not receaue the Sacrament of Baptisme be not pardoned but punished for euer If any sinne after Baptisme his pleasure is that no pardon or remissiō be giuen except he yield humbly and penitently to confesse his sinnes if any refuse to obey so reasonable a law what wrong is done to Christ if such pride be sent to Hell The wicked are condemned not against his will but by his order not out of defect of his meritts but out of their stubburnnes malice It is also Christs holy will that in sinnes committed after Baptisme the whole guilt of payne be not euer forgiuen but sometimes he reserueth a conuenient taske of temporall paine according to the measure his diuine wisdom thinketh best For which we must endeauour to satisfy by fasting praying or other voluntary afflictions or else with a patient acceptance of such crosses as shall be sent by the hand of God 34. This Doctrine strikes you to the heart You bring two principles you were taught in logick against it First the cause say you taken away the effect ceaseth punishment is the effect of synne ergo when synne is remitted punishments must needs cease This your logicke if we yield vnto it will beate out our eyes and force vs to deny euen what we dayly see and feele to wit that punishments and penalties may remaine though the sinne be forgiuen What are death hunger thirst and other miseries of this life but effects of originall sinne Is not that sinne forgiuen vnto Christians in baptisme yet those that are baptized and borne anew in Christ endure the former penalties and punishments of that sinne though the same be pardoned God pardoned Dauids Synne (m) 2. Reg. 12. Dominus transtulit à te peccatum tuum God hath taken thy sinne from thee but did all temporall punishment cease togeather with the sinne No. The sinne was remitted with a But thou shalt indure these an◠these dreadfull afflictions because thou hast made the name of God to be blasphemed 35. I will not stand to confirme this truth out of Scriptures nor out of Fathers only because you stand vpon Athanasius whome you call your Arbitrator (n) Lett. pag. 43. and say that he will not affoarde vs one sillable to saue our liues your ignorance shall receiue doome by his sentence euen in that very Treatise Thus he writeth There is great difference (*) De verbis Christi Si quis dixerit verbum c. saith he betwixt pennance and baptisme he that repenteth ceaseth to sinne but still retayneth the skarrs of his wound but he that is baptized putteth of the old man is then renevved from heauen and as it vvere borne againe by the spirit of grace Doe you see Syr how many syllables this Fathers lendeth vs to know the difference betweene baptisme and pennance for sins cōmitted after baptisme what are those skarrs which still remaine after pennance but not after baptisme You cānot say they are bad inclinations customes for those remaine after baptisme nor the miseries penalties of this mortall life for from the necessitie enduring such crosses baptisme doth not exempt I see not what else can be imagined to remaine after pennance and not after baptisme besides the guilt of temporall paine which we must willingly vndergoe to satisfy for the sins after baptisme which skarrs woūds if we heale not in this life by plaisters of pēnance they must be seared in the next by Purgatory fire 36. Now your logicall Axiome against this verity that the effect ceaseth the cause being taken away who doth not se that it faileth in a thousand examples The Sonne is an effect of the Father can not he liue though his Father be dead the fyre causeth heat yet we see that heat doth often remaine long time after the fyre is put out The truth is that Principle is only true quando Effectus pendet à Causa in esse conseruari when not only the first being of the effect dependeth on the cause but also the conseruation therof as the light of the Sun which the Sun doth not only bring forth but also cōserue vanisheth away togeather with the same Punishment is the effect of sinne nothing but sinne could produce that guilt in our soule yet when it is once in the soule the cōseruation dependeth on the will of God It cannot cease but when and in what manner he will haue it cease either remitting the whole guilt as in Baptism or els reseruing some part of the penalty as he doth often in the sinnes we commit after Baptisme Not that the merits of Christ be not sufficient alone without our pēnance and satisfaction to do away both the eternall and temporall punishment but for the other reasons his diuine wisdome knoweth 37. This wisdome you would proue to be folly by another Axiome of your Logick Frustra fit per plura say you (o) Lett. pag. 38. quod fieri potest per pauciora It is vaine to vse many meanes when fewer will suffice the Iordan of Christs bloud alone sufficeth to wash away the leprosie of Naaman what need he be bathed in Abanak of his owne pēnance or in the Pharphar of Purgatory flames Syr I must accuse eyther your memory or your Maister either he did not teach you that Principle right or els since you haue let fall some wordes therof out of your mind to wit aequè bene when the thing may be done by fewer meanes altogeather as well to multiply meanes is vaine and idle which two wordes wanting your Principle is false Christ might haue redeemed the world with one drop of his bloud was the rest therfore shed in vaine No because it did serue to make his excessiue loue more manifest vnto vs. So likewise though by the bloud of Christ sinnes may be forgiuen fully and perfectly in Pēnance after Baptisme as well as in Baptisme yet the wisdome of God hath thought it more for his owne honour and for our profit to enable vs to do some part of this pēnance our selues by the help of his grace 38. First that we might more deeply conceaue of the malice of sinne and Gods hatred against it Secondly that by feeling some temporall smart our gratitude towardes Christ might encrease who deliuered vs freely from the eternall Thirdly that we may more carefully for the time to come auoid sinne flying from the shadow therof as from an Adder (p) Quasi à facie colubri fuge peccatū Eccl. 21. Fourthly that by voluntary Pēnance we might more estrange our selues (q) Felix necessitas quae ad meliora compellit from the dangerous pleasures of this world and alluring sent of the sinfull flesh Fiftly that this happy necessity of doing of Pennance might force vs to retyrednes where God speaketh to the hart (r) Ducā in solitudinem loquar ad cor Osee 2. Sixtly that by this occasion we might try what without triall can hardly be belieued the comfortes that
because the cause of his condemnation is so cleare that no doubt or question can be made of the sentence he shall receaue (q) More prophetico quia certissima est nō credentium damnatio dicuntur iam iudicati Aug. apud Toletum Annot 27. in c. 3. Ioan So we vse to say of a Malefactor whose crime is notorious that he is a condemned or dead man euen before the execution and verdict of the Iury (r) Sicut qui homicidium cōmittit iam iudicatus dicitur quia lege morti est addictus Chrysost in hunc locum were he not a Nody that would thēce infer that he must be tryed twice or dy two deathes Yet you infer vpon the same ground that the vnbelieuer must passe two doomes Besides if all sinnes must haue double pardon one in this world another in the next why should not all sinners also haue a double condemnation one in this world another in the next You seeme indeed to grant this sequele but Christ seemeth expresly to contradict it making it the speciall cause of Infidells to be already condemned in this world and not of euery sinner 11. Thirdly you mistake your Card and seeme not to know the very principles of Christian diuinity to wit the true opposition betwixt the iust and the wicked in the day of Iudgment For the difference is not that the sinnes of the one shal be pardoned and not the sinnes of the other as you dreame but that the workes of the iust shal be rewarded the deedes of the Infidels punished their faith shal receiue a crowne of Iustice the others Infidelity an eternitie of tormēts That is not the day of Mercy but of Iustice (ſ) 2. Tim. 4. to giue to euery one according to his workes not to forgiue any mā his (t) Matth. 16. wicked works That shal not be the General Goale deliuery as you surmise but rather thē shal be the general filling of the Goale with all sinners to be locked vp in misery euerlasting But the Pardon which the sinners in this life got of their sinnes by their harty pennance through the merits of Christ shal be then proclaimed I grant it but that shal be the proclamation of Pardon they haue already gottē not new getting of Pardō Neither may it be termed a Pardō but rather a triūph victory ouer sinne If the bare Proclamatiō of Pardō may be termed Pardō I see not why the Proclamation of Baptisme may not be called Baptisme so that by this your sēsles phrase one might say that the Saints shal be baptized washed frō their sinnes at the day of Iudgmēt because their Baptisme and sanctification shal be there proclaimed 12. Some may obiect that one absolued in the Court of Conscience may afterwards be pardoned in the exteriour Court by vndergoing publicke pennance and humiliation in the face of the Church for a sinne already forgiuē I answere those sinnes were not fully forgiuen the penalty of this disgrace being still reserued But the sinnes of the Iust before the day of doome are fully pardoned noe penalty of disgrace or other payne is reserued they are purged in this life or in the next that they may be vnspotted without wrinckle of the least sinne or guilt at that day appearing They shall not then appeare as humble penitents which were requisite did they expect pardon but as triumphers as sitting in Iudgment vpon sinners and as punishers of the wicked not as needing any further remission of sinne themselues Soe that your exposition crosseth the whole course of Scripture not hauing any congruity with the phrase thereof 13. As for the former exposition to the end you may the better conceaue your precipitation in your censuring it as Nody and the force of our argument may more appeare I will particulerly examine your cauills as the former deduction and the many windinges and turnings your Ministers haue taught you to elude the force of Christs wordes Your first assault is by examples A Kentish Gentlman say you (a) Lett. p. 33. who not purposing to make his heire a great Clark saith This my eldest sonne shall neuer be student in Oxford or Cambridg were he not an excellent Arteist that should thence inferre ergo some of his sonnes shall goe to Cambridg Or if he should say as without ridiculous absurditie he may my sonne shall neither be Scholler in Eaton or fellow in Kings-colledg were he not out of his witts that would here conclude ergo a man may be fellow of Kings-colledg that was neuer Scholler of Eaton that being against the first foundation These are your goodly instances by which you would conclude that the Fathers expounding the wordes of Christ as we doe were out of their witts Where you doe shew your selfe such an excellent Arteist that you bring examples that make against your purpose as shall appeare For your Kentish Gentlemans speach that his eldest sonne shall not be student in Oxford or Cambridg nor scholler in Eaton nor fellow of Kings-colledg though it do not import that either his second or third or fourth Sonne shal be student in Cambridg or fellow of Kings-colledg yet this doth follow except his speach be ridiculously absurd that some youthes may vse to be students in Cambridg some men fellowes of Kings-colledg else it were foolish to make that speciall exception against his first Sonne which is generall vnto all other mens children 14. This will appeare by other examples Should this Gentleman say My eldest sonne shall not be a Vniuersitie scholler neither in Oxford nor in Queene-burrow Castle were not his speach absurd Why I pray you but because Queē-burrow is no Vniuersity Should he say my sonne shall not be scholler in Eaton nor Pope in Christs Colledg who would not laugh at his speach The reason is because the fellowes of that Colledg are not Popes Should he say my sonne shall not learne his Grammar in Eaton nor in Oxford might not one gather vnlesse his speach be senselesse that some vse or may learne their Grammar in Oxford Now to our purpose and place of Scripture These examples shew that except there be some remission of sinnes in the world to come the speach of Christ should be senselesse and absurd against one sinne that it shall be remitted neyther in this world nor in the next except some sinnes may be remitted in the world to come For he should seeme to make not remission in the world to come a speciall circumstance of this one sinne which were a generall circumstance of all and euery one if your doctrine be true by which it is no more that a sinne be remitted neyther in this world nor in the next then meerely not to be forgiuen in this world So that the particle nor in the world to come were idle without sense which may not be thought of the world of Wisdome Wherefore to make the speach of Christ discreet and wise we must needs graunt that some synnes
are pardoned in the world to come 15. Whence we further inferre that those synnes were not fully and perfectly pardoned in this life For the synnes that were wholy pardoned in this life need no remission in the next and if any be remitted in the next such they are as were not at least fully pardoned in this And this is the difference betwixt being a Scholler in Eaton and a fellow in Christs-Colledg and Remission of synne in this world and Pardon thereof in the next because to be a scholler in Eaton doth not repugne with being afterward fellow of Christs-Colledg whereas full Remission of synne in this life doth not agree with Remission in the next For how shall that be truly forgiuen that is wholy forgiuen before So that though one may not inferre he was fellow of Christs-Colledg ergo he was not before Scholler in Eaton yet we may and must inferre this synne is remitted in the next world ergo the same was not formally fully and perfectly forgiuen in this present life Thus your owne examples discouer your ignorance thus you are hampered in your owne snare 16. No lesse vaine is your other logicall assault where you thinke you put vs to a plunge by returning our Paralogisme as you tearme it vpon vs. Thus you dispute (b) Lett. p. 34. The sinne of the Holy Ghost shall neuer be remitted quoad poenam aut quoad culpam in this world nor in the world to come which is say you repugnant to the position of our owne sect recorded by Suarez whose wordes you cite (c) Tom. 4. d. 45. §. â— p. â—57 Thus you returne arguments as children vse to do stones they are not able well to lift which they let fall on there head or foote First it is not against the doctrine of our Church that some sinnes are forgiuen in the world to come quoad Culpam Poenam both according to the guilt of sinne and according to the guilt of paine yea Catholike Deuines commonly teach that veniall sinnes are remitted in the next world according to both guilts namely Suarez in that very place you cited though of mortall sinnes he saith that remissio mortalium the remission of mortall sinne in the next world cannot be vnderstood quoad Culpam according to the sinne but only quoad poenam according to some penaltie due to it Behold how well you vnderstand the Authors you name You had greate reason doubtlesse to saie that you vnderstand the most artificiall conueiance of the best of our workes (d) Counters p. 58. who cannot read without mistaking six lynes of a Scholasticall Author 17. Secondly your Retortion is of no force against that Position did we hold it For out of the former text of Scripture is gathered clerly that some sinnes are remitted in the world to come but what those sinnes be veniall or mortall likewise the maÌ„ner of the pardon whether it be according to the sinne or penaltie only or both cannot hence be proued but out of other passages of Gods word these verities are to be searched To make this cleare by your example Should your Gentleman saie my sonne shall goe to schoole either at Eaton or Oxford one may inferre that in eyther of these places some kind of learning is taught but not that Grammar is taught in Oxford Logik in Eaton or è contra Should a young gentleman saie that he will neyther study in the Innes of Court nor in the Vniuersities one may inferre except the speach be senselesse that in both places studies are professed but he that would inferre that common lawe is studied in Oxford or diuinity professed in London were he not absurd Soe likewise the speach of Christ doth only signifie in generall Remission in the world to come not distinctly explicate the manner thereof nor the qualitie of the sinnes that are there purged 17. Fayne would you find some Paralell in Scripture to this speach of our Sauiour that may seeme no lesse senselesse and idle then is this sensed in your manner For want of better you bring that speach of S. Matthew (e) c. 1. concerning Ioseph that he knew her not vntill she had brought forth her first-borne Sonne If out of this place say you (f) Lett. pag. 39. we should come vpon you ergo he knew her after she had borne him you would thinke that Blessed holy Virgin most irrecoÌ„peÌ„sably disparaged and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seemeth to imply the same Thus you discourse thinking this hereticall and Heluidian inference not vnlike to that of the Fathers we stand vpon Yea say you Non ouum ouo similius one egg is not more like another But if euer I be so happy as to be at your table to which you seeme to inuite me I should be loath you be my caruer you are so apt to mistake and coÌ„found things which doe mainly differ as I might easily haue a Scorpion layd on my trencher insteed of an Egge The speach you bring out of S. Matthew He knew her not vntill she had brought forth her first-borne Sonne doth only expresse a truth that Ioseph did not know the Virgin till that time neither is any thing waÌ„ting or superfluous in this speach but in the other speach this sinne shal be foÌ„rgiuen neither in this world nor in the world to come the last clause therof is superfluous senslesse signifying no more then the former if there be no remission in the world to come as hath bene proued 19. Moreouer the denyall of some action vntill a certaine time doth not imply any necessary consequence therof afterward which may be proued by familiar examples in our commoÌ„ speach As if one say he neuer yielded vnto sinne til death it is coÌ„sequeÌ„t that after death he yielded vnto sinne The same may be shewed in a thousand places of Scripture God the Father saith to Christ Sit on my right hand vntill I make thine enemies a foote-stoole to thy feet (g) Psal 109. when this is done shall Christ loose his seat at his Fathers right hand Noe. So his Mother that was vntouched vntill she brought him forth ceased not to be a Virgin after her Childbirth Now noe exaÌ„ple can be brought out of the Scripture of a speach distinctiue that is that hath two partes or members where one of those particles is idle the second part implying noe more then the first Neither doth coÌ„mon sense or discretion practice or allowe such senseles pratling which may yet be further confirmed by diuers examples but one other shall suffice by which any iudicious Reader will easily perceiue a maine difference betwixt the Heluidian inference and Catholike deductioÌ„ from Scripture What thinke you Syr Edward of this speach The Virgin neuer committed mortall sinne from the first moment of her life vntill the very last thereof doth this speach sound vncouthly in a Christian eare Shall one infer Ergo after life she committed mortall sinne were not such an
inference ridiculous and absurd you see then that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vntill doth not imply consequence of the action afterward Now should one say of the blessed Mother she neuer committed sinne either in this life or after her death would not this speach seem to a Iudicious hearer absurd Might not one thinke the last clause therof senseles except sinne may be committed in the next world I appeale to the Iudgment of any Christian eare whether there be not a maine difference betwixt those two kind of speaches which you would haue like Soe that still on your head doth light the scornefull Epithete wherewith you reiect the Fathers iudicious inference out of our Sauiours sentence 20. Yet you haue one shift more which is a rule of logick whereof you write in this sort (h) Lett. p. 33. 34. I am sure it was a rule when I first haunted Paruies Quod de vno negatur non semper de diuersis affirmatur è contra My reason say you is Potest idem praedicatum de diuersis subiectis praedicari as thus Eos qui foris sunt Deus iudicabit and this is true eos qui foris sunt iudicabit Deus when subiectum doth differ the praedicatum being all one Neyther may we argue thus They are to be iudged of God Ergo not by the Magistrate and yet you stick not to say This sinne is not remitted in this world nor in the next world ergo some sinnes shal be forgiuen in the next Thus you talke like a great Doctor when you haue an ignorant Reader though any man that hath the least skil in Logick doth se you haue turned vp a notorious Nody For is he not a Nody-Logician and a young gamster in that art that cannot distinguish betwixt Praedicatum and Subiectum but taketh the one for the other I am sure one that had studied logick but three dayes would not haue committed such a grosse errour as you doe who bragg (i) Lett. p. 6 of being a Maister of Art and Seniour of the Act Absit say you inuidia verbo Truly some foole may perchāce enuy the word or Title of Seniour or Maister of Arts but the logick to which that title was giuen I cannot thinke an obiect of enuie you so childishly erre in the first principles thereof 12. For the Praedicatum in your two propositiōs is not the same the subiect being different as you say but the contrarie to wit two different Praedicates are spoken of the same Subiect Praedicatum is the thing which is spoken Subiectum that whereof that thing is spoken Who doth not se that in these propositions the thing spoken is Iudge of those without Iudge of those within which are diuers titles praedicates or properties the thing of which that is spoken is God one and the selfe same Subiect on whome both these titles light And seing Subiectum in a speach is that which goeth before the verbe Praedicatum that which followeth the Boyes of Eaton may serue to laugh you out of your witlesse bragging that you can breake tall mens heades with your Logick I shall not need for this exployte to muster an Army of English both horse and foote as you do (k) p. 37. Angligenae attollant equites peditesque cachinnum to laugh against me pardoning them afore hand though they laugh without Modesty because I did warne you by the way not to read Lipsius of the miracles of our Blessed Lady other Catholike bookes as you did insinuate your custome was taking Tabacco and rosting crabbes by the fire side which admonition whether it were ridiculous or no and not rather necessary I remit it to the Iudgement of them that best knew your humours This I say had you obserued perchance you would not haue impugned our Catholike exposition in the manner you haue done to your shame your pride falling into more then childish Ignorance when you are prankest in the dirision of the holy Fathers Perchance in Oxford you spent not so much tyme in haunting Paruies as in hunting in Parkes or houering at Larkes which Idlenesse were not so intolerable a fault in one borne to such land as you were did not your Arrogancie exceed your ignorance imploying your small learning against their religion whose liuing you enioy except your family be as very an vpstart as your Faith 22. Your logicall rule though the examples wherwith you declare it to be childish we deny not to be true that what is denied of one thing is not therfore said of another So by rigour of Logick it doth not follow that Remission of sinne in the next world is granted of some sinnes when it is denied vnto one kind of sinnes yet doth the same follow by the Rules of Prudency because otherwise such a speach though not false yet should be idle and sensles against rules of wisdome And seing it is most certaine that no sensles or idle word could proceed from the mouth of our Sauiour we conclude necessarily that the second clause of the former speach hath some sense which cannot be as hath bene shewed without remission of sinnes in the next world Many speaches are not against Logicke though a graue Authour will not vse them Your example to illustrate the matter that (f) Let. p. 38. a Maister shall not read you a Lecture nor quick nor dead though it be not against the Logick you got in Paruies yet would it not beseeme the mouth of wisdome to me it seemes a spice of blasphemy for you to bring your phrases which you (g) Counters p. 39. confesse are neither in mood nor figure to declare the speach of Christ whose words are in number weight and measure 23. Strang conclusions might we deduce from your speach did we not thinke that their authour might be subiect to folly iesting at the Miracles of the Virgin of Iohn Swickius who had his Nose strooke of with a bullet for playing with the Virgins nose you say (h) Let. p. 101. that he lost the best nose of his face Had a graue writer vsed that speach I might haue suspected that Swickius had more noses then one but knowing you to be the authour thereof I can thinke you might be as ignorant in the number of his noses as you are of the biggnesse of your owne who tell vs as a great wonder that when you take Tobacco (i) Counters p. 39. your nose doth not smoke so much as your chimey Should one haue sayd of Swickius after that stroke that he had on his face neither nose of flesh nor waxe I see not what sinne he should haue committed against Logicke yet I thinke except some men vse to haue noses of waxe he should haue missed the marke of graue and discret speach This the wisdome of God could not misse wherefore that must needs be the meaning of his words which taken away leaueth them in an empty sound voyd of graue and full sense 24. Rather then