sinnes which are past and yet that is your doctrine If you answere that all sinnes before baptisme are absolutely pardoned then it may come to passe that a damned man may haue more sinnes forgiuen him then one that is saued that a man may haue 10000. sinnes forgiuen him and be damned for all that for some one Which is euident in the example of a man baptised in the end of his life who yet after baptisme committs some deadly sinne without repentance as if in his going from the Font he fall out with some man and presently kill and be killed not hauing any thought of receiuing absolution by the sacrament of penance Therefore baptisme is not alwaies accompanied with remission of sinnes Now that some obtaine forgiuenesse of sinne that neuer are baptised the Papists themselues graunt in two cases at the least For they teach that votum baptismi the purpose to be baptised is sufficient when the thing it selfe cannot be had and that martirdome is insteed of Baptisme Both these cases are without warrant of scripture if we hold a necessitie of Baptisme absolutely to iustification as they do but yet this they teach be it true or false Baptisme is indeed the Lauer of Regeneration because all they that are baptised and none but they are regenerate But we vnderstand not by baptisme the outward washing only but the inward especially whereof that is nothing but a signe and a seale yet such a signe and seale as by the grace of Gods spirit confirmes the Christian soule in the true beliefe of remission of sinnes Many are saued that neuer were baptised many haue beene baptised that neuer shall be saued therefore baptisme is in effect and force the Lauer of regeneration to those only that are saued to all other it is the signe without the thing by reason that they receaue not grace as well as water They saith he that allow not the sacrament of penance c. L. deny the remission of sinnes The Sacrament of Penance is a fancie of men Our Sauiour Iohn 20. 23. ordaines no such Sacrament but onely promises that the worke of the Ministerie shal be effectuall to the remitting and reteining of sinnes and indeed there is no sacrament of ordinarie vse in the Church which Christ himselfe did not either receiue or giue If you will say that Penance could not belong to him because he neuer sinned after Baptisme I will affirme with as good reason that no more did Baptisme because he neuer sinned at all for Baptisme as you here teach is the Lauer of Regeneration for that in it the soule dead by sinne is newlie regenerated by Grace But Christs soule was neuer dead neither indeed doth the Sacrament of penance serue for any purpose to him who is washed from all his sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ as all truely baptised are What Protestant euer denyed that our sinnes are perfectly forgiuen or what Papist can better tell what it is to haue sinnes forgiuen then the holy Ghost in Scripture who affirmes that reconciliation with God is made by hauing sinnes not imputed But what sayes our Sauiour Psal 32. 1. 2. Rom. 4. 7. 8. Luc. 22. 34 Acts. 7. 60. Christ Father forgiue them How doth Stephen in other words make the same prayer in the like case Lord laye not this sinne to their charge But you say the botches and Biles still remaine What botches These are words without matter when the Prince pardons any crâ—me what remaines after the pardon Is not originall corruption pardoned in Baptisme yet by your Doctors confession it remaines though it be not as they falsely teach Veri proprij nominis peccaâ—um that is truely and properly sinne yet the botch is there still as appeares by the continuall running more or lesse in the life of euery Christian Therefore we do not seeke to couer our sinne with any vaile but professe that it is truely properly and perfectly pardoned But we deny that which this man seemes not to vnderstand that by forgiuenesse of sinnes originall and actuall sinne is wholy and at once destroyed in vs the strength of it is abated yea the deadly wound is giuen to it so that it shall neuer recouer but yet weake though it be and drawing on to the very point of death it is the same thing it was before Therefore whatsoeuer can belong to the forgiuenesse of sinnes concerning the nature thereof we acknowledge and professe but we cannot contrary to all experience and warrant of Scripture yea to the very nature Nom. 7. 23. of a pardon fancie to our selues an absolute deliuerance from the being of sinne These 2. points are no doctrines peculiar to those whom M. this Author calles Puritans who dissent not from their brethren but only in some matters of discipline and ceremonie howsoeuer some few make doubt of the latter But because the former of these 2. is a matter of especial importance charged as a great heresie vpon Caluin by Bellarmine and our english Rhemists I will answere distinctly to euery part of this mans accusation The Papists flatly do all Protestants wrong first by Chalenging all saue Puritans of their owne error secondly by avouching so heynous a crime of them in part as is altogeather false for wee all with one mouth and heart affirme that Christ is the true and naturall sonne of God hauing whatsoeuer he hath as he is the sonne from God the father and no whit of it from himselfe But let vs examine his proofe They saith hee that affirme that Christ is God of him selfe and not God of God denie in effect that hee is the Sonne of God by denying that hee receaued his Diuinitie from his father Indeed if it were all one thing to bee God and to bee the Sonne the proposition were true but hee that hath learned that the Father and the Sonne beeing onâ— God are 2. disstinct Persones knowes that the Godhead belongs not to the nature of the Sonne because then the Father and the Holy Ghost not only might bee but needes must be the Sonne aâ— hauing the whole Godhead What hee would proue by these 2. places of Iohn it is not certaine but that he cannot proue the point in question it is more then certaine I aske no more of any man but to Ioa. â— 24. read them Therefore I said to you that you shall dye in your sinnes For if you beleeue not that I am he you shall dye in your sinnes But when the spirite of truth cometh hee shall teach you Ioa. 16. 3. all truth for hee shall not speake of himselfe but what thinges sosoeuer he shall heare he shall speake and the thinges that are to câ—â—e he shall shew you Now let any reasonable man iudge whether it can be gathered out of these places that Christ is not God of himselfe but God of God But it may bee the penner or the Printer mistoke the number of the verses and put 24. for
25. and 13. for 14. or 15. Let vs make the best of it They said therefore Ioa. 8. 25. vnto him Who art thou Iesus said to them The beginning who also spake vnto you I will not striue about the diuers reading only it is to bee noted that this Papist either ignorantly or craftely quotes Cyrill in the margine whereas wee haue no Commentary of his vpon that place but the defect thereof is supplyed by Iodocus Clichthoueus a Popish Bishop whom this man blushes not to alledge in Cyrills name Nothing can bee drawne from hence saue only that Christ is God which wee deny not except wee perhaps may proue hereby that hee is God of himselfe because he is the beginning Hee shall glorifie me because he shall receaue Ioa 16. 14. 15. of myne and shall shew to you All things whatsoeuer the father hath are mine Therefore I said that hee shall receaue of mine and shew to you Who can wring any word for proofe that Christ receaued his God-head from his father out of this text If you vrge That all whatsoeuer the father hath is his What proues that saue onely that hee is God equall with his father viz the same God with his father which is confest This Proposition saith hee That Christ receaued not his diuinitie from his father flatly takes awaye the nature of a Sonne Then the distinction of the persons is thus to bee conceaued that the Father is God one way by hauing his diuinitie of himselfe the Sonne another waie by hâ—uing his Diuinitie from his father and the Holy Ghost a third way by hauing his diuinitie both from the father and the sonne and so wee shall haue as truely and distinctly 3. Godes as wee haue 3. persons To the proofe The nature of a sonne saith hee is to receaue his substance from his father What 〈◊〉 substance then there is neuer a Sonne â—â— the world◠〈◊〉 we grant that the Father creats the soule as he 〈◊〉 the body But if we 〈◊〉 â—ake the supernaturall generation of the sonne of God 〈◊〉 â—gree precisely with the naturall generation of men 〈◊〉 must needes hold that as the humane Sonne is a 〈◊〉 â—an from his Father so the Sonne of God in respect◠〈◊〉 substance receaued from his heauenly Father is 〈◊〉 God from his father And surely that he is distâ—â—â—â—rom his Father by the nature of his being a Sonne 〈◊〉 cannot be doubted but that by the nature of his 〈◊〉 God he is distinct from God his Father it may 〈◊〉 hand be graunted because it necessarily implâ—â— a multiplying or pluralitie of Gods Neyther is the◠〈◊〉 Contradiction in graunting that our Sauiour Châ—â—â—â—â—ceaued his person of his Father and not his substâ—â—â— and essence For by substance and essence you doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nature of his being a Sonne which we graunt 〈◊〉 from the father wholly but his diuine nature whâ—◠〈◊〉 much differing from that as that the Father the Soâ—â—◠〈◊〉 the Holy Ghost being all three one in substaâ—â—◠〈◊〉 three distinct persons or subsistences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For what though◠〈◊〉 substance of God be essentiall to euery person in 〈◊〉 It doth not follow therevpon that it is of the 〈◊〉 of the person It is indeed thus essentiall that 〈◊〉 â—â—son is God but not that the God-head is the 〈◊〉 euery person for then as I haue often said 〈◊〉 must be but one person as the God-head iâ—â—â—e 〈◊〉 Gods as there are diuers persons The protestants saith 〈◊〉 â—â—emptorily affirme that Christ is God of himselfe and nâ—t Gâ—◠〈◊〉 God That Christ is God 〈◊〉 â—â—â—selfe we affirme constantly and certainly but this peremptorineâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Synagogue which thunde â— out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dently and ordinarily against all men tha◠〈◊〉 otherwise then it teaches thâ—â—gh 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 ly We deny not that the Holy councill of Nice â—â—ly taught that our Sauiour Christ is God of God veâ—◠〈◊〉 of very God but wee saye that they ment not as yoâ—â—â—â—pists do who make our Sauiour as it were an vnder God receauing his Godhead of another and not hauing â—â—â—â— himselfe How vnfitly this must needes serue those â—â—â—ed and godly fathers for the proofe of our Sauiours â—qualitie with God the fatheâ— who sees not when 〈◊〉 Arrius might readily haue answered that he must 〈◊〉 be inferiour to God the Father because he had his God-head of himselfe Christ of him As for the word whiâ—â— they vrged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the same nature of both it dâ—â— not signifie nor intend that Christ receaued his God-head of the Father but that he was the same God with his Father So that he being of God was the same God with him of whom he was Which cannot possiblie bâ—â—â—f the one be God of himselfe and the other God of him â—â—at is God of himselfe For to be of himselfe and not to be of himselfe but of another are things quite contrary which cannot be true of God as he is God But you will aske perchance whether the sonne be inferiouâ—â—o the Father touching his person because he hath that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No truely for the generation being eternall 〈◊〉 the Father hauing no preheminence of being before 〈◊〉 but as the nature of relation necessarily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is neither inferioritie nor superioritie betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet may the Father truely be said to be the first 〈◊〉 and the fountaine of the Trinity and if you will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tie also in this sense because either person being of 〈◊〉 truly God According to which meaning Our sauiour is God of God Deuâ—â—â— deo perennis Deus ex vtroque mâ—sâ—us Prudentius in hymno ante somnum that is the second person being truely God is of the father being truely God though in respect of his God-head he is not of the Father but of himselfe as I will proue by the reasons following 1. He that is Iehoâ—ah is God of himselfe not of another But Christ is Iehoâ—ah Therefore Christ is God of himselfe not of another 2. If all that is the fathers is Christs also then Christ is God of himselfe for the father is God of himselfe But all that is the fathers is Christs Therefore Christ is God of himselfe 3. If Christ receaue his Godhead of his father as he doth his person then must he be a distinct God as he is a distinct person But he must not be a distinct God Therefore he receaues not his Godhead of his father 4. If Christ receaue his Godhead then may the Godhead be distinguished by being begotten and vnbegotten But the Godhead may not be so distinguished for that is proper to the person Therefore Christ receaues not his Godhead from his Father but hath it of himselfe 5. It is somewhat yet for a man to belike himselfe The first of these 5. points was charged vpon vs as an errour N. in 2. respects because both we denie that interpretation of the Article which the Papists haue
3. That if they pray for vs 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 meÌ„tioned burnes the works not all works neither but onely false doctrine The latter place being vnderstood 1. 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 haue Baptismum flaminis the Baptisme of the spirit that haue 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 shal be damned as many shal be that haue bene baptised Baptisme is the Lauer of regeneration to as many as haue the spirit added therevnto because then they haue remission of sinnes sealed vp vnto them The Sacrament of penance is a Popish fancie our Sauiour Iâ—â— 20. 23. ordained no such Sacrament but onely affirmed that the worke of the ministery shal be 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 vs 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 euery person in Trinitie onely thus farre that euery person is God not that the God-head is the essence of euery 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 giue 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies nothing but the estate of the dead and is not to be expounded hell but onely 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 vs as euery on of vs 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 haue no means to determine controuersies and abolish heresies Protestant The propositioÌ„ 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 vs to doubt of that which we are bound to beleeue by faith exhorteth vs to infidelity But S. Paule exhorteth vs to doubt of our saluation which we are bound to beleeue by faith according to the Protestants Religion Ergo S. Paule exhorteth vs to infidelity Protestant I deny your assumption S. Paule doth not exhort vs to doubt of our saluation but commaunds vs 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 euery 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
Glosta in extrau 102 22. de verborum signif c. quum inter nonâ—ullos Such Papists as you are care not what they say so it be Ad bonum Ecclesiae for the behoofe of your Lord God the Pope Papist The Protestants know not what they beleeue nor why A. they beleeue That they know not why they beleeue I haue shewed before for the ground of their beliefe is not the authoritie of Scripture of Councills of Doctors nor of the Church but their owne fancie And that they know B. Proofe of the article 1. not what they beleeue is manifest because they haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith and what is not Some say the sphere of their faith is extended solely and C. 2. wholy to the word of God set downe in holy writte what there is deliuered that they beleeue what there is concealed lyeth without the circumference of their beliefe Alas poore ignorance what heretick beleeueth not so much Certainly few or none so that by this meanes all damned hereticks which beleeue the Scriptures beleeue alike and they beleeue as much as our Protestants and ours no more then they But the Protestant will replie that he beleeueth the Scripture in a true sense truly expounded and all other heretickes in an erroneous sense and falsly interpreted And they will say as much of their religion and beleefe and hold your exposition hereticall and theirs orthodoxall Againe are you not bound to beleeue the Canticles or Song of Solomon as a part of your faith and where find you in the scripture deliuered that such a booke is Gods word and as such an one ought by faith to be beleeued That Sunday should be kept holy-day and Saturday the Iewes Sabbath prophaned in Gods word is not reuealed and yet by Protestants beleeued Moreouer to beleeue whatsoeuer is conteined in the Scripture is a generall confused folded implicite saith when we demand what a man is bound to beleeue we aske what he is obliged to beleeue expresly distinctly explicitely To beleeue al the Scripture distinctly explicitely cannot be performed by all Protestants since it supposeth a perfect and distinct knowledge of all the scripture wherevnto neuer mortall man attained the Apostles perhaps excepted Some will limit their beleefe to their creed saying that nothing D. ought to be beleeued which is not in the Apostles creed But then I would demaund of them whether we ought to beleeue that the Scripture is the word of God That Baptisme is a Sacrament That in the Eucharist is the body of Christ by faith to what article should these be reduced seeing they are not conteined in the creed or how shall we know infalliblie how these be matters of faith since they are not conteined in the creed Others deny some articles of their creed also for the Protestants E. deny three and the Puritans fiue 1. The first is the Catholick Church Credo ecclesiam sanctaÌ„ 1. F. Catholicam I beleeue the holy catholick church the which in very deed they do not beleeue because catholick is vniuersall and so the church of Christ which we are bound to beleeue must be vniuersall for all a time comprehending all Mat. 16. Psal 60. Psal 2. ages b vniuersall for place comprehending all Nations but that church which the Protestants beleeue was interrupted all the ages betwixt the Apostles and Luther which was 1400. yeeres or in very deed was neuer seene before Luthers dayes therefore that church they beleeue cannot be catholick Neither is it vniuersal in place being conteined within the narrow bounds of England which is accounted but as a corner of the world for the Lutherans in Germany the Hugenots in France and the Guiâ—es in Flaunders dâ—est their religion almost as much as the catholicks neither â—ill they ioyne issue with them in diuers essentiall points And therefore the Protestants church which they beleeue can no more be called catholick or vniuersal then England the vniuersall world or Kent the kingdome of England or a prâ—â—ed bowe a whole tree or a dead finger a man or a rotten tooth the whole head 2. â— 2. The second article is the communion of Saints the which they many wayes deny First by not beleeuing that Christ hath instituted seauen sacraments wherin the Saints of his church coÌ„municate specially the true reall presence of our sauiour Christ in the Eucharist by which all the faithfull receauers participating of one the selfe same body 1. Cor. 10. 17. are made one body as all the parts of a mans body are made one liuing thing by participating of one soule Secondly they deny the communion of the Church militant H. GeÌ„ â—8 16. Apoc. 1. 14 and triumphant by exclayming a against inuocation of Saints by which holy excercise those blessed Saints in heauen we in earth communicate we by prayer glorifying them and they by mediation obtaining our requests Thirdly they deny the Communion of the church militant I. 1. Cor. 3. 15. 15. â—9 and the soules in purgatory bereauing them of that christian charity which charitable compassion mercifull pitty requireth by mutuall affection the members of one body help one another The third Article is remission of sinnes for they acknowledge 3. K. no such effect in the Sacrament of Baptisme but only account it as an externall signe or seale of a prereceaued grace or fauour of God by his eternall predestination against the expresse word of God which therefore calleth this sacrament the c Lauer of regeneration for that in it the Tit. 3. soule dead by sinne is newly regenerated by grace L. Iohn 20 Moreouer they allow not the sacrament of penance wherin al actuall d sinnes coÌ„mitted after Baptisme are cancelled And that which exceedeth all in absurdity is to deny that our sinnes are perfectly forgiuen but only not imputed and as it were vayled or couered with the passion of Christ all the botches and biles the silth and abhomination of sinne still remayning and as it were exhaling a most pestiferous sent in the sight of God For let them shift â—â—emselues as they list and skarfe their soares according to their fancies yet no veile or mantle can couer the deformitie of sin from the eies of Gods perfect vnderstanding from which nothing can be concealed The Puritans in effect deny that Christ is the sonne of 4. m. Ioh. 8. v. 24. Ioh. 16. v. 13. And D. Bucley coÌ„tendeth to proue it in hâ—s aunswer to this article albeit he vnderstand not the reason heere alleaged for if he did he were too absurd to deniâ— it If you vnderstood his aunsvver you vvould neuer say so foâ— shame God for they peremptorily affirme that Christ is God of himselfe and not God of God So that he receiued not his diuinity from his father the which position flatly taketh away the nature of a sonne for the nature of a sonne is to receaue
his substance of his father and it implyeth contradiction that the sonne receaueth his person of his father and not his substance and essence for the substance of God is essentiall to euery person in Trinity * 5. N. Finally they deny the Descension of Christ into Hell desperately defend that he suffered the paines of Hell vpon the crosse whereby they blaspheme most horribly that sacred humanitie as if christ had despaired of his saluation as if God had hated him and he hated God as if he had bin afflicted tormented with anguish of minde for his offences for which he was depriued of the sight of God eternally to be depriued all which horrible punishments aâ—â— included in the paines of hel †Isai 66. v. 24. Mar. 9. 48. Mat. 25. v. 41. whosoeuer ascribeth them to Christ blasphemeth more horribly then Arrius who denied him to be God for lesse absurditie it were to deny him to be God then to make God the enemy of God Protestant How you haue proued that the ground of our beliefe is A. not the authority of the scripture of Councills of Doctors or of the Church let them iudge that haue weighed your accusation against my defence And yet for the last three wee neuer ment to striue For we build our faith vpon no authoririty but that of the scripture Councills Doctors we reuerence vse as special helpes for the vnderstanding of scripture but authority ouer our faith we giue to none but the holy Ghost the author of scripture Your reasoÌ„ to proue we know not what we beleeue is this B. They that haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not know not what they beleeue But the Protestants haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith and what is not Ergo the Protestants know not what they beleeue He may truly be said not to know what he beleeues that To the Proposition either is ignorant of the particular points he holdes or at least vnderstands them not such as all vnlearned Papists are by thâ—ir fides implicitae their Colliers faith which teaches them to beleeue as the Church doth but neuer instructs them either in al the seuerall matters of beleefe or in the vnderstanding of those which they know the Church maintaines And therefore euery vnlearned Papist beleeues he knowes not what But there is no reason why a man should be said not to know what he beleeues because he hath no rule to know what is matter of faith it may come to passe hereby that he shal beleeue somthing that is not to be beleeued or not beleeue somthing that is to be beleeued but that he should not know what he beleeues by this reason it cannot be proued But the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith No more then Lawyers haue to know what is Law I To the assumption maruaile to what vse these men thinke the Scriptures serue Dauid made accompt that the Scriptures which the Church then had were a perfect direction to al men both for beleife and practise And can we now want a rule when it hath pleased God to adde twice so much vnto the Scriptures as then was written Assuredly they that haue the Scriptures cannot want a Rule to know what is matter of faith though by abusing the Rule they may take that for matter of faith which is not C. They that extend the sphere of their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not But some Protestants extend the sphere of their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe c. Therefore the Protestants haue no rule to know c. Either your syllogisme is false if the conclusion be general or else it concludes only thus much that some Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith what is not If you will make your Assumption generall it is false because you confesse afterwards that some Protestants limit their faith by the Creed as being a diuers rule from the scripture I deny your Proposition as iniurious to the scripture by laying vpon it an imputation of insufficiencie concerning matters of faith They that extend the sphere of their faith say you no further then all damned Heretikes that beleeue the scripture haue no rule to know what is matter of faith But they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God extend it no further then all damned Heretikes that beleeue the scripture Therfore they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know what is matter of faith The proposition is false for all such Heretikes haue the true rule to know what is matter of faith though ignorantly or maliciously they abuse it to the defence of heresie But some Protestants extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set down in holy writ Not only some but all Protestants acknowledg the sufficiency of the scripture in matter of faith holding themselues not bound to beleeue any point of religion that cannot be warranted out of the Scripture either expresly or by necessary consequence They that haue no rule say you to know that the song of Solomon is Gods word and that as such an one it ought to be beleeued by faith haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not But they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know that the song of Solomon is Gods word Therefore they that extende their faith solely and wholly to the word of God haue no rule to know what is matter of Faith This Proposition may proue that they haue not a sufficient rule but not that they haue no rule I deny your assumption For they that rest onely vpon the scripture as the ground of faith are not barred of the testimony of the spirit in matters that must needes be held for the warranting of the scriptures The first motiue to the taking of that booke for the word of God is the constant iudgement of the Iewish church before Christ and the generall approbation thereof by the christian church since The certaine perswasion of this beleefe comes from the sâ—irit of God seconding this outward testimony of men by his owne witnesse in our hearts If this seeme an inconuenience to any man I intreat him to consider what rule the Papists haue in this case The authority of the Church they will say But what rule haue I to know whether it be a matter of faith or not to beleeue that whatsoeuer the church saith is a matter of faith is so indeed Wil you appeale to the scripture what rule haue you to know that this is scripture The voice of
the communion of saints some way Then belike there be saints in purgatory and the members of the Church militant are Saints But why say you nothing of the saints in heauen Is there no cōmunion betwixt thē those in purgatory yet are they al mēbers of one body I pray you what cōmunion is there betwixt these three kindes of Saints What do the saints in purgatorie in requitall of the triumphant and militant Saints kindnesse What nothing at all Why then what necessity is there to inforce any such duty on our parts towards the Saints in Heauen We as you say do not only pray but offer vp a bodily and spirituall sacrifice for them in purgatorie to God what reason is there then they should not pray to vs as well as wee praye to the Saints triumphant who do but halfe so much for vs and the lesse halfe too As for the places in the Margine no blast be it neuer so great can kindle the fire of purgatory by any heate that 1. Cor. 3. 13. 15. will arise from them the former is concerning the tryall of doctrine by the fire of Gods word Some mens workes shall burne therefore there are some in purgatorie burning Some What workes sayes the Apostle not men If any mans worke ver 15. burne he shall loose his labour but himselfe shall be saued yet as it were by fire Therefore there are some Saints burning in the fire of purgatory but that neither all mens workes are spoken of nor any assay is to be made by purging fire nor these places meant of purgatory it may appeare by these reasons 1. There are not any two places in all the new testament of any one point so full of controuersy for interpretation as these Therefore are they vnfit and vnsufficient to proue so doubtfull a matter as this of purgatory 2. Besides the former of them is wholly Allegoricall Theologia symbolic a non est argum entatiua Foundation Maister-builder Gould siluer Wood Hay Straw and therefore by the rules of disputation in diuinitie altogeather vnmeete for proofe of doctrine in matters of controuersie 3. The fire of Purgatory purges all bad workes this here medles with nothing but false doctrine as it is manifest 1. Because the Apostle speakes of builders onely such as himselfe Apollos vers 6. 2. The reward that shal be receaued vers 14. is to be geuen according to the labour of the Minister vers 8. 3. The People what good workes soeuer they haue are in this place considered but as the building or Husbandrie vers 9. 4. The fire of Purgatory doth not burne the worke but the soule of the worker but this fire shall burne the worke not the workeman vers 1. 3. 14. 15. 5. The fire of Purgatory doth not consume but purifie this fire doth not purifie but consume vers 15. 6. All mens workes must be tryed by this fire vers 12. 13. but not by the fire of Purgatory for that belongs to them onely that haue not made satisfaction for their sinnes or not bin absolued from them by the Sacrament of penance Since it is for the most part agreed vpon that the fier vers 13. doth not signifie Purgatory what reason shall perswade vs that this doth vers 15. The other place hath troubled all the Diuines that euer 1. Cor. 15. 29. writ vpon it both for the Grammar and the sense of it It shal be therefore sufficient for me to answere that till the Popish interpretation be better proued we haue no reason to seeke for the fier of Purgatory in the Baptisme of or for the dead especially since no ancient writer hath so expounded it Neither can it serue Saint Paules purpose being so vnderstood For how can the Resurrection of the body be proued by praying for the soules in Purgatorie But oh the heate of Popish charitie that can abide to let so many soules frie in Purgatory whereas multiplying of Masses would quench the fire and free the poore wretches or at least their holy father the Pope may deliuer as many as pleaseth him by plenarie indulgences and yet these men crie out vpon vs for want of charitie because we will not helpe them by prayer for whom we are sure that all the prayers that can be made are either needlesse or bootelesse Are these th◠reasons that must perswade men of Iudgment c. They that acknowledge not remission of sinnes as an effect in K. the Sacrament of Baptisme denie the Article of remission of sinnes Then it should seeme the meaning of the Article is that we beleeue the remission of sinnes as an effect of Baptisme I maruell how many popish Priests would giue a man this exposition that should aske them the meaning of this Article of the Creed There is more reason to say I beleeue that remission of sinnes is a priuiledge belonging to the holy Catholicke church which our Sauiour Christ hath purchased with his bloud But if the meaning be of Baptisme then we haue found in the Creed that Baptisme is a Sacrament which a little afore was denyed to shew the insufficiencie of the Creed to be the rule and limit of our beleefe He that confesses that Iesus Christ hath paide the ransome for the sinnes of his church by his bloud and procured the pardon of them cannot iustly be charged with denying this article of remission howsoeuer he do erre in iudging of the force and vse of baptisme But the Protestants say you acknowledge not remission of sinnes as an effect of the Sacrament of Baptisme The Protestants acknowledge the same effect in the sacrament of baptisme which the church of God acknowledged and receaued in the sacrament of circumcision that the Patriarches and fathers of Christs church before his comming receaued the forgiuenesse of sinnes no Christian can doubt that either they had it by the effect of the sacrament or that your sacrament hath another effect in substance then theirs had no Papist can proue at least this man hath not proued But shortly to deliuer our opinion we beleeue and professe that euery one who is effectually baptised hath receaued forgiuenesse of all his sinnes originall actuall past to come and if you will mortall and veniall for the guilt and for the punishment for the eternall and temporall punishment But we deny first that al which haue Baptismum Fluminis the baptisme of water haue also Baptismum Flaminis the baptisme of the spirit Secondly that none haue forgiuenesse but they which are baptised Thirdly that euery man that is baptised receaues forgiuenesse of sinnes which may thus appeare because many a man baptised is euerlastingly damned but no man that hath his sinnes forgeuen him is damned If you say they were forgiuen but now are not you destroy the nature of forgiuenesse which depends not vpon any condition to come If it do then can it not be truly affirmed that a man by Baptisme receaues forgiuenesse absolutely of those
comforts I spake of before vpheld him from all daunger of despayring and deliuered him from that perpetuity of torment in which otherwise hauing taken vpon him our Person hee should haue remained Now this so being we need not feare these thunder-bolts of horrible blasphemy although wee beleeue that Christ our sauiour did for a time indure in his soule the wrath of God which was due to our sinnes Neither doe we hereby make God the enemie of God nor of the humanitie of Iesus Christ which he euer most entirely loued but only auouch that God truly hated and punisht our sinnes in his owne sonne with such a kinde and measure of his wrath as being true and iust was euery way without sinne and finite in regard of the time so that I take the Doctrine to be voide of blasphemy howsoeuer the meaning of the Article bee conceiu'd Article 5. The Protestants haue no meane to determine Controuersies and abolish heresies Protestant No more then they haue a rule to know what is matter of Faith Papist As the Protestants neither know what they beleeue nor A. why they beleeue so haue 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 vs * 1. Cor 11 Profe that the church caÌ„not â—râ—e Mat. 18. 17 Eph. 4. 11. Ioh. 14. 17 Luk. 10. 16 § Profe of the principall proposition Act â—5 the which as plagues were to infect his flocke and therefore he not only forewarned vs of them but also gaue vs meanes how to preuent and extinguish them 1. â— He willed vs 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 euery blast of vaine doctrine 3. He promised vnto 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 thâ— voice of the Church pluck them vp by the rootes a In the first Nicene couÌ„cel was coÌ„demned Arrius in the couÌ„cell of ConstaÌ„tinople Macedonius In the couÌ„cel of Ephesus Nestorius In the couÌ„cel of Calcedon Eutiches vide Aug. lib. 2. retract ca. 50 and 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 haue bin freed from all braules and quarrels in matters of religion But the Protestants admitting the sole scripture as Vmpere Principall propositioÌ„ and Assumption and iudge in matters of Controuersie and allowing no infallible interpreter thereof but remitting all to euery 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 sâ—fficient testimony that they will neuer haue an end holding those grounds of opinion which they obstinately defend B. And albeit they goe about to bleare the peoples braines I haue 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 foolesâ— 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 Aske Caluin 7. Amos. Caluin the puritanicall Patriarke what he thought of King Henry the eight for assuming of such a preheminence vnto him read the Annales of Scotland and you shall finde the presumptuous presbytery euery 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 oâ— faith and so neerely toucheth the gouernment of the Church that if this hereticall order be abolished Perhaps he would haue 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 haue obserued their Easter day vpon the 14. day of the moneth of March What if they had called our Precisians to the barre who will haue it wholy abolished Questionâ—es they would haue 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 ceÌ„sure 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 wiâ—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 vpon 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely haue thought good to aduertise euery 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 vpon 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 haue no argument to proue that they C. haue 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 vnto 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 the D principles of the Protestants religion be true S. Paul himselfe exhorteth vs to infidelitie which I proue thus Whosoeuer exhorteth vs to doubt of that which we are bound to beleeue by faith exhorteth vs to infidelitie But S. Paule doth exhort vs to doubt of our saluation which we are bound to beleeue by faith according to the Protestants religion Ergo. S. Paule exhorteth vs 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 or A. equalitie for the one is euen as true as the other As we know not what to beleeue or why So we haue no meane in our Church to settle vs in vnitie of beleefe c. If we shall ioyne issue in this point vpon the former tryall the matter is already answered For all those accusations and euidences being false what truth can there be in this and yet the last clause makes me graunt him the conclusion We haue no such meanes as the Popish Church hath But what will he inferre herevpon That therefore wee haue none at all What because we will not acknowledge the Popes Soueraigne authoritie in making what he list an Article of faith Haue we no meanes to end controuessies As good neuer a whit as neuer the better Is it not more for the glory of God and good of the Church that there should be continuall disagreement about matters of Religion then that all should beleeue and maintaine false doctrine Were not Christ as good haue a troubled church as none at all Honourable warre is better then dishonourable peace in the iudgement of any wise States-man And can it be more glorious to God to haue quietnesse in the church with heresie yea with Antichristianisme then truth with contention So then this proposition that we haue no such meanes as the Papists haue to end controuersies neither disproues nor disgraces our church But it is worth the doing to take a view of this rhetoricall declamation rather then Logicall disputation which was promist by stripping it out of this braucry and setting it naked before the light of true reason Thus then he disputes They saith he that admit the sole Scripture as Vmpere and Principall propositiō Iudge in matters of controuersie allowing no infallible interpreter thereof haue no meanes to end controuersies and abolish heresies Controuersies may be
vnto vs. That is your Popish Heresie Nay we acknowledge with thankes to God and their iust commendation that the ancient writers haue brought great light to the true vnderstanding of scriptures Yea that many Papists haue interpreted some texts of scripture soundly religiously Moreouer we confesse that all and euery one of our writers either hath or may haue failed in his expositions I speake the last doubtfully because some haue written but little and my selfe haue not examined all If any Heretikes avow the truth of al their owne interpretations what should this preiudice our cause Who submitt whatsoeuer our expositions to be compared with the scriptures to be receaued or refused as they shal be found to agree or disagree with or from the word of God I would add hereunto the generall consent of the ancient writers but that it is a longer and more vncertaine course to try whether they be sutable vnto their owne writings then whether they be framed according to the holy Ghosts meaning For the maine doubt must needs accompany that tryall viz. who shal be 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 euery corner of the text for the true meaning of the scripture And here let vs remember that we are sure the scripture agrees with it selfe in euery place and point that any other writers do so who can be assured So that many times we shall beat our braines to reconcile those speeches which indeed are very certaine contrarieties Since that this difficultie remaines in vnderstanding the fathers writings which is the onely doubt in the scripture what madnesse were it to leaue beating of the text wherein we know the certaine truth is to be found and to run ryot in the wilde-feilds of mens inuentions where perhaps there is nothing to be had but errour Let vs vse the helpe of Ancient writers to finde the meaning of the holy Ghost but not rest vpon their authority therein If they proue their interpretations by reason let it be waighed that it may perswade vs to think as they do If there be none let vs labour to find some for their interpretation If that will be not let vs see what other reason we can haue of any other exposition If it please God to shew vs any Let vs craue pardon of the Fathers to dissent from them if none Let vs rather trust them then our selues where there is nothing but coniecture without difference of likelyhood We are far from bragging of any such speciall illumination as the Donatists challenged to themselues For we say not that the Church of God is only in our assemblies or the spirit tyed to vs. Who knowes not that this is a stale popish deuise to shutt vp the holy Ghost in the Popes brest so that neither all Councills without him can be any thing worth and hee of himselfe without any of them is alsufficient A litle flocke wee are in deed if wee bee compared with the huge swarmes of Infidells Papistes and other hâ—retickes Yea as many of vs as belong to the election of God are of that small flocke to which Luke 12. 32. it is Godâ— good pleasure to giue A kingdome To bee of any other Litle flocke wee accompt it no commendation Nay rather wee desire and pray that it would please God to enlarge the boundes of his Church and to increase the number of true professors But we are not ashamed of our small nomber though the Papists twight vs with all in comparison of their huge multitudes Therefore whereas this Papist likens vs to the Donatists Pelagians Nestorians Eutychians with all the rable of other damned heretickes we acknowledge it is our portion to be rayled on with our Master Christ and so shake of this froth of a malicious stomacke with that speech of the Archangell The Lord rebuke thee Now for a Conclusion that the end might be sutable to the beginning he laboures to disgrace the principles of our Religion by affirming as truely as he hath done all the rest that if our principles bee true then Saint Paule exhorts men to infidelity How many of our principles thinke you hee ouerthrowes by this reason But poore one if it were neuer so true and being false as it is not that neither Whosoeuer exhorts vs to doubt of that which we are bound to beleeue by faith exhorts vs to infidelitie The proofe of this might well haue bin spared and the strength you wastâ—nâ—â— reserued for the assumption which hath more need oâ— your help then it seemes your are aware of But Saint Paul doth exhort vs to doubt of our saluation which wee are bound to beleeue by faith according to the Protestants doctrine Because it makes for the better vnderstanding of this Reason I will in few wordes set downe what we teach concerning this point Namely that it behooues euery Christian to laboure for the perfection as of other graces so of the assurance that comes by faith also Which standes in a full perswasion of the loue of God in Iesus Christ and the continuance thereof to his euerlasting saluation In deed this is not the proper nature of faith which rather is that grace whereby we cast our selues vpon Christ to be saued by him But it is an effect of faith which euery Christian must striue to haue grounded in him selfe so that if he haue it not he failes in one duty to God But we may not imagine that whosoeuer hath not this feeling assurance of Gods loue to him either is without faith or shal be damned for the want of this perswasion Nay we make no question but that both faith it selfe this effect of it is in al or the most part very far from perfection euery one hauing his measure alotted vnto him according to the good pleasure of God who sees how much is necessary for euery one in regard of the inward and outward trialls which hee shall haue in this life This must wee indeuour by all good meanes to establish and augment herevnto belongs that exhortation of the Apostles With feare and trembling worke your saluation There are two kinds of men whom it doth concerne
First those that vainely deceaue themselues with an opinion of of faith wheras they haue none Let him that thinks he stands take heed least he fall Then they that in deed do truely beleeue who because their faith is vnperfect must labour dayly for the perfecting thereof which they shall neuer attaine to if they bee careles and do not continually stand in feare of falling by reason of their owne infirmity So that this exhortation doth not forbid striâ—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 to Pro. 28. 14 sinne is no way against faith because faith hath receaued no promise of full freedome from sinne Feare of punishment Rom. 6. 23. is necessarily annexed to the former because the wages of sinne is death Whereof we may taste in our owne feeling by reason of our weake faith if we doe not worke our saluation with feare and trembling What his meaning should be in his last sentence I cannot gesse For I thinke he will not say that this filiall feare comprehends in it seruile feare also because then the distinction will scarce be currant vnlesse he expound himselfe as I sayd before that the feare of punishment followes vpon the feare of sinne in which respect we neede not doubt to graunt that the Apostle exhorts vs to both kinds of feare and yet so as that he no way perswades to infidelitie though the Protestants principle be that we are bound to beleeue by faith that we shal be 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 vpon their doctrine by the Papists and that quite contrary to their direct protestation So that if any such thing fall out vpon our opinions we may professe with a good conscience that we are deceaued by the error of our iudgement not carryed away by any desire to erre For proofe hereof we offer our selues to be iudged by all men of any indifferencie according to our answeres and reasons which we haue made and now doe make in our iust and necessary defence Article 1. Papist The Protestants are bound in Conscience neuer to aske God forgiuenesse of their sinnes Protestant The Protestants will rather abiure any point of doctrine vpon which this may follow then to maintaine their doctrine for beare the pâ—rformance of this duty but neither of both these need as our answer will shew The principall syllogisme for the proofe of this article omitted I know not vpon what reason by this Author is thus to be concluded Whosoeuer sinnes grieuously in asking God forgiuenesse of his sinnes is bound in conscience neuer to aske it But the Protestants sinne grieuously in asking God forgiuenes of their sinnes Therefore the Protestants are bound in conscience neuer to aske God forgiuenes of their sinnes Instead of this syllogisme we haue the proofe of the assumption Papist Whosoeuer is assured by faith that his sinnes are forgiuen A. B. Bucer in lib. de con art de â—ustifi Calum in aâ—â—d coÌ„cil â—es 6. lib. 3. iustit c. 2 â— 16. 17. 18 Kemâ—â— in exam con Truâ— â—est 6 him sinneth most grieuously 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 greiuously in asking pardon of God for them The Maior is euident for who but an Infidell or a mad man would demaund of God the creation of the world which he is assured by faith that God hath already created or Christs incarnation which already is performed or the institution of sacraments which alreadie is effected In like maner who but an Infidell or mad man will demaund pardon of his sinnes which he beleeueth already by faith that God hath forgeuen For it is a signe that he doubteth of that which hee is bound by faith to beleeue which doubting faith is flat infidelitie D. Moreouer whatsoeuer we demaund that we hope to obtaine Nam quod videt quis quid â—peratâ—d Rom. 6. but no man hopeth to obtaine that he alreadie possesseth as no man will demaund of God his owne soule or body because already he posâ—esseth them The Minor is vndoubted because this is that liuely faith whereby the Protestants are iustified by this they apprehend Christ by this they applie his merits and Passion vnto them and without this no man can attaine vnto Saluation Hereupon I will inferre that no Protestant can with a safe conscience say the Lords prayer Because he cannot pray as hee ought without true faith and call God his father and if he haue true faith he cannot without note of infidelitie vtter this petition forgiue vs our sinnes for that most assuredly he beleeueth and protesteth in the first ingresse of that praier that he is the sonne of God and consequently beleueth by faith that his sinnes are forgiuen him Protestant The best is we are not charged with denying that a man is bound to aske God forgiuenes of sinnes but only that we do it against that duty to which in coÌ„science we are bound Therefore if this cauil were a true challenge we might happily be thought absurd in holding opinions that cannot agree togeather but we could not be counted impious since we vrge and practize continually and daily praier for the obtayning of forgiuenes but this conceit is fancied by Papists not so much as fauored by our doctrine Witnes this poore reason of theirs and our plaine and true answere thereunto Whosoeuer is assured by faith that his sinnes are forgiuen sinneth Proposition most greuously in asking God pardon for them Perhaps some man will maruell that this Papist as it may A. seeme vnnecessarily makes so often mention of beleeuing by faith and being assured by faith because there can be no assurance or beleefe but only by faith But he doth it agreeably to their Popish doctrine which acknowledgeth a kinde of assurance but that not of faith but of hope There is say they concerning euery mans owne saluation Certitudo spei Assurance of hope but not Certitudo fidei Assurance of faith The reason of this distinction is that hope may be deceaued but faith cannot Which they would neuer say if they considered that all true Christian hope ariseth from some promise made vnto vs by God in the Scriptures whervnto we haue interest by nothing but faith What a vaine thing is it for a man to hope for ought at Gods hands as the world commonly doth without any likelyhood of obteining it and what likelyhood can there be where there is a flat protestation to the contrary namely that nothing is to be looked for at the hands of God either by faith or hope but in and for
to God for deliuerance from the punishment make me to heare ioy c. It is manifest that this can no way v. â—1 aduantage the Papists because he intreats onely for the assurance of forgiuenes which was to be testified vnto his soule by the feeling of Gods loue and his owne reioycing therein but what makes this for popish Purgatory after death or proud satisfaction in this life for Dauid promised noe satisfaction but a contrite spirit and a broken heart which is no more then the first entrance into popish absolution neither by praying for the ioy of the spirit doth hee beg any exemption from purgatory because a man may haue that after diuers sinnes committed in some good measure and yet be lyable to the fire of purgatory by omitting some duties which he is enioyned by his ghostly father to performe Now the 32. psalme runs in the same maner Blessed is the man c. here is mention of hauing wickednes forgiuen sinne couered iniquity not imputed of punishmeÌ„t not releast not a word or letter Let vs go forward whence Psa 32. 1. v. 2. v 3. proceeded his roaring euen froÌ„ the guilt of his sinne not felt to be pardoned I acknowledged my sin c. I coÌ„fest my wickednes vnto thee thou forgauest the punishment of my sinne What punishment No doubt that which Dauid entreated for But the teÌ„porall punishmeÌ„ts were not forgiueÌ„ I cal theÌ„ as the Papists do for both the Child dyed and Absolon was raised vp out of Dauids owne house lay with his fathers wiues in the sight of the sonne What question can there be then whether Dauid 2. Sam. 12. 14. 18. 2. Sam. 12. 11. 16. 22. prayed for the forgiuenesse of his sinnes euen in respect of the eternall punishment for al he did beleeue that it was granted him according to the word of God by the prophet Nathan Whereupon it necessarily ensues that the proposition is vntrue which condemns euery one of sinning grieuously against God that askes forgiuenes of his sins being assured by faith that they are forgiuen But for the better cleering of this point let vs also shape a direct answer to his proofes and afterwards set downe what we maintaine concerning praying for pardoÌ„ of our sinnes His first proofe is taken from an argument of parity or equality in this sort or forme If none but an Infidell or a mad maÌ„ would demaund of God the creation of the world the incarnation of Christ the institution of the Sacraments all which he is assured by faith are performed already then none but such an one will demaund pardon of his synnes which he beleeues already by faith God hath forgiuen The consequence of this proposition is feeble because it presumes an equalitie where there is none For we haue not the like measure of assurance for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes as we haue of these other points here signified as I haue shewed already and must say againe by and by in answere to the assumption Therefore though we should sinne greeuously in crauing those things of God which without all doubt we are assured he hath already done because we should but mocke him yet do we not sinne in like sort by desiring that wherof our weake faith must needs make some question I graunt we sinne by doubting through the weaknesse of our faith but I deny we sinne by praying because of that doubting Further we are to consider that there is a great difference betwixt these things euen in respect of their being past for the three former are absolutely dispatcht the later after a sort is euery day a doing because howsoeuer in the euerlasting purpose of God the sinnes of all the elect are already from all eternitie forgiuen yet they are in respect of vs and the actuall being of them day by day actually remitted and therefore we may without grieuous sinne and must vnlesse we will sinne greeuously daily craue pardon of God because we haue new sinnes dayly to be forgiuen The point will be made more plaine in the explication of our opinion But none but a mad man or Infidell will demaund of God the creation of the world the incarnation of Christ the institution of the Sacraments all which he is assured by faith are already giueÌ„ If a man be fully assured that these things are already accomplisht he cannot without sinne demaund of God the accomplishing of them but if there arise in his minde some doubt concerning the certainety thereof he may and must entreate the Lord to reueale the truth vnto him and to confirme vnto him the assurance of it though his doubting indeed is sinne yet haue we no iust cause nor sufficient warrant to condemne this doubting faith of flatte infidelitie as this rigorous Papist doth who neuer felt it should seeme what conflicts there are betwixt faith and frailty Now the Proposition and assumption being both faulty how can the conclusion be without fault Therefore this former proofe not being able to abide the proofe let vs trie the latter which must thus be applyed to the Authors purpose for the proofe of the first proposition Whosoeuer demaunds that which he hopes not to obtaine sinnes grieuously in demaunding it By not hoping to obtaine that which is demanded there D. is no reproofe implyed of praying without hope as if it were his meaning to exhort vs to trust or hope in God for that indeed concernes not this reason but he signifies that a man ought not to pray for that of the obteyning whereof there can be no hope because we are already in possession of it which proposition of his is onely so farre true as it belongs to him that knowes he hath the thing he prayes for And that appeares by his proofe for that which a man sees wherefore doth he hope it That is a man hath no reason to hope for that which he is sure he hath For hope is of things to Rom. 8. 24 come as also the words immediatly before plainely shew Hope that is seene is not hope Therefore he onely sinnes grieuously in praying for that he possesses who knowes he doth possesse that he prayes for But he that stands in doubt whether he haue the thing or no which he is desirous of may without this blame make meanes to get it though he haue it already because he is not certaine that he hath it howsoeuer it may be he hath some perswasion of the possession thereof But whosoeuer is assured by faith that his sinnes are forgiuâ—â— him in asking God pardon demaunds that which he hath no hope to obtaine The former answer of the measure of the assurance argues this assumption of falshood because a man may by faith truly beleeue that his sinnes are forgiuen and yet not fully or certainly be resolued thereof in regarde whereof he may and ought to sue for pardon But all true Protestants are assured by faith that their sinnes Principall assumptioÌ„ are
righteous But we deny that eyther of these enforcements of such exhortation in any part weakens the doctrine of free iustification by onely resting vpon Iesus Christ Which he may easily conceaue that hath a sincere purpose to glorifie God by the saluation of his chosen For he knowes that as much as is giuen to man for iustifying himselfe is taken from God God and man after this reckoning may part stakes God may haue glory for affording meanes of saluation and abilitie to vse those meanes man may be proud of the well vsing of that abilitie and iustifying of himselfe by the meanes afforded Yet if all men that are inabled did so helpe themselues there were lesse cause of boasting more reason to giue God the glory of iustification For it might well seeme to proceed from the grace that God imparts to them that they are iustified But when some vse it well some ill and this difference of well or ill vsing it flowes from the free-will of men by their owne power what a small part of glory is left to God in the seuerall iustification of those that are saued Hence it follows that the doctrine of iustification by workes preparatorie before a man is at all iustified by workes meritorious after he is begun to be iustified is dishonorable to God the death of all goodnesse in those very workes that are done Because the intent which our Papists magnifie so much is directly derogatorie froÌ„ the glory of God without the true and sincere purpose whereof no workes of any man baptised are one iott better then the morall actions of heathen men But the sonnes of the bond-woman being of a seruile nature respecting themselues either only or principally being ignorant and without feeling of the affection of childreÌ„ can neuer be perswaded that any sonne of God will performe duties of kindnesse and thankfulnesse to his father but must needs doe that he doth like a hireling for loue of wages And by such meanes our Papists would procure and deserue the perfect reconciliation of their soules with God as if we were not perfectly reconciled in Christ in whom God reconciled the world to himselfe not imputing their sinnes What is it to be reconciled to God but to haue Gods displeasure remoued his fauor fatherly loue vouchsafed to vs This hath Christ procured by his death and bloud-shedding the increase of our sanctification in vs by the dayly dying vnto sinne and rising againe vnto newnesse of life restores more perfectly the image of God decayed in vs by naturall corruption and manifold actuall transgressions but reconciles vs neuer awhit the more to God When the Prodigall sonne Luc. 15. 20 came home to his father starued and euill coloured in his body ragged and torne in his apparrell who can doubt for all this but he was fully reconciled to his father when he fell on his neck kissed embraced and entertained him but as his flesh euery day came better and better as his colour mended and waxed more fresh when he was arrayed according to his estate he did more liuely represent the sonne of such a father The same is our case in Christ by his suffrings are we wholy reconciled vnto God For we are made his Children but we begin dayly more and more to resemble him as we Ioa. 1. 12. Gal. 4. 4. 5. growe in holinesse of nature and conuersation Therefore let the Papists imagine that they reconcile themselues to God by mortification of passions and I know not what supposed vertues It is sufficient for vs that Christ hath by his bloud made our peace and put vs in possession of his fathers loue and fauour If this be a false fantasticall apprehension of Christs death and passion to relie wholy vpon him for reconcilation with God by his bloud and propitiation then his dying the Apostles preaching and our beleeuing is all in vaine How then doth this Doctrine tend to loosenesse especially if it be remembred that we shut al men out from iustificatioÌ„ that are not sanctified by the spirit of Christ They tell vs saith hee that faith anâ— good workes can not be seuered Would you knowe what faith he meanes only a perswasion of the truth of the Scripture euen such an one as the Diuil is said to haue and that with a Popish preparatorie good worke namely Feare The diuills beleeue and tremble Iac. 2. 19. But if they would speake any thing to the purpose they should proue these 3. things 1. that to beleeue in Iesus Christ iâ— nothing els but to be perswaded that these points that the Scriptures teach of Christ are true Which will neuer be done as long as that famous distinction is retemed Credere Deum deo in deum To beleeue there is a God to beleeue that all that God sayes is true to beleeue or trust in God or to rest vpon him and as our Nor theme men speake very plainely and significantly to beleeue on God Secondly that a man thus relying vpon Christ to be saued by him for al this beleuing is not iustified contrary to the whole course of the Gospell Thirdly they must shew vs that a man may be iustified and yet not sanctified then which nothing is more repugnant to popery For the popish Doctors teach vs that to be iustified is To haue sinne abolisht and grace infused into vs whereby and for which wee are as they say truely and habitually iust in the sight of God If they answere that these maâ—ters haue bin already proued by their Diuins we reply that ours haue shewed the insufficiency of their proofes and that if either this accuser or any other Papist will vrge those scriptures that haue bin aledged to this end any further or bring any that yet haue not bin brought he shall receaue by the grace of God true and sufficient satisfaction if truth will satisfie him In the meane while it shall suffice to put this Author in minde that his experience failes him beeing made not of those that beleeue in Christ but of them that beleeue Christ or at the most geue credit to those things which are spoken of him in the Gospell Whereunto I ad that neither faith which hath force to remoue mountaines is so noble as that which makes a man heire of heauen nor because that faith can be without Charitie Therefore either he that beleeues in Christ can bee without iustification or he that is iustifyed without sanctification They assure vs saith he that faith once had can neuer be lost What then This vaine securitie saith he opens the gap to all libertine sensuality If he speake of the euent all experience refuts him because no men liue more soberly and Christianly then they that haue the greatest measure of this perswasion And indeed it cannot bee otherwise For this is no where but where the spirit of God is and where he is there only is true sanctification If he blame the doctrine in respect of
aske be graunted it helpes you nothing for what if euerlasting life be giuen for workes how often must you be told that working and deseruing are not all one We deny not that God will reward euery least good worke of any of his children but we cannot graunt that eyther the reward he will giue is euerlasting life or that any workes of his children deserue that reward which he will giue I doubt not which is the second thing I note in his similitude but you Papists your selues would thinke it extreame presumption for any subiect to claime as of merit that 1000. pound a yeare which was promised by the Prince for good seruice in Ireland especially if it may be truely obiected against such claime that though some fewe actions haue bene valiantly performed in part yet both in the best there hath beene defect and for one thing well done twentie haue beene left vndone How then shall any man proudly vaunt of merit that knowes what Gods law requires and what his owne deserts are It is the infinite goodnesse of God our father in Iesus Christ that he doth accept of our vnperfect obedience crowne it with glory for all the imperfections thereof But euerlasting life saith he is called wages and giuen as wages As if we denied that good workes shall receaue reward and need euery foote put you in minde of the difference of workes and merites But indeed euerlasting life or the kingdome of heauen is neuer I thinke called wages in Scripture There is a reward promised by God viz. an increase of glory which shal be imparted to the faithfull proportionably to the measure of grace and vse thereof in this life according to workes But the kingdome of heauen is an inheritance belonging to all the faithfull as members of Iesus Christ their head whose first and properly it is This I proued a little before and therefore will now onely set it out more plainely by a similitude or likenesse The sonne and heire of a King hath interest in the kingdome by right of inheritance the Kings moâ—eables may eyther in his life time by guift or by legacie after his decease be disposed of to whom he please The King to incite his sonne to valure and loue of vertue promiseth him that he will giue him some speciall reward for euery valiant exploit or attempt with true martiall discretion and resolution This reward is to be raised out of his moueables giuen indeed for workes but not to be claimed vpon desert in regard of some iust exception which the King his father may take against all such his enterprises and atchiuements Such is our estate in matters of euerlasting life by resting vpon Iesus Christ to be saued by him we become members of his mysticall body sonnes of God his father and ours by him heires of euerlasting life which is his inheritance and ours as members of him God our Father hath made promise to vs being now sonnes and heires and hauing thereby interest in his kingdome of reward of all things that we shall valourously atchieue or resolutely vndertake for the glorifying of his name according to his will This promise conueyes not to vs any title to the kingdome for that is ours already euen in possession by Christ but incourageth 1. Cor. 15. 58. vs to Christian obedience to be stedfast vnmoueable aboundant alwayes in the worke of the Lord for as much as we know that our labour is not in vaine in the Lord. And yet this is not our onely or greatest motiue to good workes For that ariseth from our Child-like affection to so kind and bountifull a father Which if the Papists haue not let them not therfore deny that there is any such thing like the mole that will not beleeue that any beast can see because she her selfe is blind What if they like hirelings will doe nothing but for wages The sonnes of God in this life take as great pleasure in their present obedience as in their future reward which notwithstanding they most assuredly looke for according to his promise that can not faile euer God our Father To whome with the sonne and Holy Ghost bee all obedience thanks and glory from this time for euer and euer Amen A Conclusion vnto his most speciall friend Maister F. T. THus my deare friend I haue sett downe those reasons which induced me to receaue the Catholick faith and for which I continue therein Consider I pray you whether they be not so substantiall and waightie as any wise man might accept and allow of or at least might cause a reasonable doubt of religion arise in his minde concerning the Protestants faith for if these bee true as questionlesse they are most true what man of iudgment will hazard his soule vpon a religion pestered with so many notorious absurdities and palpable errors Eternall damnation is a matter of no small moment when the soule is once plunged into those flames it is past recouery farre he â—eapes and ill he lights that iumpeth into hell and questionles without true faith you shall neuer come to Heauen Vrge your Ministers therefore to satisfie your conscience in answering these articles Will them to reply with maturitie and cause them answere distinctly and as they thinke in their consciences For I feare they will rather do it for a forme to seeme to say some thing then they wil be iudged ignorant by silence in saying nothing And with this I rest at your deuotion expecting what your newe Euangelists can answere to these iust accusations of their erroneous religion From my chamber in Antwerpe this first of March your louing freind H. T. FINIS As much of this post-script as hath any need of answere is touched in my Preface I will therefore loose no more time in examining such discourses The abridgement of the former answer ART 1. Papist THe Protestants haue no faith nor Religion Protestant The question is whether the Protestants by their doctrine professe any faith or religion Papist If the Protestants haue 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 haue 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 vpon his owne priuate singular exposition of Scripture is an Infidell But all Protestants in England do build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of Scripture Ergo all the Protestants of England are