Answer to a Popish Pamphlet, Article 4
Art. 4. The Proteſtants know not what they beleeue.
Anſwere.
Gloſta in extrau. 102, 22. de verborum ſignif. c. quum inter non…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 whyA. they beleeue. That they know not why they beleeue, I hauehave 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 knowB. Proofe of the article. 1. not what they beleeue is manifeſt; becauſe they hauehave no rule, whereby to know what is matter of faith, and what is not.
Some ſay the ſphere of their faith is extended ſolely, andC. 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 nothingD. 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 ProteſtantsE. deny three, and the Puritans fiue.
1. The firſt is, the Catholick Church. Credo eccleſiam ſanctā 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 allMat. 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 Gui…es in Flaunders, d…eſt their religion almoſt as much, as the catholicks; neither …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 pr…ed bowe a whole tree, or a dead finger a man, or a rotten tooth the whole head.2. ….
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 cōmunicate; & 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 militantH. Gē. …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 militantI. 1. Cor. 3. 15. & 15. …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 acknowledge3. 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 theTit. 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 cōmitted 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 …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 of4. m. Ioh. 8. v. 24. Ioh. 16. v. 13. And D. Bucley cō tendeth to proue it in h…s aunſwer to this article, albeit he vnderſtand not the reaſon heere alleaged, for if he did, he were too abſurd to deni… it. If you vnderstood his aunſvver, you vvould neuer ſay ſo fo… 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 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 eueryevery perſon in Trinity.
*5. N.Finally they deny the Deſcenſion of Chriſt into Hell, & deſperately defend, that he ſuffered the paines of Hell, vponupon 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 a… 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 hauehave proued, that the ground of our beliefe isA. not the authority of the ſcripture, of Councills, of Doctors, or of the Church, let them iudge that hauehave weighed your accuſation againſt my defence. And yet for the laſt three, wee neuer ment to ſtriue. For we build our faith vponupon 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 giuegive to none, but the holy Ghoſt▪ the author of ſcripture.
Your reaſō to proue we know not what we beleeue, is this.B.
They, that hauehave no rule, to know what is matter of faith, and what is not, know not what they beleeue.
But the Proteſtants hauehave 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, thatTo the Propoſition. either is ignorant of the particular points, he holdes, or at leaſt vnderſtands them not: ſuch as all vnlearned Papiſts are, by th…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 eueryevery 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 hauehave no rule, to know what is matter of faith.
No more then Lawyers hauehave, to know what is Law; ITo 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 vntounto the Scriptures, as then was written? Aſſuredly they that hauehave 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, hauehave 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 hauehave 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, hauehave 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 vponupon 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, hauehave 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, hauehave no rule, to know what is matter of faith.
The propoſition is falſe: for all ſuch Heretikes hauehave 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 hauehave 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, hauehave 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, hauehave 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, hauehave no rule to know what is matter of Faith.
This Propoſition may proue, that they hauehave not a ſufficient rule, but not, that they hauehave no rule.
I deny your aſſumption: For they, that reſt onelyonly vponupon 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 ſ…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 hauehave, in this caſe. The authority of the Church they will ſay.
But what rule hauehave 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 hauehave 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 ſatisfactiō 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 eueryevery 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 thē, 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave no rule, to know what is matter of faith.
I thinke the Proteſtant is yet vnborne, that makes theD. 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 hauehave no rule, whereby to know what is matter of faith, but that they hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vsus, to charge any of vsus with the deniall, of any one Article thereof: eſpecially ſince no hereticks were euer charged with the deniall of Scripture, becauſe they …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 vsus, 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 vsus, 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) hauehave E.no rule to know, what is matter of faith.
They that deny all the Articles of their Creed, hauehave indeed no rule (ſuppoſing that there is no other rule but the Creed) but ſo much of the Creed, as they deny not, they hauehave 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, andLooke 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 vsus, how to know which is the true Church; but enioynes vsus 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 requir… continuall being in all places at once; for then there … as any catholick church in the world, nor I ſuppoſe …. At the leaſt, hauehave you forgotten that (according … our owne doctrine) the church ſhalbe hidden in the … all the time of Antichriſts tyranny? Then this wilbe … …incible argument againſt the church, It is not vniuerſall … …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 bele… … Catholick Church.
But they do not … …peares, by the aunſwere to the firſt Article; beſides, … Proteſtants do not hold, that the church in England is … …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 vsus, there be ſome … in matters of importance; yet neither are they ſuch … …rectly ouerthrow the foundation; And both the French … Flemiſh churches agree with …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. …. 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 eueryevery time we receaue it, we are made one body with Chriſt: yea although we hauehave 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 cōfirmed, & ſtrengthned for his better continuance in Chriſts body, which grace al that worthily receiue the ſacrament, obtaine of God, eueryevery one in their meaſure: but it is vnpoſſible that he ſhould eueryevery 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 vsus 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 vsus, 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 vsus. ſecondly, The Angells protect vsus, and are miniſters of Grace, and peace from God to vsus: therefore by mediation they obtaine our requeſts, Thirdly what ſtrēgth is there in this concluſiō. The Angells pray for vsus; Therfore we are bound to glorifie thē, by praying to them; that is to diſ…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 vsus 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 vsus, for the granting of our requeſts; and vsus of the comfort, we might hauehave, by the feeling perſwaſion of Gods louelove, in hearing our praiers, and ſatisfiing our deſires.
If the Prince receaue my petition at my owne hands, and yeeld vntounto it, I hauehave reaſon to perſwade my ſelfe of his louelove to mee, and to giuegive 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 louelove 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 giuegive 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 vsus as well as wee praye to the Saints triumphant, who do but halfe ſo much for vsus, 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, that1. 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 onelyonly, ſuch as himſelfe, & Apollos verſ. 6.
2. The reward, that ſhalbe receaued verſ. 14. is to be geuen, according to the labour of the Miniſter. verſ. 8.
3. The People, what good workes ſoeuer they hauehave, 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 onelyonly, that hauehave 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 vponupon, that the fier, verſ. 13. doth not ſignifie Purgatory, what reaſon ſhall perſwade vsus, that this doth? verſ. 15.
The other place hath troubled all the Diuines, that euer1. Cor. 15. 29. writ vponupon it, both for the Grammar, and the ſenſe of it. It ſhalbe therefore ſufficient for me to anſwere, that till the Popiſh interpretation be better proued, we hauehave 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 vponupon vsus 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 giuegive 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 hauehave 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 eueryevery 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 hauehave Baptiſmum Fluminis, the baptiſme of water, hauehave alſo Baptiſmum Flaminis the baptiſme of the ſpirit. Secondly that none hauehave forgiueneſſe, but they, which are baptiſed. Thirdly that eueryevery 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 vponupon 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 hauehave more ſinnes forgiuen him, then one that is ſaued; that a man may hauehave 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 hauehave 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 onelyonly promiſes, that the worke of the Miniſterie ſhalbe 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 giuegive. 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 hauehave 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 SauiourPſal. 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 cr…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 pecca…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 eueryevery 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 vsus; 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 natureNom. 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, whomM. 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 vponupon Caluin by Bellarmine, and our engliſh Rhemiſts, I will anſwere diſtinctly to eueryevery 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 vsus 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 on… 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, a… 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 toIoa. …. 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 c…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. 25. and 13. for. 14. or. 15. Let vsus make the beſt of it. They ſaid therefore Ioa. 8. 25.vntounto him, Who art thou. Ieſus ſaid to them. The beginning, who alſo ſpake vntounto you. I will not ſtriue about the diuers reading, only it is to bee noted, that this Papiſt, either ignorantly or craftely, quotes Cyrill in the margine, whereas wee hauehave no Commentary of his, vponupon that place, but the defect thereof is ſupplyed by Iodocus Clichthoueus a Popiſh Biſhop, whom this man bluſhes not to alledge in Cyrills name. Nothing can bee drawne from hence, ſaue only that Chriſt is God, which wee deny not; except wee perhaps may proue hereby, that hee is God of himſelfe, becauſe he is the beginning. Hee ſhall glorifie me, becauſe he ſhall receaue Ioa 16. 14. 15.of myne, and ſhall ſhew to you. All things, whatſoeuer the father hath, are mine. Therefore I ſaid that hee ſhall receaue of mine, and ſhew to you. Who can wring any word, for proofe that Chriſt receaued his God-head from his father, out of this text? If you vrge, That all, whatſoeuer the father hath, is his: What proues that? ſaue onelyonly that hee is God equall with his father, (viz) the ſame God with his father, which is confeſt.
This Propoſition (ſaith▪ hee) That Chriſt receaued not his diuinitie from his father, flatly takes awaye the nature of a Sonne.
Then the diſtinction of the perſons is thus to bee conceaued: that the Father is God one way, by hauing his diuinitie of himſelfe: the Sonne another waie, by h…uing his Diuinitie from his father; and the Holy Ghoſt a third way, by hauing his diuinitie both from the father and the ſonne; and ſo wee ſhall hauehave as truely, and diſtinctly. 3. Godes, as wee hauehave. 3. perſons. To the proofe.
The nature of a ſonne (ſaith hee) is to receaue his ſubſtance from his father.
What … ſubſtance? then there is neuer a Sonne … the world… … we grant that the Father creats the ſoule, as he … the body.
But if we … …ake the ſupernaturall generation of the ſonne of God, … …gree preciſely with the naturall generation of men▪ … muſt needes hold, that as the humane Sonne is a … …an, from his Father, ſo the Sonne of God, in reſpect… … ſubſtance receaued from his heauenly Father, is … God from his father. And ſurely, that he is diſt… …rom his Father, by the nature of his being a Sonne, … cannot be doubted: but that, by the nature of his … God, he is diſtinct from God his Father, it may … hand be graunted; becauſe it neceſſarily impl… a multiplying, or pluralitie of Gods.
Neyther is the… … Contradiction in graunting, that our Sauiour Ch… …ceaued his perſon of his Father, and not his ſubſt… and eſſence; For by ſubſtance and eſſence you doe … the nature of his being a Sonne, which we graunt … from the father wholly, but his diuine nature, wh… … much differing from that, as that the Father, the So… … the Holy Ghoſt, being all three one in ſubſta… … three diſtinct perſons, or ſubſiſtences.foreign.
For what though… … ſubſtance of God be eſſentiall to eueryevery perſon in … It doth not follow therevpon, that it is of the … of the perſon. It is indeed thus eſſentiall, that … …ſon is God▪ but not that the God-head is the … eueryevery perſon: for then (as I hauehave often ſaid) … muſt be but one perſon, as the God-head i… …e, … Gods, as there are diuers perſons.
The proteſtants (ſaith …) …emptorily affirme, that Chriſt is. God of himſelfe, and n…t G… … God.
That, Chriſt is God▪ … …ſelfe we affirme conſtantly, and certainly: but this peremptorine… … that Synagogue, which thunde▪ … out … dently, and ordinarily againſt all men, tha… … otherwiſe, then it teaches, th…gh … ſo … ly.
We deny not that the Holy councill of Nice …ly taught, that our Sauiour Chriſt is God of God, ve… … of very God; but wee ſaye, that they ment not, as yo… …piſts do, who make our Sauiour, as it were an vnderunder God, receauing his Godhead of another, and not hauing … … himſelfe. How vnfitly this muſt needes ſerue thoſe …ed, and godly fathers, for the proofe of our Sauiours …qualitie with God the fathe…, who ſees not? when … Arrius might readily hauehave anſwered, that he muſt … be inferiour to God the Father; becauſe he had his God-head of himſelfe, Chriſt of him; As for the word whi… they vrged,foreign. concerning the ſame nature of both it d… not ſignifie, nor intend, that Chriſt receaued his God-head of the Father, but that he was the ſame God with his Father. So that he being of God, was the ſame God with him, of whom he was; Which cannot poſſiblie b… …f the one be God of himſelfe, and the other God of him▪ …at is God of himſelfe. For to be of himſelfe, and not to be of himſelfe, but of another, are things quite contrary, which cannot be true of God, as he is God. But you will aske, perchance, whether the ſonne be inferiou… …o the Father, touching his perſon▪ becauſe he hath that … No truely; for the generation being eternall▪ … the Father hauing no preheminence of being, before … but as the nature of relation neceſſarily … is neither inferioritie, nor ſuperioritie betwixt …
Yet may the Father truely be ſaid to be the firſt … and the fountaine of the Trinity, and if you will … tie, alſo, in this ſenſe, becauſe either perſon being of … truly God.
According to which meaning, Our ſauiour is God of God, Deu… … deo perennis. Deus ex vtroque m…ſ…us. Prudentius in hymno ante ſomnum.that is, the ſecond perſon, being truely God, is of the father being truely God: though in reſpect of his God-head, he is not of the Father, but of himſelfe, as I will proue by the reaſons following.
1. He, that is Ieho…ah, is God of himſelfe, not of another.
But Chriſt is Ieho…ah.
Therefore Chriſt is God of himſelfe, not of another.
2. If all that is the fathers, is Chriſts alſo, then Chriſt is God of himſelfe, for the father is God of himſelfe.
But all that is the fathers is Chriſts.
Therefore Chriſt is God of himſelfe.
3. If Chriſt receaue his Godhead of his father, as he doth his perſon, then muſt he be a diſtinct God, as he is a diſtinct perſon.
But he muſt not be a diſtinct God.
Therefore he receaues not his Godhead of his father.
4. If Chriſt receaue his Godhead, then may the Godhead be diſtinguiſhed, by being begotten, and vnbegotten.
But the Godhead may not be ſo diſtinguiſhed; for that is proper to the perſon.
Therefore Chriſt receaues not his Godhead from his Father; but hath it of himſelfe.
5. It is ſomewhat yet for a man to belike himſelfe.
The firſt of theſe 5. points. was charged vponupon vsus, as an errourN. in 2. reſpects. becauſe both we denie that interpretation of the Article, which the Papiſts hauehave deuiſed, and alſo refuſe the doctrine of viſible famouſnes, which they would thruſt vponupon 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, b…t only that erroneous interpretation, which the Papiſts make of them. Of the former I hauehave already ſpoken; now let vsus ſhortly examine the latter. Firſt we ſay the engliſh word Hell doth not expreſſe the Greeke foreign, or the Latine Inferi, though wee cannot reſt vponupon 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 foreign, and Inferi do ſignifie indifferently the ſtate, and place of the dead as Maiſter Brough…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, vnderunder the earth, as well as their Tartarus, or Hell, that lying on the right hand, this on the left as it appeares in Virgill Aen…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 hauehave 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, hauehave 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 mētion 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 hauehave great reaſon to refuſe this ſenſe which hath no ground of Scripture, wherevpon it can be built, as diuers of our writers hauehave 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 foreign, 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 foreign, as Bucer, Carlile, and Broughton hauehave ſhewed by particular induction.
Seauenthly we muſt note this mans dealing, that makes choiſe of the wo…ſt interpretation as he accompt it; whereas he cannot be ignorant, both that there are diuers other, and that many Proteſtants do m…ſlike this, which he brings: as if he would make the world beleeue, that we allow not of this peece of the Creed, but onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 ſ…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 vsus 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 hauehave 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 vponupon 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 vsus, as eueryevery one of vsus 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 hauehave 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; h…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 comforts I ſpake of before, vpheld him from all daunger of deſpayring, and deliuered him from that perpetuity of torment, in which otherwiſe, hauing taken vponupon him our Perſon, hee ſhould hauehave remained. Now this ſo being, we need not feare theſe thunder-bolts of horrible blaſphemy; although wee beleeue that Chriſt our ſauiour did, for a time, indure in his ſoule the wrath of God, which was due to our ſinnes. Neither doe we hereby make God the enemie of God, nor of the humanitie of Ieſus Chriſt, which he euer moſt entirely loued, but only auouch, that God truly hated, and puniſht our ſinnes, in his owne ſonne, with ſuch a kinde, and meaſure of his wrath, as being true, and iuſt, was eueryevery way without ſinne, and finite in regard of the time. ſo that I take the Doctrine to be voide of blaſphemy; howſoeuer the meaning of the Article bee conceiu'd.