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
â—s in all substantiall points 〈◊〉 doctrine They that beleeue not 〈◊〉 that Christ hath instituted G. seauen sacraments do some 〈◊〉 the communion of saints When it is proued that there were 〈◊〉 instituted by Christ I will grant this propo◠〈◊〉 then any man may make as good a reason of 〈◊〉 700. or 7000. By true and reall presence which no Protestant euer denyed you meane the bodily and carnall presence which besides the Papists no man euer confest Therefore to this Argument the former answere sufficeth and so to both the other But for the further confirmation of this bodily presence because it is the Papists darling there is some shew of proofe added Being many we are one bread and body all that participate 1. Cor. â—â— 17. of one body as themselues in the Rhemish Testament translate the text by which he would perswade the simple that they that beleeue not the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament deny that the faithfull are one body But first it is to be obserued that the Apostle doth not say They are made one body by participating but That they which participate are one body Secondly we must vnderstand that the faithfull are not one body Cârnally but Spiritually To the which it is sufficient that Christ be Spiritually receaued and therefore the Apostle calles it Bread Thirdly who knowes not that all that can receaue any benefit by the Sacrament of our Sauiour Christs body and bloud are before members of his mysticall body Els all they that dye before they receaue that Sacrament are out of Christs body and so vncapable of saluation And if this be an effect of that Sacrament since it is of it selfe alwaies alike effectuall it must needes be that euery time we receaue it we are made one body with Christ yea although we haue not committed any deadly sinne since the last receauing of it But this is absurd that he that is the member of Christ already should now by receauing become the member of Christ Indeed he may be coÌ„firmed strengthned for his better continuance in Christs body which grace al that worthily receiue the sacrament obtaine of God euery one in their measure but it is vnpossible that he should euery time of receauing be made a member of Christs spiritual body being already one when he comes to receaue They say you that deny the Church militant and triumphant H. by exclaiming against inuocation of Saints and praiers for the soules in purgatory deny the article of beleeuing the communion of saints But the Protestants deny the Communion of the Church militant and triumphant by exclaiming against inuocation of saints and prayers for the soules in purgatory Ergo they deny the communion of saints If the communion of saints beleeued in the Creed belong to the catholicke Church in the same Creed How can it implie any fellowship with those that are departed whether they be in heauen or in purgatory For by the catholicke Church our papists vnderstand not the church triumphant but militant only for they hold that the catholick church mentioned in the Creed must alwaies be visible and famous And what an vnworthy wrong is it to Christ and his saints in Heauen for any man to imagine that the Reprobate in earth of whom there is no small store in the outward congregations do communicate with the elect departed in the priuiledges which Christ hath purchased by his precious bloud for his owne members But the best is malice it selfe dare not charge vs with simple denying all communion betwixt the Saints in Heauen and them in earth but only with the deniall of it in some few points One whereof viz. Inuocation of saints this papist would proue by scripture The Gen. 48. 16. Apoc. 1. 4. Aagell that deliuered me from all euills blesse these children Grace and peace from him that is was and that is to come and from the seauen spirits which are in the sight of his throne Iacob and Iohn pray that we may be protected blessed of God by the ministery of the Angells therefore the communion of Saints signifieth that the Saints in Heauen pray for vs and we must pray to them Need I to write one word in answere to this reason but I am desirous that all men should see the weakenesse of this proofe First it is doubted by very good writers ancient and latter whether Iacob meane Christ or some speciall Angell whether the seauen spirits signifie the holy Ghost or the armies of Angells Secondly no Papist that euer I read confounds Angells with Saints or interprets the communion of saints by the ministery of Angells Thirdly these consequences are feeble first The Angells are ministring spirits Therefore the saints departed pray for vs. secondly The Angells protect vs and are ministers of Grace and peace from God to vs therefore by mediation they obtaine our requests Thirdly what streÌ„gth is there in this conclusioÌ„ The Angells pray for vs Therfore we are bound to glorifie theÌ„ by praying to them that is to disâ—onour God by honouring them For I demaund whether we may at any time pray to God without their mediation or noe If we may not then the Lords prayer is taught vs in vaine because that cannot belong to any Angel or saint If we may I aske why not at one time as wel as at another Why not in one matter as wel as in an other Vrge not your carnall comparison betwixt God and earthly Princes for both it is as forcible for one time and matter as another and thereby you rob God of the glory and thankes he should receaue of vs for the granting of our requests and vs of the comfort we might haue by the feeling perswasion of Gods loue in hearing our praiers and satisfiing our desires If the Prince receaue my petition at my owne hands and yeeld vnto it I haue reason to perswade my selfe of his loue to mee and to giue all thankes to him for his princely bounty If any besides my selfe commend my suite to him and it be obtained I am perhaps neuer a whit beholding to him because it may be he knows not me nor cares what I am but only doth some fauorite of his owne that kindnesse Now let any reasonable man iudge whether all the poore recompence I can make all the thankfulnesse I can shew be not due to the partie by whose graciousnesse with the Prince I attayned to that I sought for so that if I content him in some measure though I neuer honour nor loue the Prince one iot the more yet I do as much as iustly can be required of me Yea if I would enforce my selfe to be thankfull to the Prince both he might disdayne my presumption and he that preferred my suite be offended with my vnthankfulnesse that would not giue him all the thanks that procured all the fauour They say you that deny the communion of the church militant and the soules in purgatory deny 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
teach that the credit of the doctrine ariseth from the minister And yet they cannot but confesse that euery minister and all except the Pope may erre in matters of greatest substance We confesse in deede that men may erre both in possibility C. and euent But that the whole catholick Church may erre no Protestant euer taught or thought For we professe that the holy men departed are triumphant members of the catholick church who are exempted from all daunger of being deceaued That part of the catholick church which is militant may and doth erre but neuer wholy in matters of substance for then we know it might come to passe that at some time there should be no church at all vpon the earth whence a present dissolutioÌ„ of the world should follow since D. it is continued for the elect and churches sake The Protestants you say ground their faith vpon the Bible translated into English And the Papists say I build theirs vpon the bible translated into latine or simply vpon the word of him that preacheth vnto them They are bound vpon paine of damnation to beleeue that the Pope is Christs vicar and cannot erre But how shall I know that the Pope teacheth this doctrine vpon what ground is this beleefe built vpon the credit of him that tells them so But it is scripture how shall I know that He that tells me so may be deceiued But the Pope cannot First you begge the questioÌ„ for you haue not proued that the pope cannot erre TheÌ„ how shal I know that the Pope teacheth this doctrine Alas I am a poore ignorant man and vnderstand not either Latine or Italian in which the Popes iudgement is set downe But put case I did what proofe can I haue that the Pope deliuered this for his iudgement How can I be sâ—â—e he was rightly chosen I might adde a number of these doubts of none whereof you can resolue me but only by vrging me to rest vpon the authority of men Now then let any man weigh theâ—e things in the ballance of reason and trye whether is lighter Protestants cannot tell whether Maister Tindals translation of the Scripture bee true or no neither can they discerne a true translation from a faâ—se and therefore must needs relye their faith vpon the silly Ministers faithlesse fidelitie which conuinceth that they haue no faith at all Papist cannot tell whether the Latine translation of the scrâ—pture be true or no neyther can they discerne a true translation from a false and therfore they must need build their faith vpon a silly Priests or Fryers faithlesse fidelity which conâ—inceth that they haue no faith at all Hâ—therto are all things equall betwixt vs. Now consider some differences First we professe that Maister Tâ—â—dall might and did erre and therefore we labour euery day to amend our translations They acknowledge theirs to be faulty but they accurse them to the pit oâ— Hell that will not for all that rest vpon it Secondly we submit our translations to be examined by any learned Papists according to the Hebrew and Greeke They preferre theirs beâ—ore the Hebrewe and Greeke Thirdly we binde no mans conscience to agree to our translation vpon paine of damnation because it askes yet some better correction They tye all men to take euery title of theirs for the certaine word of God and yet dayly they alter it As it appears by the diuers editions of Sixtus 5. Clemens 8. two Popes neither of which could erre and yet either disagrees from the other But for the further avowing of our english translation I desire all men to obserue these fewe points First that these parts of scripture which are worst translated as the Psalmes are most agreeable to the popish Latine Secondly that our best translation comes a great deale neerer to the interpretation of the learned Papists a Vatablus Pagninus Isidorus Clarius Arias Montanâ—s then the popish Latin doth Thirdly that in all this variety of translations no one poynte of Doctrine is ouerthrowne by any newe exposition Fourthly that no papist is able to finde in any of our translations so many errors from the sense of the Holy Ghost as Isidorus Clarius a learned Papist hath amended All these 8000. faults remaine still in their vulgar translation in their popish Latine viz. to the number of 8000 places euery one of which as he professeth changeth the meaning of the text Lastly I offer our worst translation to be compared with the Rhemists affirme that in any reasonable mans iudgment it will appeare that we haue delt more faithfully and plainly then they who seeme to haue bin afraide of nothing more then that the text of Scripture should be easely vnderstood Maister Broughtons skill in the Tongues he that commends not either knowes not or enuies His mislâ—ke of Maister Tindalls translation I wil condemne when I see it disproued As for Gregorie Martine Doctor Fulke long since stopt vp the mouth of his slaunders that none of all you Papists hitherto could open it againe E. It passeth my small skill in Logick to see how this newe addicion is applied to proue the old Article For it agreeeth not either with the Maior or Minor of his Syllogisme For that all the old translations are false the Ministers are are now in moulding a new Therefore whosoeuer relyeth his faith on the silly Ministers faithlesse fidility is an Infidell Therfore all those in England who are ignorant of the Greek and Hebrew are Infidells That clause of the Geneua translation sauours of malice more then reason for though that translation were the best by many degrees as it may be for ought that was said at the conference where the notes not the text were condemned yet might the Ministers haue iust occasion to amend them all He that so peremptorily condemnes the labours of many graue and learned Diuines before he see them shewes more obstinate preiudice then either iudgement or conscience But who will helpe me to vnderstand this strange sentence The translation in hand will haue as great immunitie from falsitie as the former were voide of veritie that is If I shall make reason of it as much as the former were voide of veritie so great immunitie will this haue from falsitie This exposition will admit no conclusion but to the Authors great disgrace For if I assume thus But the former were wholy voide of veritie then must the conclusion be Therefore this translation will be altogether free from falsitie If otherwise But the former were not voide of veritie Then indeed I may conclude Therefore this will not be free from falsitie But here the Assumption makes as much against him as the conclusion doth for him The comparison of equalitie being so little to his purpose who can make the exposition of it serue his turne that both shal be subiect to like vncertainty Indeed who can make reason of the sentence Art 4. The Protestants know not what they beleeue Answere
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
Infidels Protestant I deny your whole antecedent first your proposition for the truth of faith depends not vpon the publicknesse of an exposition but vpon the soundnesse thereof Papist If faith must be infallible and vnpossible to be either 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 〈◊〉 â—â— changeable and faith built vpoâ— priuate 〈◊〉 is subiect to error and change Therefore he that builds his faith vpon his owne priuat exposition is an Infidell Papist I deny your assumption Because the latter part of it is false For a true exposition though it be priuate is not subiect to error or change we dispute not of the euent whereby it may and doth come to passe that true doctrine is changed but of the nature of that doctrine which is true I am sure no Papist wil deny that a true Catholick in profession may become an hereticke yet an apostata and yet that faith of his which he forsooke was true and vnchangeable Your principall assumption is also false for no protestant builds vpon any priuat interpretation but vpon such as is warranted by the analogy of faith publickly acknowledged and the circumstances of the particular Scriptures aduisedly weighed Papist All protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuas opinion or vpon the exposition of the Church the fathers or councills But they build not their faith vpon any of these three therfore vpon their owne priuat opinion Protestant I deny your disiunction in your propositioÌ„ as insufficient for we build vpon the euidence of truth in it selfe reuealed in the scriptures by going from things manifest to those that are lesse manifest in themselues but become manifest by being compared with and examined by the other we allow of no exposition contrary to the fathers but where euident reason taken from the scriptures themselues necessarily requires it Article 3. Papist All protestants who are Ignorant of the Greeke and Latin tongues are Infidells Whosoeuer reâ—â—eth his faith vpon the ministers credit and fidelity hath no faith at all But all those that are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues rely their faith vpon the ministers credit Ergo all those in England who are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues haue no faith at all Protestant If by relying vpon the Ministers credit you meane they haue no ground to build vpoÌ„ but that I deny your assumption For the vnlearned Protestants rest vpon the witnesse of Gods spirit which perswades them of the generall truth contained in the translation directs them to and in the triall of particulars If to the Credit of the Minister you adde the witnes of the spirit I say the Proposition is false For he hath true faith that relyeâ— vpon the Credit of the Minister being directed by the spirit of God so to doe and perswaded by him of the truth that is deliuered Besides this reasoÌ„ makes as much against the Papists learned and vnlearned who rely one the Popes credit being at the most but a learned man oftentimes not so much Article 4. Papist The Protestants know not what they beleeue They that haue no rule to know what is matter of faith know not what they beleeue But the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith Therefore the protestants know not what they beleeue Protestant I deny your whole antecedent First your proposition for a man may know what he beleeues without a rule to knowe what is matter of faith though he may by that want beleeue that he should not faile in not beleeuing that he should Your Assumption also is false For we haue the whole Scripture to be our Rule Therefore this discourse needed not All the Articles whereof are faithfully beleeued ioyntely by Protestants and Puritans that is by those that dissent in opinion about the outward gouernment or ceremonies of the church Papist They that beleeue that to be the catholick church which hath not bene is and shal be vniuersall for all times and places deny the article of beleeuing the catholick church But the Protestants doe beleeue that to be the catholick church which hath not beene is and shal be vniuersall for all times and places Therefore they deny the article of beleeuing the catholicke church Protestant I deny your whole antecedent againe First your proposition because the Article of beleeuing the catholick Church requires not the acknowledging that this or that congregation is the church But onely beleeuing that from the beginning of the world to the end there alwayes hath bene is and shal be a holy church of Christ which since his ascension hath not bene tied to any place but is dispersed vniuersally amongst all nations Your assumption also I deny because the Protestants do not hold that the church in England is the catholick church but onely that it is a part of the Catholicke Church Which reaches to all times and places And in one word we deny not to the Church the necessitie of Catholicknesie but of visiblenesse Papist They that beleeue not that Christ hath instituted 7. Sacraments and especially the Reall presence of our Sauiour in the Eucharist do deny the article of the communion of Saints But the Protestants beleeue not that Christ hath Instituted 7. Sacraments and the Reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist Therefore the Protestants deny the article of beleeuing the communion of Saints Protestant Any man may make as good a reason of seauen score seauen hundred or seauen thousand or of the Reall presence in Baptisme The Reall presence wee beleeue the Carnall and bodily presence no Papist can proue If the faithfull be made one body by receauing so may they be though there be no such presence Therefore the Apostle calls it Bread all that participate of one breâ—â— not of one body carnally besides if by receiuing they bee made one body then they were not one body till they receiued then they are made such euery time they receaue both which are manifestly false Papist They that deny the communion of the Church militant triumphant by exclaiming against inuocation of Saints and prayers for the soules in purgatory deny the Article of beleeuing the communion of Saints But the Protestants deny the communion of the Church militant and triumphant by exclaiming against inuocation of Saints and prayer for the soules in purgatory Therefore the Protestants deny the Article of beleeuing the communion of Saints Protestant The proposition is false Because there is no such communion your profe is nothing Iacob and Iohn praied to God that the Church may be protected and blessed by the ministery of Angells therfore the Saints departed pray for vs and wee must pray to them 1. Whie not rather to God as Iacob and Iohn did 2. It followes not because they protect vs therefore they pray for vs.