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
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
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
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
of the world whensoeuer and wheresoeuer they be But we easily grant a perpetuall continuance of the church though we denie a necessity of visiblenesse Therefore neither Atheists nor Machiauillians haue G. any aduantage against the church by our doctrine but by the Papists rather who teach them to vnderstand our sauiours promises carnally and falsly Article 2. The learned Protestants are infidels Answere The title is only of the learned of them al the proofe of the vnlearned also but of them only that are in England Whosoeuer buildeth his faith vpon his owne priuate and singular A. exposition of scripture is an infidell But all Protestants in England build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of scripture Ergo all the protestants of England are Infidels The Maior cannot be denied because faith must be B. C. infallible and impossible to be either erroneous or chaungeable But faith which is builded vpon priuate exposition of scripture is subiect to errour and chaunge and consequently vpon better aduise and consideration may be altered The Minor I proue for either they build their faith vpon D. their owne priuate opinion in expounding of scripture the exposition of the church the Fathers or councels but not vpon these three ergo vpon their owne priuate exposition Some Protestants allow the fathers their expositions so farre forth as they agree with Gods word and no further E. but this is nothing els but to delude the world for what meane they when they say they will allow them so far â—orth as they agree with the scriptures meane they perhaps that if the fathers bring scriptures to proue any point of religioÌ„ now in controuersie to allow that point as true if so why then reiect they a August lib. de cura agenda pro mortuis Saint Augustine and other fathers who bring scripture to proue praier for the dead yea and all coÌ„trouersies almost in religion the fathers proue by scriptures when they dispute vpon them Or perhaps they meane to admit the fathers when they alleage scripture but such as euery protestant shall allow of F. so it be conformable to their fancies and fit their new coined Gospell and in this sense who seeth not that euery paltry companion will make himselfe not only the true Expositor of christs word but also will preferre his exposition before all ancient fathers when they daunce not after his pipe and consent not with his heresies Protestant First vpon your proposition thus I conclude A. Whosoeuer builds his faith vpon his owne priuate and singular exposition of scripture is an Infidell But the Pope builds his faith vpon his owne priuate and singular exposition of scripture Therefore the Pope is an Infidell Secondly I answere to your Syllogisme The Maior you say cannot be denied And I say it cannot be proued vnlesse you can shew either that no priuate and singular exposition of scripture can be true or that a man is therefore an Infidell because hee buildeth his faith vpon a priuate and singular exposition though it bee true For I take it you will not wrangle with mee because I speake generally of a priuate and singular exposition The reason of your mislike being not that a man should take his owne exposition but that he should ground vpon any priuate and singular exposition Indeed no man is an Infidell that builds his faith vpon a true exposition of Scripture whether it be publick or priuate because the truth of beleefe depends not vpon the publicknes of an exposition but vpon the soundnesse thereof If faith saith he must be infallible and impossible to be eyther Proofe of the proposition erroneous or changeable and faith built vpon priuate exposition be subiect to error and change Then he that builds his faith vpon his owne priuate exposition is an Infidell But faith must be infallible and impossible to be erroneous or changeable And faith built vpon priuate exposition is subiect to error and change Therefore he that builds his faith vpon his owne priuate exposition is an Infidell His reason may be diuersly concluded but I haue taken C. the shortest course and yet I haue set downe the full force of it which indeed is in the later part of the Assumption viz. That faith built vpon priuate exposition is subiect to errour and change No faith built vpon a true exposition of Scripture though To the assumption neuer so priuate is subiect to error or change For truth is in its nature vnchangeable and voide of error and we dispute now not of the euent whereby it may and doth come to passe that true doctrine is changed but of the nature of that â—octrine which is true I am sure no Papist will deny but a true Catholique in profession may become an heretick yea an Apostata as Iulâ—â—n did and yet that faith of his which he forsooke was true and vnchangeable But all Protestants in England saith he build their faith Principall AssuÌ„ption vpon their owne priuate exposition of Scripture Then belike not vpon Luther Caluin Beza c. as sometime D. To the assumption you charge vs vpon whom indeed we build not but only vpoÌ„ the true exposition of the Scriptures being examined according to those places points which naturall reason enlightned by the spirit of God caÌ„not but acknowledge In which respect the Popish interpreters do ordinarily refuse former expositions and deliuer their owne opinions submitted to the iudgement of the Church which no Protestant euer misliked so they take not Antichrist for Christ. But what is it you call priuate exposition doe we leaue euery man to his owne fancie in expounding the scriptures How can that be when as we haue certaine rules according vnto which all expositions must be framed The Analogie of faith conference of like places examining the originals with diuers other and namely the consent of former diuines to which though we may not tie our selues because they might and haue erred yet we allow no man libertie to refuse their interpretations but onely where euident reason taken from the Scriptures themselues necessarily requires it Indeed we thinke it vnreasonable that a man should hand ouer head receiue whatsoeuer is deliuered vnto him vpon the credit of 1. Ioa. 4. 1. men especially since we haue a charge giuen vs to trie the spirits and meanes appointed vs for the tryall Not onely some but all learned Protestants for ought I E. know or I thinke he can prooue allow the Fathers and their expositions so farre forth as they agree with Gods word And do any Papists allow them further If they do they allow false expositions of Scripture For such are all that agree not with the word of God But how can we be sayd to delude the world when we professe that we allow them no farther then they agree with Gods word and meane as we professe yet it is not our meaning to allow
deuised and also refuse the doctrine of visible famousnes which they would thrust vpon the church This last point is altogeather of the same kinde which I note the rather because both this and that are deliuered in such a phrase as the scripture knowes not To beleeue the Catholick church to descend into hell are speeches with which the scriptures are not acquainted and this is another reason why learned Diuines the rather perswade themselues that this Creed was not of the Apostles penning Yet do not we deny the truth of either of these articles bâ—t only that erroneous interpretation which the Papists make of them Of the former I haue already spoken now let vs shortly examine the latter First we say the english word Hell doth not expresse the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Latine Inferi though wee cannot rest vpon the Latine whatsoeuer it signifies since it is but a translation Hell in English is restrained to the place of the damned so that no english man vnderstands by Hell either purgatory or limbus patrum or infantum but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Inferi do signifie indifferently the state and place of the dead as Maister Broughâ—on hath sufficiently proued Neither need it breed a doubt in any man that descending or going downe is mentioned because it is out of doubt that the heathen from whom this speech is taken place their elysium or paradise vnder the earth as well as their Tartarus or Hell that lying on the right hand this on the left as it appeares in Virgill Aenâ—id 6. Hac iter elysium nobis at laeua malorum Exercet poenas et ad impia tartara mittit Secondly it is to be known that diuers Creeds haue not this article in them which proues that it was thought either to be comprised in some of the other or els not to be any matter of faith Thirdly it must be obserued that some of the ancient writers haue vnderstood it of our Sauiours buryall as Ruffinus and Athanasius hee in plaine termes auouching that it was not to bee found in the Romane Creed and that the meaning of it seemed to be nothing els but that he was interred or laied in his graue Athanasius indeed hath the words but that hee takes them to signifie his buriall may appeare for that he leaues out all other meÌ„tion of that article of his buriall Fourthly it must be remembred that the maintayners of Christs going really into hell agree not about the matter whether he went into the place of the damned or only into the suburbes of it in limbum patrum or Infantum nor about the end Fiftely we haue great reason to refuse this sense which hath no ground of Scripture wherevpon it can be built as diuers of our writers haue plainely shewed and as I could and would prooue if it agreed with this course of writing Sixthly we affirme that if we shall follow the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot expound it of the place of the damned vnlesse it be apparant that the matter necessarilie requires it which also is to be said of the Hebrew Sheoll commonly in the Bible translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bucer Carlile and Broughton haue shewed by particular induction Seauenthly we must note this mans dealing that makes choise of the woâ—st interpretation as he accompt it whereas he cannot be ignorant both that there are diuers other and that many Protestants do mâ—slike this which he brings as if he would make the world beleeue that we allow not of this peece of the Creed but onely in that sense howbeit many of our diuines do rather expound it of our Sauiours subiection to death or of the truth of his death fully signified not onely by his buriall but by his being altogether in the state of the dead his body and soule being seuered and seuerally so disposed of as all other dead mens bodies and sâ—ules are without any speciall signifying of the place whether his soule went But howsoeuer we dissent from our bretheren in the meaning of this Article we allow the doctrine as good and sound For we beleeue that our Sauiour Christ being by imputation a sinner though of himselfe most holy and pure suffred in his soule the wrath of God due to vs sinners and for our sinnes in such sort and measure as God had appointed and as without sinne in a finite time it could be suffred As for those horrible plasphemies which are sayde to be included in the paines of hell we neither auouch them all of our Sauiour Christ nor acknowledge that they nessarily accompany the wrath of God as in handling the particulars it will appeare Christ saith he bare the wrath of God Therefore he despaired of his saluation The consequence is false for he knew that God loued his person being his sonne and therefore that this wrath should not be perpetuall though the present sense of it wrung from him that lamentable exclamation My God my God why hast thou forsaken me and also that by the power of his Godhead he was to free himselfe from continuing in death which but for these reasons he must needs haue indured and which for a time he did taste the Godhead as it were withdrawing it selfe that the manhood might suffer Christ saith he suffred the wrath of God therefore God hated him and he God Of the latter clause I shall need to say nothing hauing before restrained Christs sufferings to that maner of torment which is without sinne Neither is that hatred of God an effect of his wrath in the damned in whom it is naturall but by his wrath against them that malice of theirs accidentally is increased Which I speake vpon this supposition that the damned shall continue in sinne as well as in punishment The former point if we hold the former distinction aduisedly contaynes at all no blasphemy against our sauiour his person was of it selfe most tenderly beloued of God his father though beeing considered as a sinner such as by imputation hee was in the sight of God for a time in that respect hee was to God for vs as euery one of vs is in himselfe to God Christ suffered saith he the wrath of God therefore he was tormented with anguish of minde for his offences for which c. The consequence should haue bin Therefore he was tormented with anguish of mind for those offences for which he suffered the wrath of God But those were not his but ours Ours I say truly and properly hâ—s only by imputation And it is no blasphemy to hold that Christ so as he was a sinner and punished for sinne had also anguish of minde for sinne not for his owne there was no suspicion or likenesse of sinne in him but for ours which by his consent was charged on him for the time he saw the angry countenance of God against him and hee knewe that our sinnes had deserued the continuance of it for euer But the
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
Supreame head of the Church which title being taken from the Pope and giuen to the King seemed to inuest that whole power in the Kings person which the Pope had vsurped ouer the church Secondly Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester affirmed at Ratisbon that it was lawfull for the King to forbid eating of flesh vpon this or that day to forbid Priests to marry to take from the people the vse of the Cup in the Supper of the Lord The later two whereof are simply vnlawfull the first only so farre as it concernes putting religion in such abstinence of which anon And in that sense onely did Caluin denie the Kings supremacie in this point taking it to be all one with the Popes What opposition the Presbyterie of Scotland hath made against the King I neither know nor haue now leasure to seeke But if they haue done any thing whereby it may iustly be suspected that they thinke the king hath nothing to do with the kirke they haue gone beyond their bounds and shall neuer haue eyther approbation or excuse by my defense As for the Ministers and people which doe not yeeld to subscription and conformitie I must needs labour to cleere them of this imputation To which purpose I desire it may first be obserued that they acknowledge both by word and writing and that ex animo not like you Papists with I know not what aequiuocations that the Kings Maiestie vnder God is the onely supreame Gouernour of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse dominions and countries as well in all spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as temporall that no forraine Prince person state or Potentate hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within his Maiesties said Realmes dominions and countries according as the statute agreeablie to the law of God requireth Secondly they professe with the rest of their Fathers and brethren Protestants that his Maiestie hath authoritie to commaund or forbid in all matters whatsoeuer necessarie or indifferent and that in both these he is to be obeyed vpon conscience Of his authoritie in matters commanded by God we are wholy of one minde About the matters in question there are these two differences Whether they be indifferent or no whether supposing them to be indifferent they may be commaunded and done in case they be thought to nourish superstition in many and to be an occasion of stumbling and destruction to many a one for whom Christ hath dyed And these are the reasons why they dare not as they say approue some things in our church by subscription and practise otherwise professing not onely a willingnesse but a desire to yeeld if they might satisfie their owne consciences in these doubts So that indeed they no way deny the Kings supremacie either by attributing that to any forrain poteÌ„tate or prelate or any presbytery at home which lawfully beloÌ„gs vnto him or by denying his authority in things indifferent Concerning the authoritie of Bishops it is not an essentiall point of faith and besides the best protestant diuines holde that the forme of gouernment is left to the discretion of euery church to be framed as the ciuill estate may beare it and therefore it is not denyed I thinke that there may be a Presbytery but that a Presbytery is fit for a Monarchie So that the abolishing of Bishops in some Churches is not a confounding of Christs church but a dissoluing of one outward forme of gouernment Essentiall points of faith are matters of doctrine wherein a man may be sound and yet faile in some parts of obedience If therefore by not obseruing you meane not thinking it lawfull to obserue or appoint holy daies I say it is no esseÌ„tiall point of faith to doubt of or deny this authority though the Puritans generally hold such deniall to be an error If it be your meaning to charge the Puritans with neglecting the obseruation of such daies I dare be bold to say that all Puritans do more religiously obserue them then any Papist doth the Lords day or Sunday which I auowe both of Ministers and people That it is vnlawfull for the church or magistrat to appoint fasts for the religious humbling of men vpon iust occasions it is a foule error for any man to hold but not against any essentiall point of faith required to the being of a christian either in truth or profession Both Protestants Puritans agree generally about this point as for the weekly fish daies LeÌ„t the 4. ember weeks our church and state disclaime the appointing of them for any vse of religion and keepe them only as meanes to prouide for the encrease of cattell and mainteinance of shipping Mariners Fishermen and Fishmongers Neither is this doctrine of Christs suffrings any essentiall point of faith nor blasphemy on the one part or other as I haue sâ—ewed before in the fourth article This makes no difference betwixt Protestants Puritants because many on either side are of this opinion many of the contrary Of this I say as of the former that taking it in such a sense as this Papist doth it is no essentiall point of faith but in the true meaning of the article it is for it belongs to to the truth of Christian Religion as a substantiall point to hold that our Sauiour Christ was wholly in the estate of the dead both for soule and bodie Of this matter alsoe there is diuersitie of opinion betwixt Protestants and Protestants Puritans and Puritans and therefore it is fondly and falsly set downe as a point of dissent betwixt protestants and Puritans The like answere is to be made to this also saue onely that it may be doubted whether any Protestant agree with the Papists in this point or no generally I am sure the Puritans and the Protestants are of one opinion in this matter To hold that Christ is God of God the naturall sonne of God coessentiall CoeÌ„ternall to his father is a matter of necessitie at the least so that the Contrary ouerthrowes religion But for my part I dare not affirme that the distinct knowledge of all such points is of necessity to saluation And surely sauing other mens better iudgment I am of opinion that those Clauses of Athanasius Creed which seeme to shut all men out of heauen that beleeue not those articles of the Creed are to be vnderstood of some of them onely or of the Contrary to the truth The holy and learned man spake according to the occasion the heresie of Arrius hauing made a maine difference betwixt the true and false Christians But of these three last points see The fourth Article Thus much of the maine differences which this Papist â—oats now followe the petty ones as hee calls them The first whereof is as true as the former seauen For our agrement in the matter of Baptisme may easilie be knowne by our ioynt consent to the articles of Religion 1562. according to
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