrats cannot, or will not erre.
But if Chriſt hauehave promiſed the Church the aſſiſtance of the The 3. proofe that the church cānot erre. To the 3. proofe that the church cānot erre.holy Ghost, in ſuch ſort, that they that will not heare her, will not heare him, then the Church cannot erre.
If this promiſe of Chriſt be generall, that whoſoeuer will not heare the church, in all points will not heare him, then the conſequence is good.
But that we deny: becauſe it is reſtrained to the ſcripture, according to which if the church ſpeake not, we may not at any hand, giuegive eare vntounto her. You will ſay, ſhe neuer ſpeakes but agreeably to the Scriptures. That is the queſtion; which we muſt ſee how you proue in your aſſumption.Io…. 14. 17. Luc. 10. 16.
The Father ſhall giuegive you (ſaith Chriſt to his Apoſtles) another comforter, euen the ſpirit of truth, which the world cannot receaue &c. If Chriſt promiſed to his Apoſtles, the ſpirit of truth, then the church cannot erre.
Firſt our Sauiour in this place, enforces not vponupon this guift of the ſpirit, any neceſſitie of hearing whatſoeuer the Church ſhall deliuer, but only makes this promiſe, by way of comfort.
Secondly, this promiſe is made, not to the church in generall, but to the Apoſtles in particular.
Thirdly is is made not onelyonly to them all ioyntly, but alſo to eueryevery one of them ſeuerally. So that if by this place any thing can be concluded for the Church at this daye; eueryevery particular Paſtor, or Miniſter, may claime this priuilege of not erring, and beyng heard, whatſoeuer he teach: which being moſt abſurde, and impious; that charge to heare, and penalty for not hearing, belongs ſimply to the Apoſtles only, and to eueryevery one of them, whom the ſpirit of God infalliblie kept from erring: To all others, ſo far forth, as that, which they teach, is agreeable to the word, which the Lord by his Apoſtles hath left, and commended to his Church. Therefore howſoeuer the perſwaſion that the Church cannot erre, may ſometimes breed an outward quietneſſe, in the Church: yet it hath no force to eſtabliſh men in the vnitie of true beleefe: ſince it may both deceaue, and be deceaued; not to end controuerſies, becauſe all beleeue it not; nor to aboliſh Hereſies, which, many times it may fauour.
But what is it, that he addes, concerning generall Councills, and auncient Fathers? HaueHave they ſome priuilege, the Church hath not? Or is it his meaning to exemplifie that in particular, which before he wrote in generall, of the impoſſibility, that the church ſhould erre? If it be, then all he ſayes of theſe (for he brings no new reaſon) is already anſwered, in trying the Churches title, to that feigned prerogatiue. But cannot generall Councils deliuer falſe, doctrine? How chaunce then; that ſome wholly, others in part, hauehave bin, and are at this daie reiected by the Pope? what ſay you to the three Councilles, that make the Pope ſubiect to the Councills; Piſa, Constance, and Baſill? What to that of Florence vnderunder Charlemaigne? which condemned worſhipping of Images, and the ſecond Councill of Nice, for allowing it? Bellarmine ſaies, they are not ſimply neceſſary, and that more hereſies hauehave bene aboliſht without them, then by them. Nazianzen wholy miſlikt them: the Councill of Trent, and that of Nice ended not the Controuerſies.
Now, if neither the Church hauehave it in generall, nor eſpecially▪ Generall Councills; how ſhould the Paſtors, and ancient Fathers come by it? For, that which is added of their teaching on truth with ioynt conſent, is but to bleare the eyes of the ignorant. Can there bee more ioynt conſent, then in generall Councills? may they erre, when they ſeeke the truth, with graue, and ſerious aduiſe, in great multitudes, and can they not be deceaued when they enquire after it, priuately in their ſeuerall ſtudies? who knowes not, that the error of ſome one man renowned for learning, and Godlines, drawes whole Churches after it many times? eſpecially ſince cuſtome like a tyrant, rules ouer the witts, and wills euen of learned men: who ofttimes thinke it more diſcretion, to retaine a ſmall error with quietnes, then to reſtore the truth with great trouble, and hazard.
But where ſhall a man finde this ioynt conſent, you imagine? I dare bee bould to ſay, in very few points of controuerſie at this day, if in any. Yet ſay it were ea…ilie to be found, in the writinges, that now are extant: Alas! what a ſmall number of bookes hauehave wee, in reſpect of thoſe, that hauehave bin written? What gappes are there in the courſe of ſucceſſion? What maymes in often copying out bookes by writing? What miſtaking in tranſlations? many greeke copies being loſt, and the latine tranſlation of them onelyonly remaining.
And who can tell what Indices Purgatori… hauehave bene deuiſed, & enioyned before this laſt aſſemblie of Trent? eſpecially ſince▪ Canons hauehave bene foiſted into ancient Councills, by Popes of Rome, for the eſtabliſhing of their lawleſſe tyranny.
Therefore, though we refuſe not to make triall of our doctrine, by the Fathers writings, namely thoſe that are indeed auntient, in the firſt 600. yeeres, before the kingdome of Anthichriſt: Yet we receaue them, as witneſſes of the truth, not Iudges; and vſe them, as we vſe old Coines, not for an aſſay, to trye by them, the purenes of met…all: but for a ſtandard, to ſhew what moneis were currant in ſeuerall ages, and places. Where they ſpeake according to Scripture, we acknowledge the good graces of God in them, to their deſerued Commendation: Where they write of themſelues, we obſerue examples of mans frailety, and ignorance, to which we make no doubt, but all writers, ſince the Apoſtles, and except them, hauehave bin, are, and ſhalbe ſubiect.
To what tryall then ſhall we be take our cauſe? To what elſe but to the Scriptures of God? Would a man thinke, there ſhould be any profeſſed Chriſtian found, that would miſlike of this courſe? And yet our Papiſtes doe.
They cannot abide to heare, that the ſole Scripture ſhould be vmpere, and iudge, in matters of controuerſie: Belike they hauehave found a better: Euen the Pope, to whome they attribute more, whatſoeuer they talke of the Church, Councills, and Fathers, then to all three together; ſaue that by Church perhaps they meane the Pope, Whom they make the head, and husband of it, being not afraide blaſphemouſly to write, that all the names that are giuen to Chriſt, as he is ouer the Church, belong to the Pope, as well as to Chriſt; though at the ſecond hand, as beeing Chriſts; or rather (as they ſay) Gods vicar. Perhaps they will ſay, as good do ſo, as remit all to eueryevery mans priuat ſpirit, and ſingular expoſition. Surely much about one: & yet, by this later it may come to paſſe, that though many erre, yet many alſo may hold the truth: Whereas by the former, if one bee deceaued, all muſt lie in ignorance, and error; ſince no man may ſo much as ſay vntounto him, why d…ſt thou ſo? But that we permit not the interpretation of ſcripture to eueryevery mans priuate fancy, I ſhewed in handling the 2. Article. Yet this inconuenience lyes vponupon vsus, that we can not poſſiblie winde our ſelues, out of the labirinth of ſo many controuerſies, wherewith wee are now inueigled, and intricated. When we lacke helpe, we will ſend for their Pope; or, if neede bee, make one of our owne: As yet things are not in ſo deſperat an eſtate, that we ſhould be enforced to ſeeke any ſuch remedie. For the Irreconciliable iarres, betwixt vsus, are neither, as he ſlanders vsus, in any eſſentiall point of faith; nor ſuch as hinder vsus, from agreeing in that doctrine, which is according to the word of God eſtabliſhed amongſt vsus, and publiſhed in the Booke of Articles 1562.
That the Proteſtants, and the Puritans, (as the PapiſtsB. terme them) differ in eſſentiall points of faith, he vndertakes to proue by this reaſon.
They, that differ about the Kings ſupremacie, the Biſhops authoritie, the obſeruation of feaſts, &c. differ in eſſentiall points of faith. But the Proteſtants and Puritans differ in theſe. Therefore they differ in eſſentiall points of faith.
If, by eſſentiall points of faith, all matters of truth in diuinitie be ſignified, we graunt his concluſion; adding further, that the church was neuer yet ſo happy, as to be without difference of opinions amongſt diuines, in any one age, ſince the beginning of chriſtian Religion. If he meane, by theſe words, ſuch things as are neceſſarilie to be beleeued to ſaluation, or to the profeſſion of chriſtianitie, I deny his Propoſition in all, or the moſt part of it, as, in handling the particulars it ſhall appeare. That the Proteſtants hold the kings ſupremacie to be an eſſentiall point of faith, ſo that he which doubteth of it, cannot be either in truth, or in profeſſion a chriſtian: neither the confeſſion of our church; no the writings of any of our diuines prooue. Indeed ſeditious Papiſts would beare the world in hand, that their traiterous Prieſts, and Ieſuits, hauehave beene executed for religion, and not for treaſon, in denying the Kings ſupremacie: but neither Proteſtant, nor Puritan euer yet beleeued them. Both which doe conſtantly, and ioyntly auowe, that although it be not a hereſie of ſo high a nature; yet it is a wicked error, againſt the truth of Gods word, and an opinion not to be tollerated in any Chriſtian, or ciuill ſtate.
There is no diſſent betwixt the Proteſtant and the Puritan, about the Kings ſupremacie, but the difference that is, ariſeth from the diuers conceit, each part hath of the things, by his Maieſtie enioyned; as it ſhall appeare in due place.
Caluin doth not ſo much as charge Henrie the eight with aſſuming the Soueraignety he ſpeakes of; but onelyonly layes the fault vponupon certaine men; who in an vnconſiderate zeale, as he ſaith, aſcribed ſuch a power to him, as by the word of God is not warrantable. Wherein, theſe two points made him miſlike the matter. Firſt, that he was called Supreame head of the Church; which title being taken from the Pope, and giuen to the King, ſeemed to inueſt that whole power in the Kings perſon, which the Pope had vſurped ouer the church. Secondly, Stephen Gardiner Biſhop of Wincheſter, affirmed at Ratisbon, that it was lawfull for the King, to forbid eating of fleſh vponupon this, or that day, to forbid Prieſts to marry, to take from the people the vſe of the Cup in the Supper of the Lord: The later two whereof are ſimply vnlawfull, the firſt only ſo farre as it concernes putting religion in ſuch abſtinence: of which anon. And, in that ſenſe onelyonly, did Caluin denie the Kings ſupremacie, in this point, taking it to be all one with the Popes. What oppoſition the Presbyterie of Scotland hath made againſt the King: I neither know, nor hauehave now leaſure to ſeeke. But, if they hauehave done any thing, whereby it may iuſtly be ſuſpected, that they thinke the king hath nothing to do with the kirke, they hauehave gone beyond their bounds, and ſhall neuer hauehave eyther approbation, or excuſe by my defenſe.
As for the Miniſters and people, which doe not yeeld to ſubſcription, and conformitie, I muſt needs labour to cleere them of this imputation. To which purpoſe, I deſire it may firſt be obſerued, that they acknowledge both by word and writing, and that ex animo, not like you Papiſts, with I know not what aequiuocations, that the Kings Maieſtie, vnderunder God, is the onelyonly ſupreame Gouernour of this Realme, and of all other his Highneſſe dominions, and countries, as well in all ſpirituall, or Eccleſiaſticall things, or cauſes, as temporall; & that no forraine Prince, perſon, ſtate, or Potentate, hath, or ought to hauehave any iuriſdiction, power, ſuperioritie, preheminence, or authoritie Eccleſiaſticall, or ſpirituall, within his Maieſties ſaid Realmes, dominions, and countries, according as the ſtatute, agreeablie to the law of God, requireth.
Secondly they profeſſe, with the reſt of their Fathers, and brethren Proteſtants, that his Maieſtie hath authoritie to commaund, or forbid, in all matters whatſoeuer, neceſſarie, or indifferent: and that, in both theſe, he is to be obeyed, vponupon conſcience. Of his authoritie in matters commanded by God, we are wholy of one minde. About the matters in queſtion, there are theſe two differences. Whether they be indifferent or no: whether, ſuppoſing them to be indifferent, they may be commaunded, and done, in caſe they be thought to nouriſh ſuperſtition in many, and to be an occaſion of ſtumbling, and deſtruction to many a one, for whom Chriſt hath dyed. And theſe are the reaſons, why they dare not (as they ſay) approue ſome things in our church, by ſubſcription, and practiſe: otherwiſe profeſſing not onelyonly a willingneſſe, but a deſire to yeeld, if they might ſatiſfie their owne conſciences in theſe doubts. So that indeed they no way deny the Kings ſupremacie, either by attributing that to any forrain potētate, or prelate, or any presbytery at home, which lawfully belōgs vntounto him, or by denying his authority in things indifferent.
Concerning the authoritie of Biſhops, it is not an eſſentiall point of faith: and beſides, the beſt proteſtant diuines holde, that the forme of gouernment is left to the diſcretion of eueryevery church, to be framed, as the ciuill eſtate may beare it: and therefore it is not denyed (I thinke) that there may be a Presbytery, but that a Presbytery is fit for a Monarchie. So that the aboliſhing of Biſhops in ſome Churches, is not a confounding of Chriſts church, but a diſſoluing of one outward forme of gouernment.
Eſſentiall points of faith are matters of doctrine, wherein a man may be ſound, and yet faile in ſome parts of obedience. If therefore, by not obſeruing, you meane, not thinking it lawfull, to obſerue or appoint holy daies, I ſay it is no eſſē tiall point of faith to doubt of, or deny this authority; though the Puritans (generally) hold ſuch deniall to be an error.
If it be your meaning, to charge the Puritans with neglecting the obſeruation of ſuch daies, I dare be bold to ſay, that all Puritans do more religiouſly obſerue them, then any Papiſt doth the Lords day, or Sunday; which I auowe both of Miniſters and people.
That it is vnlawfull for the church, or magiſtrat to appoint faſts for the religious humbling of men, vponupon iuſt occaſions, it is a foule error for any man to hold, but not againſt any eſſentiall point of faith, required to the being of a chriſtian, either in truth or profeſſion.
Both Proteſtants & Puritans agree (generally) about this point: as for the weekly fiſh daies, Lēt, & the 4. ember weeks, our church, and ſtate diſclaime the appointing of them, for any vſe of religion, and keepe them only as meanes, to prouide for the encreaſe of cattell, and mainteinance of ſhipping, Mariners, Fiſhermen, and Fiſhmongers.
Neither is this doctrine of Chriſts ſuffrings any eſſentiall point of faith, nor blaſphemy, on the one part, or other; as I hauehave ſ…ewed before in the fourth article. This makes no difference betwixt Proteſtants & Puritants, becauſe many, on either ſide, are of this opinion, many of the contrary.
Of this I ſay, as of the former; that, taking it in ſuch a ſenſe, as this Papiſt doth, it is no eſſentiall point of faith; but in the true meaning of the article, it is; for it belongs to to the truth of Chriſtian Religion, as a ſubſtantiall point, to hold, that our Sauiour Chriſt was wholly in the eſtate of the dead, both for ſoule, and bodie.
Of this matter alſoe there is diuerſitie of opinion, betwixt Proteſtants, and Proteſtants, Puritans, and Puritans, and therefore it is fondly, and falſly ſet downe, as a point of diſſent betwixt proteſtants, and Puritans.
The like anſwere is to be made to this alſo, ſaue onelyonly, that it may be doubted, whether any Proteſtant agree with the Papiſts, in this point or no; generally I am ſure the Puritans, and the Proteſtants are of one opinion in this matter. To hold that Chriſt is God of God, the naturall ſonne of God, coeſſentiall, Coēternall to his father, is a matter of neceſſitie, at the leaſt ſo, that the Contrary ouerthrowes religion. But, for my part, I dare not affirme, that the diſtinct knowledge of all ſuch points, is of neceſſity to ſaluation.
And ſurely (ſauing other mens better iudgment) I am of opinion, that thoſe Clauſes of Athanaſius Creed, which ſeeme to ſhut all men out of heauen, that beleeue not thoſe articles of the Creed, are to be vnderſtood of ſome of them onelyonly, or of the Contrary to the truth. The holy, and learned man ſpake according to the occaſion, the hereſie of Arrius hauing made a maine difference betwixt the true, and falſe Chriſtians. But of theſe three laſt points, ſee The fourth Article.
Thus much of the maine differences, which this Papiſt …oats: now followe the petty ones, as hee calls them. The firſt whereof is as true, as the former ſeauen. For our agrement in the matter of Baptiſme may eaſilie be knowne, by our ioynt conſent, to the articles of Religion 1562. according to the ſubſcription required by ſtatute. Neither do the Puritans deny, that Baptiſme waſheth away all ſinnes, as a Sacrament, and ſeales vp the forgiueneſſe thereof: Neither do the proteſtants beleeue any other thing of it, or aſcribe any other vertue to it.
The Puritanes do not Condemne the communion booke, as irreligious, but acknowledge it lawfull to bee vſed, and both hauehave vſed it heretofore, and are readie to vſe it againe, howſoeuer they deſire to be forborne in the vſe of ſome things in it, which (to them) ſeeme vnwarrantable.
They entreate to be ſpared for the Croſſe in Baptiſme, And, whereas diuers of late hauehave yeelded to it, the ground of their yeelding is, that it is no ſignificant Ceremonie, but onelyonly a ſigne betwixt man, and man, and ſo indifferent as they thinke.
That there are ſome differences betwixt vsus, we deny not, nor that this is one of them, concerning the ſigne in Confirmation. But this is farre from being an eſſentiall point of faith.
And ſo is this of vſing Veſtiments, Muſicke &c. wherein alſo there are diuers opinions, on either ſide: but, I thinke, there is no man condemns all theſe, as will worſhip, and ſuperſtitious. Yea there are ſome, called Puritans, that take none of them all, to be either will worſhip, or ſuperſtitious; and yet they hold them vnlawfull. In a word, there is not any difference, to my knowledge, betwixt vsus, which may either depriue vsus of ſaluation by the death of Chriſt, or barre vsus from lyuing brotherly, and chriſtianly as members of one, and the ſame Church.
And thus wee hauehave heard the ſtrong arguments of this popiſh replyer. Who, it ſhould ſeeme, not reſting much vponupon his owne proofe, in the end of this firſt parte, lookes to heare ſome reaſons from vsus, whereby we may approue our ſelues, to be the true Church. But that hath bin often donne by our Diuines, ſo far, as we profeſſe of our ſelues. For none of vsus euer vndertooke to proue, that we are the true Church, as the Papiſts dreame of the Church. Wee are, by the bleſſing, and grace of God, a part, or member of the true Church of Chriſt, not the, whole church. Yea we acknowledge, that diuers particular churches may refuſe communion with vsus. and yet both they; and we, remaine members of the ſame true church: though not without ſome fault, either on both ſides, or at leaſt the one. But the papiſts ſo take to themſelues the name of the church, that they condemne all for ſchiſmatickes yea for Heretikes, that acknowledge not themſelues to be members of the catholicke Romiſh church, in ſubiection to the Pope of Rome.
The ſum of our proofe is, that we profeſſe that religion, which our ſauiour Chriſt hath commended vntounto vsus, in the ſcriptures; of which, it ſhould ſeeme, this man was not ignorant. For, in this very place, he excepts againſt this reaſon; becauſe it is no other, then that, which all heretikes wil bring to condemne the church of Chriſt, This anſwere is inſufficient: vnleſſe we ſhall grant that our ſauiour brings no goodMat. 4. 4. 7. reaſon againſt the Diuill, in alledging ſcripture, becauſe Sathan himſelfe in his temptation, replies againſt him by ſcripture. Who knowes not, that in all controuerſies, reaſons muſt be drawen from the arts of which the controuerſie is: as for example, what Lawyer will offer to defend a bad cauſe, but he will quote lawe, for his purpoſe? and ſhall this either bar him, that pleads againſt him, from alleging his bookes, or make his plea of no force? nay rather any man of meane diſcretion, will readily diſtinguiſh, and ſay, the one makes a ſhew of law but the other hath law indeed; ſo is it in theſe points of controuerſie. The Papiſts, and other heretikes pretend, that the ſcriptures make for them, but this may not preiudice the authority thereof, in deciding matters of controuerſie: neither ſhall any true chriſtian need to be aſhamed of ſeeking to ground his faith vponupon the ſcriptures, becauſe Heretikes abuſe them to their wicked purpoſes: no more then our ſauiour was to alleage them, though the Diuill had drawen them to abett his horrible temptation. Nay, if the Papiſts were not too willfull, they would, in dyuers points, acknowledge the voice of God in ſcriptures, it being plaine, as theſe allegations of our Sauiour Chriſt. And, if they had bin then in the Diuils ſteed, they would not hauehave taken thoſe places for ſatisfaction, but would hauehave come vponupon our ſauiour with a ſecond reply, of foreign and foreign, and hauehave charged him with falſifying the text, for putting in OnelyOnly. Therefore we acknowledge this to be our onelyonly hould, that by the Scriptures we are proued to be the Church of God. Let the Arrians comtemne Councills; We beleeue, and profeſſe, that they are excellent meanes allowed by God, for maintaining, and ſearching out the truth; only we refuſe to match them in Authoritie, and accompt, with the vnfallible truth of the almighty God Will any abſurd, and baſe flatterer affirme, that he deſpiſes Magiſtracy, and Princes who denyes, that they hauehave an abſolute and infinite Authoritie?
But, I thinke, it would ſhrewdly trouble you to proue, that the Arrians contemned Councills. Sure it is not likely, ſince themſelues, within the compaſſe of 30. yeares, held 10. Councills, at the leaſt, for the eſtabliſhing of their wicked hereſie. True it is, that they reiected the councill of Nice, wherein their hereſie was iuſtly and holyly condemned; but that therefore they regarded not Councills at all, it is not proued. But conſider, I pray you, with what conſcience, or rather with what malice, you write. The Arrians are blamed by you, for not regarding Councils; we are charged to contemne them. Where as you know, in your owne conſcience, that we receaue both that Councill which the Arrians refuſed, and all the other generall, and particuler councills, ſaue thoſe, that (as we are perſwaded) conteyne in them apparaunt falſhood, and impietie. If it bee a fault not to receaue all, who ſhall excuſe you Papiſts, that hauehave wholly reiected ſeauen generall Councills held at Antioch, Millaine, Ariminum, Epheſus the ſecond, two at Conſtantinople againſt Images, and one at Piſa: and in part ſixe other, at Sardis, at Syrmium, at Conſtantinople, in Tr…llo, at Frankeford, at Constance, at Baſill. how iuſtly all, or ſome of theſe are reiected, I diſpute not, once it is euident they are reiected, neither hauehave we any reaſon to regard your ſhifting defences, concerning the Popes authority, in whom, for ſooth, it lies, to allow or diſallowe of Councils. For this is but to beg the queſtion. Therefore, to make ſhort, we willingly and reuerently embrace all Councils and all Canons, and articles of all Councills, ſo far forth, as they agree with the word of God; not becauſe of their authority, but by reaſon of the truth of thoſe things, which according to the ſcriptures, is in them declared, & commended to all chriſtians.
Neither do we hereby challenge to our ſelues the true interpretation of ſcriptures, as if it were appropriated vntounto vsus. That is your Popiſh Hereſie. Nay we acknowledge, with thankes to God, and their iuſt commendation, that the ancient writers hauehave brought great light to the true vnderſtanding of ſcriptures. Yea that many Papiſts hauehave interpreted ſome texts of ſcripture ſoundly, & religiouſly. Moreouer we confeſſe, that all, and eueryevery one of our writers, either hath, or may hauehave failed in his expoſitions. I ſpeake the laſt doubtfully, becauſe ſome hauehave written but little, and my ſelfe hauehave not examined all.
If any Heretikes avow the truth of al their owne interpretations, what ſhould this preiudice our cauſe? Who ſubmitt whatſoeuer our expoſitions to be compared with the ſcriptures, & to be receaued, or refuſed, as they ſhalbe found to agree, or diſagree with, or from the word of God. I would add hereunto the generall conſent of the ancient writers; but that it is a longer, and more vncertaine courſe, to try whether they be ſutable vntounto their owne writings, then whether they be framed according to the holy Ghoſts meaning. For the maine doubt muſt needs accompany that tryall. viz. who ſhalbe Iudge, whether we, or the Papiſts rightly vnderſtand, and expounde the fathers wrytings? If any man ſhall ſay their Bookes, and Commentaries are plaine, and eaſie; I dare boldly ſay of him, that either he neuer read, what they write, or cares not, what himſelfe ſayes. It wil not ſerue the turne, to bring ſome plaine interpretations out of them, for ſo can we alleage very many texts out of the Scripture. But he, that is deſirous to iudge truly of the meaning of any writer, muſt not ſnatch vp a ſentence here, and there, but aduiſedly conſider both his manner of writing in other places, and the ſignification of diuers phraſes, and cuſtome of ſpeech, in thoſe times, wherin he writ, the occaſion of thoſe particular words, he would vnderſtand, and diuers other ſuch points. Which will proue (as ere while I ſaid) more troubleſome, and leſſe certaine, then to ſearch eueryevery corner of the text, for the true meaning of the ſcripture. And here, let vsus remember, that we are ſure the ſcripture agrees with it ſelfe, in eueryevery place, and point: that any other writers do ſo, who can be aſſured? So that, many times, we ſhall beat our braines to reconcile thoſe ſpeeches, which indeed are very certaine contrarieties Since that this difficultie remaines in vnderſtanding the fathers writings, which is the onelyonly doubt in the ſcripture, what madneſſe were it, to leaue beating of the text, wherein we know the certaine truth is to be found; and to run ryot in the wilde-feilds of mens inuentions, where perhaps there is nothing to be had but errour. Let vsus vſe the helpe of Ancient writers to finde the meaning of the holy Ghoſt; but not reſt vponupon their authority therein. If they proue their interpretations by reaſon, let it be waighed, that it may perſwade vsus to think, as they do. If there be none, let vsus labour to find ſome for their interpretation. If that will be not, let vsus ſee what other reaſon we can hauehave, of any other expoſition. If it pleaſe God to ſhew vsus any, Let vsus craue pardon of the Fathers to diſſent from them: if none, Let vsus rather truſt them, then our ſelues, where there is nothing, but coniecture, without difference of likelyhood.
We are far from bragging of any ſuch ſpeciall illumination, as the Donatiſts challenged to themſelues. For we ſay not, that the Church of God is only in our aſſemblies or the ſpirit tyed to vsus. Who knowes not, that this is a ſtale popiſh deuiſe, to ſhutt vp the holy Ghoſt in the Popes breſt; ſo that neither all Councills, without him, can be any thing worth, and hee, of himſelfe, without any of them, is alſufficient. A litle flocke wee are in deed, if wee bee compared with the huge ſwarmes of Infidells, Papiſtes, and other h…retickes. Yea, as many of vsus, as belong to the election of God, are of that ſmall flocke, to whichLuke. 12. 32. it is God… good pleaſure to giuegive A kingdome. To bee of any other Litle flocke, wee accompt it no commendation; Nay rather wee deſire, and pray, that it would pleaſe God to enlarge the boundes of his Church, and to increaſe the number of true profeſſors. But we are not aſhamed of our ſmall nomber: though the Papiſts twight vsus with all, in compariſon of their huge multitudes.
Therefore, whereas this Papiſt likens vsus to the Donatiſts, Pelagians, Nestorians, Eutychians, with all the rable of other damned heretickes, we acknowledge it is our portion to be rayled on, with our Maſter Chriſt; and ſo ſhake of this froth of a malicious ſtomacke, with that ſpeech of the Archangell, The Lord rebuke thee.
Now for a Concluſion, that the end might be ſutable to the beginning, he laboures to diſgrace the principles of our Religion; by affirming, as truely, as he hath done all the reſt, that if our principles bee true, then Saint Paule exhorts men to infidelity. How many of our principles, thinke you, hee ouerthrowes by this reaſon? But poore one, if it were neuer ſo true, and being falſe, as it is, not that neither.
Whoſoeuer exhorts vsus to doubt of that, which we are bound to beleeue by faith, exhorts vsus to infidelitie.
The proofe of this might well hauehave bin ſpared, and the ſtrength, you waſt…n…, reſerued for the aſſumption: which hath more need o… your help, then it ſeemes, your are aware of.
But Saint Paul doth exhort vsus to doubt of our ſaluation, which wee are bound to beleeue by faith, according to the Proteſtants doctrine.
Becauſe it makes for the better vnderſtanding of this Reaſon, I will in few wordes ſet downe what we teach, concerning this point. Namely, that it behooues eueryevery Chriſtian to laboure for the perfection, as of other graces, ſo of the aſſurance, that comes by faith alſo. Which ſtandes in a full perſwaſion of the louelove of God in Ieſus Chriſt, and the continuance thereof, to his euerlaſting ſaluation. In deed this is not the proper nature of faith, which rather is that grace; whereby we caſt our ſelues vponupon Chriſt, to be ſaued by him. But it is an effect of faith, which eueryevery Chriſtian muſt ſtriue to hauehave grounded in him ſelfe: ſo that, if he hauehave it not, he failes in one duty to God. But we may not imagine, that whoſoeuer hath not this feeling aſſurance of Gods louelove to him, either is without faith, or ſhalbe damned, for the want of this perſwaſion. Nay we make no queſtion, but that both faith it ſelfe, & this effect of it, is in al, or the moſt part, very far from perfection, eueryevery one hauing his meaſure alotted vntounto him, according to the good pleaſure of God; who ſees how much is neceſſary for eueryevery one, in regard of the inward, and outward trialls, which hee ſhall hauehave in this life. This muſt wee indeuour by all good meanes to eſtabliſh, and augment; & herevnto belongs that exhortation of the Apoſtles, With feare and trembling worke your ſaluation.
There are two kinds of men, whom it doth concerne. Firſt thoſe, that vainely deceaue themſelues with an opinion of of faith, wheras they hauehave none. Let him, that thinks he ſtands take heed leaſt he fall.
Then they, that in deed do truely beleeue: who, becauſe their faith is vnperfect, muſt labour dayly for the perfecting thereof; which they ſhall neuer attaine to, if they bee careles, and do not continually ſtand in feare of falling, by reaſon of their owne infirmity.
So that this exhortation doth not forbid ſtri…ing to perfection, but inioyne the meanes of attaining thereto: which is, dayly to ſtand in feare of our corruption, becauſe we are not perfect in faith. Bleſſed is the man that feareth alway: feare toPro. 28. 14 ſinne is no way againſt faith; becauſe faith hath receaued no promiſe of full freedome from ſinne. Feare of puniſhmentRom. 6. 23. is neceſſarily annexed to the former, becauſe the wages of ſinne is death. Whereof we may taſte, in our owne feeling, by reaſon of our weake faith, if we doe not worke our ſaluation with feare and trembling.
What his meaning ſhould be, in his laſt ſentence, I cannot geſſe. For, I thinke, he will not ſay, that this filiall feare comprehends in it ſeruile feare alſo; becauſe then the diſtinction will ſcarce be currant: vnleſſe he expound himſelfe, as I ſayd before, that the feare of puniſhment followes vponupon the feare of ſinne; in which reſpect we neede not doubt to graunt, that the Apoſtle exhorts vsus to both kinds of feare: and yet ſo, as that he no way perſwades to infidelitie, though the Proteſtants principle be, that we are bound to beleeue by faith that we ſhalbe ſaued.
Papiſt.
Articles concerning good life, and pietie.
Proteſtant.
I may not forget to put the Reader in minde, that diuers of theſe Articles, as the 1. 2. 4. 5. are not points held by the Proteſtants, but matters charged vponupon their doctrine by the Papiſts, and that quite contrary to their direct proteſtation. So that, if any ſuch thing fall out vponupon our opinions, we may profeſſe, with a good conſcience, that we are deceaued, by the error of our iudgement, not carryed away by any deſire to erre. For proofe hereof, we offer our ſelues to be iudged by all men of any indifferencie, according to our anſweres, and reaſons, which we hauehave made, and now doe make, in our iuſt, and neceſſary defence.