part of the question that it may gaine-say the former Example If the Protestants haue any faith the world was without faith Art 1. par 1. 1500. yeares But the world was not without faith 1500. yeares Therefore the Protestants haue no faith This Papist affirmes that the Protestants haue no faith to proue it he brings this argument that the world was not without faith 1500. yeares The Syllogisme is of the later kind because the latter part of the proposition is gainesaid in the assumption and the former in the conclusion A Disiunctiue Syllogisme is when the Proposition is Disiunctiue whereof also there are two kinds The former gainsayes one and concludes the rest Example All Protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition Art 2. par 1. of the scripture or vpon the Churches exposition But they build not vpon the Churches exposition Therefore they build vpon their owne priuate exposition The point is that the Protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of scripture the proofe is that they build it not vpon the Churches exposition The Syllogisme is of the former kinde because in the proposition the one part is seuered from the other the one whereof is gainesaid in the assumption and the other affirmed in the conclusion The Latter when all parts of the Proposition being affirmatiue one is assumed and the rest gainesaid It is hard to finde examples of this latter kinde but I will frame one thus Example The Pope builds his faith either vpon his owne singular exposition or vpon the Churches But he doth build vpon his owne exposition Therefore not vpon the Churches To proue that the Pope builds not his faith vpon the Churches exposition I alledge this argument he builds vpon his owne My Syllogisme is of the second kinde because the proposition being wholy affirmatiue assumes the one and gainesayes the other It was very necessary that I should deliuer the Rules of a Syllogisme because without them my course of answering cannot be throughly vnderstood If they seeme hard to any man a little paines and vse will make them easye and pleasant His request of breuity I haue satisfied as neere as I could It is easier to tye a knot then to vntye it and one man hath greater dexterity in vttering shortly that which he hath conceiued then another For my part I had rather any man had answered that can do it with shortnesse then my selfe rather my selfe then no body but I hope this Papist will stand to his owne ground in his Preface and since he holds it hard or impossible to reply without prolixitie where there is no truth nor verity he will acknowledge truth where he cannot but acknowledge shortnesse His threatnings and reproches I doe willingly and wittingly passe ouer as the heate of an angry disputer and withall I protest to him and all men that I haue answered according to my small skill briefly orderly and seriously not least I should seeme ignorant by silence in saying nothing as he presumes in the end of his letter but as I thinke and beleeue in my conscience For what am I the meanest of many and most vnknowne not to the Papists only but to our owne Church also that I should feare the suspition of ignorance by silence when so many famous diuines sit still and say nothing If he that hath answered the first part had thought it worth his paines and found leasure to refute the second I cannot say I should haue wholie saued my labour for it is not vnknowne to some that I had finished all the 12. before his answere to the fiue first came forth but sure I should haue beene eased of some paines which I haue taken since especially in writing the abridgement and auoyded all danger of further trouble But the Lord who hath giuen me strength and will to dispatch this will I doubt not assist me in the defence of his trueth for euer To whose gracious blessing I commend the successe of this and all other my indeuours in Iesus Christ our Lord and onely Sauiour Amen THE FIRST ARTICLE concerning Knowledge and Faith THe Protestants haue no faith nor religion Answere For the better vnderstanding of this Article we are to know that the question is not Whether the Protestants haue any faith or Religion in their hearts but whether they make profession of any by their doctrine Papist The Protestants haue no faith no hope no charitie no A. Conclusion repentance no iustification no Church no Altar no Sacrifice no Priest no religion no Christ The reason is for if they haue then the world was without B. Proposition them for 1000. yeares as they themselues must needes confesse videl All that time their Church was eclipsed or for 1500. as we will proue by the testimony of all records of antiquity as Histories Councels monuments of ancient fathers Whereby it plainly appeareth that the Synagogue of C. Proofe of the Assumption Propositiō the Iewes was more constant in continuance and more ample for place then the Church of Christ for they haue had their synagogue visible in diuers countries euer since Christs death and passion euen vntill this day Which is the very path to lead men into Athiesme as D. Proofe of the Assumption a Isai 60. 11. b Mat. 16. 18. c Mat. 28. 20. though Christ were as yet not come into the world whose admirable promises are not accomplished whose assistance hath failed in preseruing his Church vnto the worldes end whose presence was absent many hundred yeares before the consummation and consequently they open the gap to all Machiuillians who say that our Sauiour was one of the deceiuers of the world promising so much concerning his Church and performing so little Protestant How can it be truely said that the Protestants haue no A. faith no hope no charitie no repentance no iustification no church no altar no sacrifice no Priest no religion no Christ when as they acknowledge Iesus Christ the naturall sonne of God and of the blessed Virgin Mary to be the Redeemer of mankind their Altar Sacrifice and Priest when as they beleeue in him for saluation both of soule and body If he meane we beleeue not these points truely and so haue them not in trueth true charitie should haue perswaded him to speake plainely and not to make no difference betweene Protestants Mahometans and Infidels It is at the best rather hyperbolicall Rhetorick then Logicall diuinitie whereof there is promise and shew made in this treatise To this figure belongs the heaping vp of all those particulars no faith no hope c. whereas the two points set downe in the title being proued all the rest must needs follow yet this shift is not the worst For besides this he mingles trueth and falshood together Altar Sacrifice propitiatorie and Priest except Christ himselfe we professe we haue none but what doth Chaffe with Wheate saue onely that
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
euen of as many as are indeed true Christians according to the practise of our doctrine But to come neerer to the point we are to vnderstand that the Protestants Doctrine of free wil is that no man hath power by nature either without the grace of Gods spirit to do any thing acceptable vnto God or to procure this grace to himselfe or to receaue it when it is offered For our present purpose it shal be ynough to speake a word or two of the last point not by way of proofe but declaration Whereas then we deny a man poâ—er to receaue the grace of God being offred we do not meane that this grace workes vpon him as on a stone or block but as on a reasonable creature No man beleeues but willingly onely the question is how it comes to pasle that when two men haue grace offred them the one beleeues the other doth nâ—t The Papist in this case fetcheth the difference frâ— the good vse of his free will that beleeues we ascribe it to the diuers working of Gods spirit in his heart not denying that he vseth his free will to speake as they doe better then the other but acknowledging that therefore he so vseth it because the spirit of God teacheth and inclines and ineuitably brings him so to vse it that the difference may be from God and not from man To what end saith he tends this doctrine If it be possible that any man should be so blinde as not to see I will venture the losse of so much time and labour as may serue to shew him You aske vs why we say that men are saued by Gods grace not by their owne freewill Forsooth because we would haue God reape the glory of their saluation the pride of mans nature beaten down theÌ„ more beholding to God then to themselues None of which can be if a man by his owne free will make difference betwixt himselfe and another to the receauing of faith For he may truly say to God that he is no more beholding to him then many a one that is euerlastingly damned nay then euery one might haue bene if he would For what did God for him that he was not as ready to doe for another how many haue had as much grace offred them as he and yet are not iustified No more had he bene if he had not by his owne free-will helpt himselfe in speciall maner wheras God failed him leauing all to his choise to be saued or not to be saued Is this to teach carnall libertie you will say yea because it maketh a man negligent in disposing and preparing his soule How so for the difference is made by God What then to what purpose is it forme to prepare my selfe I maruell you aske not to what purpose it is for you to beleeue Are you yet to learne that although the cause of all goodnesse be grace yet God requires our endeuours as meanes to the receauing of this grace Did you neuer heare that we holde it for a monstrous absurditie to promise our selues any thing from God without vsing the meanes to obtaine it The same also I answere to the doing of good workes after sanctification the successe and euent proceeds onely and certainly from the spirit of God who Phil. 2. 13. workes in vs both to will and to doe Yet are we bound to vse all good meanes for the stirring our selues vp to holynesse and freely and willingly doe we whatsoeuer good worke we do by the grace of Gods spirit Therefore this similitude of the sicke Asse sheweth the Authors dangerous sicknesse eyther of ignorance if he know not the truth we holde or of malice if against this knowledge he wilfully peruert it They defend say you that men are iustified by faith alone That is we defend that God requireth nothing of man to his iustification but only that by faith he rest vpon Iesus Christ to be iustified by his suffrings The generall ground of this opinion is the end of all things created viz. the glory of God that man may haue nothing to boast of but simply ascribe the praise of his iustification to God that iustified him Neither doth this doctrine scorne God in reiecting it as much as you list eyther flatly ouerthrow or in any part diminish true repentance sorrowe for sinnes mortification of passions and all other vertues which will plainely appeare both before and after iustification for what though we be iustified onely by faith who knowes not that it is vnpossible for any man ordinarily to cast of this naturall and Popish confidence which he hath in his owne righteousnesse and to feele necessitie of being iustified by Christ If first he discerne not his damnable estate and being moued with horror thereof she from himselfe to Christ for iustification by pardon of sinne Now after a man is iustified can the knowledge of the meanes by which he is iustified kill these vertues in him Let the meanes and cause of his iustification be what you will If he may beleeue he is iustified and the Papists graunt some men haue knowne and more may know it at least by reuelation by your reason this effect must ensue So that it ariseth not from the doctrine of the meanes but from that of knowledge or assurance But how should these vertues be abolisht by iustification by faith only when as euerie man that is iustified is also sanctified Whosoeuer hath his sinnes forgiuen him hath withall the power of sinne abated in him How shall we that are dead Rom. 6. 2. to sinne liue any longer therein No man hath any incouragement by free iustification through faith to continue in sinne For if he be not sanctified he is not iustified If he be sanctified he is dead to sinne and aliue to righteousnesse True it is that prophane wretches will obiect against the Gospell now as they did in the Apostles time But this was not then nor is now any sufficient reason why the truth of God should be denyed or supprest for wicked mens abusing it to their owne damnation Yet perhaps you will reply that it is a more likly meanes to stir meÌ„ vp to repentance mortification and the practise of all vertues to teach them that they must deserue the first iustification of congruitie by their good preparation and fully make vp the measure of their second iustification by deseruing of condignitie for their good workes euerlasting life First let vs suppose it be likely in our corrupt iudgment yet may we not gratifie God with a lye nor doe euill that good may come of it And why should not we follow the practise of the Apostles whose course is in all their Epistles still to vrge grace in iustification and good workes for thankfulnesse not for merit yet we deny not but it is both warranted by the Scriptures and most conuenient to adde an edge to the workes of sanctification by threatning condemnation to sinners and promising reward to the
righteous But we deny that eyther of these enforcements of such exhortation in any part weakens the doctrine of free iustification by onely resting vpon Iesus Christ Which he may easily conceaue that hath a sincere purpose to glorifie God by the saluation of his chosen For he knowes that as much as is giuen to man for iustifying himselfe is taken from God God and man after this reckoning may part stakes God may haue glory for affording meanes of saluation and abilitie to vse those meanes man may be proud of the well vsing of that abilitie and iustifying of himselfe by the meanes afforded Yet if all men that are inabled did so helpe themselues there were lesse cause of boasting more reason to giue God the glory of iustification For it might well seeme to proceed from the grace that God imparts to them that they are iustified But when some vse it well some ill and this difference of well or ill vsing it flowes from the free-will of men by their owne power what a small part of glory is left to God in the seuerall iustification of those that are saued Hence it follows that the doctrine of iustification by workes preparatorie before a man is at all iustified by workes meritorious after he is begun to be iustified is dishonorable to God the death of all goodnesse in those very workes that are done Because the intent which our Papists magnifie so much is directly derogatorie froÌ„ the glory of God without the true and sincere purpose whereof no workes of any man baptised are one iott better then the morall actions of heathen men But the sonnes of the bond-woman being of a seruile nature respecting themselues either only or principally being ignorant and without feeling of the affection of childreÌ„ can neuer be perswaded that any sonne of God will performe duties of kindnesse and thankfulnesse to his father but must needs doe that he doth like a hireling for loue of wages And by such meanes our Papists would procure and deserue the perfect reconciliation of their soules with God as if we were not perfectly reconciled in Christ in whom God reconciled the world to himselfe not imputing their sinnes What is it to be reconciled to God but to haue Gods displeasure remoued his fauor fatherly loue vouchsafed to vs This hath Christ procured by his death and bloud-shedding the increase of our sanctification in vs by the dayly dying vnto sinne and rising againe vnto newnesse of life restores more perfectly the image of God decayed in vs by naturall corruption and manifold actuall transgressions but reconciles vs neuer awhit the more to God When the Prodigall sonne Luc. 15. 20 came home to his father starued and euill coloured in his body ragged and torne in his apparrell who can doubt for all this but he was fully reconciled to his father when he fell on his neck kissed embraced and entertained him but as his flesh euery day came better and better as his colour mended and waxed more fresh when he was arrayed according to his estate he did more liuely represent the sonne of such a father The same is our case in Christ by his suffrings are we wholy reconciled vnto God For we are made his Children but we begin dayly more and more to resemble him as we Ioa. 1. 12. Gal. 4. 4. 5. growe in holinesse of nature and conuersation Therefore let the Papists imagine that they reconcile themselues to God by mortification of passions and I know not what supposed vertues It is sufficient for vs that Christ hath by his bloud made our peace and put vs in possession of his fathers loue and fauour If this be a false fantasticall apprehension of Christs death and passion to relie wholy vpon him for reconcilation with God by his bloud and propitiation then his dying the Apostles preaching and our beleeuing is all in vaine How then doth this Doctrine tend to loosenesse especially if it be remembred that we shut al men out from iustificatioÌ„ that are not sanctified by the spirit of Christ They tell vs saith hee that faith anâ— good workes can not be seuered Would you knowe what faith he meanes only a perswasion of the truth of the Scripture euen such an one as the Diuil is said to haue and that with a Popish preparatorie good worke namely Feare The diuills beleeue and tremble Iac. 2. 19. But if they would speake any thing to the purpose they should proue these 3. things 1. that to beleeue in Iesus Christ iâ— nothing els but to be perswaded that these points that the Scriptures teach of Christ are true Which will neuer be done as long as that famous distinction is retemed Credere Deum deo in deum To beleeue there is a God to beleeue that all that God sayes is true to beleeue or trust in God or to rest vpon him and as our Nor theme men speake very plainely and significantly to beleeue on God Secondly that a man thus relying vpon Christ to be saued by him for al this beleuing is not iustified contrary to the whole course of the Gospell Thirdly they must shew vs that a man may be iustified and yet not sanctified then which nothing is more repugnant to popery For the popish Doctors teach vs that to be iustified is To haue sinne abolisht and grace infused into vs whereby and for which wee are as they say truely and habitually iust in the sight of God If they answere that these maâ—ters haue bin already proued by their Diuins we reply that ours haue shewed the insufficiency of their proofes and that if either this accuser or any other Papist will vrge those scriptures that haue bin aledged to this end any further or bring any that yet haue not bin brought he shall receaue by the grace of God true and sufficient satisfaction if truth will satisfie him In the meane while it shall suffice to put this Author in minde that his experience failes him beeing made not of those that beleeue in Christ but of them that beleeue Christ or at the most geue credit to those things which are spoken of him in the Gospell Whereunto I ad that neither faith which hath force to remoue mountaines is so noble as that which makes a man heire of heauen nor because that faith can be without Charitie Therefore either he that beleeues in Christ can bee without iustification or he that is iustifyed without sanctification They assure vs saith he that faith once had can neuer be lost What then This vaine securitie saith he opens the gap to all libertine sensuality If he speake of the euent all experience refuts him because no men liue more soberly and Christianly then they that haue the greatest measure of this perswasion And indeed it cannot bee otherwise For this is no where but where the spirit of God is and where he is there only is true sanctification If he blame the doctrine in respect of
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
aske be graunted it helpes you nothing for what if euerlasting life be giuen for workes how often must you be told that working and deseruing are not all one We deny not that God will reward euery least good worke of any of his children but we cannot graunt that eyther the reward he will giue is euerlasting life or that any workes of his children deserue that reward which he will giue I doubt not which is the second thing I note in his similitude but you Papists your selues would thinke it extreame presumption for any subiect to claime as of merit that 1000. pound a yeare which was promised by the Prince for good seruice in Ireland especially if it may be truely obiected against such claime that though some fewe actions haue bene valiantly performed in part yet both in the best there hath beene defect and for one thing well done twentie haue beene left vndone How then shall any man proudly vaunt of merit that knowes what Gods law requires and what his owne deserts are It is the infinite goodnesse of God our father in Iesus Christ that he doth accept of our vnperfect obedience crowne it with glory for all the imperfections thereof But euerlasting life saith he is called wages and giuen as wages As if we denied that good workes shall receaue reward and need euery foote put you in minde of the difference of workes and merites But indeed euerlasting life or the kingdome of heauen is neuer I thinke called wages in Scripture There is a reward promised by God viz. an increase of glory which shal be imparted to the faithfull proportionably to the measure of grace and vse thereof in this life according to workes But the kingdome of heauen is an inheritance belonging to all the faithfull as members of Iesus Christ their head whose first and properly it is This I proued a little before and therefore will now onely set it out more plainely by a similitude or likenesse The sonne and heire of a King hath interest in the kingdome by right of inheritance the Kings moâ—eables may eyther in his life time by guift or by legacie after his decease be disposed of to whom he please The King to incite his sonne to valure and loue of vertue promiseth him that he will giue him some speciall reward for euery valiant exploit or attempt with true martiall discretion and resolution This reward is to be raised out of his moueables giuen indeed for workes but not to be claimed vpon desert in regard of some iust exception which the King his father may take against all such his enterprises and atchiuements Such is our estate in matters of euerlasting life by resting vpon Iesus Christ to be saued by him we become members of his mysticall body sonnes of God his father and ours by him heires of euerlasting life which is his inheritance and ours as members of him God our Father hath made promise to vs being now sonnes and heires and hauing thereby interest in his kingdome of reward of all things that we shall valourously atchieue or resolutely vndertake for the glorifying of his name according to his will This promise conueyes not to vs any title to the kingdome for that is ours already euen in possession by Christ but incourageth 1. Cor. 15. 58. vs to Christian obedience to be stedfast vnmoueable aboundant alwayes in the worke of the Lord for as much as we know that our labour is not in vaine in the Lord. And yet this is not our onely or greatest motiue to good workes For that ariseth from our Child-like affection to so kind and bountifull a father Which if the Papists haue not let them not therfore deny that there is any such thing like the mole that will not beleeue that any beast can see because she her selfe is blind What if they like hirelings will doe nothing but for wages The sonnes of God in this life take as great pleasure in their present obedience as in their future reward which notwithstanding they most assuredly looke for according to his promise that can not faile euer God our Father To whome with the sonne and Holy Ghost bee all obedience thanks and glory from this time for euer and euer Amen A Conclusion vnto his most speciall friend Maister F. T. THus my deare friend I haue sett downe those reasons which induced me to receaue the Catholick faith and for which I continue therein Consider I pray you whether they be not so substantiall and waightie as any wise man might accept and allow of or at least might cause a reasonable doubt of religion arise in his minde concerning the Protestants faith for if these bee true as questionlesse they are most true what man of iudgment will hazard his soule vpon a religion pestered with so many notorious absurdities and palpable errors Eternall damnation is a matter of no small moment when the soule is once plunged into those flames it is past recouery farre he â—eapes and ill he lights that iumpeth into hell and questionles without true faith you shall neuer come to Heauen Vrge your Ministers therefore to satisfie your conscience in answering these articles Will them to reply with maturitie and cause them answere distinctly and as they thinke in their consciences For I feare they will rather do it for a forme to seeme to say some thing then they wil be iudged ignorant by silence in saying nothing And with this I rest at your deuotion expecting what your newe Euangelists can answere to these iust accusations of their erroneous religion From my chamber in Antwerpe this first of March your louing freind H. T. FINIS As much of this post-script as hath any need of answere is touched in my Preface I will therefore loose no more time in examining such discourses The abridgement of the former answer ART 1. Papist THe Protestants haue no faith nor Religion Protestant The question is whether the Protestants by their doctrine professe any faith or religion Papist If the Protestants haue any faith charity repentance Iustification church altar sacrifice priest religion Christ then the world was without them for fifteene hundred yeeres But the world was not without them for 1500. yeares Therefore the protestants haue no faith no hope no charity no repentance no iustification no church no altar no sacrifice no priest no religion no Christ. Protestant I deny the consequence of your proposition neither doe we confesse any such eclipse of our Church for a thousand yeares yet the same being eclipsed ceases not thereby to be in the world but rather is proued to be neither can you proue any such thing as you brag of Trie when you will ART 2. Papist The learned Protestants are Infidels Whosoeuer buildeth his faith vpon his owne priuate singular exposition of Scripture is an Infidell But all Protestants in England do build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of Scripture Ergo all the Protestants of England are
The most points wherein the protestants dissent from Catholickes tend to loosnesse of life and carnall liberty If the 〈◊〉 points following tend to loosnesse of life carnall 〈◊〉 then the most points wherein the Protestants dissent from Catholicks do so But the seauen points following tend to loosenesse of life and carnall liberty Therfore the most points wherein the Protestants dissent from Catholicks tend to loosnesse of life and carnall liberty Protestant First I answere to the whole syllogisme that if the Protestants teach nothing in these points of dissent which is not warranted by the Scriptures then it skils not what in the corrupt iudgement of man may be argued to ensue Rom. 6. 1. 9. 19. therevpon Secondly I say the consequence of the proposition is false For these seauen points are not the seauenth part of those wherein we dissent from the papists Thirdly I deny that any of these points tends to loosenesse of life Papist If man haue not free-will to do good he may be negligent in preparing his soule to serue God But man hath not free-will as the protestants teach Therefore he may be negligent in preparing his soule to serue God Protestant I deny the consequence of the proposition For God that commaunds a man to be carefull in preparing his soule to serue him must be obeyed simply though we see not the particular reason of the commaundement But indeed wee deny not but men freely both prepare their soules and receaue Gods grace but we say that it is God which makes difference betwixt the beleeuers and vnbeleeuers yet not without their owne labour and willingnesse to which they are stirred vp in respect of the euent necessarily Papist The doctrine of Iustification by faith onely tends to loosenesse of life You would neuer say so if you knew that we beleeue and teach that no man is iustified but he that is also sanctified and no man is sanctified but he that walkes in obedience to God We hold a necessity of workes but not to iustification and we looke for a reward of workes but not vpon desert Wherein we dissent from the Papists without preaching carnall liberty Wherefore though faith once had can neuer be lost yet where there is no holinesse of life there neuer was faith and where there is not a conscience of refraining all sinne there is no holinesâ—e aâ— all Therefore he that is giuen to carnall liberty hath no faith to loose Neither doth our want of liberty to keepe the commaundements euer a whit discourage or withdraw vs from indeuouring to doe well since that God both accepts of our willingnesse and we acknowledge our selues bound to perfect obedience which we must striue to so much the more by how much the lesse we can attaine to it The sacrament of penance we refuse because it is a patch of Antichrist because it brings a sâ—auery and sâ—are vpon mens consciences because it makes men cease to trust in Christs satisfactions and trust to their owne because it breedes securitie in them that receaue Popish absolution Wee deny the carnall presence in the Sacrament because there is neither Scripture nor reason to prooue it because it is an occasion of most senslesse Idolatrie and surely it is so farre from restraining men from sinne that rather it encourages them to despise such a God as is crusht vp into a bagage Cake and whom if they should be afraid of him they might cast into the fire and burne as one of your Popes did Lastly wee neither haue coyned any Religion nor 7. haue a negatiue religion but we hold the truth of God reuealed in the scriptures and reiect your popish errors contrary thereto The Iewes by the same reason condemned our Sauiour Christ and the Gentils accused his Apostles for bringing in a new Religion whereby they denyed and abollished the heresies of the one and the Idolatry of the other Article 5. Papist The Protestants make God the author of synne the onely cause of synne that man synneth not that God is worse then the Diuil Whosoeuer defendeth that God commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth impelleth to sinne maketh God the author of synne But all protestants say that God commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth and impelleth to synne Ergo the Protestants make God the author of synne Protestant The proposition in the 3. latter points is altogeather true in the former thus it is to be conceiued of that if God commaund that which by some law of his owne is sinne as that Abraham should kill his sonne he is not the Authour of sinne but onely so farre as he commaunds that which of it selfe without that speciall dispensation of his were sinne but by that it ceaseth to be sinne The assumption is false no Protestant defends any such thinge howsoeuer we all acknowlege that it was Gods will that Iudas should betray Christ c. But we deny that either Iudas had any commaundement or warrant from God or that God put that wicked thought into his heart or that he inclined him to the liking of it Neither do wee deride any permissiue will in God but that which makes him an Idle beholder of things without any determination of their being or not being but onely such as dâ—pendâ—s wholly or principally vpon the creature We beleeue and professe that God workes otherwise by the wicked then by the godly in these by putting in good thoughtes and bringing theÌ„ to effect by their wil labour In the wicked he doth not worke but onely by them bringing his owne purpose to passe without commaunding perswading vrging or impelling to sinne this latter you may if you will call permission without feare of being derided by any Protestant yea with the good liking of all Protestants so you acknowledge a necessity of euent Article 6. Papist That faith once had may be lost Whosoeuer looseth his charity looseth his faith But Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his charity Ergo Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his faith Protestant As before so here also he leaues out the principall syllogisme which I thus supply If Dauid lâ—st his faith then faith once had may be lost But Dauid lost his faith Therefore faith once had may be lost The assumption is false which he labours to confirme notwithstanding by the reason afore rehearsed To the which I answere first by distinguishing on the proposition whosoeuer leeseth his charity altogeather that there remains no grace of sanctificatioÌ„ hath no faith but it is not true that whosoeuer commits some greeuous sinne against the law of Charity thereby leeseth his faith I deny your assumption Dauid lost not his charity because he was still sanctified though he fell grieâ—ously Papist Whosoeuer remaineth in death is without charity But Dauid when he killed Vrias remained in death Therefore Dauid when he killed Vrias was without charity Protestant I distinguish againe vpon your proposition hee that remaines in death is so farre without charity as he remaines in death But a man may in respect of some sinfull actions be in death and for all that be truely sanctified though not throughly as the hand may be dead to any motion towards the head and yet aliue to all motions downward The proofe is both false and absurd For if there be any life in the Heb. 10. 38. soule abiding in it as a quality that must be faith Some Papists call chairty the life of faith but none that euer I read or heard of the life of the soule The assumption not only may be but must be denyed because it is vntrue 1. Ioh. 3. 14. is to be expounded by the 17. where it is said He that shâ—â—s vp his bowels of compassion from his brethren that hath need hath not the loâ—e of God in him And yet no Papist wil say that a man is void of the loue oâ— God vpoÌ„ the refusal at somtimes to giue almes to him that stands in need He that is quite without loue that is he that hath not in him the loue of his neighbour is without sanctification and Iustification but this a man may haue and Dauid had in some good measure though he faile as he did in that one particular of loue towards Vriaâ— When you bring any proofe out of that place of Ezechiell 18. 24. you shall haue an answer to it In the meane while I say no more but this that conditionalis nihil pâ—â—it in esse a thing is not proued to be because if it be such or such an euent shall follow therupon Article 7. Papist The Protestants shall neuer haue life euerlasting Because they will haue no merits for which euerlasting life is giuen Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages is giuen for workes But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages Therefore the kingdomâ— of heauen is giuen for workes Protestant Any man may easily perceiue that the question is not concluded in this syllogisme But I will not in this short answer trouble my selfe with any more then answering to the point Papist Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages is giuen for workes But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages Ergo the kingdome of heauen is giuen for workes Protestant If we graunt him the whole syllogisme he gets nothing by it vnlesse he can proue that workes and merits are all one which is vtterly false I deny your assumption which none of these places you bring doth proue the first is a parable signifying that the Gentiles shall haue place in heauen aswell as the Iewes though they came later to the knowledge of the truth The other two mention reward but not wages and these two are your common â—rrors in most of your arguments concerning the question oâ— workes that you without all authority of Scripture or reason confound workes with merits and reward with wages Which you professing a schollerlike disputation should not haue done without some speciall proofe of their being all one especially since you can hardly be ignorant that we alwaies distinguish the one from the other not without reason as we surely perswade our selues FINIS
owne credit how he hath acquitted himselfe herein let all that will first read and then iudge The Protestants allow no Gospell but one only which is no newer then the promise of God in the old Testament Gen. 3. 15. 12. 3. Gal. 3. 8. Act. 11. 26. Neither do they challenge to themselues the name of Protestants but of Christians The fittest title for Heretiks is Antichristians which notwithstanding they forbeare on the Papists behalfe because they would not offend those that are weake amongst them Papists indeed they call them because of their dependance on the Pope The name of Catholickes being vniustly challenged they iustly deny both because in the Creed the church of Christ hath that title of which the popish church is not so much as a â—ound member And also because the Donatists heresie restraining the church to their congregation in Affrica gaue occasion to the church of Christ to tearme themselues by the name of Catholike or vniuersall in opposition to the Heretikes conceite As for the name of Protestants it was giuen vpon occasion Sleydan lib. 6. of Protestation made by the Duke of Saxony and other Princes and Cities of Germany against a certaine decree at Spires published by the Emperour Charles the 5. and is not a title affected by them or any way arising from their doctrine yet do they not disclaime it as Antichristian or vnlawfull because it is not so in it selfe nor likely to breede any errour or offence in the church of God The maner of his penning is vnaccustomed but yet such as that reuerend and learned Diuine Doctor Fulke a good while since required of all Papists and such in deed as is most fitt for handling all controuersies But it should seeme this writer is not much acquainted with this course his Syllogismes are so loosely tyed and his conclusions so farre from the question but for the better vnderstanding of this course giue me leaue as briefely as I can to teach the reader the vse and nature of a Syllogisme All axiomes or sentences deliuered for true are either acknowledged to bee so denied or else doubted of If there be doubt made of the trueth it is called a question therefore some reason must be brought for the cleering and proning of it wherevpon triall is to be made whether this proofe be sufficient or no which is by a syllogisme Now a syllogisme is a ioyning together of diuers Axiomes wherein the question is so disposed with the Argument that it is necessarily concluded vpon the Antecedent so that if both the former Axiomes be true the conclusion is true also If either of them bâ— false the question resteth as yet vnproued The parts of a syllogisme are two the Antecedent and the Consequent the Antecedent is the former part that disposeth the question and the Argument together and it hath two parts the Proposition or Maior wherein the whole question or at least the latter part of it is disposed with the Argument the Assumption or Mâ—â—or which is assumed or taken out of the Proposition The consequent or conclusion is the latter part which comprehends the parts of the question and concludeth it A syllogisme is simple or compound Simple where the latter part of the question is disposed in the proposition the former part in the Assumption A simple syllogisme is either contract or explicate A contract syllogisme so called because it is seldome or neuer found with the parts distinctlie set downe is when the Argument by way of example is so ioyned to a particular question that it is the former part of the Antecedent the Assumption being affirmatiue As some confidence is a vertue as Constancie some confidence is not a vertue as Audaciousnesse the question is whether some confidence be a vertue or no. First it is proued that some confidence is a vertue The whole syllogisme stands thus Constancie is a vertue Constancie is confidence therefore Some confidence is a vertue Secondly it is proued that some confidence is not a vertue Audaciousnesse is not a vertue Audaciousnesse is confidence therefore Some confidence is not a vertue In these syllogismes the questions are particular some confidence and the Argument by way of example in the former is Constancie in the latter Audaciousnesse Constancie in the one and Audaciousnes in the other are made the former parts of the Antecedent the Assumption in each is affirmatiue In an explicate syllogisme the proposition is generall or proper and the conclusion like the Assumption or weaker That part which is negatiue part There are two kinds of it the former where the argument is alwaies the latter part of each Axiome one of them being negatiue Example The doctrine of Iustification by workes doth not take away boasting But the true doctrine of Iustification doth take away boasting therefore The doctrine of iustification by workes is not the true doctrine Rom. 3. 27. 28. of iustification Here the matter to be proued is that the doctrine of Iustification by workes is not the true doctrine of Iustification The Argument to proue it is It takes not away boasting The Argument is in the latter part of the proposition and Assumption and the Proposition is negatiue Therefore the syllogisme is truely form'd according to this former kinde The Latter when the Argument is the former part of the Proposition and the latter part of the Assumption being affirmatiue Example Whosoeuer buildes his faith vpon his priuat and singular exposition Art 2. part 1. of scripture is an Infidell But all Protestants in England build their faith vpon their owne priuate and singular exposition of scripture Therfore all Protestants in England are Infidels The point is that all the Protestants in England are Infidels The argument to proue it They build their faith vpon their owne priuat and singular exposition of scripture The syllogisme is of the second kind because the Argument is set in the former part of the proposition and in the latter part of the assumption which is also affirmatiue A Compound Syllogisme is a Syllogisme wherein the whole question is one part of the Proposition being affirmatiue and compound and the argument the other part To gainesay in a compound Syllogisme is to make a speciall contradiction A compound Syllogisme is either Connexine or Disiunctiue A Connexiue Syllogisme is when the Proposition is Connexiue and it is of two kindes whereof the former assumes the former part of the question and denies the latter Example If Dauid lost his faith then faith once had may be lost Art 6. par 2. in my answere But Dauid lost his faith Therefore faith once had may be lost It is affirmed that faith once had may be lost the proofe is Dauid lost his faith the Syllogisme is of the former kinde because the proposition is Connexiue or Condicionall the former part thereof auouched in the asâ—umption and the latter concluded in the consequent or conclusion The latter gaine-sayes the latter
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