world and of the stability and perpetuity of Christs Kingdom But yet it follows not but both the Catholick Church is invisible as I said before and that the visible Churches may be obscured and darkened as it was fore-told in the time of the Antichrist As for the 18. of Matthew 17. Go tell the Church c. The Church is here taken for the Pastors and Governors of particular Churches which we grant are visible but yet it follows not but that both they and the professors may be obscured and darkened either through heresie or through extream persecution or through both together as it was fore-told in the time of the Antichrist and hath been fulfilled by your Church As for the true Church unto whom we should joyn our selves I answer We can have no salvation unless we joyn our selves first to the Catholick Church that is unto Jesus and his members by a spiritual communion without the which there is no salvation Next unto some particular visible Church by the outward communion of the Word and Sacraments c if we know it and possibly can joyn our selves unto it For if either we know it or may not as these seven thousand that bowed not their knee to Baal then I say salvation is not perilled As for your last reason The true Church may never want the true preaching of the Word and right administration of the Sacraments I answer First there is not the like necessity of the Sacraments as there is of the Word Next suppose they have it and thereby are known among themselves and some of them also to their adversaries yet it follows not that they are so openly visible that they are patent and known to all As for example There is no question but these seven thousand that did not bow their knee to Baal 1. Kings 19.18 and these hundred Prophets who was hid in the caves 1. Kings 18.13 and the Apostles when all were scattered through that persecution as Luke testifies Acts 8.1 had the exercise of the Word among them And it is not likely that the Apostles wanted some to teach suppose they were not known to all no not to their persecuters otherwise they would have been persecuted And such like we doubt not but in the time of Queen Maries persecution in England and in other parts under that Antichristian tyranny but the Lord had his own both Pastor and people among whom the truth was preached suppose neither we nor their adversaries knew them all For it is oft-times for the safety of the Church to lurk and to be hid that she may escape the fury and rage of her enemies As for Augustin Cyprian Origen Chrysostome and Jerome which ye quote here they speak either of the perpetuity and eternity of the Catholick Church or else of the largeness and clearness of the particular Churches which were in those days which is neither against the invisibility of the Catholick Church nor yet against the obscure estat and smal handful of the Church of Christ whereunto she should be brought in the days of the Antichrist as was fore-told by the Scripture and fulfilled in your Papistical Kingdom For we grant that in their dayes the Churches of Christ was frequent and glorious but yet they did not ay remain in that estat For the Churches of the East are almost overthrown by the Mahomet and the Churches of the West by the Antichrist So that partly by the one and partly by the other the Church of Christ hath been redacted to a smal handful as hath been said SECTION XXIV Where our Religion was before Luther Or a Catalogue of them who professed our Religion in the midst of Popery Master John Welsch Last of all I will set you down the names of these worthy men that in the midst of Popery spake against their errors and preached the same Religion which we preach I will but only name a few of them that was in the midst of Popery when it was come to the hight anno 1158. Gerardus and Dulcimus Navarrensis M John hath not the right dyet of these his holy Fathers Answer If it was so as you write it it was error in scribendo and that which I writ afterward might have taught you this when I said this was 400. years past did preach earnestly against the Church of Rome and called the Pope the Antichrist and taught also that the Clergy of Rome was become the whore of Babylon fore-spoken in the Revelation this was 400. years past In the year of our Lord 1160. one * This Waldus and his sect had wives and all things common and so must M. John if he follow him Answer This is falsly alledged of him and his followers but either your Canon Law errs Causa 12. qu. 1. Dilectissimis or else Pope Clement was of this mind and so if you be of his Religion you must be so for albeit ye have no wives yet other mens wives have been made common to your Popes and your Clergy in horrible adulteries Waldus a citizen of Lyons in France with a great number taught that same doctrine which we teach now condemned the Mass to be wicked the Pope to be the Antichrist and Rome to be Babylon They were persecuted by the Pope and remained long in Bohemia In the year 1112. the Pope caused an hundred persons in the Countrey of Alsatia whereof many were noble-men to be burnt in one day for the maintaining of that same doctrine that we now maintain against the Church of Rome About the year of our Lord 1230. almost all the Churches of the Grecians which with the rest of the Churches of Asia and Africk who do not acknowledge the supremacy of your Pope are mo then the Churches of Europe who submit themselves to him did all renounce the Pope and the Romish Church because of their execrable simony and idolatry in the year 1240. In the Countrey of Swevia there were many Preachers that taught freely against the Pope and affirmed he and his Clergy were hereticks and simoniacks in the year 1251. or thereabout Arnoldus de Villanova a learned Spaniard taught freely against the Church of Rome and among the rest that the Pope led the people to hell for the which cause the Pope condemned him as an heretick about the same time Gulielmus de Sancto Amore Master and chief Ruler of that University taught that all the testimonies of the Scripture spoken of the Antichrist should be applyed to the Pope and his Clergy and so taught them to be the Antichrist and the whore of Babel anno 1290. Laurence an English-man and Master of the University in Paris proved mightily that the Pope was the Antichrist and his Clergy the Synagogue of Babylon About the same time Robertus Gallus a man of noble parentage taught the Pope was an Idol and said the judgement of God would fall upon him and his Clergy Because I have no time to write the doctrine of the rest
Church and as Bellarmin sayes as hath been said before If ye go this far as ye do indeed and as Bellarmin doth and your self must do if ye be a right defender of your Catholick faith here or else there is no ground whereupon ye can build the puretie and truth of your Church and Religion Then I say that your ground is as false and erroneous as the stuff that ye build upon it for both they have failed and have been interrupted as shal be proved afterward And mark this Christian reader as the Philistins Church wherein they praised their God Judg. 16. and mocked Samson the Lords servant had two chief pillars whereon the whole house leaned and was born up so hath the Church of Rome two chief pillars whereon the whole weight of their Church and Religion hings the one whereof is this that the Church cannot err the other that the Pope is the head of the Church Take these two from them their house must fall and their Religion can stand no longer For when they are brought to this strait that they see they cannot defend their Religion neither by the testimonies of the Scripture nor yet by the examples of the Church of God when she was in her greater purity and sincerity they are compelled to lay this as a ground to hold all their errors on that the Church of Christ cannot err So take this ground from them their Church and Religion cannot stand Now as to the testimonies which ye quote out of the Old Testament out of Luke 1.33 in the New Testament they only prove that the Church and Kingdom of Christ shal endure for evermore and that his covenant made with her is everlasting The which cannot exeem the militant Church from erring in points of doctrine for both the chaff and evil seed in the Church that is these that are called but not chosen may err and that to death and damnation and yet his Church and Kingdom and his covenant remaineth sure stable and inviolate for the Lord only offers his covenant unto them and they through incredulitie reject it and so he is not bound to sanctifie or save them much less to keep them from error And as for these who are called and chosen all these promises are made and performed in every one of them and the covenant of God is so sure in every one of them that our Savior saith None of them can perish John 10.28 And yet for all this every one of them may err in doctrine suppose not to death and damnation which ye will not deny And if ye would infinit examples not only of the Saints of God of the laicks as ye call them but also of the Priests Prophets Apostles yea and of Popes also and of your own Doctors and Bishops as a cloud of witnesses would stand up and avow the same in your face Now I gather seeing that the militant Church here on earth hath but two sorts of persons in her these that are called and chosen and these that are only called but not chosen and both may err in points of doctrine the one finally to death and damnation the other may err suppose not finally to death and damnation and yet the covenant of God remain sure everlasting and inviolate with his Church Therefore I say the promises of the stabilitie of Christs Kingdom and the perpetuitie of his covenant made with her cannot exeem the militant Church from erring in points of doctrine So ye have lost your vantguard Let us come to the rest and see if they will favor your cause any better then the former hath done The next place ye quote is Matth. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shal not prevail against it And because ye trust that there is not a testimony of Scripture which shal fight more for you then this let us therefore try it to the uttermost and see how far it can be stretched out What argument will ye frame out of this place For if you gather no more but this Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shal never prevail against the Church that is built on the Rock that is on Christ Therefore the Church that is built on him shal never be all utterlie extinguished and abolished by Satan Then Bellarmin tells you that ye spend but time in proving of this for we grant it That the Church of the chosen shal never perish But if you go further and say That the Church of Christ shal never err because Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shal not prevail against it then I say either that exposition is false or else the gates of hell should have prevailed long since against your Church for when it prevailed against the rock whereon the Church was built it prevailed against the Church For raze and overturn the foundation of a house the house cannot stand seeing the standing of the house consists on the firmness sureness of the foundation thereof Now the rock whereon ye say the Church is built unto whom this promise is made is Peter and his successors the Popes of Rome for so ye all with one consent expone the same Rhemists annotation upon this place Seeing then that they are the foundation of the Church as ye say and the gates of hell hath prevailed against them as I shal prove by the grace of God it must follow if your exposition be true that the gates of hell hath prevailed not once only but at many times against â—he Church For first Peter himself erred in a matter of doctrine when he thought with the rest of the Apostles after the resurrection of Christ the Kingdom of Christ not to be heavenlie but earthlie not spiritual but like the Kingdoms of this world proper to Israel Acts 1.6 not common to all by vertue of the promise and also he is commanded to preach the Gospel to the Gentils doubting nothing Acts 10.20 Which testifies that he doubted before whither the Gospel should be preached to them or not and therefore erred in a matter of faith and that after he had received the promise of the holy Ghost And also he erred in the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law Acts 10.14 for he believed that some meats were unclean after the death and resurrection of Christ and therefore he refused to eat thereof And this was a matter of faith also And last of all the holy Ghost testifies that he went not a right foot to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2.11 and therefore was rebuked by the Apostle Paul to his face And as for them whom ye call his successors the Popes of Rome not only may they be hereticks but also some of them have been hereticks And therefore if your argument be good the gates of hell both may and have prevailed against them That they may be hereticks I will fetch no other witnesses but your own Councils Canons Cardinals
say and would ye have the salvation of mens souls to lean to this point of doctrine that they caÌ„not err which is the rock foundation of your Church which above all others have erred most grievously O malicious and cruel man that would deceive the poor flock of Jesus Christ for whom he shed his blood with such heresie and abomination Then this prerogative is not granted to your Popes the head and foundation of your Church And surely if the foundation may be turned up-side-down and the head may become sensless and dead I see not how the house can stand and the body can be whole and one of your greatest Papists Bâ—llarmin plainly confesseth lib. 4 de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. that if the Pope err of necessity tota Ecclesia errabit that is the whole Church shal err Upon the which I reason If the Pope may err and hath erred then the whole Church may err and hath erred so Bellarmin one of the learnedest Papists that ever was writ But the first hath been proved by your own Doctors Cardinals Popes Councils Canon Law Ergo by your own doctrine the whole Church may err Here we might stay now and go no further for this sufficiently overthrows this point of your doctrine that the Church caÌ„not err that by the confession of the learnedest of your side But yet I will pursue the rest If you say it is granted to the body then it is either graÌ„ted to the people or to the Clergy To the people I suppose ye will not for if your Popes may err much more may your people err And if the Apostles other famous Churches may err much more may your people err yea if not it should follow that your people were above their head the Pope which I suppose ye wil not say If ye say the Clergy then either it must be your Doctors severally by themselves or as they are gathered together in a Council But as they are several ye will not say For your Bellarmin controversies would convince you to the face for almost there are few controversies which he handles and he handles more then 300 but he brings in some of your own Writers dissenting from him and whom in many places he confutes And I think if Popes have not this priviledge surely the Doctors of your Church severally have not this priviledge But because as Bellarmin confesseth Lib. 2. de author Concil c. 11. If a general Council err then the whole Church may err for it represents the whole Church And therefore he brings this in as a reason to prove That general Councils cannot err because the whole Church cannot err For saith he the general Council represents the whole Church therefore it cannot err Let us examine this for if it be found that general Councils may err surely your cause is gone First then what will ye say to thirteen general Councils whereof seven is utterly rejected the other six are in part allowed and in part rejected which all have erred as Bellarmin de Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 6. 7. confesseth But it may be you answer that these were not approved by the Popes of Rome and therefore they might err and have erred but these Councils that are altogether allowed of him cannot err nor have not erred Indeed it is true that this is your doctrine That neither general nor provincial Councils can err that is allowed by the Pope Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 2. 5. and that general Councils lawfully conveaned may err unless they follow the instructions of the Pope And therefore Bellarmin saith cap. 11. that they may err three manner of wayes 1. If in defining of any thing the Fathers of the Council dissent from the Popes Legats 2. If it be against the Popes instruction suppose both the Fathers and the Legats of the Council agree together 3. They may err before they have received the Popes confirmation and judgement suppose all both Fathers and Legats consent together because saith he the Popes judgement is the last from the which no man may appeal and he may approve and disprove the General Council notwithstanding of their consent with his own Legats And therefore he saith in another place Lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. That the whole strength or certainty of lawful Councils depends only of the Pope So then this is your last refuge All depends on his instruction and confirmation he hath a priviledge that he cannot err and the General Councils receives the same through his approbation and confirmation But I answer The Pope can give no greater prerogative to others then he hath himself But as hath been proved before the Popes may err and have been hereticks therefore they cannot give this prerogative to others And if ye will say as some of you do that the Pope suppose he may err privatly as he is a privat man and as a privat teacher yet he cannot err as he is Pope in his office judicially Whereunto I answer first That some of your own Church as Gerson and Almane de potestate Ecclesiae Alphonsus de Castro lib. 1. cap. 2. contra haeres Canus loci Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 1. and Pope Adrian the sixth all these teaches That the Popes may err and teach heresie as they are Popes Either therefore the Popes may err as they are Popes judicially and teach heresie or else not only these Doctors of your own Church but also the Pope himself hath erred and that in a point of doctrine and so however it be the Popes as they are Popes judicially may err in points of doctrine Secondly I say besides nine Popes which have been hereticks and that when they were Popes sundrie of them have made decrees not only contrary to Gods Word but also contrary one to another and that in matters of doctrine As for example Pope Celestin the third made a decree cap. laudabilem de conversione infidelium that when of married persons the one falls in heresie the marriage is dissolved and the Catholick partie is free to marry again contrary to the truth of God Matth. 6. and 19.9 and also contrary to the decreet of Pope Innocentius the third lib 4. decretal cap. Quanto Thirdly either your Canon Law errs or else Clements decrees that all things should be common and that wives also should be common causa 12 quaest 1. Dilectissimis Gelasius Pope affirms de consecrat cap. Comperimus That the mistery of the body and blood in the Sacrament cannot be divided and that the Sacrament cannot be taken in one kind only without great sacriledge and yet the Council of Trent hath decreed the contrary and the whole Romane Church practises the contrary Pope Martin decreed dist 50. cap. Qui semel that the Priests who are deposed for any fault may never be admitted to any degree of the Priesthood again Pope Syricus distinct 82. cap. Quia and Pope Calixtus distinct 82. cap. Presbyter have decreed the contrary Pope Gregory the
the necessitie of satisfaction the numbering over the sins to the Priest Canisius a great Papist in his Catechism cap. 5. de praeceptis Ecclesiae saith That the worshipping of images the set fastes and the forty dayes of Lent and all that are done in the sacrifice of the Mass prayers and oblations for the dead alia and others he saith all these are traditions because they are such that they cannot be defended by the Scripture And Lindanus another great defender of your Romish faith and Religion he reckons out for Traditions lib 4. Panopliae cap. 100. in fine illius libri tab 6. that there are seven Sacraments the consecration of the water and oyl in Baptism the real presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Sacrament Communion under one kind that the Lords Supper is a sacrifice that it should be kept and adored privat Masses Confession of sins to the Priests satisfactions pardons Purgatorie and that Peter was in Rome Martinus Peresius another Papist numbers the single life of Priests among the unwritten traditions The truth is strong that hath so far glanced in the consciences of some of you and hath opened your mouthes to confess and to set it down in writ to the world that the principal heads of your Religion yea the very foundation and ground of it as the supremacie of your Popes and the sacrifice of your Mass and the rest are unwritten traditions which have not the beginning nor original nor authoritie in the Lords written Word and which cannot be defended by the same as some of your selves have confessed So it is no wonder suppose ye refuse to have the controversies of Religion decided by the same Let the Reader now judge what he may think of your Religion that hath not God in his Scripture in the principal and main foundations thereof as some of your selves have confessed to be the author and beginner thereof So what needs any further proof against their Religion Out of their own mouthes the falshood of their Religion is convicted This therefore was the true cause wherefore ye refused to have the coÌ„troversies of Religion decided by the Scripture And for this cause also hath your Church heaped up so many false calumnies accusations and blasphemies against the same calling it obscure a Hosius lib. 3. de authorit contra script Andradius lib. 2. orthod explic Lindanus in Panoplia sua lib. 3. cap. 6. darksome doubtsome b Bellarm. de verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 4. not necessary but only profitable imperfect c Juel pag. 521. defens Apolog. Lodovicus a canon a dead ink a dumb and dead thing d Pigius controv 3. de Ecclesia dumb Judges e Eckius a black Gospel an inky Divinity f Pigius hierarch lib. 3. cap. 3. a nose of wax that may be drawn every way g Fox pag. 804. containing in them diverse erroneous and damnable opinions h Hermannus a Papist which wâ—re of no greater authority then the fables of Asop without the approbation of the Church and by the i Pope Leo the 10. ex Juel defen Apolog. pag. 273. Pope himself a fable of Christ And for this cause also did they hide it up in an unknown language forbidding the translating of it in the vulgar language and the reading of it by the people in their mother tongue lest they should have perceived the falshood of their Religion and so it should have lost the credit at their hands So ye have been wise in your generation Sed veritas tandem vincet but the truth shal overcome at the last You grant it to be a witness but yet you deal subtilly while as ye put in an exception if it be not corrupted For if you be of that mind with your Church and especially with Canus lib. 3. cap. 13. de locis Theologicis Lindanus lib. 1. cap. 11. de Optimo Genere interpret and the Colledge of Rhemes you think the Hebrew and Greek fountains of the Scripture to be corrupted And therefore it is decreed in the Council of Trent the old Latin vulgar translation to be authentick which notwithstanding by the confession of some Papists as Andradius Pagnin and Arias Montanus it hath missed the sense and meaning of the holy Ghost sometimes So you not only put the Lord in his Scripture out of the bench that he should not judge and give out the sentence of doom against your doctrine but by this exception also ye remove him from the bar that his testimony in the Hebrew and Greek fountains against you should have no credit Let all men judge now what prejudice ye give against your own Religion when as ye will not admit the Lord in his Word in the Hebrew and Greek fountains neither Judge nor witness But you say I have no Scripture for me that the Scripture ought to be Judge What will ye say then to Jesus Christ in John 12.48 speaking to such as ye are He that refuseth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him the word that I have spoken it shal judge him in the last day Unless now ye be a man of perdition ye must confess that the Word of Jesus Christ whereof so much is written as may make a man believe and by believing to get eternal life is Judge and judgeth presently and shal judge also in the latter day Therefore the Apostle saith That God shal judge the secrets of mens hearts by Jesus Christ according to his Gospel So the Gospel shal be the rule of that great judgement in that great day and so is it the rule of his worship while we are in the way to that judgement Suppose you now decline the judicatorie of the same here because in your conscience ye know and your own mouthes have confessed it that ye are not able to justifie your Religion thereby yet nill ye will ye ye shal be judged by the same Word in the last day But whom will ye have to be your Judge Ye say the holy Ghost Bellarmin saith that we and your Church agrees in that that the holy Ghost should be supream Judge of all controversies lib. 3. de verbi interpret cap. 3. But is not the Scripture the holy Ghosts own infallible voice and breath So then when the Scripture is Judge the holy Ghost is Judge because the Scripture is the immediat voice of the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost hath given out and gives out his judgement in all controversies of Religion in and by the Scripture and the holy Ghost illuminats the eyes of those that are fore-ordained to life to see the truth in the Scripture 2. Tim. 3.16 Rom. 10.17 and works in their heart faith to apprehend it and believe it and formes a spiritual judgement in their hearts to try and judge for the spiritual man judgeth all things 1. Cor. 2.15 And all this he works by the means of the Scripture for it is the
it is not of that which he speaks here Secondly he speaks of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood which whosoever so doth hath eternal life to themselves so our Savior Christ promises in the 54. verse But your own doctrine is that the reprobat eats and drinks Christs body and blood in the Sacrament and yet have no life in them therefore he speaks not here of that sacramental eating Thirdly if he speak here of the sacramental eating as you say then your Church not only hath erred foully but also hath been and is the cause of the condemnation of your people these many years because you give them not his blood to drink And our Savior saith not only Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man but also except ye drink his blood ye have no life in you And this reason was so effectual that it hath moved sundry of your own Doctors as Jansenius and Tapperus with sundry others to expone this place not of the sacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ but of the spiritual eating and drinking of him by faith For they did see that it behoved them either to forsake this place as not making for them and grant that it speaks not of the Sacrament or else to confess that their Church hath erred and through this error hath been the cause of the damnation of many in ministring the Sacrament but under one kind And because you say if our expositions vere removed from the Scripture they would ferve for you whom therefore will you credit in exponing of this place If our Savior hear then how he expon s this eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in the 35. verse I am the bread of life he that cometh unto me shal not hunger and he that believes in me shal never thirst So when we believe in Christ we eat him and when we come unto him which is only by faith we drink him So Augustine also expones this place Tractat. 25. in Johan cap 6. Tract 26 de doct Christ lib. 3 cap. 16. Believe saith he and thou hast eaten Clement Alexandrinus lib. 1. Padago cap. 6. and Hieronymus in Psal 147. and Bernard supra Psal 90 vers 3 all expones the flesh and blood of Christ figuratively And if ye will credit none of these then I hope ye will not discredit your own chief Doctors who affirms That this place is not meant of the Sacrament but of the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ by faith As Biel Cusanus Caiâ—tanus Hesselius and Jansâ—nius cited by Bellarm lib 1 de Eucharist cap. 5. And if ye will reply that many others of the Fathers have exponed this place of the Sacrament then Janfenius and Tapperus two Papists will answer you That they did it only by way of application unto the readers and hearers to stir them up to the often receiving of the Sacrament So this place can serve nothing for your Transubstantiation for it speaks not of the Sacrament but of his suffering upon the Cross for the away taking of our sins and the purchasing to us of eternal life The next place ye quote is the words of the institution as Matthew Mark Luke and the Apostles rehearses them Your argument is this Christ calls the bread his flesh and so Paul and the wine his blood therefore the bread is changed in his body and the wine in his blood the outward formes of bread and wine only remaining This is the chief and principal ground of your real presence and Transubstantiation Whereunto I answer First there is not a syllable here that tells us that the substance of the bread and wine is transchanged in the body and blood of Christ unless ye will expone this word is my body for it is changed in my body which is a monstrous exposition for both it is contrary to the native signification of the word est Est Fieri sunt contraria that signifies to be alreadie for to be already and to be in a change are contrary as also it hath not the like form of speach in the whole Scripture to warrant it from the first of Genesis to the last of the Revelation Bring one instance if ye can And Augustin saith in Genes quaest 117. in Psal 105. supr Num. quaest 95. The solution of a question should be warranted by some example of the like speach in the Scripture the which you are not able to do Therefore your exposition is without warrant Next I say by what Art of reasoning can you gather this doctrine out of these places of Scripture Christ saith of the bread This is my body and of the wine This is my blood Therefore the outward formes of the bread and wine only remains but the substance of them is gone Never such an inkling in all these texts of this doctrine of yours Thirdly this interpretation and doctrine which results upon it is false and that for these reasons First because it is plainly gain-said by the Scripture Secondly because it destroys sundry articles of our Faith and many blasphemous absurdities doth follow upon it Thirdly it destroys the nature of the Sacrament And last of all is utterly repugnant to the words of the institution My argument then is this That interpretation and doctrine which is gain-said by the plain testimony of the Scripture which destroyes the articles of our faith and the fundamental points of our salvation which hath many absurdities following upon it which overthrowes the nature of the Sacrament and last of all which is contrary to the whole institution must be false blasphemous and erroneous This cannot be denyed but your interpretation of these words This is my body c. and your transubstantiation which ye gather upon it is such Therefore it must be erroneous c. My assumption I prove thus First your interpretation is gain-said by the plain testimony of the Scripture Your interpretation is that there remains no true bread nor wine in the Sacrament but the substance of it is changed But Matthew Mark Luke and the Apostles all four testifies That Christ took bread brake it and gave it to his disciples And lest ye should say that it was true bread and wine before the consecration but not after the Scripture saith plainly 1. Cor. 10.16 that it is bread which we break and bread which is eaten and the fruit of the vine which is drunken in the Sacrament The Apostle saith The bread which we break c. And as oft as ye eat this bread c. Whosoever shal eat this bread c. And let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread c. And our Savior saith that after he had given the cup and they had drunken of it From henceforth shal I not drink of the fruit of the vine with you c. Therefore true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament contrary expresly to your interpretation Secondly That your
that Christ cannot be offered up often because then he must die often then this doctrine of yours is against the Scripture that saith Christ may be offered up often and yet not die often But if you will say this is spoken of that bloody sacrifice I grant that and I say the Apostle knew not nor never spake of another sacrifice and therefore your doctrine is vain that would have another sacrifice then ever the Apostles in the whole Scripture have made mention of And I say thirdly this distinction of yours cannot stand with your own doctrine for if there be a true sacrifice of Christ properly in your Mass as ye say then his blood must be truly shed and he must truly die for this is the nature of all such sacrifices for sin as Bellarmin grants it lib. 1. de missa fol. 725 saying If there be not a true and real slaughter of Christ in the Mass then is not the Mass a true and real sacrifice And also In all true real external sacrifices the sacrifice must be a thing sensible and must be made holy of a prophane thing as Bellarmin confesses and these conditions he requires in the definition of the same but this I hope ye will not say of Christ for he is holy always and is insensible in your sacrifice and cannot be slain again therefore properly there can be no true sacrifice of Christ in your Mass by your own doctrine To conclud this then For these causes we reject this abomination of your Mass First because Christ cannot be offered up in a sacrifice but he must die also as hath been proved and the Scripture testifies that he hath once died and all Christians confesses it Secondly because the death of Christ is a sufficient satisfaction for our sins and so we need not that he should be offered up again to satisfie for the same Thirdly because the Spirit of Christ and faith by the outward means of the Word and Sacraments and censures is a sufficient mean to apply him to us and so we need not the sacrifice of the Mass for that end Fourthly because Christ only is the Priest of the New Testament who hath no successors and whose Priesthood cannot pass from one to another because he lives for evermore and he only can be sacrificed by himself and therefore he only can offer up himself which he hath once done upon the cross Fifthly because the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is perfect and the vertue of it indures for ever and it cannot nor should not be reiterat Sixthly because the Scripture propones Christ now sitting in glory at the right hand of his Majesty and not under the forms of bread and wine in your sacrifice And seventhly because it is but the devise of man wanting God to bear witness to it in the Scripture repugnant to that only one sacrifice of his upon the cross abolishing the fruits of his death and passion turning the Sacrament of the Supper in abominable idolatry causing men to worship a bit of bread as the Son of God And last because it spoils men of the fruit of the Sacrament Therefore in all these respects it is abominable to be detested and in no sort to be communicated with Unto this I will adjoin some testimonies of some of the ancient Fathers whereby it is manifest what their doctrine and judgement was concerning this point Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 1. Paedagog cap. 2. in strom who was near the Apostles days saith We sacrifice not at all unto God meaning with a real and external sacrifice but we glorifie him who was sacrificed for us And then he subjoins what kind of sacrifices they offered up to God to wit a sacrifice spiritual of themselves of prayer and of righteousness And upon what altar to wit upon the altar of our souls with the parfume of their prayers Justinus Martyr saith in Tryphon in expos fidei I dare saith he affirm that there is no other sacrifice perfect and acceptable to God but supplications and thanksgiving And he saith That Christians have learned to offer up these sacrifices only Tertullian saith advers Judaeos That it behoves us to sacrifice unto God not earthly but spiritual things so we read as it is written A contrit heart is a sacrifice to God Origen saith in Epist. ad Rom. in homil 2. in Cant. lib. 8. contra Celsum The blood of Christ is only sufficient for the redemption of all men what need then hath the Church of any other propiciatory sacrifice And as for the sacrifice of Christians he saith They are their prayers and supplications It was a common reproach wherewith the Christians were charged by the Pagans three hundred years after Christ that they had no altars unto the which their common answer was That their altars were a holy soul not corruptible altars but immortal altars If then the Christians had no material altars the first three hundred years after Christ as Clemens Alexandrius lib. 7. Strom. Origen ibid. contra Celsum Minutius Foelix lib. 2. 4. and Arnobius do testifie therefore it must follow they had no external sacrifices nor Masses all that time so there was no Masses the first three hundred years after Christ seeing there was no altars Epiphanius saith contra Marc. haeres 42. 55. That God by the coming of Christ hath taken away all the use of sacrifice by that one sacrifice of Christ Athanasius saith in orat 3. contra Arrianumâ— That the sacrifice of Christ once offered up hath accomplished all things and remains for ever and that he is a Priest without succession The same saith Basile in Isaiae cap. 1. And he saith further There is no more question of a continual sacrifice for there is but one sacrifice which is Christ and the mortification of his Saints Because it were over longsome to set down the sentences of the rest therefore I will only quote them Irenaeus lib. 4. cap 34. Cyprianus de baptismo Christi Athenag in Apolog. pro Christianis Lactant. lib. 6. cap. 26. Euseb de demonst lib. 1. cap. 6. lib. 3. cap. 4. Greg. Nazianz. in Pasch orat 2. Euseb Nissen de coena Domini Chrysost advers Judaeos orat 4. in Joh. homil 17. ad Heb. homil 13. homil de cruce spirit 3. in Matth. hom 83. ad Heb. hom 26 hom 17 hom 7. Cyrillus lib. 1. contra Julianum ad Hebraeos homil 11. Ambrosius ad Hebâ— cap. 10. ad Theod. Epist 28. in Epist ad Rom. cap. 12. Hieronymus in Isaiam cap. 1. in Psal 26 49 50. Augustinus de fide ad Petrum Diacon cap. 2. de Trinitate lib. 4 cap. 1. 14. in Psal 49. de civitate Dei lib. 10. cap. 4. 6 Idem de tempore I would desire M. Gilbert to read the same And if he will believe them I am sure he will leave off to be a
The persons to whom the work is done must be obliged and bound by right to render and recompense the worker for the worthiness of the work so that he is not just if he do it not And last of all the work must be our own and not anothers and the power our own whereby it is done and not anothers ere we can be said properly to merit by the same But all these conditions will fail in our works therefore they cannot be meritorious of eternal life For as to the first the Prophet saith That all our righteousness is as a menstrous cloth And James saith We all offend in many things and none there is that have contained in doing all things written in the Law in that perfection which it craves of us as hath been proved before therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life And as to the second all that we can do or is able to do we are bound to do it already by the vertue of our creation and redemption and his other blessings already bestowed yea they oblige us to more then we are ever able to pay according to that saying of our Savior Luke 17.10 Even so ye when ye have done all that is commanded you say We are unprofitable servants because we have done that which was our duty to do Since therefore it is duty it cannot be meritorious of eternal life And as to the third there is no proportion between eternal life and our works the reward by infinit degrees surpassing the work and therefore the Apostle saith The afflictions of this life are not worthy of the glory which shal be revealed Rom. 8 18. Everlasting life being only the just reward of the sufferings of the Son of God Bernard saith What are all our merits to so great a glory serm 1. de annum And Athanasius saith in vita Antonij Not suppose we would renounce the whole world yet are we not able to do any thing worthy of these heavenly habitations As to the fourth the Lord is debtor to no creature For as the Apostle saith Who hath given him first and he shal be recompensed Rom. 11.35 The Lord is all-sufficient in himself and so needs none of your labors and so our works cannot oblige him And therefore Augustin saith serm 16. de verbis Apostoli God is made a debter unto us not by receiving any thing from our hands but because it pleased him to promise And to the last the Apostle saith What hast thou that thou didst not receive now if thou didst receive it why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it 1. Cor. 4.7 Seeing therefore all our works are imperfect and seeing we are not able to fulfill the Law and seeing all that we can do is but our duty and there is no proportion betwixt eternal life and our works and that the Lord is debtor to no man and all our ability of doing is from the Lord only therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life Hear further what the Fathers say in this point Augustin saith in manuali c. 22. All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit my refuge salvation life and resurrection my merit is the compassion of the Lord I shal not be void of a merit so long as the Lord of mercies shal not want Origen who lived two hundred years before him saith in Epist ad Rom. cap. 4. lib. 4. I scarcely believe that there can be any work which may of due demand the reward of God forsomuch as even the same that we can do think or speak we do it by his gift or bounty Then how can he ow us any thing whose grace did preveen us And he saith afterward That the Apostle assigns eternal life to grace only Ambrose saith de bono mor. cap. 1. Everlasting life is forgiveness of sins so then it is not merit Jerome saith adversus Pelag. That before God no man is just therefore no man can merit And again he saith The only perfection of man is if they know themselves to be imperfect and our justice consisteth not of our own merit but of Gods mercy I omit the rest for â—â—ortness Now to your testimonies and reason to prove your merit of works which you shamefuly abuse bringing forth Scripture to cloke your damnable doctrine unto the which I answer shortly That there is a reward laid up with God for the works of every one be they good be they evil and according to their works shal they be tryed and every man shal be judged and recompensed accordingly as the Scripture plainly testifieth But that this reward of eternal life promised is of debt and not of grace and that our works are the meritorious cause of the same that the Scripture never affirms For the Lord freely and of his meer grace crowneth his own works in us and that not for the excellency of the work it self but of mercy freely for his Christs sake as both I have proved and the Fathers have testified So these Scriptures serve you to no purpose For the controversie betwixt us is not whither there is a reward promised and whither it shal be rendred accordingly to the same for that we grant but whither this reward is of merit or of grace The Apostle saith plainly in the 6 of the Romans The wages of sin is death but everlasting life is the free gift of God And in the 8 of the Romans it is called an inheritance Now if it be heritage to them that are in Christ and they heirs of it through him then it is not their merit As for the 16. of Ecclesiasticus it is Apocrypha and the text hath not that word merit as the old Interpreter whom ye follow translates it but according to his work As for the 118. Psalm and the 16 of Matthew ye are over seen in the quoting of them for they have no such thing As for your reason that a reward hath ever a relation to a merit that is false For the Apostle in the 4. of the Romans speaks of a reward that is imputed freely not to him who worketh but to him that believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly vers 5. And in this sense the reward of eternal life promised and fulfilled in his Saints is taken in the Scriptures And whereas you say that there is no reward promised but to doing and working that is false also for there is a reward of eternal life promised to the believer vers 5. And as for the promises of reward made to good works it is true it is made to them but not as though our works were meritorious causes of that reward but only that they are effects to testifie of our faith in the merit of Jesus Christ in whom only the promises are made to us and our works and for whose sake only they are fulfilled in his Saints For these causes therefore is the promise of reward made unto works first
not himself of his own righteousness but knows himself to be misterful of true righteousness sola autem fide in Christum justificatum and to be justified only by faith in Christ Ambrose in cap. 3. ad Rom. cap. 4. 9. saith They are justified by faith only through the gift of God And in the 4. chapter he hath thrise by faith only sola fides And in the 9. chapter also Sola fides posita est ad salutem that is only faith is appointed for salvation Chrysostome in homil de fide lege naturae saith The thief believed only and was justified And in homil 3. ad Tit. If thou gives credit to thy faith wherefore brings thou in other things as though faith only were not sufficient to justifie Augustin it is a known saying of his lib. 1. contra duas Epistolas Pelag. cap. 21. Works go not before justification but follow him who is already justified And in another place How vertuous soever ye report the ancient righteous to have been yet their vertue saved them not but the faith of the Mediator August de fide operib cap. 14. Cyrillus Alexandrinus lib. 10. in Joan. cap. 18. saith Man by faith only sticks in Christ inhaeret Christo Theophylactus in comment ad Galat. cap. 3. saith Only faith hath in it's self the vertue of justifying Bernard serm 22. in Cantic in the 1200. age saith Man being justified by faith only shal have peace towards thee What more plain now could the Fathers speak of Justification by faith only which you will not deny The Reader may learn how much credit is to be given to you who so boldly affirmed that neither Scriptures nor Fathers said with us against you I hope they will try you before they trust you in time to come For dare you say M. Gilbert that I have fained here ought of these Fathers and have not brought in their own words speaking Deny it if ye dare Be not so impudent and shameless M. Gilbert in your untruths and lies again for by this ye will both discredit your self and your Religion As for the 2. of James which ye quote here that by works a man is justified and not by faith only I answer This word to be justified is taken in the Scripture two manner of ways First to be accounted righteous before the tribunal of God and in this sense only a lively faith apprehending the death and righteousness of Christ justifies us and of this is the controversie Next it is taken for a declaration of ones righteousness as in the 3. of the Romans vers 4. That thou may he justified in thy words that is declared to be just when thou judges And in this sense it is taken in this place So that this is the meaning of it Ye see then by works man is justified that is declared by his works to be just and not by faith only that is by the profession of his faith in Christ So then James speaks not of our Justification before God which is by faith only but of the declaration of our righteousness before men which he calls Justification and that for these reasons 1. Otherwise James should be contrary to Paul who saith That a man is justified by faith without works which is blasphemous to think therefore James speaks of our Justification before men whereby our Justification before God is declared and made manifest 2. The scope of the whole chapter and whole Epistle testifies the same For his purpose is to cast down the arrogancy and presumption of such who bragged of their Faith as though the bare profession that they believed in Christ were sufficient to save them suppose they did not bring forth the fruits thereof Therefore the Apostle takes this in hand to prove that they are not justified by a dead faith but only by that faith which brings forth the effects thereof And therefore he saith in the 14. verse What availeth it my brethren when a man saith he hath faith when he hath no works can that faith save him And in the 18. verse Show me thy faith out of thy works and I will show thee my faith by my works And because it may be ye say this is my commentary therefore hear how one of your own great and chief pillers Thomas of Aquin in Jacob. 2. expones the same from whose judgement I hope ye will not appeal Here he speaks saith he of works that follows faith not according to that sense wherein Justification is said to be the infusion of righteousness but according to that sense that Justification is called exercitatio justitiae the practise or declaration and confirmation of righteousness So if ye will believe him Justification here is taken not for our justification before God but for the declaration of our righteousness And so the ordinary Gloss in Jacob. 2. exponing that place writes Abraham was justified without works by faith only but nevertheless the offering up of his son was a testification of his faith and righteousness What can be more clearly spoken by any Would you have more then this So then this place of James speaks not of our Justification before God and therefore serves not to prove this your doctrine As to the 2 of the Romans v. 13. It is true it is not the hearers of the Law but the doers of it which are justified if rhere were any who had fulfilled it But the Apostle concluds in the 3. chapter all under sin both Jew and Gentil and therefore gathers that by the works of the Law no flesh is justified And so we will leave this to you to do that also in the 19. of Matthew spoken to the young man Do the commands c. And as for the rest of the testimonies I wonder to what purpose ye have quoted them except for to make a show of Scripture and testimonies For they speak only of the necessity of good works which as they cannot be separat from true faith so no man can attain to salvation without them because where ever Christ dwels by true Faith not only he justifies them but also sanctifies them and makes them fruitful in good works The which we grant and therefore do urge the same continually knowing for a truth that without holiness no man shal see God Heb. 12.14 and that the ax is laid to the root of the tree and that every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shal be hewen down and cast in an unquencheable fire Matth. 3.10 They speak not therefore of the efficient or formal or instrumental cause of our Justification but of our sanctification with the fruits thereof and therefore serves not to prove the controversie that is in hand As for Augustin his testimony as you corrupt the Scriptures so do ye his testimony also for this was the opinion which was risen up in the Apostles days as he testifies there for these are his words That some thought that faith only was
3. and 11. and 15. And the Church of Galatia erred in being carried away to another Gospel and in joyning the Ceremonies of the law with grace in justification Gal. 1. and 3. And what will ye say when the heresie of Arrius who denied Christ to be the Son of God equal to his Father spread its self so far that it is testified by Theodor. hist. Eccles lib. 2. Hier. dial contra Lucif cap. 7. in chron Athanas Epist de Synod Alim Seleu. that the Bishops of the whole world became Arrians that the whole world did grieve and wonder at it self that it was become an Arrian What will ye say unto all the Christian Churches of the East Grecia Asia and Africa Churches planted by the Apostles I mean not now of them that have professed Mahometism but of them that admits the Scripture acknowledges Christ their Savior who have their ordinar succession of Patriarks and Bishops as well as your Church of Rome hath who in number far exceeds these Churches which acknowledges your Pope to be the head of the Church For first yours is but in Europe except ye will claim to the New-found land and not all Europe for all the Churches in Greece which is a great part of Europe acknowledges not your supremacy Now take the Greek Churches from you next the Reformed Churches in Scotland England Germany Denmark France Zeland Holland and other places which have gone out of Babel which are all in Europe your number will not be many that acknowledges your supremacy And next take all Asia and Africa from you which is the two parts of the world your number will be smal in comparison of these that are against your supremacy Now all these detests your supremacy as tyranny and the worship of Images your transubstantiation in the Sacrament the Communion under one kind the single life of Priests Either therefore ye must grant that the greatest number of Christian Churches have erred and doth err or else that your Roman Church doth err and your supremacy yea your Religion which depends upon your supremacy is the head of heresie But it may be ye will say that all other Christian Churches may err but that it is only proper to your Church not to err First therefore let me ask at you what can be the cause of that singular priviledge which the Church of Rome hath beside all other Churches which ever have been is or shal be Yea above Adam when he was in his integrity for he erred yea above the Angels for they remained not in the truth Jude 6 Above the Patriarcks Abraham Isaac and Jacob yea above Aaron and the Church in the wilderness above the Church under the Law yea above the Apostles and Peter himself before Christs suffering in the time of his suffering after the resurrection after the receiving of the holy Ghost for they erred in all these times Yea above the Christian Churches that have been founded by the Apostles as well as yours that had the promise the covenant the service of God once in as great purity as ever yours had that have their ordinar succession their antiquity their vocation ordinar as well as yours hath unto this day Great surely must be that priviledge given unto the Church of Rome that hath exeemed her from error others having erred What is then your prerogative above all other Churches I know that ye will say because of Peters chair that was there wherein the Popes sits after him First then if Peters chair hath such a prerogative that the Pastors who sits in it and the Church that cleaves to it cannot err I think surely the Lords chair which was at Jerusalem which was called the Temple and seat of God and Moses chair wherein the Scribes and Pharisees sate should rather have that prerogative to free the Churches and Pastors sitting in these chairs from erring yea the Church which the truth it self Jesus Christ founded whom he taught with his own mouth and among whom he was crucified should with far greater right claim to that prerogative But since all their seats have erred for the Temple became a den of thieves the Scribes and Pharisees that sate in Moses chair condemned the Lord of glory and Jerusalem it self cryed out Crucifie crucifie him And the Christian Church gathered there are long since far from the way of salvation So that if neither the chair of God nor Moses freed the Church of the Jews from erring nor the chair of Christ freed the Christian Church there gathered from erring How then can Peters chair have this prerogative above them all as to exeem that Church and Pastors that sits therein from possibility of erring What is this but to prefer him before them all whose seat hath a priviledge that neither God nor his sons nor Moses seat had O high blasphemy to be detested and abhorred of all Christian hearts But let us see if it hath this prerogative which they ascribe unto it or not And first if it could have exeemed any from erring should it not have exeemed himself especially from erring But as it hath been shown he erred Acts 1.6 Gal. 2. therefore it cannot exeem neither his successors not yet the Church that acknowledges them from erring Secondly if it had exeemed any Church from erring should it not have exeemed the Church of Antiochia especially for surely Antiochia hath better right to claim to this prerogative then your Church hath For first it was Peters first seat Next the Scripture bears witness to it that he was there Gal. 2.11 But neither was Rome Peters first seat nor is there so much as a syllab in all the Scriptures to prove that ever Peter was in Rome But suppose Peter was there for we will not examine this now whither is this prerogative not to err given to your head that is to the Popes or to the body that is the people or to both If ye say to the head as ye do indeed then what will ye answer to your own Writers and Fathers to your own Councils and Popes to your own Canon Law affirming that Popes may err and be hereticks and should be deposed and are deposed when they are manifest hereticks as hath been proved before And what will ye say to your Popes that have been hereticks indeed one of them an Arrian another an Eutychian the third a Nestorian the fourth a Montanist the fifth deposed as an heretick the sixth denying that the souls of the children of God saw Gods face while after the resurrection the seventh denying life everlasting and others giving themselves over in the hands of the Devil for the Popedom others repelling and abrogating the decrees of their predecessors others such monsters and beasts so cruel to the dead and to the living that your own friends calls them monsters and affirms of one of them that the Devil shot him through while he was abusing another mans wife and so died without repentance Dare you
without further tryal because he hath so decreed it What is this but not only to make him equal to the Lord For God only hath that priviledge to be believed because he so speaks mans testimony so far only is to be credited as it may be warranted by the Scripture but also to preferr his authoritie to the voice of God in his Scripture seeing he is Judge of the same and not that onlie but to hang my salvation upon his voice and testimonie And seeing ye will have them Judges what is the cause that their Canons Laws and determinations are not as authentick as the Scripture and insert in the Canon of the Scripture But let us see your reasons First you say That the holy Ghost was given to the Church by the Father and the Son that he might teach it all truth I grant this that the holy Ghost is given to every one of the elect as wel Pastor as people to lead them in all truth in so far as may bring them to salvation And yet ye will not make every one of them Judges next every one of the elect may err notwithstanding of this promise suppose not totally and finally and therefore cannot be Judges of Religion Secondly you alledge the example of the Council of the Apostles and Elders It is true in that controversie that arose among the Christians concerning the observing of the ceremonies of the law of Moses that the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church after reasoning defined the same and writes the same to be observed by the Disciples everie where but first they were Apostles and was infallibly governed by Gods Spirit that they could not err in teaching and writing but your Pastors are not Apostles and may err Next they assemble with the Elders and the whole Church and all with one accord defines Acts 15.12.22.23 You in your Council excludes all except your Bishops to be ordinary Judges to give out judgement and your Popes neither Elder nor brethren having power of voting with you Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 1. Thirdly they define according to the Scripture saying As it is written c. Act. 15.15 This controversie to make us to understand if we will not be more then blind that this rule should be followed in all Councils to determine in controversies according to the Scripture Upon the which I reason if the Apostles who had that high measure of Gods Spirit which never man had since so that in writing and teaching they could not err if they I say did determine the controversies of Religion according to the Scripture how much more then are all Pastors since who may err both severally and jointly together in a Council bound to follow the same rule And whereas ye call their Elders Priests you stile them not as the holy Ghost hath stiled them there so there they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Elders and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is sacrificing Priests as ye suppone Your third reason is the practise and custom of the Church in deciding the controversies of Religion in Councils we grant that this is a very commodious mean to search and find out the truth by the Scripture For first the more they are that seek the truth it is the more easily found Next the consent of many in determining a truth will be of greater authority to repress hereticks then if it were agreed upon only by a few But yet they should determine nothing but that which is warranted by the Scripture and their determinations only in so far forth to be received as is agreeable to the same And this we grant hath been done in the Council of the primitive Church And therefore the Emperor Constantine speaking to the Fathers of the Council of Nice saith Sunt libri Prophetici Apostolici qui apertè quid credendum sit docent c. That is there are the Books of the Prophets and Apostles who teacheth plainly what we should believe All contention therefore laid aside let us take the soveraign decision of these things which are called in controversie out of the Scriptures which are inspired by God And this we grant and this we require But that Councils ought to determin any thing of their own authority in matters of Religion which binds the conscience without the warrant of the Word that we deny Master Gilbert Brown It is a wonder that M. John will refer any thing to the written Word seeing that he and his have no warrant that the same is the Word of God but by the authority of the Roman or Papist Church For understand there was no Church worthie of credit immediatly before Luther but that Church Master John Welsch his Reply You wonder that I refer any thing to the Scripture But what a wōder is this that ye are so far blinded of God that you think that a wonder in me which Abraham hath done which the Prophets have done which our Savior and his Apostles have done and which the Fathers have done for all these have referred the infallible testimony and decision of the will of God concerning his worship unto the Scriptures Luke 16 29. John 5 39. Acts 26.22 Rom. 12. and 16.26 2. Tim. 3.16 2. Pet. 1.10 Rev. 1 3. cap. ult yea which your self also hath done for ye make it a witness But what hath moved you to think this a wonder in me which so many and your self also have done before me Because say ye that he and his that is our Church have no warrant that it is the Word of God but by the authoritie of the Roman or Papist Church I grant indeed that you and your Church are plunged in this blindness and miserie that all the warrant that you have not only of the Scriptures themselves that they are inspired of God but also of all your doctrine and Religion is the testimony of your Roman Church that is of your Pope and Clergy for so ye interpret the Church So Bellarmin grants de Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 25. That all the certainty of all doctrine depends upon the authority of the present Church meaning the Pope and his Clergy And Stapleton saith lib. 1 contra Whitak de author script cap. 10. That it is no absurd thing not to believe God but for the testimony of the Church Pigius saith That it is not needful to believe all that Matthew and John writ in their Gospels to be true because that they might fail in memory and lie as all men may do Ecclesiast hierar lib. 1. cap. 2. And Hermannus saith That the Scripture would be of no more authority then the fables of Esop were not the testimony of the Church And so blind and miserable must you be that hangs the certaintie of all Religion and of man his salvation upon so smal a threed as the testimony of your Popes and Clergy What peace in conscience can any man have that professes your Religion which teaches that the
as far in word as ye do in deed the consciences of the poor people would at the last withdraw themselves from under your tyranny and would go out of your fellowship for the safety of their souls so under the cloke and pretence of the Scripture ye keep them in your communion And surelie were not for this cause only you would regard no more of the testimony of the Scripture then of the testimony of the fables of Esop For the chief authority and all the surety and certainty of all Religion with you as Bellarmin de sacr lib. 2. cap. 25. and Stapleton lib. 1. cont Whitaker cap. 10. confesses is not the testimony of the Scripture but the authority of your own Church So I assure thee Reader it is but for a show that they bring forth the Scripture to prove the heads of their Religion Let the matter therefore be tryed betwixt us by these examples which ye set down here M. Gilbert Brown 1. We say with Saint Augustin Epist 28. ad Hier. that the Sacrament of Baptism is so necessary to infants that they cannot come to heaven without the same which is contrary to their negative saith where they call it the Popes cruel judgement against infants departing without the Sacrament First I say that Christ taught the same doctrine in these words Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter in the Kingdom of God John 3.5 We say this is spoken properly of the Sacrament of Baptism because there is no regeneration of water and the Spirit of God but in Baptism The same is the doctrine of the Apostles also When they exspected the patience of God saith S. Peter in the days of Noe when the Ark was building in the which few that is eight souls were saved by water whereunto Baptism being of the like form now saves you also 1. Pet. 3.20.21 And S. Paul saith For as many of you as are baptized in Christ have put on Christ Galat 3.27 And Ananias said to S. Paul And now what tarriest thou rise up and be baptized and wash away thy sins invocating his name Acts 22.17 and 2.38 And S. Paul himself in another place Christ hath saved us by the washing of regeneration and renovation of the holy Ghost Tit. 3.5 Rom. 6.3.4 1. Cor. 6.11 Mark 16.16 I think there is no Christian reader that sees these places but he must say that Baptism is most necessary to infants except he will believe rather the exposition of the Ministers then the Word of God Maister John Welsch his Reply First ye begin at the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism whereof ye affirm that it is so necessary that infants cannot come to heaven without the same As for Baptism we grant that it is a most effectual seal and pledge of our ingrafting in Christ Jesus and of the remission of our sins through his blood and regeneration through his Spirit so that either the neglect or the contempt of it because it is the neglect and contempt of the covenant it self and of Christ Jesus the foundation of the covenant is damnable But that it is so absolutly necessary to infants that without it they cannot come to heaven to wit these whom he hath predestinat it being neither neglected nor contemned but death preventing the receiving of it that we allutterly deny as impious ungodly and cruel For first I say there is none that is in the covenant of grace and who hath God to be their God and are holy that can perish This you cannot deny But the children of the faithful who are of his secret election are such before they be baptized And this I prove The Lord promised to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.17 And this Peter also testifies The promise saith he is made to you and to your children Acts 2.39 And the Apostle saith That the children of the faithful are holy 1. Cor. 7.14 Therefore the children of the faithful who are of Gods secret election suppose they die without Baptism do not perish Secondlie if Baptism were absolutly necessary to salvation then the grace of God were bound to the Sacrament This cannot be denyed But your Master of Sentences saith that the grace of God is not bound to the Sacraments and it is impious so to think that Gods free grace and salvation is bound to the instrument Thirdlie if Circumcision was not absolutly necessary to salvation in the Old Testament then Baptism is not absolutly necessary now because Circumcision was as straitly enjoyned to them as Baptism is enjoyned to us and Baptism is suceeded in the room of the same but Circumcision is not absolutly necessarie For Lombardus is rebuked by the Doctors of Paris because he so thought And David doubts not to say of his child who died the seventh day and so before he was circumcised I shal go to him c. and so he pronounced that he was saved and all the time that they were in the wilderness almost 40 years Circumcision was neglected which plainly shows that it was not so absolutly necessary that salvation could not be obtained without it Therefore Baptism is not so absolutly necessary to salvation as ye suppose for the grace of God is of no less force in the New Testament then it was in the Old Fourthlie we read of sundry that received the holy Ghost before they were baptized and seeing the holy Ghost where he is regenerats to eternal life Therefore life eternal is not bound absolutly to Baptism Fifthlie what a cross and disturbance is this that your doctrine brings to the consciences of all these parents whose children have been prevented by death before they could be offered to be baptized If they believe your doctrine how often will this come in their mind that their children are damned And seeing the infants themselves are not in the cause that they are not baptized but their death preventing by Gods providence or the Parents neglecting or contemning the same or persecution or one impediment or other hindering wherefore are ye so cruel to judge them to be damned for that whereof themselves are causeless And last of all if ye be acquainted in the Histories of the Church of God in the first age ye will find many that delayed to be baptized until their latter age which they would never have done if they had thought it simpliciter necessary to salvation as ye do And Ambrosius doubts not to say That Valentinian wanted not the grace of Baptism suppose he wanted Baptism it self the which he would never have said if he had thought it absolutly necessary to salvation And Bernard saith I cannot altogether despair of the salvation of them who wants Baptism not through contempt but only through impossibility to get it And in that same place he saith So also if our Savior Christ for this cause when he had said he that believeth and is baptized shal be saved did
by the grace of God may keep the Commands of God and obey him which is contrary to their Confession of Faith Our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Christ saith If you will enter into life keep the commands Matth. 19.17 And again If ye love me keep my commands John 14.25 24. Matth. 11.29 30. And in another place He that loves me not keeps not my words c. Also Take up my yoke upon you c. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light Now I believe that no man can deny but this yoke and burden of Christ is his Commands and Laws This same doctrine the Apostles teached S. Paul saith Phil. 4.13 and 2.13 I can do all things in him that comforts me And before For it is God that works in you both to will and to accomplish according to his good will And S. John 1.5.3 saith This is the charity of God that we keep his Commands and his Commands are not heavy Now further then these we read that Noe Gen. 6.9 Abraham Gen. 26.5 Job 1.22 were just men and obeyed God And S. Luke 1.6 saith that Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both just before God and walked in all the commands and justification of our Lord without blame There are many other places in the Old Testament of the same matter of the which I have noted some as 3. Kings 14.8.4 and 18.3.4 and 20.3.4 and 23.25 2. Chron. 15.15 Now hold away from these places the Ministers Commentaries and I believe that all men will confess that our doctrine in this and the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is all one M. John Welsch his Reply It appeareth that M. Gilbert is loath that the secrets of the doctrine of his Church should be known to the people because he knows in his heart they would abhor the same their own hearts and consciences witnessing to the contrary Therefore he hath hid up the poyson of it and covered it as secretly as he could But that wherein you are dark the rest of your Roman Clergy are plain For first where as ye say that a man by the grace of God may keep the Commands Bellarmin expones more clearly and sayes By the help of the grace of God Lib. de justific cap. 10. And the Monks in that form of abjuration set out anno 1585 saith That man by the new strength of grace infused in good will may keep the commands So that whereas your words would seem to import that the grace of God is the only cause of this obedience to Gods Commandments in the faithful and so I think every one almost who is not acquainted with the doctrine of your Roman Church will take it and so it may be ye teach them The rest of your brethren are more plain in halfing it betwixt free-will and the grace of God helping free-will as though the strength of nature were the more principal cause and the grace of God but a helper to it And secondly whereas ye say that a man by the grace of God may keep the Commandments of God and obey them Bellarmin saith more plainly cap. 19 pag. 364 lib. 2 de justifi cap. 3. That the Law of God is absolutely possible unto them and they may absolutly fulfil the Law and keep the whole Law and that the works of the righteous are absolutly and simpliciter righteous and proceeding of a perfect holiness without all blemish of sin and that they please God not for the imputation of Christs righteousness covering their imperfections and forgiving them but for the excellencie of the work it self So this is their doctrine Christian Reader Now as he hid his own so hath he hid ours also For our Confession of Faith saith That our sanctification and obedience to Gods Law is imperfect which word he omitted as though it had been our doctrine that the children of God in no measure nor degree keep the Commandments of God Our doctrine therefore is this That of our own nature we are dead in sin Eph. 2.1 and of our selves we are neither able to understand 1. Cor. 2.14 nor think 2. Cor. 3.7 nor will nor do those things that are pleasant to God Philip 2.13 and therefore we must be born anew again John 3 5. ere we can do any thing that is acceptable in Gods sight John 15.5 and this sanctification of ours is not perfect while we are in this life Rom. 7.14 15. but imperfect ever some darkness some rebellion some dregs of the old man yet remaining in us so that we know but in a part 1 Cor. 13.12 and our will is but renewed in part and our heart sanctified in part from the which it cometh that first we do not all the good that we are bound to do and would do as the Apostle saith Rom 7 15.16.17.18.19 20.21.22.23 24. Next that all our righteousness as the Prophet saith is but as a menstruous cloth Esai 64.6 ever smelling somewhat of the corruption of the old man within us and so that they have need to be covered with the righteousness of Jesus Christ and their imperfection to be pardoned By the only strength therefore of Gods Spirit who works both to will and to do in us we begin here obedience to the whole Law of God but yet are not able perfectly so to keep it as our works may abide to be tryed before the Lord in the ballance of his Law and therefore we place the whole hope of our salvation in the only mercy of God through Jesus Christ who is made to us of God righteousness sanctification and redemption by whose mercy we obtain the perfect remission or our sins and so we conclud with David Psal 32. Blessed is he whose sins are forgiven him and whose iniquities are covered This now is the verie simple truth both of our doctrine and theirs in this head Now to answer you Whereas ye say That a man by grace may keep the Commandments of God if you mean that the only cause of the obedience of the children of God to his Law is the renewing grace of God and that this obedience is sincere and hearty not to one but to all the Commandments not only outward but inward suppose not in that high measure of perfection that the Law of God requires then I say you contradict the doctrine of your Roman Church and forsakes their error of free-will concurring with grace and of the perfection of man his obedience here to the Law and so shakes hands with the truth of God which we profess in this point And so becoms a bad defēder of their Catholick faith as ye stile yourself And would to God your eyes were opened so to see and believe suppose ye lost that stile for ever But if ye make free-will the principal cause of this obedience as Bellarmin calls it and if ye understand a perfect obedience as your Church teaches then first tell me why did ye not speak as
Sacrament And because in this your abominable sacrifice of the Mass as hath been said there is no communion For the Priest takes all And because you affirm the personal and corporal presence of Christs flesh and blood in your sacrifice and the corporal eating and drinking of it which is Capernaitical and more then carnal contrary to the Scripture contrary the nature of a Sacrament contrary the truth of Christ his humanity and contrary the Articles of our Faith of his ascension sitting at his right hand and there remaining till his returning in the last day all which your sacrifice of the Mass and transubstantiation in your communion overthroweth Therefore you have not the true institution of Jesus Christ according to the Scripture I might end here but because ye account the sacrifice of your Mass most heavenly and the principal part of the worship of God and we account it a most abominable idolatry therefore I will set down some arguments against the same whereby if you will you may perceive the abomination of it First I say all lawful sacrifices have the express testimonies of the Scripture to warrant the institution of them to be of God But your sacrifice of the Mass hath no express testimony of the Scripture whereby it may be made manifest that it is instituted of God therefore it is not lawful What now will you say to this The proposition you cannot deny for our Savior saith In vain worship ye me teaching for doctrine mens commandments Matth. 15.9 And Jeremie reproves the Jewes that they would not walk according as the Lord commanded them but according to their own will Jer. 7 24. And the Apostle condemns all voluntary Religion Col. 2.23 Therefore this is most certain that that Religion or sacrifice which hath not express Scripture whereby it may be made plain that it is instituted of God is not lawful For all that is done without faith is sin Rom. 14.23 and faith hath only the Word of God to lean to Rom. 10.17 And dare the creature be so bold as to appoint a mean to worship God without the warrant of his will in his Word Now to the assumption what can you say to it Bring me an express testimony out of the Scripture that God hath instituted your Mass and take it to you Yea if it be instituted in any place of the Scripture it is instituted in the last Supper for this you grant your selves But there is not a syllable in the whole institution that Christ offered up himself in a sacrifice in the same as hath been proved and Bellarmin the learnedest of your Church confesses plainly that the Evangelists have not said expresly that Christ offered up himself in the Supper in a sacrifice Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa cap. 24. And therefore others of your own Religion Petrus a Soto in his book against Brentius Lindanus lib. 4. Panopliae Papists of great name have reckoned the sacrifice of the Mass among the traditions which have not their beginning nor author in the Scriptures So then by your own confession the sacrifice of the Mass hath not express Scripture to warrant it yea it is a tradition which hath neither the beginning nor author of it in the Scriptures of God And I would ask this question of you What can be the cause wherefore the typical sacrifices and all the rites and ceremonies thereof is so expresly set down in the Scripture of the Old Testament which you will not deny and this sacrifice of yours which ye account more excellent then all these not to have been expresly set down in the New Testament neither the sacrifice nor the rites and ceremonies thereof yea not so much as the very name of it Is the New Testament think ye more obscure then the Old Testament which is absurd to say Shal the Old Testament be clear in setting down the sacrifices and all the rites thereof which is but the shadow And should not the New Testament have been at the least as clear in setting down the sacrifice of the New Testament which ye affirm to be the Mass if it were such What an absurd thing is this Christian Reader assure thy self the Lord Jesus would have dealt as lovingly and plainly with thee in setting down the sacrifice of the Mass in the New Testament if ever he had instituted such a sacrifice as he was in setting down the sacrifices of the Old Testament But thou may assure thy self and thy conscience may lean unto it since he hath not so much as once expressed it in all the New Testament therefore he hath never appointed it Secondly I say in all the places of Scripture wheresoever the Apostles speaks of the sacrifices which Christians should offer up they ever speak of spiritual sacrifices and never speak of this external sacrifice of the Mass They never remember of this their sacrifice of the offering up of Christ in the Mass Look throughout the whole New Testament and thou shalt not find this as namely in these places Rom. 12. Heb. 1â— Phil. 4. Rom. 15.1 Pet. 2. Rev. 5. Are you and your Mass Priests more wise then the Apostles are Whither should we then think and speak as they spake and thought or as ye would have us They never spake of your sacrifice of the Mass and bring one instance if ye can therefore neither should we We will believe them rather then you Thirdly that doctrine which is expresly gain-said by the Scripture must be false This you cannot deny But this your doctrine concerning the often and dayly offering up of Jesus Christ his body and blood in sacrifice in your Mass is expresly gain-said by the Scripture For the Scripture saith in sundry places That he hath once offered up himself never to offer up himself again Heb. 10.10 By the which will we are sanctified even by the offering up of Jesus Christ once made 11. And every Priest standeth dayly ministring and oft times offereth one manner of offering which cannot take away sin 12. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sin sitteth for ever at the right hand of God 10. For with one offering hath he consecrated for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 9.24 Christ hath entred into the very heaven to appear now in the sight of God for us not that he should offer himself often c. 28. So Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many Heb. 7.27 Christ died once when he offered up himself Seeing the Scripture therefore affirms so plainly that Christ once offered up himself and you affirm that in your abominable sacrifice he offers up himself often since the Scripture saith the offering up of Christ is once only ye say it is often in your Mass therefore this doctrine of yours is plain against the express sayings of the Scripture For suppose ye will have an unbloody offering up of Christ yet the Scripture only acknowledges this bloody offering up of himself
upon the cross Fourthly I will ask you to what purpose serves the personal sacrifice of Christ in your Mass It must be for one of two to wit either to satisfie for our sins and therefore ye call it a propiciatory sacrifice or else to apply that satisfaction once made by his death upon the cross unto us the which ye affirm also of it But for neither of these is Jesus Christ to be offered up again therefore for no cause is he to be sacrificed in your Mass Not for the first to satisfie for our sins because the Scripture saith plainly that he hath satisfied for our sins by his once oblation upon the cross never to die again and therefore our Savior saith upon the cross It is finished And our redemption and satisfaction is ascribed only to his death once made and his blood once shed Heb. 1. 6. 10. John 19 28. And your selves will not deny this but the death of Christ is a sufficient ransom and satisfaction for all the sins of the world and therefore Bellarmine lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. grants this That the vertue of his once offering up upon the cross is infinit and everlasting to sanctifie us so that there needs not another sacrifice of the cross or the repetition of the same And the truth of this is manifest for if Christ must be offered up in the Mass to satisfie for our sins he must die again and suffer again For what is it to satisfie God but to pay to God that which we ow And what ow we unto him for our sins but death for death is the stipend of sin So that to satisfie God for our sins is to die for our sins therefore we say Christ hath once satisfied for our sins because he hath once payed our debt which is death that is he hath once died for our sins So then either Christ hath not fully satisfied for our sins by his once death upon the cross which is impiety to think or else the Lord craves a debt already payed over again which is blasphemy or else Christ needs not to be offered up in your Mass to satisfie for our sins And so your sacrifice of the Mass avails not for to satisfie for our sins Let us come to the next If ye will say He is offered up in the Mass for to apply the vertue of the death of Christ unto us which your Church also sayes First I say Christ is applyed to us when he is offered not to God in a sacrifice but to us in the Word and Sacraments therefore he should not be offered up to God in a sacrifice but offered to us in his Word and Sacraments that he may be applied to us for it is the Word and Sacraments which outwardly applyes Christ and his death to us and not a sacrifice for in a sacrifice the thing which is sacrificed is offered to God and not applyed to us Next I say if your sacrifice serves but to apply the vertue of Christ his satisfaction unto us then it is manifest the satisfaction is already made For first the salve must be made before it can be applyed So your Church here errs which saith Your sacrifice of the Mass is propiciatory to appease the wrath of God and also applicatory to apply the same to us I say thirdly if Christ should be sacrificed again that the vertue of his death may be made effectual in us then also should he be conceived again in the womb of the Virgin born again die again and rise again that the vertue of his incarnation birth death and resurrection should be applyed unto us for will you sayâ— That he must be sacrificed again to apply the vertue of his sacrifice upon the cross unto us and what reason then can ye pretend for you wherefore he should not be incarnat again die again and rise again that the vertue of these may be applyed to us Do you think this absurd What is the cause then that ye will not blush at the other Fourthly I say if your sacrifice of the Mass be an application of Christ his sacrifice then it is not the sacrifice it self for the applying of the salve is not the salve itself and therefore since you say that it is the applying of Christ his sacrifice wherefore should ye say that Christ is sacrificed in it for these two cannot stand together Fifthly in Baptism the sacrifice of Christ and the vertue of his death is truly applyed unto us and yet ye will confess that Christ is not sacrificed in Baptism Wherefore then may not the vertue of his death and sacrifice be applyed to us in the Sacrament of the Supper and yet he not sacrificed again in it And last of all neither you neither any creature should appoint or make mo means of the applying of Christ and his death to us then is set down in his Word But his Word only sets down the inward operation of Gods Spirit applying it to us and faith upon our part apprehending it and the Word the Sacraments and Discipline proponing and confirming the same unto us But never a syllable in the whole Scripture that the Lord hath appointed your sacrifice of the Mass to apply the death of Christ unto us Seeing therefore your sacrifice of the Mass neither satisfies for our sins for Christ by his death hath done that sufficiently nor yet applyes the satisfaction once made by the death of Christ unto us for that is done by the Spirit and faith inwardly and by the Word Sacraments and discipline outwardly and that sufficiently Therefore your sacrifice of the Mass is needless and serves to no use in the earth Fifthly the Scripture ever conjoins With the sacrifice of Christ his death so that he cannot be sacrificed but by dying as the Scripture plainly testifies Heb. 9.25.26 Not that he should offer up himself often for then must he have often suffered from the foundation of the world The same may be seen also in sundry other places whereof I have quoted a few Heb. 7.27 and 9.14 So the Scripture saith if he must be often offered up he must often suffer And Bellarmin lib. 1. de missa fol. 725. saith That if there he not a true and a real slaughter of Christ in the Mass then the Mass is not a true and real sacrifice But the Scripture saith plainly that he hath but once died and I suppose you will not say that he is to die again Therefore seeing he cannot die again he cannot be offered up again For the Scripture acknowledgeth no sacrifice of Christ but that which is joined with his death Sixthly Bellarmin grants that in all external sacrifices the sacrifice must be changed lib. 1. de missa cap. 2. fol. 693. 604. It is also required saith he in a true sacrifice that that which is to be sacrificed be utterly destroyed And in another place cap. 27. lib. de Missa fol. 726. cap. 2. fol. 604.
and so forth And in another place he saith Rom 7.2.3 1. Cor. 7.39 and 7.10.11 To them that be joyned in matrimony I give not command but our Lord that the wife depart not from her husband and if she depart to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband And let not the husband put away his wife Now this is our Religion of matrimony and plain repugnant to the doctrine of the Ministers of Scotland that will licence a man to put away his wife and marry another And they call the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles the Popes cruelty against the innocent divorced in their negative faith Master John Welsch his Reply As for your 8. and 9 points of doctrine concerning Marriage the first that it is undissoluble for no cause the other that it is a Sacrament As to the first I would scarcely have understood this point of your doctrine if your Council of Trent and others of your Clergy who write of it had not been more plain then ye And I think that there are few that knows not this point of your doctrine otherwise who can take it up by this your writing I wonder why ye are so dark in setting down your own doctrine But wherefore should I wonder for darkness may not bide to see the light Your doctrine then is this First you make many causes of separation and divorcement besides adultery Concil Trid sess 24. Can. 8. Bellarm lib. 1. de matrim cap. 14. express against the doctrine of Jesus Christ He that shal demit his wife except for fornication c. he makes her to commit adultery As 1. for the vow of continency to enter in a Monastery or Nunry 2. For heresie 3. And for peril of offending of God Next your doctrine is That suppose there be many causes of separation betwixt the man and the wife from bed and boord as we speak yet the bond of marriage contracted and perfected betwixt the faithful can no ways be broken as long as they both live together no not for adultery So that the party innocent divorced may not lawfully marry another during the life of the guilty party And if they marry they call it adultery and they will have the ground of this to be because it is a Sacrament Bellar. lib. 1. c. 12. So one error follows and leans upon another For if marriage be not a Sacrament then the bond may be loosed by their own doctrine But marriage is not a Sacrament as shal be proved hereafter therefore the bond is soluble Our doctrine is that the bond of marriage contracted and perfected between two Christians is broken by the adultery of either of the parties so that the innocent divorced may lawfully marry another As for our doctrine it is plain in the Scripture in the 19. and 5. of Matthew where there the Lord in plain termes excepts the cause of fornication saying Whosoever demits his wife except it be for fornication and marries another commits adultery So then by the contrary he that demits his wife for fornication which is adultery there and marries another commits not adultery And seeing the Apostle commands 1. Cor 7.2 That every man have his own wife and every wife her own husband and that for the avoiding of fornication and it is better to marry then to burn Therefore the first marriage being dissolved by divorcement justly according to Gods Word it is lawful to the party innocent at least to use the remedy of marriage for the avoiding of fornication Otherwise if he might not use it divorcement were not a benefit but rather a punishment and the innocent should be punished without a fault Now as to the Scriptures which ye quote Matth. 19.6 and 5.31 they have that exception of fornication expresly mentioned And as for the places of Mark 10.11.12 and Luke 16.18 and Romans 7.2.3 and 1. Cor. 7 39. they are all to be understood with that exception of fornication that our Savior expresly sets down in the former two places otherwise Scripture should be contrary to Scripture which is blasphemie to think and our Savior is the best exponer of himself And as for the 1. Corinth 7.10.11 the Apostle speaks not of that separation for adultery but of a separation for a season for other causes or variances in the which case the parties separated are to remain unmarried or to be reconciled together And because ye will not credit us nor the Son of God so expresly speaking in his Scripture yet I think ye will give some credit to your own Doctors Councils Canons and Popes whom if ye be a right Catholick ye think that they cannot err Cajetanus a Cardinal in comment Matth. 19. Ambrosius Catarinus lib. 5. annot in comment Cajetani Papists hold this doctrine with us against the Religion of your Church That adultery breaks the bond of marriage and that the innocent divorced may marry another Pope Zachary Decret causa 32. quaest 7. cap. Concubuisti And the Concil Triburiense ibidem cap. Si quis and another Canon saith That incestuous adultery breaks the bond of marriage so that the party innocent may marrie another Ibid. cap. quaedam And Pope Gregory the third suppose in a Canon he will not have adultery to break the bond of marriage Ibid. cap. Hi vero so that the party innocent may marry another contrary to the doctrine of Christ our Savior yet he permits a man to marrie another if his former wife being taken with some disease be not able to render due benevolence unto her husband Ibid. cap. Quid proposuisti So suppose this Pope will not admit that true cause which our Savior sets down of adultery yet he sets down causes himself which wants the warrant of the Word And Pope Celestin the third set forth a decree that when of married persons one falleth into heresie the party Catholick is free to marry again cap. laudabileÌ„ de convers infidelium confessed by Alphonsus a Papist lib. 1 c. 4. advers haeres So then either your Doctors Canons Councils three Popes err or else the bond of marriage may be broken and the innocent partie divorced may marrie another Your Religion of Matrimonie therefore is not only repugnant to ours and Jesus Christs but also to your own Canons Councils Doctors and Popes Let them therefore condemn your cruel juâ—gement against the innocent divorced And therefore Bellarmin confesses Bellarm. de mat lib. 1. cap. 15. That in this point they have many against them not only us whom he calls hereticks but also Latins Greeks and Catholicks Master Gilbert Brown Ninthly with S. Paul Eph. 5.23 we make it a Sacrament as sundrie of the learned Protestants do as Zuinglius lib. de vera falsa rel cap. de matrimonio Melancthon in locis aeditis 1552. 1558. and chiefly young Merchiston in his 22. Proposition of his discourse upon the Revelation whose words are these Thirdly bodily marriage is by S. Paul called a symbol and a
his Preface before the Controversies and in his Preface de 〈◊〉 Pontifice that you differ from us in the main and â—â—â—â—tantial points of Religion therefore of necessity we must also differ from you in the main substantial points of our Religion And so the chief difference wherein we differ from you is not in denying and abhorring but in the main and fundamental grounds of our Religion Otherwise it shal follow that the chief difference that ye differ from us is in denying and abhorring of our Religion which I think your Church will not digest Whereas you say that this may be seen by our Confession of Faith Our Confession hath not only the detesting and denying of your abominable errors in general and particular but also the confession of our Faith in general referring the particular heads thereof to that confession which is ratified and established by Act of Parliament And so here M. Gilberts untruth and calumny of our Confession may be seen As for this form of exacting of an oath and subscription to Religion if you find fault with it you not only gain-say the Scriptures of God impaires Princes lawful authority and the Church of their Jurisdiction and lawful power the example of Moses Deut. 29.10 and of Josua 24.25 Jehoiada the High-Priest 2. Kings 11.17 Josia 2. of the Kings 23.3 Asa 2. Chron. 15.12 And of the people returning from the captivity of Babel with Nehemias chap. 10. But also blots your own Church who as may be seen in that Confession of Faith and form of abjuration set out by the Monks of Burdeaux whereof we spake before doth the same As for this exception which ye put in here I answered to it before Master Gilbert Brown For if this be a true ground of theirs that nothing ought to be done or believed but such things as are expresly contained in the Word of God but their general Confession or their negative faith is not expresly contained in the Word of God therefore it ought not to be done nor believed M. John Welsch his Reply As for this ground which ye alledge to be ours it appeareth certainly M. Gilbert that as ye said of me either ye know not our grounds or else ye wilfully invert them for your own advantage For our ground is that nothing ought to be done or believed in Religion but that which may be warranted by the testimony of the Scripture either in words and sense together or else by a necessary collection out of the same The which with Nazianzene we say Are of the same truth and authority with the first And according to this sense we say That all the heads of our Religion as well negative as affirmative are expresly contained in the Scripture and so ought both to be believed and practised These are but silly shifts M. Gilbert which ye bring to discredit the truth of our Religion You knew full well the blindness and simpleness of the people in this Countrey and therefore you regarded not how silly and simple your reasons were Master Gilbert Brown That their faith is contained in the Word of God so far as it differs from ours he will never be able to prove neither by word nor writ And if he will cause our Kings Majesty to suspend his acts against us that we may be as free to speak our mind as he he shal have a proof hereof If not let him prove the same by writ and he shal have an answer by Gods grace As for his life we desire not the same but rather his conversion to the truth M. John Welsch his Reply As for our ability to prove the truth of our doctrine I answered it before Judge thou Christian Reader of the same by this my answer As for the suspending of his Majesties acts against you that is not in our hands and for all the good ye could do you have but too much liberty And if you speak no better for your Religion then you have done else in this your answer your Church will be but little beholden to you for it And certainly if you will bind and oblige your self to face your own cause and defend your Religion by word I hope that licence of a safe passage and conduct would be granted to you by his Majesty to let you speak for your self what ye have for you for the defence of it for that space without any danger to your person and that surer and with greater safety then John Hus had who notwithstanding of his safe-conduct yet was burnt And whereas you promise an answer do what you can M. Gilbert for now it is time to plead for your Baal And let your answer be more firm then this or else ye will lose more then ye will win by it That you desire not my life I am beholden to you if you speak truth considering the bloody generation of your Roman Church who these many years by past hath spilt the blood of the Saints of God in such abundance that if any can tell the starrs of heaven he may number them whom your Church hath slain for the testimony of the Word of God And as for that which ye call conversion it is aversion from the truth and the losing of salvation the which I hope shal be dearer to me then a thousand lives suppose they were all included in one Master John Welsch Secondly I offer me to prove that there be very few points of controversie betwixt the Roman Church and us wherein we dissent but I shal get testimonies of sundry Fathers of the first six hundred years against them and proving the heads of Religion which we profess Let any man therefore set me down any weighty point of controversie one or mo and he shal have the proof of this SECTION XXI Concerning Justification by Faith Master Gilbert Brown WHom M. John calls Fathers here I know not except Simon Magus Novatus Aerius Jovinianus Pelagius Vigilantius and such For indeed there is none of these and many the like but they were against us and with them in some heads But I am sure S Ireneus S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Jerome S. Basile S. Chrysostome with the rest of the holy Fathers is no way with them and against us as M. John will not be able to prove for all his offer As for example it is a chief ground in their Religion that only faith justifieth This I say can neither be proved by the Scriptures nor ancient Fathers of the first six hundred years For why the contrary is expresly contained in the Word of God Do ye see saith S. James that by works a man is justified and not by faith only James 2.24 with many other places that agrees with the same Matth. 7.21 and 19.17 and 34.35 John 14.15.21 1. John 2.3.4 Rom. 2.13 1. Cor. 13.2 and 1.19 Gal. 5.6 Tit. 1.16 And S. Augustin saith himself de fide operibus cap. 14. That this Justification by faith only was an
old heresie in the very time of the Apostles Maister John Welsch his Reply As for this calumny of yours the tryal of it will come in afterward therefore I refer the answer of it to that place And whereas you say that you know not whom I call Fathers either your malice makes you to dissemble your knowledge in this or else palpable must your ignorance be And where you say that Ireneus Cyprian c. and the rest of the holy Fathers are no ways with us against you and that I will not be able to prove it I have not only proved that already in sundry heads of our Religion but also that sundry of your own Popes Cardinals Doctors Bishops Councils and Canon Law have been with us in sundry points of our Religion which we profess against that which ye profess And as for that example of justification by faith only which ye cast in which is one of the chief grounds of our Religion This I will prove both by the Scripture and by the testimonies of the Fathers of the first six hundred years Our doctrine then concerning Justification is this That as our sins was not inherent in Christ but imputed to him 2. Cor. 5 21. which was the cause of his death so his righteousness whereby we are accounted righteous before God is not inherent in us but imputed to us and therefore the Scripture saith that he is made of God unto us righteousness 1. Cor. 1.30 Next the only instrument that apprehends and as it were takes hold of this righteousness of Christ is a lively Faith which works by love and brings forth good fruits so that neither is Faith an efficient or meritorious cause of our salvation for only Christs death and righteousness is that but only an instrument to apprehend the same Neither is every Faith this instrument but only that living Faith which I have spoken of so that true Faith is never without the fruits of good works no more then fire is without heat and yet neither are our works nor the work of Faith it self the meritorious cause of our salvation but only Christs death and righteousness Neither are the fruits of this lively Faith the instrument to apprehend and take hold of Christs righteousness but only Faith it self This then is our doctrine which is so plainly confirmed by the Scripture that he must be exceeding blind that seeth it not The places to confirm the same are these Rom. 3.28 We conclud that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were justified by works then hath he wherein to rejoyce but not with God Ephes 2.9 By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of your selves for it is the gift of God not by works that none should boast And Phil. 3.9 I have counted all things loss that I might win Christ and might be found in him not having my own righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God through faith And again Tit. 3.5 Not by the works of righteousness which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Seeing the Scripture so expresly removes all works both of nature and of grace both going before Faith and following after it and therefore the Apostle saith We are not saved by the works of righteousness which we had done and of all men even of those who were justified already and sanctified as Abraham Paul and the Ephesians were from our justification and salvation as the causes thereof therefore we are only justified and saved by a lively Faith apprehending the righteousness of Christ Secondly the Scripture not only removes works as we have said from the cause of our Justification and salvation but also ascribes it to Faith as in these places John 3.16 Whosoever believeth in him shal have eternal life And Luke 8.48 Thy faith hath saved thee c. And again Ephes 2.9 We are saved through faith And Rom. 4.3.4.5 Man is justified by faith And Rom. 3.26.28.30 God shal justifie circumcision of faith and incircumcision through faith And Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness And lest ye should say the Scripture hath not by Faith only read the 8. of Luke and 50. verse where our Savior saith to Jairus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only believe and she shal be saved Therefore Faith is the only instrument to lay hold on the promise of God And lest ye should say this was not a justifying Faith I answer This Faith which Jairus had was that same Faith which the woman with the bloody issue had but her Faith not only healed her body but her soul also Luke 8.48 which Bellarmin grants lib. 1. de justif cap. 17. pag. 84. our Savior testifieth saying Thy faith hath saved thee c. therefore this is a justifying Faith also Secondly seeing the Faith of miracles justifying Faith is both one in substance with your Church as Bellarmin c. 5. l. de justif the Rhemists annot in 2. Cor. 12. say if it be a greater work to work miracles as they say then to be justified therefore if only Faith suffice to obtain miracles as Bellarmin grants lib. 1. cap. 20. pag. 97. why should not Faith only be also sufficient to justifie For if it suffice for the greater work much more for the less Thirdly the Scripture ascribes our Justification to grace and not to works and so oppones them that the one cannot stand with the other in the matter of our Justification We are justified saith he freely by grace and not by works Rom. 3.24 And to him that worketh the reward is imputed not according to grace but to debt but to him who worketh not but believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly his faith is imputed to him for righteousness Rom. 4.4 And in another place If it be of grace it is no more of works or else were grace no more grace but if it be of works it is no more grace or else work were no more work Rom. 11.6 Seeing therefore our Justification is only of free grace and grace if the Apostle be true cannot stand with works therefore our Justification is not by works or else it were not of grace and so not at all and so the foundation of our salvation were overturned I hope therefore this our doctrine of Justification is plainly warranted by the Scripture Now to the Fathers because ye say it cannot be proved by them they speak as plainly as we do Origen hath these words in epist ad Rom. cap. 3 And the Apostle saith that the justification of faith only sufficeth solius fidei so that he that believeth only is justified suppose no work be fulfilled of him Hilarius Canon 8. in Matth. saith For only faith justifieth fides enim sola justificat Basilius in homil de humil saith This is a perfect rejoicing in God when a man vaunts
some of you have reckoned in the number of the Canonical Scripture Gratianus dist 19. Alphonsus de genero in thesauro Christ Relig. cap. 3. num 5. And also you have corrupted the Scriptures of God by your corrupt translation especially that of the Colledge of Rhemes The which to be true if time would serve I might soon be able to prove which hath been sufficiently proved by that learned and worthy man of God Doctor Fulk unto the which you nor all your Clergy have not answered as yet for ought I know nor never is able to do And as for the last point wherein ye say that the text is otherways then I set down let the Christian Reader judge whether my words be one in substance with this text or not For suppose this be set down in the preterit-time and I spake it in the future time yet it is a prophesie of a thing to come and your Church grants it is not fulfilled yet therefore they are both one in substance And as for your exposition where you expone this of the punishment of the people that have obeyed her and not of their sin in communicating with her Idolatry that is manifestly against the text For this is set down here as the cause of her punishment which is pronounced before in these words Babylon is fallen c. Now the reason because all Nations have drunken of the wine of the wrath of her fornication whereby in the Scripture is signified Idolatry and it is called the wine of the wrath c. because her fornication provoked God to wrath And Aretas exponeth this fornication a defection from every good And in the 18. chapter it is more evident where after the denunciation of her fall this reason is subjoyned Because all Nations have drunken of the wine of the wrath c. and the Kings of the earth have committed fornication with her and the marchands of the earth are waxed rich through the aboundance of her pleasures The which as they cannot be understood of the punishment but of the defection so this drinking cannot be understood of their punishment but of their communication with her Idolatrie And yet however it be this proves that universal defection of the which I spake Master John Welsch And the Church of God shal be latent and flee to the wilderness and there lurk and be fed of God all that time secretly Master Gilbert Brown It is a wonder to hear the Word of God abused not only with false expositions repugnant to the words self but also alledging the word falsly For the text of S. John hath but this for he notes no place because he knowes it may not abide a tryal And the woman fled unto the wilderness where she had a place prepared of God that there they might feed her a thousand two hundred and threescore dayes Here there is no word that she shal be latent nor lurk nor be secret And if M John will mean that the fleeing to the wilderness is nothing but to be invisible and to ly secret then it must follow that the whore of Babylons self must be invisible and secret For the same S John saith And the Angel took me away in spirit into the desert and I saw a woman sitting upon a skarlet colored beast full of names of blasphemy having seven heads and ten horns This word desert signifies more properly to be secret or invisible then the word wilderness It is true appearantly that if this woman signifie the Church of Christ that in the time of the Antichrist she shal be redacted to a smal number as it were in a wilderness and shal not possess every Nation as she had wont to do but that she may be made invisible and not to be seen there is no true Catholick that expones it so And such like this time shal be but short that is for 1260. dayes as the text saith which is but three years and an half And if M. Johns Church had been but so long invisible we should have dispensed with the same But it hath been invisible these thousand years as it is now professed in Scotland and much more as young Merchiston hath in his book upon the Revelation chap. 12. vers 14. M. John Welsch his Reply All that you can find fault with here is this that I said the Church in the time of the Antichrist should be latent and lurk and be fed secretly the which hath stirred you up in such a choler that you have cryed out with admiration that I have abused the Scripture c. Now tell me M. Gilbert whither is it because these same words are not found in the Scripture or because the doctrine it self cannot be warranted by the same If the former then I say you are but a quarreller about words And all the doctrine which ye have set down in this your answer is not set down in so many termes in the Scripture and yet ye will have it to be the doctrine of Gods Spirit suppose it be not so So it sufficeth that this which I said be warranted by the Scripture suppose the same termes be not found If the other then I say beside other places of Scripture this same place which ye quote here confirmes the same For know ye not that the wilderness is a place of refuge and secrecie from the tyranny of their pursuers And they that flie to the same they flie to lurk there and to be kept close and secret from the rage of their persecuters for the safety of their lives So while it is prophesied That this woman whereby is signified the Church which suppose ye conditionally expone so yet Sanderus 40. demonstrat one of your own number expones it to be the Church without all doubt shal flie in the wilderness from the face of the dragon and that for her safety and there be fed c. Is it not then manifest that she shal be secret and lurk then and not be so open and visible as she was before And if this be an abuse of the Scripture then not only your self hath abused it but also sundry of your own Church as the Rhemists Bellarmin and Sanderus For your self saith That in the time of the Antichrist she shal be redacted in a smal number as it were in a wilderness and shal not possess every Nation as she had wont to do For what is this else but to lurk and be latent and to be fed secretly in comparison of that estat wherein she was before And therefore the only thing that I inferred on this in the end was that no man should think that the Church of God was ever open and visible in such a flowrishing estat as it is now And the Rhemists annot in 2. Thess say That in the time of the Antichrist this great defection or revolt shal be of Kingdoms People and Provinces from the open external obedience and communion with the Church of Rome So
ye say if they prophesie at any time it is of evil and not of good so said Achab of the Prophet of the Lord 1. Kings 22.8 and therefore he hated him so you speak with the same spirit against us that Achab spake with against the Lords Prophet And what good can be spoken of your Babel since the Lord hath fore-told the ruine of it in part hath been accomplished And some of your own number as Hildegardis Briget Catherine de Sens have fore-told of the destruction of your Church the reformation of the Church of Christ As for the time it was spoken of before and I suppose ye have thought it too long and yet be in patience M. Gilbert for it must continue and your Babel must down As for the clothing of sackcloth it was the apparel of such as was in dolor and in mourning whereby is signified the sorrow and dolor that should arise to the true Ministers of Christ through the persecution of the Antichrist his members their idolatrie and abominations The which hath been so clearly fulfilled in the Preachers of the Gospel since John Hus his dayes and before also even to this day that he must be blinded of the Lord who sees it not And whereas ye cast up the clothing of the Ministry in this land ye have forgotten your self and your Clergy and your Head the Pope with his triple Crown with all the rable of his Prelats Abbots Bishops Cardinals c. as full of riotous pride and pomp as ever were the Persian Kings See Bernard de confid ad Eugen. lib. 4. Platin. de vita Pontif. in Paulo 2. His clothes be made of precious stones his gorgeous Miter dight With jewels rare with glistering gold and with 1 A precious stone called a Carbuncle of the which kind one that fell out of the Popes Miter by a mischance at his coronation was worth 6000. crowns Platin. in vita Clementis 5. Pyropus bright O very Troyan trulls no Troyans The pomp and glory of whose Court doth surmount all the pomp and glory of all the Princes in Europe as some that have seen it reports How then can ye justly quarrel our attire Can you say that we pass the bounds of that modesty and comeliness which the Apostle requires in the over-seers of the Church of Christ seeing you will have all the outward pomp and glory of your Popes and Prelats according as it was prophesied of you Rev. 17. to be comprehended within the definition of comeliness and modestie But you are like the Lamians of whom it is reported that they had but one eye and when they went forth they took it with them to look upon others and when they came in their own houses they laid it beside them You look to your neighbors but ye over-see your self So for all the differences which ye have yet assigned it remains sure that by these two Witnesses here are signified the Ministers of the Gospel Master Gilbert Brown But note here I pray you how well these new Evangelists agree in the exposition of this Revelation of S. John for all their grounds proofs is upon prophesies and dark speakings Young Merchiston in his book upon the Revelation chap. 11. vers 3. expones these Witnesses to be the Old and New Testament as he proves in the 21. Proposition and M. John will have them the Ministers Merchiston saith that to be clad in sackcloth is to preach the Word of God with the obscurity of mens traditions and colored glosses M. John saith here that the sackcloth signifies persecution for the preaching of the Word The notes on their Geneva Bibles printed at London expones the sackcloth to signifie poor and simple apparel And Bale upon the same place writes that this sackcloth signifies sober conversation God knows if this and the like be wholsome doctrine to preach to the poor people some one way and some another according to the invention of their own brains without any proofs Maister John Welsch his Reply As for these diverse expositions which ye mark in us that have so stirred up your affections that ye cry out God knows whether this be wholsome doctrine to teach the poor people or not I answer That these diverse expositions of ours are all agreeable to the analogie of faith as your self will not deny and therefore cannot be called unwholsome doctrine Otherwise not only the Fathers but also your own Doctors and Bishops and Popes have delivered unwholsome doctrine by your reason for they have exponed innumerable places of Scripture diversly which is so manifest that I need not prove it and your self also hath delivered unwholsome doctrine here for ye expone blessing and thanksgiving for two contrary things and yet Bellarmin saith that some Catholicks take them both for one And what shal I say of your diverse expositions which were tolerable so being they were according to the proportion of faith your contradictions one to another and that not only in exponing the Scripture but in the main points of your Religion some holding one thing and some another as partly hath and partly shal be marked are manifold And if diverse expositions of a place of Scripture be unwholsome doctrine as ye say then surely this point of your Catholick doctrine which teaches that the Scripture hath a five-fold sense and that it may be five diverse ways exponed must be unwholsome doctrine and then ye lose more then you can win by this Beware M. Gilbert that by this dealing ye bring not your self in suspicion that ye are forsaking your Catholick Faith For this is a point of it as Bellarmin reports lib. 3. de interpret verb. cap. 3. As for your calumnies first in calling us new Evangelists I answered to that before next in saying that all our proofs and grounds are upon prophesies and dark sayings First you injure the holy Ghost in calling his prophesies dark for the cause of this is not in them but in our blindness Secondly ye speak too plain an untruth for it is more then manifest that not only prophesies but also the plain and simple doctrine of the whole Scripture is the grounds and proofs of our Religion as is manifest by the points of doctrine which we have handled here Master Gilbert Brown And it follows in M. John And at the last saith he they shal be put to death c. Here is two things to be noted First that the Church shal not be invisible in the time of Antichrist for if the Pastors of the Church be invisible how shal they be taken and put to death If the Antichrist and his members shal slay them how can they do the same except they know and may see them To be invisible is not to be known or seen but they will see and know them or else they cannot discern them from their own whereby they may put them to death and save their own The second thing to be noted that
time and the relicks of Martyrs Julian the Apostat was of the same opinion as Cyrillus contra Julian declares The same Julian despised the image of Christ and his Saints as the fore-said Cyrillus lib. 9. contra Julian makes mention Master John Welsch his Reply As to this fourth heresie they took away all the liberty and freedom of the will in man but this is not our doctrine For we affirm that man hath a liberty and freedom in his will in natural moral and sinful actions but not in these things which pleaseth God before he be renewed This is your fourth calumnie As for the fifth Jovinian taught as Augustin haeres 82. and Jerome in his 8. Epist. in his defence of his Books against Jovinian set it down and Bellarmin de Ecclesia militant lib. 4. cap. 9 reports that the married estat was equal with virginity Unto the which we answer That true and undefiled virginity we prefer always as the more noble and excellent gift in them to whom it is given but we doubt not to say but that marriage is better in them that cannot contain And generally we dare prefer the honest marriage of Christians before the proud and fained virginity of many Monastical votaries as Augustin in Psal 99. saith Lowly and humble marriage is better then proud and hauty virginity As to the second point he affirmed indeed that the choise of meats and fasting was no merit and this is no heresie But if this be heresie then the doctrine of the Scripture is heresie For it teacheth us That life everlasting is the free gift of God Rom. 6 23. as hath been proved before This is your fifth calumny As for the sixth of Vigilantius heresies if the denying of prayer to be made to Saints be an heresie then it is an old heresie for it is the Lords who is the ancient of days for this is his doctrine Call upon me in the day of thy trouble and I will deliver thee Psal 50.15 Isa 42.8 And let Augustin also go for an heretick who saith That the Saints are not called upon Aug. de civitate Dei lib. 22. cap. 20. As for the despising of the burning of lights and candles in the Churches in the day time I know not to what use it serves except to be a sign that ye are blinded of the Lord who in the midst of the day light your candles Did Jesus Christ or his Apostles so And this was the custom of Pagans which you have taken from them Irenaeus lib. 6 cap. 2. As for the despising of the relicks of Martyrs if he despised these then he erred for we both teach and practise that the bodies of the Saints should be honorably buried and we do not despise them But if he taught that they should not be worshipped then I say he is not an heretick in this but you are hereticks and idolaters who express contrary the Commandment of God do worship the creature Matth 4.10 Deut. 6 13. And Vigilantius was no heretick nor his opinions condemned as heresies only there was a hot contention between him and Jerome And as for Julian he calumniated the Christians that they adored dead men for Gods and the tree of the cross Unto whom Cyrillus answered That they adored not the sign of the cross but God only So this was but Julians calumny against them But if he had lived in your dayes he might justly have objected it unto you Master Gilbert Brown 7. Valentinus the heretick denyed the very body of Christ to be in the Sacrament as Irenaeus saith lib 4 cap. 34. 8. Simon Magus Marcion and the Manichees held that God compelled man both to do evil and good as S. Augustin haeres 46. Vincentius Lirinensis S. Clement of Rome in recognit and Epiphanius haeres 42. have in their works which is the doctâ—ine of the most learned of the Protestants as Melancthon Calvin Beza in lib. de praedest contra Calv. sycophant and others 9. The Novatians denyed pennance as S. Augustin haeres 38. affirms 10. The Manichees denyed the necessity of Baptism as the same S. Augustin haeres 46. reports 11. Aërius Eustathius and the Manichees condemned fasting days ordained by the Church as Leo Epist 93 cap 4. Epiphanius haeres 75. the Council of Gangr in praefat as S. Augustin lib. 10. cap. 3. cont Faust Manich. records 12. The Manichees used to fast on the Sunday only as S. Augustin haeres and S. Leo ser 4. de qua witness Read for this also Concil Gang. cap. 13. de consecrat dist 3. ne quis Ignatius ad Philip. de consâ—crat distinct 3. jejunium 13. The Pepusians and Collyridians denyed holy Orders and made it no Sacrament as S. Augustin haeres 4.24 and Epiphanius haeres 44.79 write 14. The Pelagians denyed that confession should be made to a Priest as our Chronicle writer testifies Hect. Boet. lib. 9 cap. 19. They deny also that Baptism was needful to children or infants as S. Augustin reports haeres 88. 15. The Donatists denâ—ed the order of Monks and other religious persons as S. Augustin in Psal 132. and S Chrysostome write Tom. 5. against the dispraiser of the monastical life Master John Welsch his Reply Whether Valentinus taught so or not I contend not but the question is of this doctrine of the real presence whether it be contrary to Gods Word or not the which I have proved sufficiently before in the fourth point of doctrine and so the denying of it is no heresie But yet it appears not by this testimony of Irenaeus which ye cite here that he taught such doctrine As for the 8. heresie it is a calumny to ascribe it to us for Melancthon Calvin and Beza have no such doctrine You are not ashamed M. Gilbert of impudent lying As for the 9. of Novatus heresie that is a calumny to ascribe it to us For Novatus denyed that there was any place of repentance to these who after they were baptized fell from the faith by any infirmity or violence of persecution as Epiphanius testifies of him that he said No man who hath fallen after Baptism can any more obtain mercy But our doctrine is contrare to this for we teach that there is place to repentance for any sin except the sin against the holy Ghost which is ever punished with final impenitency As for the 10. of the Manichees heresie their doctrine was as Augustin saith there That Baptism served nothing for salvation to any and that none who followed their sect should be baptized and therefore they brought in a contempt of Baptism which is contrary to our doctrine For we teach that Christians and their children is to be baptized and that the contempt of it is damnable suppose not the want of it As for the 11. and 12 heresies we contemn not fastings that are appointed by the Church for lawful causes but we deny that they should be tyed to certain and prefixed dayes as your Church doth and we think
because I could not but because it was not my purpose at that time But now I mind to do it God willing after that I have answered to your arguments Your first reason is The Jews shal receive the Antichrist but they never received the Pope therefore the Pope is not the Antichrist I answer Your proposition I deny that the Jews shal receive the Antichrist For first I will ask you Are you of that opinion with Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12 the Rhemists annot upon 2 Thess 2. and the rest of your Clergy that they shal receive him as their Messias which they look for If you be not of their mind then beside that you dissent from the doctrine of your own Church it is not probable that the Jews would receive him if they thought not he were their Messias And if ye be of their mind then I say the Jews will receive none as their Messias but these who are born of the Tribe of Juda and the family of David in Bethlehem and who shal reign in Jerusalem But the Tribes are confounded so that they cannot know it and the family of David destroyed by sundry Emperors or at the least so confounded that they cannot be distinguished and Bethlehem is destroyed and the Temple of Jerusalem utterly casten down therefore the Messias which they look for will never come And so if this be true the Antichrist which ye imagine here will never come since your Antichrist and their Messias that they look for are both one as your Church suppones And I say further Sanderus in 8. demonst and the Rhemist annot upon the 2. Thess 2. say the Antichrist shal come of the Tribe of Dan if then he shal come of the Tribe of Dan as they say the Jews will never receive him as their Messias because they know their Messias which they look for shal come of the Tribe of Juda. Therefore if Sanderus and the Rhemists speak true the Jews shal never receive the Antichrist at all Thirdly I lay this ground which you cannot deny that the Jews are to be planted in again in the natural olive that is they are to be converted to Christ because their fall was but for a time as the Apostle plainly fore-tells Rom. 11.24 and the Rhemists grant it annot upon that chapter Upon the which I ask you M. Gilbert whether shal they receive the Antichrist before or after their conversion If you say after then I say after they have embraced the true Messias and the Gospel how can it be that they will look for another Messias and receive the Antichrist as their Savior Next we read of their conversion in the Scripture but nothing of their rejection of Christ after their conversion And thirdly seeing as your Church saith the Antichrist shal be sent to them and they shal receive him because they received not Christ Jesus of force then it cannot be after their conversion For the cause to wit their hardness of heart and refusal of the true Messias being taken away this punishment should not be sent unto them after their embracing of Christ so not after their conversion And if you say before their conversion then I say either must you make the reign of your Antichrist longer then three years and an half which your Church doth and put a greater space betwixt the perdition of him and the end of the world then your Church doth For Bellarmin puts but 45. dayes between his perdition and the end of the world lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 17. and so overthrow your own doctrine concerning the Antichrist that ye may establish your imaginary Antichrist Or else what likelyhood is there that ever they shal be converted to Christ which is against both the Scripture and your own doctrine For seeing the Jews are to receive him as their Messias and seeing he is to build their Temple restore their ceremonies and obtain the Monarchy of the whole world especially by their help as your doctrine affirms Bellar. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. 16 c. shal not this drive them further from Christ and harden their hearts more then ever it was before And seeing he shal reign but three years and an half and they cannot embrace the true Savior as long as he reigns for they cannot embrace both the Antichrist and the true Christ together and seeing after his death the day of judgement shal come immediatly or at the least 45. days after as Bellarmin saith how can it be possible that they shal ever be turned to Christ before the end of the world if this your doctrine be true Therefore they cannot receive the Antichrist before their conversion and so they shal never receive the Antichrist So then to conclud this point as the Messias which the poor blinded Jews look for will never come the true Messias being come already whom they crucified so the Antichrist which ye imagine will never come for the true Antichrist which either ye will not see or else if ye see ye will not confess him lurks within your own bosom these many years whom ye labor to cover that he should not be seen But how prove ye that the Jews will receive the Antichrist Because our Savior saith to the Jews If another shal come in his own name him ye will receive I grant indeed our Savior so speaks But first I say this other is not to be restricted to the Antichrist only but to be referred to all false Prophets who shal come not being sent of God so Nonnus so Lyra expone it and this was fulfilled long since in receiving of Theudas and Cozban and other deceivers whom they received Joseph de bello Judaico lib. 2. cap. 12. Pet. Gala. lib. 40. cap. 21. As for Augustin it is true he expones it of the Antichrist But if Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. rejects Augustins opinion concerning the generation of the Antichrist that he shal come of the Tribe of Dan because it cannot saith he be proved by the Scripture shal it not also be lawful for us not to be bound to the exposition of Augustin unless it be certain by the Scripture so give us that liberty which ye take to your selves Your first reason then hath no feet for this place speaks of all false Prophets whatsoever which the Jews should receive and it hath been accomplished sundry times among them therefore this yet remains unproved that the Jews shal receive the Antichrist This for the first part of the argument The second part of your argument is The Pope came never in his own name but in the name of Christ therefore he is not the Antichrist Your antecedent I deny For if ye will credit Franciscus Toledo if ye know him writing upon the same place he saith He shal come in his own name who truly shal have no divine vertue but shal fain himself to be sent of God as the false Prophets came
themselves but also may communicat of the superabundance of their merits unto others Malvenda in disput Ratisb cum Bucero omnes fere Scholastici Now is it possible that these men who so lift up themselves in the conceit of their own righteousness can have the knowledge and sense of their misery And as for this full assurance of faith without doubting they call it Presumption And as for the fruits of holiness without the which no man can see God let their fruits of their vow of single life among their Clergy and forbidding of marriage which the Scripture saith is the doctrine of Devils bear witness whereby innumerable abominations murders adulteries whoredoms have been committed in their Cloysters and Nunneries as their visitation doth testifie And in a fish pond there was found six thousand childrens heads which moved Gregory to revoke that determination of his upon this reason that it was better to let them marry then to give such occasion of murder as appeareth by an Epistle of Hulderick Bishop of Ausburgh written to Pope Nicolas the first And Pope Pius the 2. saith that marriage was taken away for some reasons but it should be restored again for greater This is ascribed unto him And as for true prayers which should be in the Spirit with sighs and sobs that cannot be expressed Rom. 8.26 in a known language with words of understanding that men may say Amen to them in stead of this they teach vain repetition and babling in prayers 1 Cor. 14. as though God were served by reckoning up their mutterings so many Avees so many Pater nosters upon a pair of beads They teach to pray in a strange language which is a sign not to them that believe but to them that believe not which cannot edifie nor build up no not the tower of Babel it self suppose it be a tower of confusion So by their doctrine they have spoyled Christ of his spiritual government in the hearts of his own by the work of his Spirit And as for the outward government by the Word Sacraments and Discipline they have both spoyled him of it and also have deprived the people of God of these means whereby their faith may be wrought nowrished and confirmed in their hearts For as for the Word beside their corrupting of it what by Apocrypha what by traditions what by the commandments of the Church what by their corrupted translation and their false interpretations they have starved the people of God for the want of them in keeping them up in a strange language and reading them out so in their Assemblies in a strange language so that the people may have eyes and not read them ears and not hear them minds and not understand them because they are kept up in a strange language And therefore sundry of our predecessors have been accused and burnt by them for reading parcels of them being translated in the vulgar language And as for the Sacraments they have increased the number of them by adding other five unto them they have impaired them of their vertue corrupted them with errors polluted them with ceremonies and have spoyled the people of the fruit of them by reason they are ministred in a strange tongue and they have turned the Sacrament of the Supper in a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead They have taken away the sign of the Sacrament They have abolished the humanity of Christ by their monstrous transubstantiation They have taken away the Communion which should be in the Sacrament by their privat Masses and they have spoyled the people of a sweet pledge of their salvation in taking away the cup from them by their lamed communion under one kind And as for the discipline of Christ they have renversed it also the order whereof according to the Scripture is that the Church of Christ be governed by his own Ministers and his own laws set down in the Word for the salvation of his people Numb 3.10 Heb. 5.4 Ephes 4.11 Exod. 25.30 Matth. 28.20 1. Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.12 all which they have taken away And first concerning the Ministers of Christ Pastors Doctors Elders Deacons which is given of God for the work of the Ministery and building up of the body of Christ they have removed them from the government of the same and have set up other Office-bearers as Legats Cardinals Primats Patriarks Archbishops Lord Bishops Chanons Parsons Vicars Archdeacons Priests Abbots Provincials Popes Inquisitors Commissioners Officers Procutors Promoters and the innumerable rout of their Monks Friers Jesuits whose Sects and Orders as they have been reckoned by some extends to an hundred and one all different in Ceremonies and Orders one from another all unknown in the Scriptures of God and transformed the government of the Church of Christ into a visible Monarchy and Kingdom of the Romans as it is named by Turrian a Jesuit de Eccles ordinar Minist lib. 1. cap. 2. And the Popes having set themselves in the room of Jesus Christ the King of his Church have not only tumbled out Christs Officers and set in their own of whom they exact an oath of obedience to them but have lifted up themselves above the higher Powers Kings and Magistrats as shal be spoken hereafter Claiming to themselves both the Swords and authority to give and to take Kingdoms at their pleasure exacting an oath of obedience of them making them their vassals and tyrannizing over the Church of God And as they have shut out the Ministers who should rule the Church of God so have they shut out his Laws whereby it should be ruled For this new Prince the Pope hath shut out the Canon of the Scripture from being a rule to govern his Kingdom and in stead thereof hath set down his Canon Law Decrees Decretals c. which decretal Epistles Gratian the gatherer of the Canon Law would have reckoned in the number of the Canonical Scriptures Distinct 19 in Canonicis And to what end doth he use these laws Not to further the salvation of Gods people but to satisfie his own if yet a horse-leech might be satisfied and his Courtiers insatiable covetousness ambition and lust For this cause he hath taken in his own hand the election of Bishops from them to whom it belonged For this cause he hath not permitted the causes of the Church to be debated where they rose as equity reason and peace would he should have done But he hath removed them thence to be heard at Rome what by reserving of causes to himself what by appellations what by exemptions And for the same cause he hath committed the feeding and guiding of the flock of Christ to brute and beastly creatures in giving the charge and commodities of the Church to whom he would by presentations preventions reservations translations provisions permutations and commendations How hath he wasted and seized upon the Church goods with his pensions and first fruits and appropriations so that he hath been cryed out upon
as we said before and the Kingdom interdicted but also King James was by a Bull sent unto England a little before Queen Elizabeths death excluded from the Crown and all that were not Roman Catholicks were declared incapable of and excluded from the succession whereof his Majesty complaineth in his Apologie For Bâ—llarmin tells King James Tort pag. 19 That the Pope claims a dâ—uble right to England one by reason oâ— his Apostolick power which he extends over all men according to that Charter Psal 44. Thou shalt establish them Princes over all the earth The other proper by a right of Dominion for saith he England and Ireland are the Churches Dominions the Pope is direct Lord and the King his vassal XXI Neither were they less active in stirring up wars and combustions in other Kingdoms for a Priest of their own named John Brown aged seventy two in his voluntary confession to a Committee of Parliament set down by M. Prin in his introductioÌ„ to Canterburies doom p 202. saith That the Jesuits who are the Popes agents were the only cause of the troubles which fell out in Muscovia when under pretence to reduce the Latin Church and plant themselves and destroy the Greek Church the poor King Demetrius and his Queen and these that followed him from Polonia were all in one night murdered by the usurper of the Crown and the true progeny rooted out That they were the only cause that moved the Sweds to take arms against their lawful King Sigismund and chased him to Poland and neither he nor his successors were ever able to take possession of Sweden for the Jâ—suits intention was to bring in the Romish Religion and root out the Protestants They were the only cause that moved the Polonians to take arms against the said Sigismund because they had perswaded him to marry two sisters c. They were the sole cause of the war in Germany and Bohemia which began anno 1619. which caused the death of many thousands They have been the cause of the civil wars in France moving the King to take arms against his own subjects the Protestants where innumerable people have lost their lives for the Jesuits intentions were to set their Society in all Cities and Towns conquered by the King and quite to abolish the Protestants They were the cause of the murder of the last King of France They were the only projectors of the Gun-powder treason and their penitents the actors thereâ—f XXII M. Baxter in his key for Catholicks chap. 45. 46 47 48 49 proveth at large by good evidence that the Jesuits had a special hand in the late Civil War that burnt in the bowels of these three Nations till it had near consumed them Whose evidence I intreat that the Reader would read and seriously ponder From all which I hope it is evident enough that the Pope and Church of Rome have been the continual Authors and instigators to wars and combustions in Christian Churches and Kingdoms SECTION IV. That the continual practise of Papists ever since the Reformation hath been to plot and practise bloody and treasonable Conspiracies Assassinations and Murders both of Princes and People who profess the Reformed Religion IN the former Section we have proven that the Pope and Synagogue of Rome have been the grand Authors of warrs confusions and combustions in Christian Churches and Kingdoms In this Section we are to prove that not only have they been the Authors and instigators to bloody wars and confusions in Christian Churches and Kingdoms but that in all Protestant or Reformed Churches Kingdoms or States they have been secretly and under-hand always plotting and practising bloody and treasonable conspiracies assassinations and murders both of Princes and people who profess the Reformed Religion It would be too tedious to declare at large what plots and conspiracies the Pope and his dependers and vassals have had in all the Reformed Churches ever since Luthers Reformation we only shal instance some few not our near hand in France Ireland and in Britain I. I told in the former Section how the Pope and his sworn vassals were the Authors of the massacre of Paris anno 1572. which was surely hatched in hell and carried on with all the subtilty of that old Serpent for when the Pope and Court of Rome and Queen Catharin de Medicis and Charles the 9. her son saw that fire and fagot and force of war could not undo the Protestants they said come and let us deal subtily with them and ensnare them by pretences of friendship and flatteries therefore they not only concluded a peace with them but gave the sister of the King of France to the King of Navarre in marriage that so they might massacre the Protestants at the marriage and they suspecting no treachery came to the City of Paris where the Queen of Navarre was poysoned by a pair of perfumed gloves and the Admiral and the greatest part of the Protestant Nobility were all massacred in a morning the massacre was so cruel that it made the river run with blood and there were thirty thousand Protestants killed in one moneths time of which more afterward II. We also hinted before how King Henry the 3. of France although he lived and died a Papist and while he was Duke of Anjou had foughten several battels against the Protestants and was one of the plotters in the massacre of Paris yet because he did not joyn with the holy League and obey the Popes will in all things the Pope excommunicated him and stirred up James Clement a Jacobin Monk to commit that horrible parricide upon his Royal person III. We did also a little touch how his successor King Henry the 4. was opposed and molested by the Pope and the holy League his sworn servants and excommunicat and the Spaniards brought in the Kingdom to joyn with the holy League to his ruine But God so blessed his enterprises that he foyled them often but he being weary of war and consulting with flesh and blood for peace and ease to himself and quyet to his Kingdom turned Papist and sought absolution from the Pope and at length obtained it But because they thought him not a heart Papist and cordial for them in all things they plot his death by secret assassination and after several attempts one whereof wounded him in the mouth Râ—villac stroke him through the very heart although to please the Pope he caused recall the Jesuits which for their bloody principles and practises were banished the Kingdom So this is the Pope and his Jesuits method when they cannot overcome any Prince that they think no cordial favorer of theirs by open hostility they excite and stimulat some scholer or other of theirs secretly to assassinat him For John Chastel a scholer of the Jesuits who stroke King Henry the fourth of France in the mouth and broke out one of his teeth intending to have cut his throat when he was examined confessed that he being guilty of