Full and Easy Satisfaction, Part 2
PART II. The Principles which Papiſts and Proteſtants are agreed in: And therein the full …uſtification of all the Proteſtants Religion.
THe firſt common Principle: That we are Men, having Reaſon, and Free-will, and Senſe; whoſe Natural way of knowing things ſenſible, is by the perception of our ſenſes, having no way of greater Certainty.
R.
I take it for a common principle, that we are Men, having Reaſon, and Free-will, and Senſe: whoſe natural way of Knowing things ſenſible, is by the perception of our ſenſes▪ And therefore that our rightly conſtituted or ſound ſenſes, with their due media, about their proper objects are to be truſted; being either certain, or we have no certainty.
P.
I know what you intend: I grant it as you expreſs it.
R.
It muſt then be granted us, that there is true Bread and Wine in ſubſtance remaining after the words of the Maſs-Prieſts conſecration.
P.
Yes: When you can prove, that the conſecrated Bread and Wine are the proper objects of ſenſe: which we deny; they being not now Bread and Wine.
R.
Is it by the Perception of ſenſe that you deny it? or by other means?
P.
No: It is by Faith and Reaſon which are above Senſe.
R.
Now you come to deny the Principle which you granted: Senſe is the perceiver of its own objects: No Faith, no Reaſon can perceive them, but by ſenſe: And if due ſenſation perceive them, and Faith deny them, then Faith denyeth ſenſe to be the proper natural perceiver of its objects, and our judgement of things ſenſible to be ſuch as muſt follow that perception. But we muſt diſpute of this anon, and will not now anticipate it. Only remember, that if you deny ſenſe which is the firſt Principle, no mortal man is capable of diſputing with you, there being no lower principle to which we can have recourſe, and reſolve our differences.
The ſecond Principle: That there is One only God, Infinite in Being, Power, Wiſdom and Goodneſs; Our Owner, Ruler and Chief Good; Moſt Holy, Juſt and True, and therefore cannot lye; but is abſolutely to be believed, and truſted, and loved.
R.
I need not repeat it: Do you not Agree with us in this?
P.
Yes: Heathens (that are ſober) and Chriſtians are agreed in it.
R.
You grant then, that this may be known by them that are no ſubjects of the Pope. Remember anon that we are not to be blamed for Believing God.
The third Principle: That the whole frame of Nature within us and without us (within our reach) is the ſignal Revelation of God and his Will to man; called (Objectively) The Light and Law of Nature.
R.
I ſuppoſe that this alſo may paſs for a common granted Principle.
P.
Yes, as you expreſs it: If we agree not of the Light and Law of Nature, we come ſhort of Infidels, and meer Natural men.
R.
Obſerve then, that we are Juſtified by your principles, for Believing and Truſting Gods Natural Revelation. The very firſt part of which is made to our ſenſes: By Natural Evidence God ſheweth us that Bread is Bread.
P.
Yes: when ſenſe is ſound, and objects and media juſt, and God doth not contradict ſenſe by ſupernatural Revelation.
The fourth Principle: That Natural Revelation is before ſupernatural, and ſenſe before faith, and we are Men (in order of Nature at leaſt) before we are Chriſtians, and the former is ſtill preſuppoſed to the later.
R.
This alſo I ſuppoſe is a granted Principle.
P.
It is ſo: But ſee that you raiſe no falſe conſequents from it.
R.
I conclude from it, that He that denyeth the perception of ſenſe to be the certain way of Judging of things ſenſible, denyeth all the Certainty of faith, and ſubverteth the very foundations of it: And that we are juſtified for our Aſſenting firſt to Gods Natural Revelations. It is God that made my ſenſes and underſtanding, and God that made the object and media, as Bread and Wine, and therefore God deceiveth me, if I be deceived in taking it for Bread and Wine after Conſecration. But God is to be believed, in his firſt Revelations.
P.
You vainly call Senſation, and Intellection or Knowledge of things ſenſible by the name of Believing.
R.
We will not vainly contend about the Name, if we agree of the Thing: But this leadeth me to another Principle.
The fifth Principle: That the Knowledge of things fully ſenſible hath more quieting, ſatisfying Evidence, than our Belief of ſupernatural Revelations alone, as made to us by a Prophet or Apoſtle: And that where all the ſound ſenſes of all men living do agree about their near and proper ſenſible object, there is the moſt ſatisfying Evidence of all.
R.
I ſuppoſe that we are all agreed alſo in this principle.
P.
As you word it we are: For our Divines diſtinguiſh of Evidence and Certainty: and are ſo far from ſaying that Faith hath more Evidence than Senſe and Knowledge, that it is ordinary with them to ſay, that this is the difference between Faith and Knowledge, and that faith hath not Evidence: but yet it hath no leſs certainty.
R.
Some men uſe words firſt to ſport themſelves out of their underſtandings, and then to uſe others to the ſame game. Evidence is nothing but the Perceptibility or Cognoſcibility of a thing: by which we call it Knowable; which is the Immediate neceſſary qualification of an Object of Knowledge. Certainty is either Objective, which is nothing but this ſame Cognoſcibility or Evidence as in a ſatisfying degree: Or it is Subjective or Active, which is nothing but the Infallible or True, and quieting ſatisfactory knowledge of a Truth. Where the Certainty of Object and Act concurr: For no man can be certain of a lye or untruth: For to be Certain, is to be certain that it is True: Thoſe therefore would befool the world, who would perſwade men, that a clear and confident perception of an untruth, or confident error, is Certainty. There may be Objective Truth and Certainty of the Matter, where there is not in us an Active or Subjective Certain Knowledge of it: But there can be no Active Certainty of an Objective Ʋncertainty, or certain Knowledge of a lye. Now if you mean that faith hath Objective Certainty without Evidence of Certainty, or Aſcertaining Evidence, that is, but to ſay and unſay: It hath Certainty and no Certainty: For this Certainty and Evidence is all one. But if you mean that Faith hath an Active Subjective Certainty without an Objective Certainty in the Matter, you ſpeak an impoſſibility and contradiction: as if you ſaid, [I clearly ſee a thing inviſible or without light.]
P.
Do you think that our Divines knew not what they ſaid, when they ſay that to believe without Evidence maketh faith meritorious?
R.
The old aſſerters of this meant the ſame that Chriſt meant, when he ſaith to Thomas [Bleſſed are they that have not ſeen, and yet have believed.] There is a ſenſible Evidence, and an Intelligible Evidence. Faith hath not an Immediate ſenſible Evidence; that is, we believe things unſeen, and above ſenſe: And this is their meaning: We ſee not God, Chriſt, Heaven, Angels, &c. But faith hath alwaies Intelligible Evidence of Verity; and (as our Mr. R. Hooker ſaith) can go no further than it hath ſuch Evidence.
However, I appeal to any that have not been diſputed out of their wits, whether, If God would give us as full a ſight of Heaven and Hell, and Angels and Bleſſed ſouls, as we have of the Bread and Wine before us, and as full a Hearing of all that they ſay, in juſtification of Holineſs, or Lamentation of ſin, and as full ſenſible acquaintance with the world we go to, and our title to it, as we have with this world, I ſay, whether this would not be more aſcertaining and ſatisfactory to us, and baniſh all doubts, more than our preſent faith doth? I love not to hear men lie as for God, and talk and boaſt againſt their experience, as if the intereſt of faith required it. Things revealed to faith Are Certain and Infallible. But that is becauſe we have certain evidence 1. That God cannot lie; 2. And that God revealed them; and ſo that they are True. But if we did ſee, feel, taſte, &c. we ſhould be more certain. Elſe why is it ſaid, that we now know but enigmatically and as in a glaſs; and as children; but hereafter ſhall ſee as face to face, and know as we are known, when faith is done away, as being more Imperfect than Intuition. We have evidence to prove, that the Revelation made to David, Iſaiah, Jeremiah, Peter, Paul, &c. were of God, and that their words are by us to be believed, &c. But to ſee, hear, taſte, feel, &c. would be a more quieting Aſſurance.
Therefore when all the ſound ſenſes of all men living, perceive after conſecration, that there is Bread and Wine, this Certainty is, 1. in order antecedent to that of faith, and 2. by Evidence, more ſatisfying and aſſuring than that of meer faith, as to a prophets Revelation; And therefore to reject it on pretence of faith, is a ſubverſion of all natural methods of aſſurance; and is but pretended, I think, by your ſelves.
The ſixth Principle. That except thoſe Immediate Inſpirations which none but the Inſpired do Immediately and clearly perceive, we have no Revelations from God, but by ſignes; which are created beings; and have their ſeveral Natures, and ſo may be called Phyſical, though ſignifying Moral things. And thus far our natural and ſupernatural Revelations agree.
R.
Every being is either Ʋncreated (which is God only) or Created (in a large ſenſe, that is Cauſed:) What God Revealed to Chriſt, Peter, Paul, &c. we have knowledge of, but by ſignes: In Scripture theſe ſignes are Words: Theſe words ſignifie partly the mind of God, and the ſpeakers or writers, and partly the matter ſpoken or written. When it is ſaid, that It is impoſſible for God to lye, it can mean nothing to us, but that it is impoſſible that God ſhould make us a deceitful ſign of his will. The voice of an Angel, Prophet, Apoſtle, a thouſand Miracles, &c. are but ſignes of the matter and of Gods will: And if God can ordinarily make falſe natural ſignes, we are left unaſſured that he cannot make falſe ſignes by an Angel, or a Prophet, or a Miracle. And ſo all faith is left uncertain.
P.
Then you will make God a lyar or deceiver whenever any man is deceived by natural ſignes.
R.
Not ſo: For men may deceive themſelves by taking thoſe for ſignes of a thing which are none, and ſo by miſunderſtanding them. And the Devil and bad men may promote this deceit. But whenever God giveth man ſo plain a ſign of the Matter and his Will, as that no errour of an unſound ſenſe, an unqualified object, a culpable or diſeaſed fantaſie or Intellect, interveneth, then if we are deceived it can be none but God that doth deceive us; which cannot be, becauſe he cannot lye. And as it is an unreſiſtible argument againſt the Dominican doctrine of Phyſical Predetermination as abſolutely neceſſary to all acts of natural or free agents, that If God phyſically predetermine every lyar to ivery lye, that is mentally conceived or uttered, then we have no certainty but he might do ſo by the Prophets and Apoſtles; ſo is it as good an argument againſt Papiſts, that▪ if he ordinarily deceive the ſenſes of all ſound men by a falſe appearance of things ſeeming ſenſible, he may do ſo alſo by the audible or legible words of a prophet.
The ſeventh Principle. That he that will confute ſenſe, and prove that we ſhould not Judge according to its perceptions, muſt prove it by ſome more certain evidence that contradicteth it.
R.
I ſuppoſe you will not queſtion this.
P.
No: The word or Revelation of God is a more certain evidence.
R.
How know you that there is any word of God, but by your ſenſes?
P.
But yet by ſenſe I may get a certainty which is above that of things ſenſible. As I know by the world that there is a God, by a certainty above that of ſenſe.
R.
1. If that were ſo, yet if things ſenſible be your media, you deſtroy your Concluſion by denying them, and undermine your own foundation.
2. But it is not true: The knowledge of the Concluſion can be no ſtronger than that of the principles, even of the weaker of them. If you are in any uncertainty whether there be Sun, Moon, Heaven, Earth, Man, Beaſt, Heat, Cold or any Created ſenſible being, you muſt needs be in as much doubt whether there be a God that made them.
The eighth Principle. That Believing or Aſſenting is Intellection of the Truth of ſomething revealed, and therefore muſt have Intelligible Evidence of Truth in the thing believed.
R.
I know that Aſſiance or Truſt as it is the act of the Will, repoſing it ſelf quietly on the Believed fidelity of God, is not Intellection. But the Aſſenting act is an Intellection or an Act of Knowledge of a Verity; not as Science is narrowly confined to principles, but as Knowledge is taken in genere for notitia. So to believe is no other than to know that this is true, becauſe God ſaith it. Joh. 6.69. We believe and are ſure that thou art that Chriſt, &c. Joh. 3.2. We know that thou art a Teacher come from God, for no man could do ſuch works, &c. Joh. 21.24. We know that his teſtimony is true— See Rom. 7.14. & 8.28. 2 Cor. 5.1. We know that if this earthly houſe, &c. 1 Tim. 1.8. 1 Joh. 3.2. Joh. 8.28, 32. 1 Cor. 15.58. We know that our Labour is not in vain, &c. Therefore your denying the certainty where the evidence is moſt notorious, and telling men of Meriting if they will but believe your Church, without any Evidence of certainty, is a meer cheat.
The ninth Principle▪ That Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God and the Saviour of the World, and that Chriſtianity is the true Religion, and Gods appointed ſufficient way to Heaven, including Godlineſs, which is its final part.
R.
By Chriſtianity I mean both our Believing, Loving and obeying Chriſt as the way to the Father, and our Believing, Loving and Obeying God our Father, as the end of Chriſts Mediation: The Knowledge of God and the Mediator being Eternal Life, Joh. 17.3. And as Taking a man for my Phyſicion, is taking him, by his medicines to help me to my health, and ſo Health is finally included▪ ſo taking Chriſt for my Saviour, is to take him by faith to be the means of bringing me to the Love of God and to Glory: And ſo I include Godlineſs in Chriſtianity, and the Law of Nature in the Law of Grace.
P.
We are agreed on the truth of this: but not of the medium by which it muſt be made known to us.
R.
At the preſent I ask no more than that we agree in Chriſtianity as the true and ſufficient Religion and way to life.
The tenth Principle. That Baptizing is our Chriſtening: And that all that are truly Baptized are Chriſtians, and members of the viſible Church, untill they Apoſtatize or are juſtly excommunicate (at leaſt.)
P.
I grant you all this as a common Principle with Chriſtians.
R.
Then you grant us, 1. That our Religion is the True Religion; of Gods appointment, ſufficient to ſalvation: For it is Chriſtianity, which you confeſſed to be ſuch. 2. You grant that we are baptized into the true Catholick Church, which is the body of Chriſt.
The eleventh Principle. That all that are truly Baptized have the pardon of all their ſins, and have preſent right to ſalvation if they ſo die.
R.
I mean, that they that are Internally true Conſenters to the baptiſmal Covenant, and are baptized, have all theſe benefits of Baptiſm: And that Infants have them as rightly dedicated to God and baptized: Do not you Conſent to this?
P.
Yes, you know we do.
R.
Then you fully grant, that all among the Proteſtants who in Infancy or at age are truly baptized are in a ſtate of ſalvation: Why then would you make people believe that there is no ſalvation in our Churches, when you grant the right to all that are Baptized.
P.
But you are not Baptized by lawful Miniſters.
R.
Take heed what you ſay: Your party holdeth that even Schiſmaticks and Hereticks Baptiſm is valid, if they have all that is eſſential to Baptizing in the doing of it: Yea that a lay mans, or womans baptizing is valid. If you deny it, I will ſhame you, by producing the common conſent of your Doctors; and your cenſure of Cyprian, and making the contrary doctrine to be a Hereſie.
P.
But you have not all that is eſſential to Baptiſm, becauſe you are not intentionally Baptized, into the true Catholick Roman Church: For while you are not ſubject to the Pope, you are not baptized into the Church: and therefore Bellarmine ſheweth that indirectly we are obliged to the Pope by baptiſm; which you intend not.
R.
Come, come, ſtrive not againſt your knowledge. 1. If our Baptiſm have not all that is eſſential, why do you never rebaptize Proteſtants when they turn to you? Do you not find that you condemn your ſelves? 2. Why do not you your ſelves put the name of the Pope into your words of baptiſm? 3. Doth your Tradition tell you that the ancient Churches did baptize men into a ſubjection to the Pope? 4. Did any of the Primitive Chriſtians baptize men into the name or ſubjection of Peter or any Apoſtle? 5. Doth not Paul expreſly renounce it as to himſelf and Peter, 1 Cor. 1.12, 13, 14, 15. Every one of you ſaith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Chriſt: Is Chriſt divided? Was Paul Crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul, &c. 6. Did not Chriſt himſelf tell us all that was Eſſential to baptiſm in his inſtitution, Matth. 28 without making any mention of Peter or the Pope?
P.
I cannot deny but our doctrine inferreth that all that are baptized among you have a true Sacrament, but not the Benefit of it, and ſo are not in a ſtate of pardon and ſalvation: Or at leaſt when you come to age, by refuſing the Pope, you turn Hereticks and loſe it.
R.
I know ſome of your divided writers ſay that we have Sacramentum, but not Rem Sacramenti: But 1. You ſay that a Character is imprinted by Baptiſm, and all ſin done away, and the perſon in a ſtate of life, unleſs he come feignedly; which you will not charge on Infants, nor can you prove it by thoſe of the Anabaptiſts themſelves that are baptized at age. And ſaith Aquinas when the fiction ceaſeth, the fruits of baptiſm are obtained. 2. And it will be long ere you will prove that to be baptized into the name of the Trinity is uneffectual, if we leave out the Pope. 3. And you will hardly make a man underſtand what you mean by the validity of the Baptiſm of Hereticks and Schiſmaticks, if it neither take the Baptized into the true Viſible Church, nor the inviſible (or a ſtate of ſaving grace).
And as to Infants loſing it as you ſay at age by Hereſie. 1. Will you ſave all the Anabaptiſts, that are baptized at age? If their baptiſm put them into a ſtate of ſalvation, and they continue juſt of the ſame faith and mind that they were baptized in, ſure that faith which put them in a ſtate of ſalvation, will keep them in it; or not be damning through defectiveneſs to morrow, which made them heirs of Heaven to day. But you cannot make your doctrines hang together. 2. And they that are Baptized in Infancy are baptized into the ſame faith which they continue in at age. The Miniſter intendeth no other: The Parents, Sponſors, &c. intend no other: And will that prove defective even to Salvation after, which was ſaving then? 3. If Baptiſm make us Chriſtians; and if Chriſtianity be the true Religion, ſufficient in ſuo genere to ſalvation, then we that continue in the Chriſtianity which we were baptized into, by your confeſſion continue in the true ſaving Religion; And this is all our Religion.
P.
It is not every one that owneth Chriſtianity that ſhall be ſaved: Hereticks own it in general, and yet contradict it by their Hereſies.
R.
It is every one that truly owneth Chriſtianity in mind and will that ſhall be ſaved: elſe Chriſtianity were not a ſaving ſufficient Religion: The queſtion is not whether objective Chriſtianity or faith be ſufficient to ſave him that believeth not, or is not ſubjectively a Chriſtian; nor whether the doctrine of faith be ſufficient in omni genere: But whether it be a ſufficient doctrine, or ob…ective faith, in ſuo genere? If a Heretick deny any eſſential part of it, he believeth not that which he (really, underſtandingly and prevalently) denyeth. It is but the Name of Chriſtianity, and not the Thing, which he owneth, who diſowneth any of the eſſence. Our queſtion is now whether our profeſſed objective Faith be true and ſufficient? When you come to prove us heretical denyers of any of its eſſence, we will give you a ſufficient anſwer.
The twelfth Principle. That the Eſſence of our Religion or Chriſtianity as Active and Saving, is Faith that worketh by Love: Or ſuch a Belief in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt, as is accompanied with a true devoting of our ſelves to him, by Love and willingneſs to obey his Laws, ſo far as we know them; in oppoſition to the temptations of the world, the fleſh and the Devil: And he that is truly ſuch ſhall be ſaved.
P.
I grant that he that truly Loveth God, ſhall be ſaved: But a Proteſtant cannot truly love God, becauſe he hath not true faith.
R.
Do you not agree and confeſs then, that If any Proteſtants do truly Love God, and are ſincerely willing to obey his will, and to know it that they may obey it, ſuch are of the true Religion and ſhall be ſaved, and that popery which denyeth their ſalvation is falſe?
P.
If your falſe ſuppoſition were true, theſe falſe conſequents would be true: But you are all deceived when you think that you ſincerely Love God, and are willing to know and do his will.
R.
1. Let all Proteſtants note this firſt, that you grant that none but ☞ falſhearted Hypocrites, that are not what they profeſs to be, and Love not God, nor would obey him, ſhould turn Papiſts.
2. And if a man cannot know his own Mind and Will, what he Loveth and what he is willing of, no not about his End and greateſt concernments, how can he know when he Believeth aright? Why do you trouble the world thus with your noiſe about Believing the Propoſals of your Church, if a man cannot know whether he believe or not? ☞ And he that cannot know what he Willeth, Chooſeth or Loveth, can no more know what he believeth. For the Acts of the Will are more plenary and eaſily perceived. And do all Papiſts know their own Hearts or Minds, but no Proteſtants? What would you expect but indignation and deriſion by ſuch arguing as this, if you will go about the world and tell men, [You none of you know your own Minds and wills, but we know them; You think you Love God, and are willing to obey him; but you are all miſtaken, it is not ſo with you: but you muſt believe our Pope and his Council, and then you may know your own minds and hearts.] They that believe you on theſe rates, deſerve the deceit of believing you; and puniſh themſelves.
The thirteenth Principle. That when Chriſt deſcribed all the Eſſence of Chriſtianity, by our Believing in and being baptized into, the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghoſt, the Apoſtles and firſt Paſtors of the Churches, inſtructed people to underſtand the meaning of theſe three Articles; And the ancient Creed called the Apoſtles, is the expoſition of them, as to Belief: And that this Creed was of old the ſymbol of the true faith, by which men were ſuppoſed ſufficiently qualified for baptiſm, and diſtinguiſhed from Hereticks: which after was enlarged by occaſion of hereſies to the Nicene and Conſtantinopolitane Creed; To which that called Athanaſius's was added as a fuller explication of the doctrine of the Trinity: And he that believed all theſe, was taken for one of the true Chriſtian Religion, which was ſufficient in ſuo genere to ſalvation.
P.
All that was then Neceſſary to be explicitely believed, neceſſitate medii, was expreſſed in the Creeds (if not more): But not all that is now neceſſary when the Church hath propoſed more.
R.
1. Some of you ſay, no more is neceſſary ut medium, but to believe that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently ſeek him: Others ſay that the chief articles of the Creed alſo are commonly neceſſary: And in your diſcord we lay no great weight on your Opinions. 2. But is not Chriſtianity the ſame Thing now as it was at the beginning? Is Baptiſm altered? Hath not a Chriſtian now the ſame definition as then? Are not Chriſts promiſes and the Conditions the ſame? Shall not he that was a Chriſtian then, be ſaved if he were now alive? May not we be Chriſtians, and ſaved by the ſame Conſtitutive Cauſes which made men Chriſtians, and ſaved them in the primitive Churches? Subvert not Chriſtianity, and confound not the Church, and cheat not poor ſouls, by labouring to hide the eſſence of Chriſtianity, and ſuch plain important truths. You cannot deny our faith to be true, without condemning the ancient Church and Chriſtianity it ſelf: While we aloud profeſs that the Chriſtian faith explained in all the ancient Creeds, is the faith which we own, in its Eſſentials explicated.
The fourteenth Principle. That the Books which the Proteſtants commonly receive as Canonical Scriptures, are in the agreeing Original Copies, as to the very words, and in true Tranſlations as to the ſence, the moſt true Infallible word of God.
R.
I grant that where the Copies diſagree by various Readings, we are no more ſure that any of them is the word of God, than we are ſure, that ſuch a Copy is righter than all that differ from it. But as long as the eſſence of Chriſtianity on which our Salvation is laid, is in the Covenant of Grace, explained in Credondis in the Creed, and in Petendis, in the Lords Prayer, and in Agendis in the Decalogue as explained by Chriſt. And no one Duty or material doctrine of our Religion dependeth on the various Lections, but thoſe texts that Agree are ſufficient to eſtabliſh them all; yea, as Franc. à Sancta Clara ſyſtem. fid. profeſſeth, the ordinary Tranſlations ſo agree, as that no material point of Religion doth depend on any of their differences; It is as much as we aſſert, that the Agreeing Original Copies, and the ſound-Tranſlations, ſo far as they are ſuch, are the True Infallible word of God; the former both as to words and ſence, and the later as to ſence alone. Do you not grant this?
P.
We grant the Scripture as you ſay to be Gods Infallible word; But 1. You cannot know it to be ſo, becauſe you take it not on the Roman Churches Authoritative Propoſal; 2. And you leave out part of it.
R.
1. Whether we can know it, ſhall be tryed in due place. 2. And whether we have All of it, or enough, is another queſtion, to be debated when you will. You grant us expreſly that which we now deſire; which is the Infallible Truth of our Canonical Scripture. And this is All our Religion, containing not only the Eſſentials, but all the Integrals, and Accidentals needful to be recorded. So that All the Proteſtants Religion is confeſſed to be Infallibly True.
And from hence further note, that in all our diſputes, you are obliged to be the defendants, as to Truth: For we deny the Truth of much of your Religion, but you deny not the Truth of one word of ours: but only the Plenitude or Sufficiency.
P.
The name of a Proteſtant was never known till Luthers time: And the occaſion of it was a particular Proteſtation of the German Princes, and not directly a Proteſting againſt Popery.
R.
It is not Names but Religion which we diſpute of. And it is that which each party Profeſſeth to be their Religion. Therefore you muſt take our Profeſſion or you change the ſubject of the diſpute. And we profeſs, that the Law of Nature (which no ſober man queſtioneth) and the Scriptures, are All our Religion. Therefore if you pleaſe you ſhall ſuppoſe that the name Proteſtant were not now in the world: It doth not ſignifie our Religion. But we now uſe it to ſignifie our Proteſting againſt Popery, or that we agree in ſubſtance, and in rejecting Popery, with thoſe that made that particular Proteſtation mentioned by you.
Names are oft given from accidents; as Africanus, Germanicus, Britannicus, &c. to ſeveral Roman Captains; when yet their Humanity was the ſame before they were ſo named.
P.
Turks, Socinians, Quakers, &c. Proteſt againſt Popery: It ſeems then they are Proteſtants too; and your companions.
R.
1. Thus ſome men ſtudy to deceive, by turning from the queſtion to another. Our queſtion I tell you is Whether the Religion of the Proteſtants be Infallible? and not, Whence is their name? 2. But by a Proteſtant we mean only one that taketh the Scripture for the Rule, and Chriſtianity for the Eſſence of his Religion: Which no one doth that denyeth any eſſential part of it. If we do ſo, prove it, and you ſhall have our anſwer. How do you judge of any man among your ſelves that taketh Gods word propoſed by your Church for his Religion, and yet miſtaketh the Church in any point: As Durandus that thought the matter of Bread continues, whom Bellarmine yet denyeth to be an Heretick. So is it with any among us that miſtake the ſence of Scripture in ſome ſuch point.
When a Name is put upon any perſon or party from a common accident, you may if you will call all by that name which that accident agreeth to: And ſo Papiſts are called by ſome Non-conformiſts now in England, becauſe they Conform not: But the world knoweth well enough that it is Proteſtants which are commonly meant by that name, and not Papiſts, Quakers, Seekers, &c. though theſe conform not. And ſo you may ſay if it pleaſe your ſelf that Turks, Jews, Heathens, Socinians, Quakers, Ran…ers, are Proteſtants, becauſe they Proteſt againſt, or reject Popery: But the world knoweth who is meant by the Name, Even Chriſtians rejecting proper Popery.
And for my part, I deal openly with you, I care not if the name Proteſtant were utterly caſt aſide; If any man be ſo deceived by it as 1. Either to think that it ſignifieth the Eſſence of our Religion (unleſs you mean as we Proteſt for Chriſtianity.) 2. Or that we take thoſe called Proteſtants for the whole Catholick Church, they make it an occaſion of their own deceit: Names of diſtinction are uſed, becauſe men know not elſe readily how to ſpeak intelligibly of one another without circumlocutions: And then cometh the Sectarian, and taketh his Party, for all the Church (at leaſt which he may lawfully Communicate with), and the name of his party to notifie his Religion. And then comes the crafty Papiſt, and pretends from hence that ſuch a named Religion is new; and asketh you, where was there any (e. g.) Proteſtants before Luther?
My Religion is naked Chriſtianity, the ſame as is where the name of a Proteſtant is not known, and as was before it was known; and as if the name of the Pope had never been known. But now the Pope and his Monarchical Ʋſurpation over all the world, are riſen and known, I am one of thoſe that proteſt againſt them, as being againſt Chriſtianity which is my Religion; But ſo as to addict my ſelf to the opinions of no man or party that oppoſeth them, wholly and abſolutely and beyond evidence of truth: I take the Reformed Churches, to be the ſoundeſt in the world: But I take their Confeſſions to be all the Imperfect expreſſions of men; and the Writings of Proteſtant Divines to be ſome more clear and ſound, and ſome more dark, empty, and leſs ſound, and in many things I differ from many of them. Chooſe now whether you will call me a Proteſtant or not; I tell you my Religion, which is ſimple Chriſtianity: Names are at your own Will. I could almoſt wiſh that there were no name known beſides that of CHRISTIAN as notifying our faith and Religion, in the Chriſtian world (Though as notifying Hereſie and ſin, there muſt be proper names, as in Rev. the name Nicolaitans is uſed). Even the word Catholick had long a narrower ſenſe in the Empire with many than I now own it in. Though as it ſignifieth One that is of the Church Ʋniverſal, loveth Ʋniverſally all true Chriſtians, and hath Communion with them in Faith, Love, and Hope, ſo I like it, and am A CATHOLICK CHRISTIAN. I diſpute for nothing elſe; I perſwade this perſon here in Doubt, to nothing elſe; but 1. To hold faſt to true and meer Chriſtianity; 2. To Reject all in Popery or any other Sect that is Evidently againſt it; 3. To ſuſpend his belief of all thats doubtful, and to receive nothing as a part of Divine faith or Religion, till he be ſure that indeed it is of God.
And now theſe Principles being ſuppoſed, let us proceed, and try whether Popery be of God or not.