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
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
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
the church What is this but to trifle I must beleeue that the scripture is scripture because the church tels me so I must beleeue that the report of the church is true because the scripture saith so But for your better satisfactioÌ„ in this point I referre you to my answer in the 2. 5. articles of this former part I cannot well conceaue to what purpose this last clause is added if to proue the Article That the Protestants knowe not what they beleeue it is insufficient They that know not what they are bound to beleeue expresly distinctly explicitly know not what they beleeue For no more is proued by this reason But that they know not euery particular which they are bound to beleeue And if this be a disgrace to Protestants and their profession how shall Papists popery escape without reproach when as there is no rule among theÌ„ to teach what they ought to beleeue expresly distinctly c. And as all Protestants cannot beleeue all the Scripture distinctly explicitely no more can all Papists so beleeue what the Church deliuereth to be beleeued and therefore was their fides implicita deuised Neither is it proued that the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith what is not because they know not expresly distinctly explicitely what they are bound to beleeue For a man may haue a rule though he know not how to vse it as it also falls out ordinarily with vnlearned Papists in the rule that they follow to this same purpose If the Creed say you be not the limit of beleefe the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith I thinke the Protestant is yet vnborne that makes the D. Creede the rule of his beleefe further then to acknowledge that whatsoeuer is conteined in the Creed is of necessitie to be beleeued which I trow no Papist will denie But if it were granted that all Protestants do so yet it were not proued that the Protestants haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith but that they haue an vnperfect rule To be short who knowes not that the Protestants make the whole Scriptures the rule of their beleefe holding themselues bound in conscience to acknowledge all things conteyned therein to be the most true word of God and that out of the Scriptures there is nothing necessarily to be beleeued for saluation Whereas the Papists disable the written word of God to establish the fancies of mortall men ioyning the vnwritten traditions of I know not whom in equall authoritie with the written word of the Almighty God But the Creed say you is not the limit of faith That the Creed is no perfect rule of our beleefe we are so farre from denying that we make this reason one of the grounds wherevpon we build our perswasion that because of the vnperfectnesse thereof it was not penned by the Apostles whereas if it had bene it would haue bene perfect and Canonicall Scripture such as yet it neuer was acknowledged to be Howsoeuer we willingly graunt that there is nothing in it but sound and agreeable to the word of God in the Scripture So much the more wrong hath this slanderer done vs to charge any of vs with the deniall of any one Article thereof especially since no hereticks were euer charged with the deniall of Scripture because they â—isinterpreted it And yet by this Authors iudgement the Creed is not so bare as here he would faine make it For in the second part of this Article he teacheth vs that by beleeuing the communion of Saints we beleeue first That there are seauen Sacraments Secondly that Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist Thirdly that we must pray to the Saints Fourthly that we must pray for the soules in Purgatory In the fourth he tels vs that by beleeuing the Article of remission of sinnes we beleeue that Baptisme takes away the being of sinne They that deny some Articles of their Creed say you haue E. no rule to know what is matter of faith They that deny all the Articles of their Creed haue indeed no rule supposing that there is no other rule but the Creed but so much of the Creed as they deny not they haue still for a rule to know what is matter of faith But the Protestants say you deny three Articles of their Creed and the Puritants fiue He that makes difference betweene the Protestants and Looke in my answer to the next Article Puritans in matters of faith doth it either ignorantly or maliciously But to the seuerall points They that beleeue say you that to be the Catholicke F. Church which was interrupted 1400. yeeres and is conteyned within the narrow bounds of England deny the Catholicke Church The Article I beleeue the holy Catholick Church doth not teach vs how to know which is the true Church but enioynes vs to beleeue that there is a Catholick church which we gladly acknowledge viz. that there alwayes hath bene is and shall be a holy church of Christ which since his breaking downe of the partition wall is no longer tyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 place Hierusalem Rome c. but is spred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the face of the whole earth Neither can you 〈◊〉 thinke that the catholicknesse of the Church requirâ—â— continuall being in all places at once for then there 〈◊〉 as any catholick church in the world nor I suppose 〈◊〉 At the least haue you forgotten that according 〈◊〉 our owne doctrine the church shal be hidden in the 〈◊〉 all the time of Antichrists tyranny Then this wil be 〈◊〉 â—incible argument against the church It is not vniuersall 〈◊〉 â—lace therefore it is not the Holy Catholick Church 〈◊〉 the force of your reason is very feeble in the first 〈◊〉 it wherein the strength of it consists But admit we 〈◊〉 deceaued in taking that church to be vniuersall for time and place which is not vniuersal yet as long as we confe◠〈◊〉 there is such a Church we cannot be iustly charged to 〈◊〉 that article of our Creed But the Protestant 〈◊〉 you beleeue that to be the Catholick Church which was 〈◊〉 1400. yeares Therefore they deny the article of beleâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Catholick Church But they do not 〈◊〉 â—peares by the aunswere to the first Article besides â—â—â— Protestants do not hold that the church in England is 〈◊〉 â—atholick church but only that it is a part of the 〈◊〉 church which reaches to all times and places And 〈◊〉 word as I said in the first article we deny not to the 〈◊〉 the necessity of catholicknes but of visiblenes 〈◊〉 our church is not so narrow as you would beare the 〈◊〉 in hand as the Harmony of Confessions will proue to 〈◊〉 man that will but vouchsafe to read it For howsoeuer 〈◊〉 some churches of Germany and vs there be some 〈◊〉 in matters of importance yet neither are they such 〈◊〉 â—rectly ouerthrow the foundation And both the French 〈◊〉 Flemish churches agree with
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
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
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
Iesus Christ All the blessings that Abraham the Father of the faithfull could make any claime to were to be held by guift vpon promise Therefore if we wil be his children as we must be if we be faithfull we haue nothing to trust to but Gods promise in Iesus Christ Faith then is the ground of Hope and according to the measure of true beleeuing so is the measure of all true hoping Let vs exemplifie it a little Do I hope for euerlasting life What reason haue I to hope for it the promise of God that proclaimeth pardon of sinne and inheritance of Glory to all that beleeue in his sonne Iesus Christ But how doth that concerne me by reason of my faith in Christ So that if I beleeue not in Christ I doe but deceiue my selfe with a shadowe of hope for true Christian hope I haue none But I hope I beleeue in Christ But that will not serue thy turne For so dooth euery man that hath heard of Christ and beleeueth the truth of the Gospell and yet he is farre from true hope and from that which the Papists themselues require of euery Christian Who teach that euery man by receauing the Sacrament of Baptisme is actually purged from all his sinnes before committed which he must certainely be perswaded and assured of The like they say of their sacraments of penance and of extreame vnction Which he that receaueth dying hauing a generall Catholicke faith shall surely go to heauen though perhaps through Purgatory In somuch that if he which is thus prepared should doubt whether he were saued or no he should sinne mortally Therefore to conclude this point which I haue hit vpon this by the waie I say it is plaine that faith limits hope and that there is no true hope or reason of hoping but proportionably to the measure of beleeuing Which will easilier be acknowledged of vs if we remember that hope in the Scriptures is applied to those things which we must of necessitie beleeue by faith And in deed the true difference betwixt faith and hope is not in the diuersitie of assurance but in the circumstance of time Faith reaching to all times past present and to come hope being restrained onely to the future time A Christian man beleeueth by faith that God will blesse him in all things of this life so farre forth as it shall make for his owne glory and the beleeuers saluation Therefore also he hopeth for this blessing from God not absolutely but with those conditions which faith obserues in beleeuing The same man beleeues by faith that because he trusts in Christ he is now in the fauour of God and shall so continue for euer Therefore accordingly he hopes for saluation without any other condition Of the truth of these things I dispute not but only bring them to shew the nature of hope which is alwayes fitted according to the nature of the promises which faith rests vpon Where we beleeue conditionally we hope conditionally where our faith is absolute our hope is so too That the proposition is false it appeares by the example B. To the proposition of Dauid Who praies to God for the pardon of those sinnes which he beleeued by faith were forgiuen for so was he assured from the Lord by the prophet Nathan vnlesse we shall charge him with infidelity for not beleeuing the prophet since the speech was so plaine that hee could not but vnderstand it I haue sinned against the Lord. A plaine and 2. Sam. 12. 13. true Confession The Lord also hath put away thy sinne thou shalt not dye As plaine and certaine an absolution Will you come in here with your vaine distinctions of guilt and punishment of temporall and eternall If you do it is to no purpose For whatsoeuer the respects were in which Dauid praied for the forgiuenes of sinnes once this is cleere that he praied for it and then what remaines but that you condemne him of sinning greeuously in asking God pardon for those sinnes which he beleeued by faith were forgiuen or of infidelitie for not beleeuing But if Dauid in some regard might craue pardon when it was already graunted and beleeued by him to be so be thinke your selfe what will become of your proposition and how wisely you haue charged vs with sinning greeuously for doing that which in some respect may be lawfully done Now for your distinctions I will not wast time nor blot paper to refute them but onely shew that in this case they cannot helpe you Which of the former is apparant because the Prophet precisely mentions both parts The Lord hath taken awaie thy sinne There is the guilt wipt away Thou shalt not die There is the punishment forgiuen Yea you will say the eternall punishment but not the temporall I pray you whether of the two is it that God threatens Adam Gen. 2. 18. withall The day thou eatest thou shalt die the death The punishment yea the whole penaltie of the statute concerning sinne is Thou shalt die See how God for the comfort of Dauid proclaimes this pardon in the very contrary words Thou shalt not die Who shall perswade vs now that the pardon is lesse generall then the penalty But is the eternall punishment indeed forgiuen I thinke you mistake your selfe or els popish doctrine hanges but ill fauoredly togeather For what is that which you say is changed from eternall to temporall Is it not the punishment due to sinne how is it then forgiuen vnles forgiuenes of sinnes be nothing els but a changing of the punishment which if we grant then Christ hath not obteyned any more for vs but the altering of the punishment then God hath not pardoned our sin but remitted somwhat of the penalty Speake not here of the effect of baptisme for if by forgiuenesse of sinnes therein we are wholy acquitted from the guilt and punishment why should the same words after baptisme signifie a change of the punishment and not a full pardon Dauid therefore in praying for pardon of those sinnes which he beleeued by faith were already pardoned by his practise destroyed this popish reason long before it was hatcht Nor may you answere that this prayer was for any temporall Calamity which was layde vpon him for this sinne because the scriptures make these requests diuers Hee was threatned by the prophet that the child borne in adultery 2. Sam. 12. 18. Psa 32. 3. 4 51. 1. 2. should surely dye For the life of the childe he prayes fastes and weepes but those 2. Psalmes I spake of are of another nature not once mentioning nor once glancing at any temporall or outward affliction And if there be in deede any such dictinction of guilt and punishment Dauid intreats directly and principally for the former According to the multitude of thy mercies wash me throughly c. Euery verse expressing the anguish of a distressed soule for the conscience of sinne cōmitted against God And whereas he makes also request
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
for giuen them They should indeed be so assured and are bound to labour E. for such assurance but not one of many thousands attaines to that plerophorie or full perswasion and yet euery one as I sayd before hath his proportion fitted out for him by the spirit of God according to the measure of tryall which God in his fatherly wisedome will by any meanes make of him so that he shall neuer be finally or wholy swallowed vp of despairing And this is an effect of that iustifying faith by which we lay hold on and apply vnto our selues the sufferings of Christ which euery true Christian man feeles in himselfe in part whiles he liues in this vale of misery and wholly at the time of his departure henco the spirit taking from him all conscience of sinne and filling his soule with the vndoubted feeling of that ioy which God hath prepared for him in Iesus Christ Other assurance then this or in other maner we teach not and namely not this that he is not to be esteemed as a true Christian who makes any doubt vpon any occasion of the pardon of any sinne Now for a conclusion of this Article he geathers of the F. former point that no Protestant can with a safe conscience say the Lords Prayer because therein he must aske forgiuenesse of sinnes whereas he beleeues already that all are forgiuen The reason stands thus He that cannot without note of infidelitie aske forgiuenesse of sinnes cannot with a safe conscience say the Lords Prayer What this note of Infidelitie meanes we shall more fitlie examine in the assumption If by a safe conscience hee meane a conscience free from sinne euen in the very action of prayer we graunt his conclusion Because as it shall appeare in the next article no man performes any dutie in this life vnto God but it is stained with some spot of his naturall corruption But if by a safe conscience he vnderstand a conscience without sinne in respect of his praying as I am perswaded he doth I deny the consequence of his proposition For though a man cannot craue pardon of sinne with a full assurance the want whereof this Papist seemes to call a note of infidelitie yet he may make that petition with a safe conscience that is without any iust checke of conscience for praying so But no Protestant can without note of infidelitie aske forgiuenesse of sinnes That weake faith is not to be counted infidelitie I take it no Christian doubts at all And as little that it is not a note of infidelitie to begge pardon of our sinnes The assurance whereof though we should haue yet we haue it but in part Therefore this assumption is voide of truth as the whole discourse of this article hath proued For I make no doubt but that by note of Infidelitie he meanes as before want of faith in not beleeuing that our sinnes are forgiuen or in demaunding that of God which by faith we are assured he hath already performed All which being answered before there remaines nothing but that I shortly declare what we hould and teach concerning praying for forgiuenesse of sinnes First we beleeue and teach that all our synnes originall and actuall before and after Baptisme both guilt and punishment temporall and eternall are washt away by the bloud and sufferings of the Lord Iesus Christ Secondly that this pardon is made effectuall to vs by faith whereby we cast our selues vpon Christ to be saued by him Thirdly that the assurance which followes vpon beleeuing is wrought in euery man according to his measure and is in no man ordinarily so perfect but that it is mixed with some doubting more or lesse How praying for pardon of sinnes may stand with this faith though I haue shewed sufficiently already yet it will not be amisse to declare it more fully for answer to this accusation We beleeue in some measure that God hath forgiuen all our sinnes in our sauiour Iesus Christ But because our faith is weake we continually pray to God for pardon or rather for the assurance of our pardon to be encreased neither yet doth it follow that then prayer for forgiuenesse is an effect of a weake faith because though our faith were strong yet the feeling of our owne wretchednesse the iust desert of sin and the wrath of God due vnto vs would wring out such entreatie from vs as we see the extremity which our sauiour Christ was in vpon the Crosse made him cry out so maynly My God my God why hast thou forsaken me albeit he was fully assured that God neither had nor would vtterly forsake him Ad hereunto that we do indeed properly demaund forgiuenesse of sinne because we are to receaue actual pardon from God continually both for our originall corruption which alwaies in this life abides with vs and for actuall sins which we dayly and hourely commit against the maiestie of Almighty God If any man shall inferre hereupon that therfore the person sueing is guilty of damnation till his sinne be forgiuen which must ensue vpon his prayer I answer that in respect of God it is pardoned as soone as committed because he that once beleeueth is thereby made a member of Christs mystical body and so hath all his sinnes satisfied for by the death and suffrings of his head Christ But to him that is in his feeling it is not by and by forgiuen namely til by repentance he haue craued mercy of God for it But indeed the chiefe reason and end of our praying to God for pardon is that we may alwayes acknowledge that euery sinne committed by vs deserues euerlasting damnaton of it selfe and should euerlastingly be punisht if that God had not accepted our sauiour Christs satisfaction for vs By which though wee are freed if we rest on him by faith yet both it is our duty according to Gods commaundement to sue for pardō for his sake in truth if we doe it not we haue no reason to perswade our selues that our sinnes are pardoned For howsoeuer it is true that Christ our head hath paid the price of our ransome yet it is also true that we euery day deserue condemnation must entreate God for pardon that so we may come to that assurance which the Lord hath enioyned vs to labour and seeke for The some of all is this that we pray for pardon of our sinnes 1. because Christ hath taught and commaunded vs so to pray 2. because by our sinnes we haue deserued eternall damnation 3. because wee must dayly renew our repentance as we commit new sinnes euery day 4. because we haue not absolute assurance of the forgiuenesse thereof Some perhaps will rather answere that we haue no assurance at all but so long as we continue members of Christs body which is no longer say they then we refraine from great sinnes for by euery such sinne they say we are cut of from Christ and therefore haue need to pray for pardon of it But
some libertie which he imagines it may afford let him call to minde what consequences Rom. 6. 1. 2. 1â— flesh and bloud gather vpon the doctrine of free iustification and what answere the Apostle makes to such obiections and then he wil be ashamed to aske why a man may not wallow in all licencious pleasures in this life and neuer doubt of glory in the other if he be certaine that he haue true faith For first hee will vnderstand that hee is bound to the obedience of the lawe though hee bee freed from the damnation of it Secondly he shall feele that hauing true faith it is not possible for him to liue in sinne because Rom. 6. 2. 3. he is dead and buried thereto If he will say then I am sure I haue true faith and that can neuer be lost therefore I may sinne as I lift without danger of damnation He must be answered I am sure thou hast no true faith For that makes no such reasons Whosoeuer is iustified is also sanctified Thou wantest the lateâ— therefore thou hast not the former Neither Whâ—remâ—ngers nor Idolaters nor Adulterers nor Wantons nor Buggerers nor Theeues nor Couetous 1. Cor. 6. 9. 10. nor Drunkards nor Raylers nor Extortioners shall inherit the kingdome of God But thou art such a one therefore there is no place for thee in heauen What inconuenience followes now vpon this doctrine Thou wilt say I am sure if I haue faith I cannot be damned I answere I am sure if thou let sinne raigne in thee thou caâ—st not be saued As it is not possible that he that beleeues truly should be dammned so is it also vnpossible that hee Which liues with delight in presumptuous sinne should beleeue truly But our seruile and proud Papists cannot be brought to performe any obedience or refraine any sinne except they see Hell gaping to swallow them below and heauenly glory set as deserued wages aboue For the loue and honour of God they will do nothing but with especial respect to themselues They say saith he that a man cannot keepe all the commaundements E. No not perfectly as he ought to doe For then many men might stand though God should streightly Psa 143. 2. examine what is done amisse Then we need not Christs bloud whereof before to dippe our workes in But you demaund for what cause wee say so because God hath taught vs so not as you would haue the world imagine thereby To make men negligent in keeping them Nay rather for the quite contrary that knowing how farre they shal be from performing their duty when they haue done all they can they may neuer cease to be doing neither can they be discouraged as long as they know that God of his gracious mercy in Iesus Christ accepts of his childrens indeauours in their imperfections for Christs sake and will rewaâ—â— them aboundantly in the kingdome of heauen In the â—â—ane while this knowledge of continuall sinning must stir vs vp to contynuall carefulnesse and preâ—isenesse must humble vs vnder the hand of God must enforce vs to be earnest with God for the pardon of our transgressions both in committing euill and omitting good must make vs feele the infinite mercy and loue of God towardes vs in accepting so graciously of our poore weake good will and lastly must driue vs to cleaue fast to Iesus Christ and his obedience because we haue no other righteousnesse to present God withall so far are we in this matter from teaching men to pretend an excuse of impossibilitie whensoeuer they transgresse the commaundements Yea indeed wee plainely affirme that there is no man but failes very much of that paynes and care I will not say that hee ought but that he might bestow in fitting himselfe to true obedience Why denâ— they saith he the sacrament of penance F. Because it is a patch of Antichrists sowing to the faire broad cloth of Gods holy word because it brings a slauery and snare vpon mens consciences because it makes men leaue trusting to Iesus Christs satisfaction and rest vpon their owne because it breeds security in theÌ„ that receaue popish absolutioÌ„ because it was a deuise or at least is a practise of the popish clergie to get intelligence of al state matters in christendoÌ„e for their own aduantage These many other such reasons of our denyal this Papist wil not see but faines to himselfe an absurd impossible conceat That we would haue men careles how they liue neuer regard the auoyding of sinnes as though they were neuer to render an account of them wheras we constaÌ„tly auouch 1 that he that is careles to bring forth the fruits of sanctification hath not the roote of faith to iustification wheras we teach that euery veniall sinne of the Papists is by desert euen in the regenerate punishable with euerlasting damnation That God lookes for repentance at his childrens hands is fayne many times to draw theÌ„ to it by the misery of all miseries in this life the afflictioÌ„ of conscience which is of more force with a true christian then al the blushing shame of this world put togeather As for restitution and satisfaction to men we do not only vrge it vpon all occasions but hold it so necessary as that without it where there are meanes to performe it there can bee no assurance of pardon to him that knowes hee hath done wronge either in this life or in your purgatory And here we say no shame of what estate soeuer a man be may keepe him from making satisfaction Whereas with you Papists if a man performe some penance enioyned him by his ghostly father though quite of an other nature from satisfaction to his offended brother and namely if he fill your Corban he shall haue absolution a culpa et pâ—na by your deuised sacrament of penance Now he that by dayly confession of sinnes vnto God of whom he receaues not by and by absolution as of your priest but is faine to beg the assurance oft tymes againe and againe with many teares deep sighs horror of conscience and such like will neuer be brought to any true repentance by telling a Priest of his finnes past since he shall finde it so easie a matter to buy out any penance at the Popes price as it is set downe in his bocke of Rates for indulgences Our end therefore in denying your forged Sacrament of penance is to enforce men to a true and hearty sorrow for their sinne That God may haue the glory of their humiliation and the whole thankes for their pardon You meane why do they deny that Christ is bodily present in G. the sacrament because there is neither scripture nor reason to prove it Because to hould he is there in that sort it is vntrue vnreasonable and vnpossible to be true because it destroies the nature of Christs humanity because it makes his manhood God because it is an occasioÌ„ of the most senseles Idolatry
and most effectually intended their sinnes For he that intendeth any effect wherewith an other effect is necessarily conioyned consequently intendeth it as for example He that intendeth to burne a ship in the middest of the sea inteÌ„deth coÌ„sequently the death of all the men which be in her In like mâ—ner if God intended that Iudas should sell Christ vnto which action sinne was necessarily adioyned consequently God intended the sinne as well as the selling C. Cal. lib. 1. institution C. 18. §. 1. The Minor is to to euident for the Protestants deride Gods permission they say that all his actions are energetical or effectual they desperatly auerre that Pauls conuersion Dauids adultry were in like maner the works of God and as he elected some to Glory before the preuision of workes so he reiected some from glory before the preuision of sinnes Here hence I inferre that according to the Protestants principles God is most properly the author of sinne because he impelleth most effectually thereunto Next that he is the only author of sinne for that he inforceth D. men vpon necessity to sinne and they as instruments follow the motion of their first cause Againe that man sinneth not For where there is necessitie of sinning there is no sinne For sinne is free or no sinne Besides how can man sinne in conforming his will to Gods will Finally God is worse then the diuell For that the wickednes of the diuell principally consisteth in the mouing perswading and inducing of men to sin the which by the Protestants confession God performeth more effectually then the Diuell because the motions of God are more forcible lesse resistable then the illusions or suggestions of the diuell Many sinnes moreouer are acted without the temptations of the diuell some of ignorance some of passion but none without the motions of God so that God is worse then the Diuell both in causing greater multitude of sinnes then the diuell and in the forcible maner of causing sinnes Which the diuell cannot attaine vnto The which doctrine is as good a ground for Atheisme as euer hell could deuise for were it not much more reasonable to saye there were no God at all then to beleeue there were such a God as commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth impelleth men to sinne and yet for the same sinnes will torment them with the inexplicable paines of hell Protestant Whosoeuer defends that God Commaunds perswades vrges A. impells to sinne makes God the cause of sinne Of this proposition there is no question betwixt the Papists and vs. Yet I hold it necessary to speake a word or two of it not by way of refutation but of explication If a man commaund vrge c. to that which is euill and the effect ensue therevpon he is iustly to be charged with that sinne as the Author of it In Gods Commaunding it is otherwise For that which he B. commaunds being otherwise euill chaunges the nature by his commaundement so that neither he that commaunds nor the partie that obeies commit any sinne in commaunding or obeying For example it is vnlawfull for a man to offer vp his Child for a burnt sacrifice yet God commaunds Abraham to do so and Abraham is ready to fulfill the commâ—undement Both without sinne because the will of God is the rule of righteousnes and he that gaue man a lawe hath reserued authoritie to himselfe to dispence with that lawe when and as it pleaseth him and as this Papist saith truely Euery man is bound in Conscience to Conforme his will to the will of God But yet this is not simply true For admit that Iudas had knowne that it was Gods will that our Sauiour should be betraied to the Iewes by him might he therefore the doing of it At no hand for he was to haue receaued a warrant for it that it might be lawful wheras he had the contrary charge in the 6. Commaundement Thou shalt not kill But if God had geuen him commission to do it as he did to abraham for the offring of his sonne then he had bin bound to yeeld obedience to this commaundement of God and had not sinned in obeying So much doth it concerne a man to liue in obedience to those lawes which God hath prescribed to all and euery man generally and particularly Abraham hath a commaundement not to kill if it be Gods wil he should kill without sinning therby God wil giue him warrant and charge to kil without which howsoeuer Gods wil stand Abraham cannot do it lawfully And therefore it had not ben warrantable for Iudas Pilate or the Iewes intending that good end which God intended to haue done contrary to the generall commaundement of God without a speciall commission to that purpose which is more then a knowledge that God would haue it done This being vnderstood we disclayme as needelesse all such excuses for God as this Papist seemeth to make on our behalfe For we say not that God moued them for a good end but that he did not moue them at all and yet there is a great deale of difference betwixt mouing and commaunding perswading vrging impelling since he may truly be said to moue a man that offers him the outward occasions whereby he may be prouoked to the doing of any thing which I suppose God doth and you will graunt may do without being guilty of sinne for so doing But if we would maintaine that God moued them it it were no hard matter to answer your strong proofe For neither doth God binde him selfe to those lawes which he giues to man and his will being the rule of Iustice that which he will haue done by his willing of it ceasses to be euill So that he cannot doe any euill though he may commaund that to be done which till he commaunded it could not be done without sinne But you vrge vs further that God indirectly and most effectually intended their sinnes Of his effectuall intending by and by in answere to the Assumption Now only of his direct intending which we are so farre from denying that we hold it absurd to make any question of it For what is more plaine in the scripture then that 2 SaÌ„ 24. 1. God would haue Dauid sinne to the end that he might by his sinne haue occasion to punish the people as he did Doth not Michah professe that it was Gods purpose 1. Reg. 22. 22. 23. that Achab should fall at Ramoth Gileâ—d by hearkening to the false prophesies of them whom a lying spirit was to seduce Goe saith God thou shalt preuaile And to come to your owne example did not God intend decree that our sauiour Christ should be treacherously betrayed by Iudas falsely accused by the Priests vniustly condemned by Pilate If he did not certainly determine these things so that the euen could not but ensue thereupon he did not certainly prouide for the saluation of his children because it might haue come to passe that Christ should not haue bene betrayed
sinneth most greeuously in asking GOD pardon for them But all true Protestants are assured by faith that their sinnes are forgiuen them Ergo all true Protestants sinne grieuously in asking pardon of God for them Protestant The principall syllogisme for the proofe of the Article omitted I know not vpon what reason by this author is thus to be concluded Whosoeuer synne greeuously in asking God forgiuenesse of their synnes are bound in conscience neuer to aske him forgiuenesse But the Protestants synne greeuously in asking God forgiuenes of their sinnes Therefore the Protestants are bound in conscience neuer to aske God forgiuenesse of their sinnes The Assumption of this syllogisme he proues thus Papist Whosoeuer is assured by faith that his sinnes are forgiuen sinnes greeuously in asking God pardon for them But all true Protestants are assured by faith that their sinnes are forgiuen them Therefore all true Protestants sinne greeuously in asking God forgiuenesse of their sinnes Protestant That the proposition is false it appeares by the practise of Psal 32. 1. 51. 1. 2. Dauid who prayed to God for the pardon of that sinne which he beleeued by faith was forgiuen for so was he assured 2. Sam. 12. 13. before from the Lord by the Prophet Nathan Papist If none but an Infidell or a mad man would demaund of God the creation of the world or Christs incarnation or the institution of Sacraments which already is effected then none but such a one would aske of God pardoÌ„ for his sinns being assured by faith that they are forgiuen him But none but an Infidell or a mad man would demaund of God the creation of the world or Christs incarnation or the institution of the sacraments Therefore none but a mad man or an Infidell would aske of God pardon for his synnes being assured by faith they are alreadie forgiuen them Protestant I deny your consequence because it presumes of an equality where there is none For we do not beleeue the later with so great assurance as the former besides we haue a commaundement for the latter but not for the former Papist Whosoeuer demaunds that which he hopes not to obtaine synns greuously by demaunding it But whosoeuer is assured by faith that his sinnes are forgiuen him in asking pardon demaunds that which he hath no hope to obtaine Therefore whosoeuer is assured by faith that his synnes are forgiuen him synnes greeuously in asking pardon for them Protestant I deny your proposition for he only sinnes greeuously in praying for that he possesseth who beleeues certainly that he doth possesse that he prayeth for not he which hauing some true perswasion hath also some doubt withall Neither is the assumption true Because with the assurance there is some doubt euen in those that beleeue truly the forgiuenesse of their sinnes The doubt is sinne but the asking pardon because of this doubt is noe sinne The Protestants do not teach that all Christians haue this absolute assurance but that they ought to labour for it Vpon this reason he gathers this conclusion Papist He that cannot without note of Infidelity aske forgiuenesse of synnes cannot with a safe conscience say the Lords prayer But no protestant can without note of infidelity aske forgiuenesse of synnes Therefore no Protestant can with a safe conscience say the Lords prayer Protestant If by note of Infidelity you meane sinning by weakenesse of faith your proposition is false For a man that doubts of pardon may craue it without sinne though he cannot doubt without synne If by it you vnderstand being an Infidell because of asking that which he is sure he hath your assumption is false for a true Protestant is not an Infidell by such doubting though he should not doubt Article 2. Papist The protestants are bound in conscience â—â— auoide all good workes Euery man is bound vpon paine of eternall damnation to auoide all deadly sinnes But fasting praier allmesdeeds and all good works according to the Protestants Religion are deadly sinnes Ergo according to the protestants religion all men are bound vpon paine of eternall damnation to auoyd fasting prayer and all good workes Protestant By an orderly course of proceeding in disputation the first syllogisme should be to this effect Euery man is bound vpon paine of eternall damnation to auoyd all good workes But the Protestants are bound in conscience to auoide that which euery man is bound vpon paine of eternall damnation to auoyde Therefore the Protestants are bound in conscience to auoide all good workes Instead of that he hath set vs downe the proofe of the proposition The assumption whereof I vtterly deny as false in it selfe and slaunderous to our doctrine For neither Fasting praying almesdeeds c. are deadly sinnes neither doe we teach any such thing but onely as this man himselfe confesses in expounding that place of Esa 64. 6. that the best workes we can doe are infected with deadly sinne And it is one thing I trow to say that a man in his best health is neuer without an Ague and another thing to say that a mans best health is an Ague Further we must obserue these two points in this matter that by deadly sinne we meane not as the Papists doe the grosse breaches of Gods commaundements For the good workes of a regenerate man are ordinarily voide of all such transgressions but slippes of infirmity by which wâ— defile these good workes To which if any man replie that we are bound to refraine all such sinnes I willingly subscribe vnto him But withall I deny that we are bound to auoide all good workes because we can doe none without this taint of corruption For the workes are commanded and accepted of God and shal be rewarded for all this infirmity of ours which cleaues vnto them and would make both them and vs for them hatefull vnto God but that it hath pleased him to pardon it in Iesus Christ Art 3. Papist The Protestants either haue no faith at all or els lye most damnably in denying that a man assisted by grace can keepe the commandements Whosoeuer knoweth God keepeth his Commaundements But all true protestants know God Ergo all true protestants keepe his commandements Protestant It is more troublesome to apply this Syllogisme to the question then hard to answere it But I haue performed that taske in my larger discourse and now onely speake to his syllogisme as it lyes Where first I graunt him the conclusion according to S. Iohns minde For indeed euery true protestant keepes Gods commaundements though not perfectly Which imperfection our papists must needes graunt as long as they runne to dip their best workes in Christs bloud which needed not if they were perfect of themselues Secondly I say the text of Saint Iohn doth proue that he is not to be vnderstood of perfect obedience because he speakes without exception of all Christians that know God to euerlasting life Many whereof yea euen the best as Dauid oftentimes sinne greeuously Art 4. Papist