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
principally consist the satisfaction of Christ for the redemption of man from those eternall torments of hell And thinke you this is a trifle a rite or ceremonie This faith the Puritans professe this blasphemie the Protestants detest The descension of Christ to hell is no doubt but a trifle a ceremonie a matter of small importance It is but an article of our creed and yet this article the puritanes really deny the which al Protestants stedfastly beleeue That the second person in Trinitie receaued his diuinitie from his father is but a trifle a point not much materiall to our beleefe and yet if this bee denied the mysterie of the holy trinitie can not bee beleeued for it absolutely taketh away the nature of a sonne and consequently the admirable procession of the second person and so ouerthroweth all the mysterie of the Trinitie This principall part of Christianitie Protestants approue and Puritans improue I omit here many more petty differences in matters of faith the which were sufficient to make them condemne one another not onely in accidents and ceremonies but also in the substance and principall partes of religion As in that the Precisians denie that in Baptisme our sinnes bee remitted but onely take it for a seale of that grace God gaue them by his eternal election The Protestants confesse that in the sacrament we are washed by Gods spirite from originall sinne The Puritans condemne the Communion booke as irreligious and erroneous The Protestants commend it as orthodoxall and religious The Protestants vse the crosse in baptisme as a holy signe fitt for the profession of Christs faith and religion The Puritanes exclaime against it as a humane inuention and a point of superstition The Protestants defend that imposition of handes in confirmation is a signe of the fauour and goodnes of God towards them The Puritans auouch that this is a flat lie that they testifie therein that God doth that he neuer did The Protestants in fine will vse Vestments Musicke Organes surplisses and diuerse other ceremonies in diuine seruice and administration of sacraments all which the puritanes condemne as will worship and not being commaunded by God to bee superstitious All these I say I omitt and many more which are to bee seene in the Puritanes supplication to the Parliament where 32. differences are assigned and onely haue thought good to aduertise euery discreete Protestant to consider the 7. precedent differences For there is neuer a one of them which the Puritane defendeth not to bee a matter of faith and the Protestant is bound in conscience to condemne him for obstinatly maintayning the contrarie to bee an heretick and the reason is euident for the rule and square the Protestants and Puritanes both hould to know an heresie is this whatsoeuer is contrarie to Gods word is an heresie if it be obstinately defended but all the aforesaid 7. points in controuersie are by the one part proued contrary to Gods word and by the other auouched to bee grounded vpon the same Therefore we may well conclude that if one error in faith with obstinacy defended sufficeth to make an heretick what shall we iudge of the Puritan who so mainely defendeth so manie Surelie this I will auer that they differ in substance of religion and not only in accidents and ceremonies And finally they haue no argument to proue that they C. haue the true Church true religion true faith which al hereticks that euer were will not bring to condemne the Church of Christ as well as they For example they aledge scriptures so did the Arrians they contemne councills the Arrians did not regard them They challenge to themselues the true interpretation the same did all hereticks to this day And to conclude they call themselues the litle flock of Christ to whom God hath reuealed his truth and illuminated them from aboue all which the Donatists with as good reason and better arguments did arrogate vnto themselues The same I say of the Pelagians Nestorians Eutychians with all the rable of other damned hereticks And to conclude these articles of faith I say that if the D principles of the Protestants religion be true S. Paul himselfe exhorteth vs to infidelitie which I proue thus Whosoeuer exhorteth vs to doubt of that which we are bound to beleeue by faith exhorteth vs to infidelitie But S. Paule doth exhort vs to doubt of our saluation which we are bound to beleeue by faith according to the Protestants religion Ergo. S. Paule exhorteth vs to infidelitie The Maior is plaine for to doubt of matters in faith is manifest infidelitie because whosoeuer doubteth whether God hath reuealed that which indeed he hath reuealed being sufficiently proposed as reuealed virtuallie doubteth whether God saith trueth or lyeth The Minor is proued by the testimonie of S. Paule 1. Cor. 2. Cum timore tremore salutem vestram operamini With feare and trembling worke your saluation All feare whether it be filial feare or seruile feare includeth both the one of sinne the other of punishment Protestant A very good comparison whether it be of likenesse or A. equalitie for the one is euen as true as the other As we know not what to beleeue or why So we haue no meane in our Church to settle vs in vnitie of beleefe c. If we shall ioyne issue in this point vpon the former tryall the matter is already answered For all those accusations and euidences being false what truth can there be in this and yet the last clause makes me graunt him the conclusion We haue no such meanes as the Popish Church hath But what will he inferre herevpon That therefore wee haue none at all What because we will not acknowledge the Popes Soueraigne authoritie in making what he list an Article of faith Haue we no meanes to end controuessies As good neuer a whit as neuer the better Is it not more for the glory of God and good of the Church that there should be continuall disagreement about matters of Religion then that all should beleeue and maintaine false doctrine Were not Christ as good haue a troubled church as none at all Honourable warre is better then dishonourable peace in the iudgement of any wise States-man And can it be more glorious to God to haue quietnesse in the church with heresie yea with Antichristianisme then truth with contention So then this proposition that we haue no such meanes as the Papists haue to end controuersies neither disproues nor disgraces our church But it is worth the doing to take a view of this rhetoricall declamation rather then Logicall disputation which was promist by stripping it out of this braucry and setting it naked before the light of true reason Thus then he disputes They saith he that admit the sole Scripture as Vmpere and Principall propositiō Iudge in matters of controuersie allowing no infallible interpreter thereof haue no meanes to end controuersies and abolish heresies Controuersies may be
3. That if they pray for vs wee must pray to them 4. That if the Angells be ministering spirits Therfore the Saints departed are so 2. Neither is there any Communion with soules in purgatory because there is no purgatory 1. Cor. 3. 15. Saint Paul speaks not of purgatory For the fire thereof burnes the worke men not the worke but the fire there meÌ„tioned burnes the works not all works neither but onely false doctrine The latter place being vnderstood 1. Cor. 15. 29. 2. of purgatory will not serue the Apostles purpose How can the resurrection of the body be proued by praying for the soules in purgatory Papist They that acknowledge not that Remission of sinnes is an effect of Baptisme deny the article of beleeuing the remission of sinnes But the Protestants acknowledge not that remission of sinnes is an effect of Baptisme Therefore the Protestants deny the article of beleeuing the remission of sinnes Protestant The proposition is false because not all haue Baptismum flaminis the Baptisme of the spirit that haue Baptismum fluminis the baptisme of water we acknowledge that whosoeuer is baptised by the spirit hath receiued forgiuenesse of sinnes which no man hath which shal be damned as many shal be that haue bene baptised Baptisme is the Lauer of regeneration to as many as haue the spirit added therevnto because then they haue remission of sinnes sealed vp vnto them The Sacrament of penance is a Popish fancie our Sauiour Iâ—â— 20. 23. ordained no such Sacrament but onely affirmed that the worke of the ministery shal be effectuall to the remitting and retaining of sinne We deny not that our sinnes are perfectly forgiuen but that by forgiuenesse of sinnes the power of sinne is wholy destroyed in vs at once for the destruction of sinne comes by sanctification not by iustification and it is alwaies in this life imperfect Papist They that affirme that Christ is God of himselfe and not God of God deny that he is the sonne of God But the protestants affirme that Christ is God of himselfe and not God of God Therefore the Protestants deny that Christ is the sonne of God Protestant I deny your proposition For Christ is not the sonne of God in respect of the Godhead if he be then must the father and the holy Ghost also be the sonne because they are one and the same God with the sonne He that precisely vrgeth the naturall generation of man as a paterne of the spirituall begeting of the sonne of God will make the sonne a diuers God from the father The substance of God is essentiall to euery person in Trinitie onely thus farre that euery person is God not that the God-head is the essence of euery person The Protestants beleeue and confesse with the councill of Nice that Christ is God of God very God of very God not that he hath his God-head from the father for then they should giue aduantage to Arius who was condemned by that councill for he would readily answer that Christ must needs be inferiour to God his father because the father hath his God-head of himselfe and the sonne not of himselfe but of his father Besides hereby we should make two distincte Gods one that hath the God-head of himselfe and another that hath it not of himselfe but of him that hath it of himselfe Papist They that deny that by descending into hell is meant that Christ went in soule into the place of the damned deny the articles of descension into hell But the Protestants deny that by descending into hell is meant that Christ went in soule into the place of the damned Therefore the protestants deny the article of descension into hell Protestant I deny your proposition Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies nothing but the estate of the dead and is not to be expounded hell but onely where the circumstances of the place in which it is vsed doe necessarily require that exposition but here there is no such necessitie The protestants doe not interpret the descent of suffering the wrath of God in soule though they acknowledge that doctrine to be sound and thus answere this cauillers illations Papist Christ bare the wrath of God Therefore he despaired of his saluation Protestant I deny the consequence For Christ knew both that God loued his person because he was his sonne and that by the power of his Godhead he was to free himselfe from eternall damnation Papist Christ suffered the wrath of God therefore God hated him he hated God Protestant Againe I deny your consequence Our Sauiours person was dearely beloued of God his father though being considered as a sinner such as by imputation he was for a time he was in that respect to God for vs as euery on of vs is in himselfe to God It is not certaine that in the punishment of the damned there shall be hatred of God as a part thereof and if it were yet Christ is exempted from so much of the punishment as cannot be without sinne Papist Christ suffered the wrath of God therefore he was tormented with anguish of mind for his offences Protestant The consequence should be therefore he was tormented with anguish of minde for those offences for which he felt the wrath of God But these were not his sinnes in whom there was not the least Tainte of sinne but ours Article 5. Papist The Protestants haue no means to determine controuersies and abolish heresies Protestant The propositioÌ„ is false for the scripture hath light enough in it selfe to discouer and abolish heresies which they that wil may by conference of diuerse places discerne off Looke my answere to the second and third Articles There follows an extrauagant syllogisme which belongs to the 6. Article of the second part this it is Papist Whosoeuer exhorteth vs to doubt of that which we are bound to beleeue by faith exhorteth vs to infidelity But S. Paule exhorteth vs to doubt of our saluation which we are bound to beleeue by faith according to the Protestants Religion Ergo S. Paule exhorteth vs to infidelity Protestant I deny your assumption S. Paule doth not exhort vs to doubt of our saluation but commaunds vs to vse the meanes whereby we may come to assurance viz. still to stand in feare and watch ouer our selues least by carelesnesse we fall to sinning to which we are alwayes subiect in this life The Protestants doe not teach that whosoeuer is not assured of his saluation without any doubting is in the state of damnation But that euery man must labour to come to the perfection as of all other graces so of assurance too the meanes of attaining whereto are feare and trembling by which wee may be kept from sinning and so strengthned in assurance of saluation Papist Articles concerning good life and piety Article I. The Protestants are bound in conscience neuer to aske God forgiuenes of their sinnes Whosoeuer is assured by faith that his sinnes are forgiuen him
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
â—s in all substantiall points 〈◊〉 doctrine They that beleeue not 〈◊〉 that Christ hath instituted G. seauen sacraments do some 〈◊〉 the communion of saints When it is proued that there were 〈◊〉 instituted by Christ I will grant this propo◠〈◊〉 then any man may make as good a reason of 〈◊〉 700. or 7000. By true and reall presence which no Protestant euer denyed you meane the bodily and carnall presence which besides the Papists no man euer confest Therefore to this Argument the former answere sufficeth and so to both the other But for the further confirmation of this bodily presence because it is the Papists darling there is some shew of proofe added Being many we are one bread and body all that participate 1. Cor. â—â— 17. of one body as themselues in the Rhemish Testament translate the text by which he would perswade the simple that they that beleeue not the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament deny that the faithfull are one body But first it is to be obserued that the Apostle doth not say They are made one body by participating but That they which participate are one body Secondly we must vnderstand that the faithfull are not one body Cârnally but Spiritually To the which it is sufficient that Christ be Spiritually receaued and therefore the Apostle calles it Bread Thirdly who knowes not that all that can receaue any benefit by the Sacrament of our Sauiour Christs body and bloud are before members of his mysticall body Els all they that dye before they receaue that Sacrament are out of Christs body and so vncapable of saluation And if this be an effect of that Sacrament since it is of it selfe alwaies alike effectuall it must needes be that euery time we receaue it we are made one body with Christ yea although we haue not committed any deadly sinne since the last receauing of it But this is absurd that he that is the member of Christ already should now by receauing become the member of Christ Indeed he may be coÌ„firmed strengthned for his better continuance in Christs body which grace al that worthily receiue the sacrament obtaine of God euery one in their measure but it is vnpossible that he should euery time of receauing be made a member of Christs spiritual body being already one when he comes to receaue They say you that deny the Church militant and triumphant H. by exclaiming against inuocation of Saints and praiers for the soules in purgatory deny the article of beleeuing the communion of saints But the Protestants deny the Communion of the Church militant and triumphant by exclaiming against inuocation of saints and prayers for the soules in purgatory Ergo they deny the communion of saints If the communion of saints beleeued in the Creed belong to the catholicke Church in the same Creed How can it implie any fellowship with those that are departed whether they be in heauen or in purgatory For by the catholicke Church our papists vnderstand not the church triumphant but militant only for they hold that the catholick church mentioned in the Creed must alwaies be visible and famous And what an vnworthy wrong is it to Christ and his saints in Heauen for any man to imagine that the Reprobate in earth of whom there is no small store in the outward congregations do communicate with the elect departed in the priuiledges which Christ hath purchased by his precious bloud for his owne members But the best is malice it selfe dare not charge vs with simple denying all communion betwixt the Saints in Heauen and them in earth but only with the deniall of it in some few points One whereof viz. Inuocation of saints this papist would proue by scripture The Gen. 48. 16. Apoc. 1. 4. Aagell that deliuered me from all euills blesse these children Grace and peace from him that is was and that is to come and from the seauen spirits which are in the sight of his throne Iacob and Iohn pray that we may be protected blessed of God by the ministery of the Angells therefore the communion of Saints signifieth that the Saints in Heauen pray for vs and we must pray to them Need I to write one word in answere to this reason but I am desirous that all men should see the weakenesse of this proofe First it is doubted by very good writers ancient and latter whether Iacob meane Christ or some speciall Angell whether the seauen spirits signifie the holy Ghost or the armies of Angells Secondly no Papist that euer I read confounds Angells with Saints or interprets the communion of saints by the ministery of Angells Thirdly these consequences are feeble first The Angells are ministring spirits Therefore the saints departed pray for vs. secondly The Angells protect vs and are ministers of Grace and peace from God to vs therefore by mediation they obtaine our requests Thirdly what streÌ„gth is there in this conclusioÌ„ The Angells pray for vs Therfore we are bound to glorifie theÌ„ by praying to them that is to disâ—onour God by honouring them For I demaund whether we may at any time pray to God without their mediation or noe If we may not then the Lords prayer is taught vs in vaine because that cannot belong to any Angel or saint If we may I aske why not at one time as wel as at another Why not in one matter as wel as in an other Vrge not your carnall comparison betwixt God and earthly Princes for both it is as forcible for one time and matter as another and thereby you rob God of the glory and thankes he should receaue of vs for the granting of our requests and vs of the comfort we might haue by the feeling perswasion of Gods loue in hearing our praiers and satisfiing our desires If the Prince receaue my petition at my owne hands and yeeld vnto it I haue reason to perswade my selfe of his loue to mee and to giue all thankes to him for his princely bounty If any besides my selfe commend my suite to him and it be obtained I am perhaps neuer a whit beholding to him because it may be he knows not me nor cares what I am but only doth some fauorite of his owne that kindnesse Now let any reasonable man iudge whether all the poore recompence I can make all the thankfulnesse I can shew be not due to the partie by whose graciousnesse with the Prince I attayned to that I sought for so that if I content him in some measure though I neuer honour nor loue the Prince one iot the more yet I do as much as iustly can be required of me Yea if I would enforce my selfe to be thankfull to the Prince both he might disdayne my presumption and he that preferred my suite be offended with my vnthankfulnesse that would not giue him all the thanks that procured all the fauour They say you that deny the communion of the church militant and the soules in purgatory deny
the communion of saints some way Then belike there be saints in purgatory and the members of the Church militant are Saints But why say you nothing of the saints in heauen Is 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
vnto vs. That is your Popish Heresie Nay we acknowledge with thankes to God and their iust commendation that the ancient writers haue brought great light to the true vnderstanding of scriptures Yea that many Papists haue interpreted some texts of scripture soundly religiously Moreouer we confesse that all and euery one of our writers either hath or may haue failed in his expositions I speake the last doubtfully because some haue written but little and my selfe haue not examined all If any Heretikes avow the truth of al their owne interpretations what should this preiudice our cause Who submitt whatsoeuer our expositions to be compared with the scriptures to be receaued or refused as they shal be found to agree or disagree with or from the word of God I would add hereunto the generall consent of the ancient writers but that it is a longer and more vncertaine course to try whether they be sutable vnto their owne writings then whether they be framed according to the holy Ghosts meaning For the maine doubt must needs accompany that tryall viz. who shal be Iudge whether we or the Papists rightly vnderstand and expounde the fathers wrytings If any man shall say their Bookes and Commentaries are plaine and easie I dare boldly say of him that either he neuer read what they write or cares not what himselfe sayes It wil not serue the turne to bring some plaine interpretations out of them for so can we alleage very many texts out of the Scripture But he that is desirous to iudge truly of the meaning of any writer must not snatch vp a sentence here and there but aduisedly consider both his manner of writing in other places and the signification of diuers phrases and custome of speech in those times wherin he writ the occasion of those particular words he would vnderstand and diuers other such points Which will proue as ere while I said more troublesome and lesse certaine then to search euery corner of the text for the true meaning of the scripture And here let vs remember that we are sure the scripture agrees with it selfe in euery place and point that any other writers do so who can be assured So that many times we shall beat our braines to reconcile those speeches which indeed are very certaine contrarieties Since that this difficultie remaines in vnderstanding the fathers writings which is the onely doubt in the scripture what madnesse were it to leaue beating of the text wherein we know the certaine truth is to be found and to run ryot in the wilde-feilds of mens inuentions where perhaps there is nothing to be had but errour Let vs vse the helpe of Ancient writers to finde the meaning of the holy Ghost but not rest vpon their authority therein If they proue their interpretations by reason let it be waighed that it may perswade vs to think as they do If there be none let vs labour to find some for their interpretation If that will be not let vs see what other reason we can haue of any other exposition If it please God to shew vs any Let vs craue pardon of the Fathers to dissent from them if none Let vs rather trust them then our selues where there is nothing but coniecture without difference of likelyhood We are far from bragging of any such speciall illumination as the Donatists challenged to themselues For we say not that the Church of God is only in our assemblies or the spirit tyed to vs. Who knowes not that this is a stale popish deuise to shutt vp the holy Ghost in the Popes brest so that neither all Councills without him can be any thing worth and hee of himselfe without any of them is alsufficient A litle flocke wee are in deed if wee bee compared with the huge swarmes of Infidells Papistes and other hâ—retickes Yea as many of vs as belong to the election of God are of that small flocke to which Luke 12. 32. it is Godâ— good pleasure to giue A kingdome To bee of any other Litle flocke wee accompt it no commendation Nay rather wee desire and pray that it would please God to enlarge the boundes of his Church and to increase the number of true professors But we are not ashamed of our small nomber though the Papists twight vs with all in comparison of their huge multitudes Therefore whereas this Papist likens vs to the Donatists Pelagians Nestorians Eutychians with all the rable of other damned heretickes we acknowledge it is our portion to be rayled on with our Master Christ and so shake of this froth of a malicious stomacke with that speech of the Archangell The Lord rebuke thee Now for a Conclusion that the end might be sutable to the beginning he laboures to disgrace the principles of our Religion by affirming as truely as he hath done all the rest that if our principles bee true then Saint Paule exhorts men to infidelity How many of our principles thinke you hee ouerthrowes by this reason But poore one if it were neuer so true and being false as it is not that neither Whosoeuer exhorts vs to doubt of that which we are bound to beleeue by faith exhorts vs to infidelitie The proofe of this might well haue bin spared and the strength you wastâ—nâ—â— reserued for the assumption which hath more need oâ— your help then it seemes your are aware of But Saint Paul doth exhort vs to doubt of our saluation which wee are bound to beleeue by faith according to the Protestants doctrine Because it makes for the better vnderstanding of this Reason I will in few wordes set downe what we teach concerning this point Namely that it behooues euery Christian to laboure for the perfection as of other graces so of the assurance that comes by faith also Which standes in a full perswasion of the loue of God in Iesus Christ and the continuance thereof to his euerlasting saluation In deed this is not the proper nature of faith which rather is that grace whereby we cast our selues vpon Christ to be saued by him But it is an effect of faith which euery Christian must striue to haue grounded in him selfe so that if he haue it not he failes in one duty to God But we may not imagine that whosoeuer hath not this feeling assurance of Gods loue to him either is without faith or shal be damned for the want of this perswasion Nay we make no question but that both faith it selfe this effect of it is in al or the most part very far from perfection euery one hauing his measure alotted vnto him according to the good pleasure of God who sees how much is necessary for euery one in regard of the inward and outward trialls which hee shall haue in this life This must wee indeuour by all good meanes to establish and augment herevnto belongs that exhortation of the Apostles With feare and trembling worke your saluation There are two kinds of men whom it doth concerne