teach that the credit of the doctrine ariseth from the minister And yet they cannot but confesse that euery minister and all except the Pope may erre in matters of greatest substance We confesse in deede that men may erre both in possibility C. and euent But that the whole catholick Church may erre no Protestant euer taught or thought For we professe that the holy men departed are triumphant members of the catholick church who are exempted from all daunger of being deceaued That part of the catholick church which is militant may and doth erre but neuer wholy in matters of substance for then we know it might come to passe that at some time there should be no church at all vpon the earth whence a present dissolutioÌ„ of the world should follow since D. it is continued for the elect and churches sake The Protestants you say ground their faith vpon the Bible translated into English And the Papists say I build theirs vpon the bible translated into latine or simply vpon the word of him that preacheth vnto them They are bound vpon paine of damnation to beleeue that the Pope is Christs vicar and cannot erre But how shall I know that the Pope teacheth this doctrine vpon what ground is this beleefe built vpon the credit of him that tells them so But it is scripture how shall I know that He that tells me so may be deceiued But the Pope cannot First you begge the questioÌ„ for you haue not proued that the pope cannot erre TheÌ„ how shal I know that the Pope teacheth this doctrine Alas I am a poore ignorant man and vnderstand not either Latine or Italian in which the Popes iudgement is set downe But put case I did what proofe can I haue that the Pope deliuered this for his iudgement How can I be sâ—â—e he was rightly chosen I might adde a number of these doubts of none whereof you can resolue me but only by vrging me to rest vpon the authority of men Now then let any man weigh theâ—e things in the ballance of reason and trye whether is lighter Protestants cannot tell whether Maister Tindals translation of the Scripture bee true or no neither can they discerne a true translation from a faâ—se and therefore must needs relye their faith vpon the silly Ministers faithlesse fidelitie which conuinceth that they haue no faith at all Papist cannot tell whether the Latine translation of the scrâ—pture be true or no neyther can they discerne a true translation from a false and therfore they must need build their faith vpon a silly Priests or Fryers faithlesse fidelity which conâ—inceth that they haue no faith at all Hâ—therto are all things equall betwixt vs. Now consider some differences First we professe that Maister Tâ—â—dall might and did erre and therefore we labour euery day to amend our translations They acknowledge theirs to be faulty but they accurse them to the pit oâ— Hell that will not for all that rest vpon it Secondly we submit our translations to be examined by any learned Papists according to the Hebrew and Greeke They preferre theirs beâ—ore the Hebrewe and Greeke Thirdly we binde no mans conscience to agree to our translation vpon paine of damnation because it askes yet some better correction They tye all men to take euery title of theirs for the certaine word of God and yet dayly they alter it As it appears by the diuers editions of Sixtus 5. Clemens 8. two Popes neither of which could erre and yet either disagrees from the other But for the further avowing of our english translation I desire all men to obserue these fewe points First that these parts of scripture which are worst translated as the Psalmes are most agreeable to the popish Latine Secondly that our best translation comes a great deale neerer to the interpretation of the learned Papists a Vatablus Pagninus Isidorus Clarius Arias Montanâ—s then the popish Latin doth Thirdly that in all this variety of translations no one poynte of Doctrine is ouerthrowne by any newe exposition Fourthly that no papist is able to finde in any of our translations so many errors from the sense of the Holy Ghost as Isidorus Clarius a learned Papist hath amended All these 8000. faults remaine still in their vulgar translation in their popish Latine viz. to the number of 8000 places euery one of which as he professeth changeth the meaning of the text Lastly I offer our worst translation to be compared with the Rhemists affirme that in any reasonable mans iudgment it will appeare that we haue delt more faithfully and plainly then they who seeme to haue bin afraide of nothing more then that the text of Scripture should be easely vnderstood Maister Broughtons skill in the Tongues he that commends not either knowes not or enuies His mislâ—ke of Maister Tindalls translation I wil condemne when I see it disproued As for Gregorie Martine Doctor Fulke long since stopt vp the mouth of his slaunders that none of all you Papists hitherto could open it againe E. It passeth my small skill in Logick to see how this newe addicion is applied to proue the old Article For it agreeeth not either with the Maior or Minor of his Syllogisme For that all the old translations are false the Ministers are are now in moulding a new Therefore whosoeuer relyeth his faith on the silly Ministers faithlesse fidility is an Infidell Therfore all those in England who are ignorant of the Greek and Hebrew are Infidells That clause of the Geneua translation sauours of malice more then reason for though that translation were the best by many degrees as it may be for ought that was said at the conference where the notes not the text were condemned yet might the Ministers haue iust occasion to amend them all He that so peremptorily condemnes the labours of many graue and learned Diuines before he see them shewes more obstinate preiudice then either iudgement or conscience But who will helpe me to vnderstand this strange sentence The translation in hand will haue as great immunitie from falsitie as the former were voide of veritie that is If I shall make reason of it as much as the former were voide of veritie so great immunitie will this haue from falsitie This exposition will admit no conclusion but to the Authors great disgrace For if I assume thus But the former were wholy voide of veritie then must the conclusion be Therefore this translation will be altogether free from falsitie If otherwise But the former were not voide of veritie Then indeed I may conclude Therefore this will not be free from falsitie But here the Assumption makes as much against him as the conclusion doth for him The comparison of equalitie being so little to his purpose who can make the exposition of it serue his turne that both shal be subiect to like vncertainty Indeed who can make reason of the sentence Art 4. The Protestants know not what they beleeue Answere
Glosta in extrau 102 22. de verborum signif c. quum inter nonâ—ullos Such Papists as you are care not what they say so it be Ad bonum Ecclesiae for the behoofe of your Lord God the Pope Papist The Protestants know not what they beleeue nor why A. they beleeue That they know not why they beleeue I haue shewed before for the ground of their beliefe is not the authoritie of Scripture of Councills of Doctors nor of the Church but their owne fancie And that they know B. Proofe of the article 1. not what they beleeue is manifest because they haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith and what is not Some say the sphere of their faith is extended solely and C. 2. wholy to the word of God set downe in holy writte what there is deliuered that they beleeue what there is concealed lyeth without the circumference of their beliefe Alas poore ignorance what heretick beleeueth not so much Certainly few or none so that by this meanes all damned hereticks which beleeue the Scriptures beleeue alike and they beleeue as much as our Protestants and ours no more then they But the Protestant will replie that he beleeueth the Scripture in a true sense truly expounded and all other heretickes in an erroneous sense and falsly interpreted And they will say as much of their religion and beleefe and hold your exposition hereticall and theirs orthodoxall Againe are you not bound to beleeue the Canticles or Song of Solomon as a part of your faith and where find you in the scripture deliuered that such a booke is Gods word and as such an one ought by faith to be beleeued That Sunday should be kept holy-day and Saturday the Iewes Sabbath prophaned in Gods word is not reuealed and yet by Protestants beleeued Moreouer to beleeue whatsoeuer is conteined in the Scripture is a generall confused folded implicite saith when we demand what a man is bound to beleeue we aske what he is obliged to beleeue expresly distinctly explicitely To beleeue al the Scripture distinctly explicitely cannot be performed by all Protestants since it supposeth a perfect and distinct knowledge of all the scripture wherevnto neuer mortall man attained the Apostles perhaps excepted Some will limit their beleefe to their creed saying that nothing D. ought to be beleeued which is not in the Apostles creed But then I would demaund of them whether we ought to beleeue that the Scripture is the word of God That Baptisme is a Sacrament That in the Eucharist is the body of Christ by faith to what article should these be reduced seeing they are not conteined in the creed or how shall we know infalliblie how these be matters of faith since they are not conteined in the creed Others deny some articles of their creed also for the Protestants E. deny three and the Puritans fiue 1. The first is the Catholick Church Credo ecclesiam sanctaÌ„ 1. F. Catholicam I beleeue the holy catholick church the which in very deed they do not beleeue because catholick is vniuersall and so the church of Christ which we are bound to beleeue must be vniuersall for all a time comprehending all Mat. 16. Psal 60. Psal 2. ages b vniuersall for place comprehending all Nations but that church which the Protestants beleeue was interrupted all the ages betwixt the Apostles and Luther which was 1400. yeeres or in very deed was neuer seene before Luthers dayes therefore that church they beleeue cannot be catholick Neither is it vniuersal in place being conteined within the narrow bounds of England which is accounted but as a corner of the world for the Lutherans in Germany the Hugenots in France and the Guiâ—es in Flaunders dâ—est their religion almost as much as the catholicks neither â—ill they ioyne issue with them in diuers essentiall points And therefore the Protestants church which they beleeue can no more be called catholick or vniuersal then England the vniuersall world or Kent the kingdome of England or a prâ—â—ed bowe a whole tree or a dead finger a man or a rotten tooth the whole head 2. â— 2. The second article is the communion of Saints the which they many wayes deny First by not beleeuing that Christ hath instituted seauen sacraments wherin the Saints of his church coÌ„municate specially the true reall presence of our sauiour Christ in the Eucharist by which all the faithfull receauers participating of one the selfe same body 1. Cor. 10. 17. are made one body as all the parts of a mans body are made one liuing thing by participating of one soule Secondly they deny the communion of the Church militant H. GeÌ„ â—8 16. Apoc. 1. 14 and triumphant by exclayming a against inuocation of Saints by which holy excercise those blessed Saints in heauen we in earth communicate we by prayer glorifying them and they by mediation obtaining our requests Thirdly they deny the Communion of the church militant I. 1. Cor. 3. 15. 15. â—9 and the soules in purgatory bereauing them of that christian charity which charitable compassion mercifull pitty requireth by mutuall affection the members of one body help one another The third Article is remission of sinnes for they acknowledge 3. K. no such effect in the Sacrament of Baptisme but only account it as an externall signe or seale of a prereceaued grace or fauour of God by his eternall predestination against the expresse word of God which therefore calleth this sacrament the c Lauer of regeneration for that in it the Tit. 3. soule dead by sinne is newly regenerated by grace L. Iohn 20 Moreouer they allow not the sacrament of penance wherin al actuall d sinnes coÌ„mitted after Baptisme are cancelled And that which exceedeth all in absurdity is to deny that our sinnes are perfectly forgiuen but only not imputed and as it were vayled or couered with the passion of Christ all the botches and biles the silth and abhomination of sinne still remayning and as it were exhaling a most pestiferous sent in the sight of God For let them shift â—â—emselues as they list and skarfe their soares according to their fancies yet no veile or mantle can couer the deformitie of sin from the eies of Gods perfect vnderstanding from which nothing can be concealed The Puritans in effect deny that Christ is the sonne of 4. m. Ioh. 8. v. 24. Ioh. 16. v. 13. And D. Bucley coÌ„tendeth to proue it in hâ—s aunswer to this article albeit he vnderstand not the reason heere alleaged for if he did he were too absurd to deniâ— it If you vnderstood his aunsvver you vvould neuer say so foâ— shame God for they peremptorily affirme that Christ is God of himselfe and not God of God So that he receiued not his diuinity from his father the which position flatly taketh away the nature of a sonne for the nature of a sonne is to receaue
euery point that some of the Fathers endeuour to prooue by Scripture Neither will any Papist that knowes the writings of the Fathers giue them such allowance Nay it is ordinary with them in their controuersies to acknowledge that diuers texts brought by the Fathers in maine points of religioÌ„ are not rightly alleaged Looke what they proue by scriptures that we gladly receiue not because they say it but because the truth of God approueth it But then we make our selues iudges of the Fathers writings If we doe there is more reason that euery man should be made a iudge of a mans writing then any man of Gods But we do not for we desire not to haue any interpretation of Scripture allowed of contrary to the exposition of the Fathers but as I said before where euident reason taken from the Scriptures themselues doth necessarily require it As for our priuate exposition it is nothing else but a perswasion that euery man must haue of the interpretation deliuered according to the course of Scriptures generally and particularly to the context of the place expounded Which to deny Christians is to bring them into slauerie not obedience to depriue them of the spirit of God yea more to spoile them of all vse of reason by which enlightened by the holy Ghost the truth of God may be and is to be discerned Art 3. All Protestants who are ignorant of the Greeke and Latine tongues are Infidels Here is Latine put for Hebrew either by the Printers fault or the Authors craft who perhaps by this sleight would bring their vulgar Latine translation into credit and thereby iustle out the originall Hebrew but we will lay the blame vpon the Printer and so let it passe Papist Whosoeuer relyeth his faith vpon the Ministers credit and A. B. fidelitie hath no faith at all But all those in England who are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues relye their faith vpon the Ministers credit Ergo All those in England who are ignorant of the Greeke and Hebrew tongues haue no faith at all The Maior is manifest because they themselues confesse C. Calu. lib. 4. instit cap. 9. § 3. Luther lib. de concil pag. 54. lib de concil par 1. q. D. b Wherein he desireth the lords of the Councill to procure speedily a new translatioÌ„ because that which now is in vse in England is full of errors E c â—n the conference at Hampâ—oÌ„ Court. that euery man may erre and doth erre neither haue they any warrant why the Ministers do not erre since they constantly doe defend that whole generall Councills yea and the vniuersall Catholick church may erre and hath erred The Minor I proue for all such Protestants ground their faith vpon the Bible translated into English the which translation they know not whether it be true or false whether the Minister Tindall for example erred or no either vpon ignorance as b Broughton one of the greatest Linguists among the Precisions affirmeth in an Epistle dedicated to the Lords of the Councel or vpon malice to induce the people to Protestancy and to cause them to leaue the Catholick religion as Gregorie Martin in his discouery most pregnantly proueth c And for that all the olde translations are false and the Geneuians the worst the Ministers are now in moulding a new one the which will haue as great immunitie from falsitie as the former were voide of veritie that is both be subiect to semblable vncertaintie These errors I say they know not and consequently cannot discerne a true translation from a false and therefore must needs relye their faith vpon the sillie Ministers faithlesse fidelitie which conuinceth that they haue no faith at all Protestants Iâ— there be any force in this reason it ouerthrowes Papists A. as well as Protestants because the very same thing may be concluded of them in this sort Whosoeuer builds his faith vpon a mans credit and fidelitie hath no faith at all But euery Papist builds his faith vpon a mans credit Therefore no Papist hath faith The difference betweene my Proposition and his stands onely in one word He disables the Minister in particular I euery man generally and perticularly but I keepe his sense whole and intire For the reason that he giueth in the proofe of his Maior doth shew that therefore ministers are not to be credited because being men they may erre And indeed whatsoeuer imperfection is in any Minister he hath it not as he is a minister but as he is a man and therefore if his proposition be true mine is The assumption needs no other proofe but that first Fathers Councils and Church are men without any speciall priuiledge of not erring 2. that at the least the particuler teachers which tell the Papists that such and such Councills haue allowed these bookes for scripture are men that may erre 3. And indeede what ground hath any learned Papist that there haue bene such Councils but the authority of men 4. Whereupon can any vnlearned Papist relie for the interpretation of the decrees of the Councils being written in Greeke or Latine as all are but the credit of men 5. Nay more then that who can tell what the signification of the Hebrew and Greeke words is euen in the Bible but by the report of men So that it may more truly be saide of the Papists then of the Protestants that they build their faith vpon the credit of men yea the Papists do properly and wholy rely vpon men viz. the Pope and his Priests because they beleeue not by their ministery as Christians but by their authority like Pythagoreans B. But shortely to make an answere to his reason if by relying vpon the ministers credit he meane that they haue no To the Assumption ground to build vpon but that I deny his Assumption For the vnlearned Protestant rests vpon the witnes of Gods spirit which perswadeth him of the generall truth contained in the translation and directeth him to and in the triall of particulars If to the credit of the minister he add the witnes To the PropositioÌ„ of the spirit I say the Proposition is false for he hath true faith that relies on the Credit of the minister being directed by the spirit of God so to do If this seeme strange to any papist let him remember that popish faith requires no lesse reuelation then the beleefe of Protestants for according to their doctrine no man is perswaded of the truth of the scripture either for the text or the interpretation but by the especiall grace of the spirit vsing as they say the argument of the Churches authority to beget faith in the heart only we say the spirit vseth not the authority but the ministry of the Church to perswade withall They affirme that men beleeue because of the Churches authority the spirit directing and inclining them to rest therevpon Our opinion is that the credit of the minister relies on his doctrine They
his substance of his father and it implyeth contradiction that the sonne receaueth his person of his father and not his substance and essence for the substance of God is essentiall to euery person in Trinity * 5. N. Finally they deny the Descension of Christ into Hell desperately defend that he suffered the paines of Hell vpon the crosse whereby they blaspheme most horribly that sacred humanitie as if christ had despaired of his saluation as if God had hated him and he hated God as if he had bin afflicted tormented with anguish of minde for his offences for which he was depriued of the sight of God eternally to be depriued all which horrible punishments aâ—â— included in the paines of hel †Isai 66. v. 24. Mar. 9. 48. Mat. 25. v. 41. whosoeuer ascribeth them to Christ blasphemeth more horribly then Arrius who denied him to be God for lesse absurditie it were to deny him to be God then to make God the enemy of God Protestant How you haue proued that the ground of our beliefe is A. not the authority of the scripture of Councills of Doctors or of the Church let them iudge that haue weighed your accusation against my defence And yet for the last three wee neuer ment to striue For we build our faith vpon no authoririty but that of the scripture Councills Doctors we reuerence vse as special helpes for the vnderstanding of scripture but authority ouer our faith we giue to none but the holy Ghost the author of scripture Your reasoÌ„ to proue we know not what we beleeue is this B. They that haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not know not what they beleeue But the Protestants haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith and what is not Ergo the Protestants know not what they beleeue He may truly be said not to know what he beleeues that To the Proposition either is ignorant of the particular points he holdes or at least vnderstands them not such as all vnlearned Papists are by thâ—ir fides implicitae their Colliers faith which teaches them to beleeue as the Church doth but neuer instructs them either in al the seuerall matters of beleefe or in the vnderstanding of those which they know the Church maintaines And therefore euery vnlearned Papist beleeues he knowes not what But there is no reason why a man should be said not to know what he beleeues because he hath no rule to know what is matter of faith it may come to passe hereby that he shal beleeue somthing that is not to be beleeued or not beleeue somthing that is to be beleeued but that he should not know what he beleeues by this reason it cannot be proued But the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith No more then Lawyers haue to know what is Law I To the assumption maruaile to what vse these men thinke the Scriptures serue Dauid made accompt that the Scriptures which the Church then had were a perfect direction to al men both for beleife and practise And can we now want a rule when it hath pleased God to adde twice so much vnto the Scriptures as then was written Assuredly they that haue the Scriptures cannot want a Rule to know what is matter of faith though by abusing the Rule they may take that for matter of faith which is not C. They that extend the sphere of their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not But some Protestants extend the sphere of their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe c. Therefore the Protestants haue no rule to know c. Either your syllogisme is false if the conclusion be general or else it concludes only thus much that some Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith what is not If you will make your Assumption generall it is false because you confesse afterwards that some Protestants limit their faith by the Creed as being a diuers rule from the scripture I deny your Proposition as iniurious to the scripture by laying vpon it an imputation of insufficiencie concerning matters of faith They that extend the sphere of their faith say you no further then all damned Heretikes that beleeue the scripture haue no rule to know what is matter of faith But they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God extend it no further then all damned Heretikes that beleeue the scripture Therfore they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know what is matter of faith The proposition is false for all such Heretikes haue the true rule to know what is matter of faith though ignorantly or maliciously they abuse it to the defence of heresie But some Protestants extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set down in holy writ Not only some but all Protestants acknowledg the sufficiency of the scripture in matter of faith holding themselues not bound to beleeue any point of religion that cannot be warranted out of the Scripture either expresly or by necessary consequence They that haue no rule say you to know that the song of Solomon is Gods word and that as such an one it ought to be beleeued by faith haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not But they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know that the song of Solomon is Gods word Therefore they that extende their faith solely and wholly to the word of God haue no rule to know what is matter of Faith This Proposition may proue that they haue not a sufficient rule but not that they haue no rule I deny your assumption For they that rest onely vpon the scripture as the ground of faith are not barred of the testimony of the spirit in matters that must needes be held for the warranting of the scriptures The first motiue to the taking of that booke for the word of God is the constant iudgement of the Iewish church before Christ and the generall approbation thereof by the christian church since The certaine perswasion of this beleefe comes from the sâ—irit of God seconding this outward testimony of men by his owne witnesse in our hearts If this seeme an inconuenience to any man I intreat him to consider what rule the Papists haue in this case The authority of the Church they will say But what rule haue I to know whether it be a matter of faith or not to beleeue that whatsoeuer the church saith is a matter of faith is so indeed Wil you appeale to the scripture what rule haue you to know that this is scripture The voice of
the church What is this but to trifle I must beleeue that the scripture is scripture because the church tels me so I must beleeue that the report of the church is true because the scripture saith so But for your better satisfactioÌ„ in this point I referre you to my answer in the 2. 5. articles of this former part I cannot well conceaue to what purpose this last clause is added if to proue the Article That the Protestants knowe not what they beleeue it is insufficient They that know not what they are bound to beleeue expresly distinctly explicitly know not what they beleeue For no more is proued by this reason But that they know not euery particular which they are bound to beleeue And if this be a disgrace to Protestants and their profession how shall Papists popery escape without reproach when as there is no rule among theÌ„ to teach what they ought to beleeue expresly distinctly c. And as all Protestants cannot beleeue all the Scripture distinctly explicitely no more can all Papists so beleeue what the Church deliuereth to be beleeued and therefore was their fides implicita deuised Neither is it proued that the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith what is not because they know not expresly distinctly explicitely what they are bound to beleeue For a man may haue a rule though he know not how to vse it as it also falls out ordinarily with vnlearned Papists in the rule that they follow to this same purpose If the Creed say you be not the limit of beleefe the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith I thinke the Protestant is yet vnborne that makes the D. Creede the rule of his beleefe further then to acknowledge that whatsoeuer is conteined in the Creed is of necessitie to be beleeued which I trow no Papist will denie But if it were granted that all Protestants do so yet it were not proued that the Protestants haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith but that they haue an vnperfect rule To be short who knowes not that the Protestants make the whole Scriptures the rule of their beleefe holding themselues bound in conscience to acknowledge all things conteyned therein to be the most true word of God and that out of the Scriptures there is nothing necessarily to be beleeued for saluation Whereas the Papists disable the written word of God to establish the fancies of mortall men ioyning the vnwritten traditions of I know not whom in equall authoritie with the written word of the Almighty God But the Creed say you is not the limit of faith That the Creed is no perfect rule of our beleefe we are so farre from denying that we make this reason one of the grounds wherevpon we build our perswasion that because of the vnperfectnesse thereof it was not penned by the Apostles whereas if it had bene it would haue bene perfect and Canonicall Scripture such as yet it neuer was acknowledged to be Howsoeuer we willingly graunt that there is nothing in it but sound and agreeable to the word of God in the Scripture So much the more wrong hath this slanderer done vs to charge any of vs with the deniall of any one Article thereof especially since no hereticks were euer charged with the deniall of Scripture because they â—isinterpreted it And yet by this Authors iudgement the Creed is not so bare as here he would faine make it For in the second part of this Article he teacheth vs that by beleeuing the communion of Saints we beleeue first That there are seauen Sacraments Secondly that Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist Thirdly that we must pray to the Saints Fourthly that we must pray for the soules in Purgatory In the fourth he tels vs that by beleeuing the Article of remission of sinnes we beleeue that Baptisme takes away the being of sinne They that deny some Articles of their Creed say you haue E. no rule to know what is matter of faith They that deny all the Articles of their Creed haue indeed no rule supposing that there is no other rule but the Creed but so much of the Creed as they deny not they haue still for a rule to know what is matter of faith But the Protestants say you deny three Articles of their Creed and the Puritants fiue He that makes difference betweene the Protestants and Looke in my answer to the next Article Puritans in matters of faith doth it either ignorantly or maliciously But to the seuerall points They that beleeue say you that to be the Catholicke F. Church which was interrupted 1400. yeeres and is conteyned within the narrow bounds of England deny the Catholicke Church The Article I beleeue the holy Catholick Church doth not teach vs how to know which is the true Church but enioynes vs to beleeue that there is a Catholick church which we gladly acknowledge viz. that there alwayes hath bene is and shall be a holy church of Christ which since his breaking downe of the partition wall is no longer tyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 place Hierusalem Rome c. but is spred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the face of the whole earth Neither can you 〈◊〉 thinke that the catholicknesse of the Church requirâ—â— continuall being in all places at once for then there 〈◊〉 as any catholick church in the world nor I suppose 〈◊〉 At the least haue you forgotten that according 〈◊〉 our owne doctrine the church shal be hidden in the 〈◊〉 all the time of Antichrists tyranny Then this wil be 〈◊〉 â—incible argument against the church It is not vniuersall 〈◊〉 â—lace therefore it is not the Holy Catholick Church 〈◊〉 the force of your reason is very feeble in the first 〈◊〉 it wherein the strength of it consists But admit we 〈◊〉 deceaued in taking that church to be vniuersall for time and place which is not vniuersal yet as long as we confe◠〈◊〉 there is such a Church we cannot be iustly charged to 〈◊〉 that article of our Creed But the Protestant 〈◊〉 you beleeue that to be the Catholick Church which was 〈◊〉 1400. yeares Therefore they deny the article of beleâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Catholick Church But they do not 〈◊〉 â—peares by the aunswere to the first Article besides â—â—â— Protestants do not hold that the church in England is 〈◊〉 â—atholick church but only that it is a part of the 〈◊〉 church which reaches to all times and places And 〈◊〉 word as I said in the first article we deny not to the 〈◊〉 the necessity of catholicknes but of visiblenes 〈◊〉 our church is not so narrow as you would beare the 〈◊〉 in hand as the Harmony of Confessions will proue to 〈◊〉 man that will but vouchsafe to read it For howsoeuer 〈◊〉 some churches of Germany and vs there be some 〈◊〉 in matters of importance yet neither are they such 〈◊〉 â—rectly ouerthrow the foundation And both the French 〈◊〉 Flemish churches agree with
deuised and also refuse the doctrine of visible famousnes which they would thrust vpon the church This last point is altogeather of the same kinde which I note the rather because both this and that are deliuered in such a phrase as the scripture knowes not To beleeue the Catholick church to descend into hell are speeches with which the scriptures are not acquainted and this is another reason why learned Diuines the rather perswade themselues that this Creed was not of the Apostles penning Yet do not we deny the truth of either of these articles bâ—t only that erroneous interpretation which the Papists make of them Of the former I haue already spoken now let vs shortly examine the latter First we say the english word Hell doth not expresse the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Latine Inferi though wee cannot rest vpon the Latine whatsoeuer it signifies since it is but a translation Hell in English is restrained to the place of the damned so that no english man vnderstands by Hell either purgatory or limbus patrum or infantum but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Inferi do signifie indifferently the state and place of the dead as Maister Broughâ—on hath sufficiently proued Neither need it breed a doubt in any man that descending or going downe is mentioned because it is out of doubt that the heathen from whom this speech is taken place their elysium or paradise vnder the earth as well as their Tartarus or Hell that lying on the right hand this on the left as it appeares in Virgill Aenâ—id 6. Hac iter elysium nobis at laeua malorum Exercet poenas et ad impia tartara mittit Secondly it is to be known that diuers Creeds haue not this article in them which proues that it was thought either to be comprised in some of the other or els not to be any matter of faith Thirdly it must be obserued that some of the ancient writers haue vnderstood it of our Sauiours buryall as Ruffinus and Athanasius hee in plaine termes auouching that it was not to bee found in the Romane Creed and that the meaning of it seemed to be nothing els but that he was interred or laied in his graue Athanasius indeed hath the words but that hee takes them to signifie his buriall may appeare for that he leaues out all other meÌ„tion of that article of his buriall Fourthly it must be remembred that the maintayners of Christs going really into hell agree not about the matter whether he went into the place of the damned or only into the suburbes of it in limbum patrum or Infantum nor about the end Fiftely we haue great reason to refuse this sense which hath no ground of Scripture wherevpon it can be built as diuers of our writers haue plainely shewed and as I could and would prooue if it agreed with this course of writing Sixthly we affirme that if we shall follow the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot expound it of the place of the damned vnlesse it be apparant that the matter necessarilie requires it which also is to be said of the Hebrew Sheoll commonly in the Bible translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bucer Carlile and Broughton haue shewed by particular induction Seauenthly we must note this mans dealing that makes choise of the woâ—st interpretation as he accompt it whereas he cannot be ignorant both that there are diuers other and that many Protestants do mâ—slike this which he brings as if he would make the world beleeue that we allow not of this peece of the Creed but onely in that sense howbeit many of our diuines do rather expound it of our Sauiours subiection to death or of the truth of his death fully signified not onely by his buriall but by his being altogether in the state of the dead his body and soule being seuered and seuerally so disposed of as all other dead mens bodies and sâ—ules are without any speciall signifying of the place whether his soule went But howsoeuer we dissent from our bretheren in the meaning of this Article we allow the doctrine as good and sound For we beleeue that our Sauiour Christ being by imputation a sinner though of himselfe most holy and pure suffred in his soule the wrath of God due to vs sinners and for our sinnes in such sort and measure as God had appointed and as without sinne in a finite time it could be suffred As for those horrible plasphemies which are sayde to be included in the paines of hell we neither auouch them all of our Sauiour Christ nor acknowledge that they nessarily accompany the wrath of God as in handling the particulars it will appeare Christ saith he bare the wrath of God Therefore he despaired of his saluation The consequence is false for he knew that God loued his person being his sonne and therefore that this wrath should not be perpetuall though the present sense of it wrung from him that lamentable exclamation My God my God why hast thou forsaken me and also that by the power of his Godhead he was to free himselfe from continuing in death which but for these reasons he must needs haue indured and which for a time he did taste the Godhead as it were withdrawing it selfe that the manhood might suffer Christ saith he suffred the wrath of God therefore God hated him and he God Of the latter clause I shall need to say nothing hauing before restrained Christs sufferings to that maner of torment which is without sinne Neither is that hatred of God an effect of his wrath in the damned in whom it is naturall but by his wrath against them that malice of theirs accidentally is increased Which I speake vpon this supposition that the damned shall continue in sinne as well as in punishment The former point if we hold the former distinction aduisedly contaynes at all no blasphemy against our sauiour his person was of it selfe most tenderly beloued of God his father though beeing considered as a sinner such as by imputation hee was in the sight of God for a time in that respect hee was to God for vs as euery one of vs is in himselfe to God Christ suffered saith he the wrath of God therefore he was tormented with anguish of minde for his offences for which c. The consequence should haue bin Therefore he was tormented with anguish of mind for those offences for which he suffered the wrath of God But those were not his but ours Ours I say truly and properly hâ—s only by imputation And it is no blasphemy to hold that Christ so as he was a sinner and punished for sinne had also anguish of minde for sinne not for his owne there was no suspicion or likenesse of sinne in him but for ours which by his consent was charged on him for the time he saw the angry countenance of God against him and hee knewe that our sinnes had deserued the continuance of it for euer But the