promised to the Apostles to dwel with them and to remain with them for ever And in the 16. chap. vers 13. that he shal lead them in all truth I answer first that was the Apostles prerogative the Maister-builders of the Church of Christ that in writing and teaching the doctrine of salvation they should be led in all truth and in none ever since promised nor performed in that high measure Secondly this promise of the Spirit of truth to dwel and remain in them for ever and to lead them in all truth is made and performed in all believers in so far as may sanctifie them and save them and yet ye will not deny but that every one of the believers may err Therefore this promise will not reach so far as to keep the Church from impossibility of erring As to that place in the 17. of John I answered to it before As to the 28. of Matthew I will be with you to the end of the world I answer the same thing to it which I answered to the former that this promise is made not to any visible and ordinar succession for that is to ty the promises of God to persons and places but to the Pastors of the Church whom he sends forth and to all the faithful and is performed in them in so far forth as may save them and inable them for his work But yet this will not exeem them from all possibility of erring As to that in the 1. Tim. 3. vers 15. the Church is called the pillar and ground of truth therefore ye gather It cannot err First I will ask you to whom the Apostle speaks so and upon what occasion he speaks it Ye must say To Timothie that he might know how to behave himself in the house of God which is the Church 2. Tim. 3.14 for so the Apostle writes Then I ask Is not that Church wherein Timothy should have behaved himself called the ground and pillar of truth So the Scripture calls it and ye cannot deny it Now this Church was the Church of Ephesus then the Church of Ephesus is called the ground and pillar of truth But first the Church of Ephesus fell from her first love and the candlestick is threatned to be removed from her unless she repent Rev. 2.5 She did not repent but in time became worse and worse and so heaped fault upon fault till Christ hath now removed his candlestick from her and delivered her over to darkness and death by taking his own elect to himself and giving over the reprobat that hated the truth to the blindness of their own mind so that city is left desolat to the impiety of Mahomet and she that was once called by Gods Spirit the pillar and ground of truth hath now lost the truth Now I say that which may befall one Church may befall any other Church Then that which is befallen to the Church of Ephesus may befall any other But the Church of Ephesus was first craised and then by little and little utterly overthrown and being bereft of the light of Christ is now a Church no longer Therefore I say that there is no Church on the face of the earth howsoever they flatter themselves with glorious styles of Catholick pillars and ground of the truth whose body that is the elect and chosen in it may not be overshadowed with darkness and overtaken with faintness whose chaff that is the hypocrits in it may not be wholly consumed with rottenness and destruction and whose whole frame and outward government may not loose both their strength and beauty Thirdly I say if the Church cannot err as ye say because it is the ground and pillar of truth and if the Church of Ephesus be called the pillar and ground of truth as the Scripture saith and seeing the Church of Ephesus with all the Churches of the East as ye cannot deny hath condemned the Popes supremacy as heresie Therefore one of these two must follow either that the Church that is the pillar and ground of the truth not only may err but hath erred or else it is an heresie condemned many hūdred years ago That the Pope is the head of the Church so Popery is heresie Judge ye which of these ye will choose Last of all I say the Church is called the pillar and ground of truth because it is her office and duty to hold out the word of truth as lanterns and light Philip. 2.16 by preaching it and practising it as the Priest is called the Messenger of the Lord of hosts because his lips should preserve knowledge and declare the message of God Malach. 2.7 But as there were Priests which shew not forth the message of God but caused many to err in the Law and corrupted the covenant of Levi so there may be Churches and have been which have not upheld and maintained the truth but have fallen therefrom Now I come to your last testimony of Scripture Acts 5.39 In that counsel of Gamaliel to the Council of the Scribes and Pharisies That if the doctrine of the Apostles be of God that it cannot be destroyed What do you gather here That the truth doth remain for ever Bellarmin telleth you that ye spend but time in proving that for we grant it unto you It cannot I grant be destroyed but yet it can be persecuted and removed out of places where it was before and obscured and corrupted by mens glosses and traditions as it hath been these 1500. years by the Jews to whom this was spoken That if the doctrine of the Apostles was of God they could not destroy it and yet as was said they banished it and made the Lord to deprive them thereof and to give them over to the blindness and hardness of their hearts because they would not embrace the truth when it was offered Seeing then there is not a syllab in Gods Word that will uphold this main foundation of your Church that the Church cannot err take heed to your self M. Gilbert in time and build not the damnation of your own soul and the damnation of the souls of many others upon a point of doctrine that hath not God to bear witness to it in the whole Scripture I might end here but because this point as I said before is the main pillar that upholds the whole weight of their Church and Religion therefore I will utterly overthrow the same and I will prove out of the Word of God That the Church in all ages both may err and hath erred And first the Scripture testifieth that it is only proper to God alone by nature to be perfectly holy and true and free from all errors Mark 10.18 And contrariwise man by nature is unholy a liar prone to deceive and to be deceived Rom. 3.4 9.10.11.17 and 19. vers so that by nature he is nothing else but a mass of blindness and corruption so that the light he hath he hath it by free grace by Gods Spirit to make
Reader to set down here the particular sayings of every one of them And if ye had formed your arguments out of them I should have formed my answer by the grace of God to every one of them And thus much concerning your ground and the proofs of it Now I come to that which ye gather of it SECTION IV. Whither the Church of Rome be the only true Church and the Reformed not true Churches OF this we collect that our Church must be the only true Church and not theirs because ours hath never been interrupted nor hath failed in any substantial point of faith and Religion since Christ and his Apostles dayes and theirs hath done To confirm this I say that M. John nor no Minister in Scotland can be able to assign to us the circumstances of all mutations and changes in Religion That is to say 1. The author who first began our Religion 2. The time when it was begun 3. The place where it began 4. The true Church who said against the same 5. The matter it self which was changed or begun 6. Nor the faithful number from whom they departed All these things we shal assign to their Religion and that since Christ and his Apostles 1. The first auâ—hor of their Religion albeit not in all things was Martin Luther an Augustine Frier 2. He began his Religion in the year of God 1517. 3. He began the same in Saxony in the countrey of Almanie 4. The Church of Rome Italie France Spain Scotland England Denmark Sweden Pole a great part of Almanie with the east and west Indies which were the true Church said against him 5. The heads of Religion which he first said against were Pardons He affirmed that man was only justified by Faith He denied the Supper of our Lord to be a sacrifice c. 6. He departed himself from all the Christian Churches in Europe in the Indies and other places and therefore he had no predecessors of his own Religion as we read in the Apologie of the English Protestants that he and Zuinglius were the first that came to the knowledge of the Evangel and therefore none immediatly before them Then seeing that there was none of his profession in the earth before him immediatly neither visible nor invisible he and his could not be the Church of Christ for it hath ever stood and never failed no not the space of one day universally because our Savior saith I shal be with you every day to the consummation of the world M. John Welsch his Reply As to your collection the form of it must be this That Church only must be the true Church that hath never been interrupted nor failed in any substantial head of faith and Religion since Christ and his Apostles But say ye yours is such and ours not Therefore your Church is the true Church and ours not The proposition I grant But all the controversie lyes in the probation of your assumption Yea in stead of proving ye say it is not possible to me nor to no Minister in Scotland to assign to you the circumstances of all mutations and changes in your Religion as the person time place c. And then ye attempt to assign all these circumstances of our Religion upon the which ye conclud the falsehood of it So we will first see how ye prove your own and then see how ye disprove ours Indeed this argument of yours is of such account with you that there are not many of your Writers but they have set it as it were in the vant-guard of their host and among the greatest of their strengths and bulwarks for to uphold their ruinous Babel So Hammilton and Hay in their demands to the Ministers of Scotland so Campion so Duraeus Scotus against Whitaker in his defence so your Rhemists upon the 28. of the Acts and on 1. John 2. and so Bellarmin lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 5. Whereby it may be seen of what account this argument of yours is in the judgement of your Church But to answer to your argument first I say If there be no mutations or changes in your Religion since Christ and his Apostles then your Religion and doctrine will be one with that which is set down in the Scripture of God For you will not deny I hope but the Scripture doth sufficiently testifie what doctrine and Religion was in Christs and his Apostles dayes And so let it once be put in the ballance of the Scripture and tryed thereby and then I hope it will soon be made manifest how far it is changed So and you dare M. Gilbert let once your Religion be set upon the pannel and let it once have an assise of the Scripture and then the plea will end I hope Next I say it will not follow We cannot assign all the circumstances of changes in your Religion Therefore your Religion is uncorrupted For it suffiseth if we can prove the first only that is the matter or doctrine it self which is changed and that by comparing it with the Scriptures of God suppose we could not assign all the rest of the circumstances of the mutation as the time place author c. for the changes of many things are most notorious and yet all the circumstances of the change thereof not known We say then it is not needful to seek the beginnings and circumstances of the decays and corruptions in your Church when the corruption and change it self is so manifest by comparing your doctrine with the written Word of God that it cannot be denyed For will you say that he who is deadly diseased is whole and sound because I cannot tell you the first article of time the place and first occasion of the disease When it is manifest that a city is full of misorder and confusion will ye say that ye will not believe it to be so unless you know the first beginnings and progress of these misorders If you saw a ruinous house would ye say Prove me and tell me all the circumstances of the change of it otherwise I will not believe it Will ye deny that a ship could be drowned unless it were told you all the circumstances of the change of the leck where through it drowned If any found a man fallen in a pit shal he not believe that he is fallen whom nevertheless he sees to be there unless it were told him when and by whom he was cast into the same Even so will ye not believe or will ye hinder all others to believe that your Church and Religion is ruinous consumed rotten dead drowned and full of misorder heresie and confusion unless the first beginnings of these changes can be told you We say therefore it is sufficient to prove the ruine and consumption of your Church and Religion if by comparing your doctrine with the truth of God in the Scripture we make evident the direct opposition betwixt them suppose we could not assign all the circumstances of the change of
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
certainty and warrant of all the doctrine in the Scripture and the Scripture it self that they are of God but the testimony of your Popes and Clergy What is it to expone the certainty of the Lords Scripture and of all Religion comprehended in the same to the mocking and derision of the wicked if this be not Yea is not this to prefer the voice and authoritie of your Popes and Clergie to the voice of God himself For what is the testimonie of your Church but the testimonie of men And is not the Scripture the testimonie and voice of God himself Do ye not therefore lift up the authoritie of your Church that is your Popes and Clergie above the authoritie of God in his Word which as you say that there is no other warrant of the Divinitie of the Scripture but only the testimonie of your Church But God be thanked in Christ Jesus who hath delivered us from this blindness for we have other warrants whereupon the certaintie of our salvation and the Divinitie of the Scripture depends then by the testimonie of the true Church much less the testimonie of your Church which is Antichristian and given over of God to believe lies and so worthy of no credit But how prove ye it Ye say there was no other Church immediatly before Luther but that of yours which was worthy of credit Whereunto I answer first that is false for there was a true Church immediatly before him which ye persecuted as I have proved else where Next I say your argument will not follow there was no other Church immediatly before him c. Ergo we have no other warrant that the Scripture is the written Word of God For we have also the testimony of the Church of the Jews concerning the Old Testament and of the primitive Church in all ages concerning both the Old and New Testament which are not only other warrants then the testimonies of your Roman Church but also worthie of more credit Next I say we have many more principal and more effectual warrants that the Scripture is of God then the testimony of the Church either past or present As first the testimonie of the holy Ghost crying testifying and sealing up in all consciences of the godly not only the truth of the doctrine contained in them but also the Divinitie of the Scripture which Stapleton lib. 1. de authorit script cap. 1.6.7 denyes not and therefore the Scripture saith That the Spirit that is the holy Ghost hears witness that the Spirit that it is the doctrine is truth 1. John 5 6. Secondly the testimony of the Scripture it self warranting and testifying of it self the whole Scripture is inspired of God 2. Tim. 3.16 The Old Testament warranted both by the testimony of its self the histories and prophesies testifying of the books of Moses and also by the testimony of the New Testament both in general 2. Pet. 1.19 Luke 24.44 and 16 29 John 5.39 and also in particular as the books of Moses Matth. 1.5 and 19.7 and 22. John 3.14 and the historical books as the history of the Queen of Saba Matth. 12. and of the widow of Sarepta Luke 4. and of the Psalms in sundry places Acts 2. and 13. and of sundrie of the books of the Old Testament Heb. 11. and Ruth also Matth. 1. and out of Isaiah Ezechiel and Jeremy many testimonies are cited and out of the Books of the smal Prophets Acts 7.42 And such like the New Testament hath the confirmation of it out of the Old Testament For whatsoever thing were prophesied in the Old Testament concerning the Messias are fulfilled in the New Testament so if the Old Testament hath authority the New Testament also hath authority And such like Peter by his testimonie confirmes the Epistles of Paul to be the written Word of God Thirdly the majestie of the doctrine which shines in it the simplicitie puritie and heavenliness of the speach therein which is not to be found in any other writings whatsoever the ancientness and antiquitie of them as the Books of Moses far ancienter then any other writing The accomplishment of the Prophesies and Oracles in them as they were fore-told their miracles and wonders whereof they testifie the testimonies of the holy Martyrs that shed their blood in the defense of the truth of them their wonderful preservation notwithstanding of the rage and cruelty of sundry tyrants who sought them out most diligently to have destroyed them all testifying of the Divinity of the holy Scripture So then to conclud this seeing we have the testimony of Gods Spirit sealing up the truth of them in our hearts and the testimony of the Scripture it self testifying of its self so many manner of wayes and sundry other arguments out of the Scripture it self and the testimony of the Church in all ages all warranting to us the Divinity of the holy Scripture I cannot but wonder at the unsearchable judgement of God in blinding you so far that ye have set it down in writ that we have no other warrant of the holy Scripture but the authority of your Church SECTION VI. Concerning the necessity of Baptism to Infants Master Gilbert Brown ANd albeit here it were not necessary to me to prove any heads of our Religion by the Word of God because M. John hath promised to improve the same by the Word which he is no ways able to perform yet to satisfie the Christian Reader and that he may know that the Word of God is only on our side and with us so that their exposition and notes be taken from the same I will set down God willing some heads for examples cause that that same doctrine which we teach and practise is the same that our Savior and his Apostles preached before and is written in the same that he calls the touchstone Master John Welsch his Reply Howsoever ye say this M. Gilbert that that doctrine which ye teach and practise in your Church is that same which our Savior and his Apostles teached before and is written in the Scripture yet in very truth there is nothing less in your conscience For if you and your Roman Church were so perswaded wherefore then should ye have declined to have it tryed by the same And wherefore have some of your own chief pillars and defenders of your Roman Religion who knows the certaintie of the same wherefore I say would they have proclaimed it by writ unto the world that the most part and the principal heads of their Religion are unwritten traditions which have neither their original beginning nor authoritie in the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same And wherefore would your Roman Church have heapt up so many false accusations and blasphemies against the same And wherefore last of all would ye have set up your Pope and his Bishops to be supream and soveraign Judge over the same as you do But this you do because you know that if ye rejected the Scripture
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
breadth and not to have his own length and breadth at once in the Sacrament is a manifest contradiction is yea and nay in Christ therefore both by the Scripture and your own doctrine the omnipotency of Christ cannot be alledged or pretended for this your doctrine which is yea and nay and implyes a manifest contradiction So this in very truth is the invention of your own brain which is alledged for your Transubstantiation and wants the warrant yea is gain-said both by the written Word and your own School-men Next ye would have us to hold away our figurs symbols and similituds I answer our own figurs we shal hold away but these figurs symbols and signs wherein our Savior hath delivered his truth to us we must and will acknowledge So then obeying rather God who hath set them down in his Scripture then you who forbids us to acknowledge them and what a monstrous exposition would you make of infinit places of Scripture if you would admit no figures in them but all to be understood plainly and literally as they were spoken The Scripture ascribes to God eyes ears foot hands and a face and the Scripture calls Christ a door a vine Now if you will admit no figurs here but will have all these places exponed literally as you will have us to do in the Sacrament then you would be reckoned in the number of the old hereticks called Anthropomorphitae who because they saw the Scripture speak so of God they taking it literally and exponing it without figurs as you would have us to expone the Sacrament they thought that God was bodilie yea you must make another monstrous Transubstantiation of Christ in a door and vine-tree for so he calls himself And to come to the Sacraments themselves how many transubstantiations will you make in all the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament if you will remove figurs and signs from them and expone them literally as you would have us to do in this Sacrament Circumcision is called the covenant Gen. 27. and yet it was but the sign of the covenant the Lamb in the Passover is called the Passover of the Lord Exod. 12. and yet it was but the sign of the Passover the Rock in the wilderness is called Christ 2. Cor. 20. and yet it was but a sign of Christ the Ark is called the Lord Psal 24. and yet it was but a sign of the Lord the land of Canaan is called the rest of the Lord. Heb. 4. and yet it was but a sign of that rest and Baptism is called the washing of regeneration Tit. 3. and yet it is but the sign of our regeneration Do you think that the forms of speaches in all other Sacraments are figuratively taken and the form of speach in this Sacrament only to be literally understood What reason can there be of this diversity But it may be you think that the form of speaches in all other Sacraments should be taken figuratively but the phrase of speach in this Sacrament is to be taken literally But first what then will you say to this speach This is my body which is broken for you and this The cup is the New Testament in my blood and the cup is my blood and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 11. Luke 22. Mark 14. 1. Cor. 13. all figurative speaches and to be understood figuratively otherwise Christ should have been broken in the Sacrament which is both contrary to the Scripture and also absurd For then he should have suffered twise once in the Sacrament and once upon the cross and not only should there be one transubstantiation in the Sacrament but many as of the cup in the blood of Christ and of the bread and cup in the participation of the body and blood of Christ and so you should not only have one transubstantiation but many And how I pray you can Sacraments which are but figurs signs and symbols be understood but figuratively And how can duo diversa individua alterum de altero praedicari in praedicatione and be spoken of another without a figure as it is here This bread is my body c. Can you or any at all of your Roman Clergy understand such propositions otherwise then figurativelie What an unreasonable thing is it then to you to forbid us to acknowledge figurs in this Sacrament which is but a figure and sign seeing they are so frequentlie used in the Scriptures of God and especiallie in Sacraments as also in this Sacrament So nil ye will ye signs and symbols tropes and figurs ye must admit in the exposition of this Sacrament Last of all ye think a natural bodie cannot be spirituallie eaten Would you be so absurd and blasphemous as to have Christs bodie naturallie eaten For then his bodie must be naturallie chawed digested turned over in our substance and casten out in the draught and so be mortal and suffer again Apage hanc blasphemiam Let me ask you whither is Christs bodie the food of the soul or the food of the bodie If you say it is the food of the bodie to fill the bellie then I say it must be naturally eaten but you are blaspemous in so thinking But if you say it is the food of the soul as it is indeed and as our Savior saith John 6.35 then it cannot be eaten naturally For as the food of the body cannot be eaten spiritually so the food of the soul cannot be eaten naturally but spiritually by faith And if you understood this true eating of Christ by faith all your contention would take an end But this is the stone which ye stumble at and therefore ye forbid us to come in with a spiritual eating of Christs natural body as though it could be eaten otherwise then spiritually by faith Will you neither understand the Scriptures John 6 35. nor the ancient Fathers August tract 26. in Joh. 6 lib 3. de doct Christ cap. 16 Clemens Alex Hierom. S Basilius Bernardus supra citat nor your own Church Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 7. and your Canon Law de consecrat dist 1. cap. 5. who all acknowledge a spiritual eating of Christ by faith What gross darkness is this wherewith the Lord hath blinded you above all that ye cannot understand it As Christ dwells in us and we in him so do we eat him and drink him But the Apostle saith he dwells in us by faith Ephes 3. therefore we eat him and drink him by faith And seeing your Church grants that the eating of Christ corporally doth no good and the eating of him by faith only will bring eternal life as our Savior saith John 6. what needs then this corporal and real eating of Christ And why are ye like the gross and carnal Capernaits who can understand no eating but a corporal eating of him
in the Old Testament was and is fulfilled in the New Testament But the New Testament hath not so much as one syllable of your sacrifice of the Mass therefore it could not be prefigured in the Old Testament For if it were prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Testament it behoved either to be one with the spiritual sacrifice of all Christians or else one with the bloody sacrifice of Christ upon the cross for only these two sorts of sacrifices are prefigured in the Old Testament recorded to be fulfilled in the New Testament but your sacrifice of the Mass is one with neither of them for it is not one with the first sort for they are spiritual you will have it external neither is it one with the other of Christs sacrifice upon the cross for there he died there he shed his blood and there he suffered the torments of Gods wrath and indignation for our sins and there he satisfied the justice of God and merited an everlasting redemption to us But in your sacrifice of the Mass your selves grants that neither is he crucified nor is his blood shed nor suffers he the wrath of God for our sins nor satisfies properly the justice of God for the same nor properly merits remission of our sins in the Mass Bellarm. lib. 2. de missa cap. 4. therefore it is not one with that sacrifice of Christ upon the cross For two several actions which have two different forms and are done in divers times and places for divers ends cannot be one only and the self same sacrifice for it is the form that gives a thing to be and distinguishes it from all other things But Christ his offering up of himself upon the cross and your sacrifice of the Mass have different forms are done in divers places and times and for diverse ends therefore they cannot be both one Further if they were both one then it should follow that as the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of an infinit valor so the sacrifice of the Mass should be of the same valor But Bellarmin saith lib. 2. de missa cap. 4 fol. 740. That the sacrifice of the Mass is but of a finit valor and the sacrifice of the cross of an infinit valor Therefore they cannot be both one and the self same sacrifice Therefore this sacrifice of your Mass seeing it is not one with neither of these two sorts of sacrifices is not prefigured in the Old Testament As for the second that it was fore-told by the Prophets It is as true as the former for all the sacrifices which were fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New Testament But the New Testament as hath been said makes only mention of these two sorts of sacrifices Christs on the cross and our spiritual sacrifices and not a syllable or the sacrifice of the Mass Therefore it is not fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Testament As for these Scriptures which ye quote Malac. 1.10.11.12 Isai 19.19.21 and 56.7 they speak of the spiritual worship of God and of the spiritual sacrifices which the Gentils being called should offer up unto God under the Gospel whereof mention is made in these places Heb. 13.15.16 1. Pet. 2.5 Rom. 12.1 and 15.16 For either they speak properly and literally or else figuratively But if you say they speak properly of external sacrifices then they speak here of that legal and ceremonial worship of the Jewes and so these places doth not appertain to the New Testament Or if you will say they speak figuratively then I say they make nothing for your external sacrifice in the Mass which you will have to be a sacrifice not figuratively but properly So howsoever ye expone them they can no wayes make for your external sacrifice in the Mass Either therefore must ye prove this sacrifice of your Mass in the New Testament first which ye will never be able to do or else the figures and prophesies in the Old Testament will never prove it seeing there is nothing either prefigured or fore-told in the Old Testament but that which in the New Testament is fulfilled Let us see therefore what you can alledge for this your sacrifice in the New Testament You say that Christ the chief Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action and according to the order of Aaron upon the cross instituted it Matth. 26.26 Luke 22.19 Mark 14 22. and commanded to be observed to the end of the world Before I come to the institution there are two things to be examined which you have written here The first that you say that Christ according to the order of Aaron did offer up himself upon the cross Unto the which I answer first that you gain-say here two great Papists Alanus and Bellarmin whereof the one saith that Christ never sacrificed Aaronicè that is according to the order of Aaron Alanus de Eucharist lib 2. cap. 9. The other saith that Christ his sacrifice upon the cross was neither according to the order of Melchisedeck nor yet according to the order of Aaron Bellarm. de Missa lib. 1. cap. 6 fol. 626. And not only he affirmes it that it is not according to the order of Aaron but also he affirmes that this should be certain to all the faithful So if you be of the faithful and his doctrine be true which the Pope your head hath priviledged to be printed this should also have been certain to you and so you should not have gain-said it You had need to beware of this M. Gilbert to contradict so openly the learned Fathers and Maisters of your Catholick faith for by this doing ye will both bewray your selves that you have no unity and concord one with another and also ye will bring your self in suspicion with your head that ye are not a defender of the Catholick faith seeing you so openly contradict the maisters and defenders thereof Mark this Reader what concord these men have among themselves some saying one thing some another Next I say if you refer this also to his person that as this action was according to Aaron so himself was a Priest according to his order in his sacrifice Then I say you both gain-say the plain Scriptures of God Heb. 5.6.10 and 7.11 and also the learnedst of your Church Bellar. lib. 1. de missa cap. 6. For suppose it be true that this sacrifice of his upon the cross did accomplish all the sacrifices of Aaron and put an end unto them according as he said It is finished Yet he offered up this sacrifice not as he was a Priest according to Aaron for he was not a Priest according to his order at all but as he was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck and therefore the Scripture joyns both together Heb. 5.6.7.10 to assure us that he offered up himself upon the cross as he was Priest not according to Aaron but according to Melchisedeck
own heads as may be seen in our Psalm books Whereunto I answer If ye respect the matter contained in our thanksgiving it hath the warrant of the Scripture and so in that respect it is not our own invention If ye respect the authority we are taught and commanded by our Savior both by his example for he gave thanks and also by his commandment Do this to do the same And so in that respect it is not our own invention If you respect the end it is Gods glory which is the proper end of all thanksgiving If ye will respect the form of this thanksgiving to wit the words and order wherein it is conceived I say it is left indifferent to the Church of God to form their prayers and thanksgiving so being the matter end and authority of the using of them publickly have their warrant out of the Word of God So seeing the authority to give thanks and the matter also of our thanksgiving and end thereof is set down in the Word and seeing the Lord hath left it free to the Church of God concerning the outward form of the same the Scriptures not determining it which your self I hope will not deny For your Canon hath many forms of prayers and thanksgiving in your Mass which after that form and order is not set down in the Word of God Therefore you injury the Lords Spirit and his Church who calls our thanksgiving our own invention As to the third concerning blessing which you distinguish from thanksgiving and saith we have blotted it out of our Scots Bibles and put thanksgiving in the room thereof and so you say we want that part First then I will ask you Did not Luke and the Apostle Paul set down the whole form and the chief points of the institution of that Sacrament I suppose you will not deny it for it were too plain an impiety for you to say that either Luke the sworn pen-man of Gods Spirit or Paul who said I have received of the Lord that which also I have delivered unto you 1. Cor. 11.23 that either of these had omitted the history of the institution of this Sacrament a principal point thereof but either this blessing is one with thanksgiving or else they have omitted a principal point thereof for neither of them makes mention in these places of blessing but only of thanksgiving therefore it is one with thanksgiving Secondly I say either the whole three Evangelists and the Apostle Paul in setting down the institution of the Sacrament of the Supper omits a chief thing to wit the blessing of the cup which I suppose ye will not say or else the blessing of the cup is one with thanksgiving for the Apostles Paul Luke makes no mention at all of blessing but only of thanksgiving and the two Evangelists Matthew and Mark makes no mention of the blessing of the cup but saith that after or also he took the cup and when he had given thanks c. therefore they are one Thirdly if ye will credit one Evangelist exponing another whereas Matthew and Mark have this word and he blessed Luke and Paul have these words And he gave thanks And whereas Matthew and Mark have this word blessing after he took the bread they use the word thanksgiving after he took the cup to signifie that they are both one And therefore if ye will believe Scripture exponing Scripture they are both one Yea what will you say to Bellarmin who saith lib. 1. de sacram Euchar. cap. 10 That some Catholicks contends that both the words to bless and to give thanks in the Scripture signifies one thing and therefore they interpret thanksgiving blessing So if you will credit your own Catholicks they are both one here And whereas you say that both in the Greek and Latin they signifie diverse things I answer Indeed it is true that sometimes they signifie diverse actions as blessing Numb 6. for the petition of a blessing But yet sometimes also blessing is taken in the Scripture for thanksgiving as both I have proved in these places as also if ye will deny there is many places in the Scripture for the contrary as Luke 1.65 Eph. 1.3 1. Pet. 1.3 And whereas you say that in Mark they signifie two distinct actions I have proved before they are both one And last of all I say if by blessing you mean the words of the consecration this is my body which is broken for you c. as Bellarmin affirms lib. 4. de sacram Euch. cap. 13 that the Roman catechist so expones it and the Theologues commonly teaches the same then I say we want not that chief point for we rehearse the words of the institution So howsoever the word blessing be taken either for thanksgiving or for the sanctification of these elements to an holy use by prayer which is comprehended in the thanksgiving or for the words as ye call them of the consecration we have always this blessing in our cōmunion And as for your hovering and blowing of the words of Christ over the bread and calice with your crossing and charming them after the manner of Sorcerers with a set number and order of words and signs your hiding it your rubbing of your fingers for fear of crums your first thortering and then lifting up of your arms your joining and disjoyning of thumb and fore-finger and sundry other vain and superfluous ceremonies and curiosities which you use in blessing of the elements they have neither command nor example of Christs institution and action and the Apostles doctrine and doing in the Scriptures of God Now as to the fourth giving or offering up of the body and blood of Christ to his Father by the faithful We confess a giving to his Disciples which you call afterward a communicating But for another giving that is as you expone it an offering up of his body and blood to his Father we utterly deny it as a thing not so much as once mentioned in the whole institution but contrary to the same and Antichristian and therefore we utterly abhor it and detest it as an invention of your own as Antichristian as idolatry as abomination as that which derogates from that blessed only one sacrifice whereby he offered up himself once upon the cross never to be offered up again as the Scripture testifies Heb. 25. And Bellarmin saith plainly lib. 1. de missa cap. 12. 24. That this offering up is not expresly set down in the words of the institution and that it cannot be easily discerned And as for the fifth a communicating we have it and that not only of the bread and wine as ye here imagine but of Jesus Christ God and Man his very flesh and blood and all his blessings by faith spiritually seeing therefore we have all these points which are requisit in the institution a lawful Minister thanksgiving blessing giving and communicating therefore we have the true institution of Christ in the
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
he may of right dispense against right that he may make righteousness of unrighteousness and that he may deliver as many souls out of Hell and Purgatory and place them in heaven as pleaseth him Extra de translat Epist Canon Quanto in textu glossa Clement 6. in Bulla he needs no Masses to be said for him Either therefore these sentences that are spoken of him are false or else all Masses said for him are superfluous Eightly if the Mass be one with the Supper then as the Supper was only instituted for the living and not for the dead and therefore our Savior in the Supper commands To take eat drink and to do it in remembrance of him which the dead cannot do so these Masses should not be for the dead And for what dead are these that these Masses are said If they say for them that are in Heaven or Hell I answer the one needs them not and they are unprofitable for the other If they say for them that are in Purgatory I answer this Purgatory is but their own invention to draw water to their own mill and to enrich the Popes treasures for the Scripture makes no mention of it Ninthly their Masses that are said for them that are absent as for the prisoners for them that sail and are in their voyage c. makes it manifest also that the Mass is not one with the Lords Supper for it was instituted not to them that were absent but to them that were present For in the Supper they are commanded to take eat and to drink in remembrance of him which the absent cannot do Indeed it is true that these that are present at the Mass do eat and drink as little as they that are absent the only vantage they have is to be beholders of the Priest eating and drinking all himself alone and of these vain and juglers tricks of the Priest in saying of his Mass which the absent cannot see Tenthly how can their Priests please God in saying Mass for him of whose soul it is doubted seeing it cannot be said with faith and whatsoever is done without faith the Apostle saith is sin Rom. 4.23 And this doubting as James saith cannot stand with faith James 2 6. therefore this Mass of theirs for his soul of whom there is doubt cannot please God But what is all their Religion but conjectures and opinions and doubtings Eleventhly is their Masses for the pest tempest fury fire and all afflictions and maladies as well of man as of beast which containeth intolerable and vile idolatry for every Mass hath his own Saint to be a Patron according to the subject thereof and every Saint hath his own office Against the pest the Priest saith the Mass of S. Sebastian and S. Roch for they are the Patrons and defenders against it after the custom of the Pagans who honored Apollo and Esculapius by feasts and sacrifices for to be saved from the contagion of the same Against the tempest they say the Mass of S. Bernard S. Graith S. Barbe and others in stead of Jupiter which the Pagans worshipped Against the rage or fury they say the Mass of S. Hubert who is the Patron of hunters and dogs as the Goddess Diana was the Patron among the Pagans Against the fire they say the Mass of S. Antony for they make him the Patron of it and they say it is a greater oath to swear upon the arm of S. Antony then when one swears by the Name of God For a woman with child they say the Mass of S. Margaret in stead of Diana and Juno which the Pagans worshipped for women with child For a horse they say the Mass of S. Eloy or S. Antony yea for a poor wifes hen if it be sick or lost And for their pigs they have the Mass of S. Antony Alanus de sacrific Euch. cap. 32. But first what blasphemy is this to have their recourse to Saints hee or shee to obtain of them or by their merit or intercession health in sickness c. and such like things which are only in Gods hands to bestow For it is he only that sends health and sickness fair weather and foul weather and so forth Next the Lords Supper was not instituted to be a charm for such diseases of man or beast or for the fire pest tempest c. but for the remembrance of Christs death So that if there were no more abuse in the Mass but these two things it is sufficient to make all men to abhor such abominable idolatry The twenty and one abuse is their mixing of parcels of the Scripture with their abomination and idolatries in their Mass after the manner of those who go about to impoyson any who mix their poyson with some good food that it may be the less suspected Or rather as the Magiciens and Charmers doth who mixes with their devilish practises parcels of the Scriptures of God and makes those to serve for their devilish purposes which was appointed to Gods honor So are all the places of Scripture which are read and sung in their Mass they are brought forth not for the truth but against the truth for their idolatry and abomination and this they have done that their idolatrie may be less suspected by the simple Next what warrant have they to prefer the Gospel as they call it to the Epistles in standing up at the reading of the Gospel and sitting at the reading of the Epistles seeing they are both inspired of God and they both contain the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the Apostle testifies Rom. 1.1 and 2.16 1. Cor. 4.15 Thirdly the Gospel and Epistles were appointed not to be sung and chanted in the Church as they do but to be read and interpreted for the Psalms and other Hymns in the Scripture are ordained for that use Fourthly seeing the Scripture which is read and sung in your Mass is read and sung in an unknown language as all the rest of your Mass is done to what purpose doth it serve And what is it but a mocking of God and abusing of the poor people The twenty and two abuse is their wax candles which they have burning in the time of their Masses in the fair day light mocking as it were thereby both God the Author of all light and the light of the Sun And to what purpose can they serve to burn in the day light when the Sun is shining but to bear witness against them in the great Day that in the midst of the noon-day they groped in darkness and that they have put out the light of the Gospel that should have shined in their hearts What shal I speak of the rest of your ceremonies which are superstitious idle carnal and Jewish In attire like them for as their Priests were clad in an Ephod a Myter a broidered coat a girdle a breast-plate and a robe Exode 28.4 So with you your Priests must have an Amice an Albe a girdle a fannel whereof some
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
it no heresie to fast on the Lords day more then other dayes both to stir up our repentance and to make us more meet to holy and spiritual exercises because it is not contrary to the Word of God As for Leo his Epistle it is wrong quoted for it should be Epist 91. and their fasting on the Lords day is not like ours for they fasted on the Lords day because they believed not that Christ was a true man as Leo in that same place testifies which you will not say your self that we do for we acknowledge him to be a true man As for the 13. heresie of the Pepusians and Collyridians their doctrine was that women might be Bishops and Elders and might use these publick functions as these places which ye have quoted testifie which is not our doctrine but rather yours who permit women to baptize in case of necessity That they denyed Orders to be a Sacrament there is no such thing to be found in these places which ye quote here As for the 14. heresie of the Pelagians if they denyed that these who were accused of any scandalous offence and guilty thereof should make their confession of it to God his Ministers and the Congregation for to take away the offence of it then they erred and our doctrine and practise condemn this but if they denyed the absolut necessity of your auricular confession then is it no error because there is no such thing commanded in the whole Scriptures of God Now as for the testimony of Boëtius I have not seen it As for their second heresie concerning Baptism they taught as Augustin reports in that place That Baptism was not needful to children because they were born without original sin as they taught which is an heresie indeed but this is a calumny to ascribe it to us for we teach that children are born in original sin and so should be baptized And surely this heresie rather agrees to you who teach that Mary was not born in original sin and therefore she needed not to be baptized As for the last of the Donatists denying the order of Monks I answer First your Papistical and idolatrous Monks are far different from these which Augustin and Chrysostome defended and these of the primitive Church Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 2. de indulgentijs For first they were bound to no prescript form of dyet apparel or any thing else by solemn vowes of wilful poverty and perpetual continency as yours are Next the former Monks remained in the order of privat men and laicks and had nothing to do with Ecclesiastical charges which was afterward broken by Pope Boniface the fourth anno 606. But yours are not so they have Ecclesiastical charges and are more then privat men And last of all suppose their kind of life was mixed with some superstition for the envious man soon sowed the popple among the good seed and the mystery of iniquity began soon to work yet their Religion was not defiled with Idolatry worshipping of Images prayers to Saints opinion of merit the sacrifice of the Mass and other abominations wherewith your Papistical Monks are defiled Next I say these Monks and religious Orders of yours have not their foundation within the four corners of the Scripture of God Master Gilbert Brown These and many the like new renewed heresies by the Ministers was old condemned heresies in the primitive Church of the former hereticks as testifie the ancient Fathers and therefore this is a true argument What ever was heresie in old times is heresie yet and the defenders thereof hereticks as they were of old But these former heads that I have set down with many the like was heresies in old times and the defenders thereof hereticks as testifie the ancient Fathers Therefore they are heresies yet and the defenders thereof hereticks Master John Welsch his Reply Now here was all the cause Christian Reader that made M. Gilbert so oft to cry out of us that we renewed old condemned heresies whereof some are such as we our selves condemn and some are such which do better agree unto themselves then unto us And some heresies he forceth upon us which we never taught nor maintained and some are such which are not heresies indeed but agreeable to the Scriptures of God So that if we err in these suffer us to err with Jesus Christ and his Apostles Now to answer to your argument which ye bring What ever was heresie in old times is heresie yet and the defenders thereof hereticks I answer If ye define heresie to be an error obstinatly maintained against the Scriptures of God I grant your proposition But if ye define heresies in general to be whatsoever any one Father or Doctor or some more have rebuked as an heresie then I deny it for sundrie of the Fathers have maintained errors themselves against the Scripture and have accused some doctrine to be heresies which have been agreeable to the truth of God which you will not deny I hope For if you would I could prove it both of the Fathers Councils and your own Popes Now to your assumption But these former heads say ye which ye have set down with many the like was heresies in old times and the defenders thereof hereticks as testifie the ancient Fathers I answer That some of these are heresies indeed and we abhor and condemn them more then ye and some of these as falsly laid to our charge and some of these are not heresies indeed but agreeable to the Scripture And therefore your conclusion falls not upon us who have renewed no old condemned heresies and therefore is not hereticks And where you say many other like I answer It is true they are like for they are both calumnies and horrible untruths and lies as these have been whereof one day ye shal make answer to the great God that judgeth the quick and the dead But the pit which you digged for others you have fallen in it your self For certainly in this you do as thieves do who the better to eschew the crime of theft which is justly laid to their charge and that they may the more easily escape in a fray do cry out and shout out upon others Common thieves common thieves Even so do you for these crimes whereof ye are guilty your selves you falsly charge us with SECTION XXVI That the Church of Rome hath renewed and maintaineth old condemned Heresies THat all men may see that not we but the Church of Rome hath renewed and doth maintain old condemned Heresies I shal not do as you have done to us that is either to lay to your charge such heresies as ye maintain not or such things to be heresies which are not heresies indeed which ye did to us But in this I will deal sincerely with you faining nothing neither of them nor of you 1. Simoniani worshipped the Image of Simon and Selene whose heresie they followed Ederus in Baby pag. 5. so do your religious Orders worship the
God his majesty that he ascribes not to himself as God willing shal be proved afterward in the third mark of the Antichrist So that Aventinus saith of the Pope He who is the servant of servants is the Lord of Lords and he desires to beas though he were God He speaks great things as if he were God He changeth the laws establisheth his own He reaves he spoils he deceives he slayes that man of perdition whom men use to call Antichrist speaking of the Pope in whose fore-head the name of blasphemy is written I am God I cannot err So what is this else but a horrible mocking both of God and man to stile him the servant of servants seeing he hath lifted up himself so far above both God and man So then to conclud this as Goliah his own sword slew himself so the reason which ye bring to defend your Pope from being the Antichrist doth most evidently convict him to be the Antichrist He may justly be called the Antichrist who under pretence of the Vicar of Christ and the servant of servants is Monarch and Lord over all this you cannot deny Because the Scripture describes the Antichrist to have two horns like the Lamb to sit in the Temple of God to have a golden cup and yet to speak like the Dragon to be adversary to God and to lift himself above all that is called God Rev. 13. and 17. 2. Thess 2. But so have the Popes of Rome done as it hath and shal be proved by their own doctrine and practise and which you cannot deny Therefore he is in very deed that Antichrist which was to come And this for your first reason Master Gilbert Brown Secondly S. Paul in describing of the Antichrist tells that he shal be but one the son of perdition 2. Thess 2.3 Now then if there shal be but one chief Antichrist whether is this present Pope he or some other before him For every man knows that there have been mo then 230. Popes as all the Writers of their lives restifie They cannot all be Antichrists for that repugns to S. Paul who hath put him in the singular number And if M. John will follow the Word as he saith he doth where will he find that there shal be many chief Antichrists and not one only For that place of S. John where he saith That now are there many Antichrists 1. John 2.18 can no wayes be understood but of the fore-runners of the great Antichrist For at that time M. John will grant himself that the great Antichrist the son of perdition was not begun Master John Welsch his Reply Your second reason is the Antichrist is but one singular person The Popes have been many therefore they are not the Antichrist I deny your proposition for there lyes all the controversie We say the Antichrist is not this Pope or that Pope a certain person but we ascribe this name to the whole seat and the succession of your Popes We say the body the Kingdom of your Roman Church whereof your Popes are the heads is that Antichrist which was to come So if you prove that the Antichrist should be but a particular person and not a body a Kingdom a seat and succession of men that are adversaries to God and to Jesus Christ I will grant you have sufficiently cleared your Pope from being Antichrist But content your self M. Gilbert this ye will never prove by the Scripture and therefore ye must let your Popes be accounted the Antichrist still And if this reason of yours be good the Antichrist is one certain person therefore the Popes because they are many are not the Antichrist wherefore I pray you shal not this also be good The Vicar of Christ is one certain man but the Popes are many therefore they are not Christ his Vicar What difference I pray you is there between the one and the other And if ye will say the Vicar of Christ is not one singular man but a succession of many in one office why will ye not also grant that the Antichrist is not a singular man but the succession of many in the self-same impiety So either choose you whether will ye grant that the Antichrist is not one singular man but a succession of many or else that the Popes are not Christ his Vicar For the one ye must do if this reason of yours hold forth But how do ye prove that the Antichrist is but one singular person You say that S. Paul tells that he shal be but one How would ye have cryed out if I had fathered such a falshood upon the Spirit of God as you do here But let such be far from me You say S. Paul calls him the son of perdition and puts him in the singular number therefore ye say the Antichrist shal be but one singular person I fear ye take pleasure to deceive the simple with such silly reasons Our Savior saith That a good man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the treasure of his heart brings forth good things Matth. 12.35 And he saith The Sabbath was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for man and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man for the Sabbath Mark 2.27 And also he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man shal not live of bread only Luke 4 4. Also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man of God may be made perfect 2. Tim. 3.17 And For it behoves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop or over-seer c. Here are the same phrases of speach they speak all of a man in the singular number with that same Greek article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaks here in describing the Antichrist and yet I suppose ye will not be so ignorant or impudent as to say that our Savior and the Apostle speak of one singular person in these places So what warrant have you to gather that here which you dare not gather out of the like phrases of the Scripture If then in these places there is not a singular man understood suppose they speak of a man in the singular number it will not follow that the Antichrist must be one singular person because the Apostle speaks of him as of one man in the singular number for the phrases are all one But the first ye must grant therefore the next will follow Secondly in the 16. of Matthew 18. our Savior saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon this rock I will build my Church he speaks here in the singular number with the same article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Apostle speaks of in describing the Antichrist Now let me use this same argument against your Popes that they are not this rock upon the which the Church is built as you say as you have used here to prove that he is not the Antichrist This rock upon the which Christ promised to build his Church is but one singular person because our Savior puts him in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
him see so much of his light in the face of Christ as may save him But yet so long as they are in this house of clay they see but in part that part which they see is but obscurely and dimly as the Apostle speaketh 1. Cor. 13.12 So that as long as they are in this world they are subject to sin ignorance and errors But as there are two sorts of men in the visible Church some called and chosen some called and not chosen and as in the diseases of the body some are curable whereof men recovers some are deadly whereof men dies so it is in the errors of the militant Church some are deadly some are curable The chosen that are called may err but their errors are not deadly as the errors of the Apostles were Acts 1.6 and 10. and 11. Gal. 2. Rev. 19. and 22. they recovered by grace from them The called that are not chosen may err and err deadly and never recover as these of whom John speaketh They went out from us saith he because they were not of us c. John 2.19 Now seeing the visible Church here beneath stands but of these two sorts to wit of these that are called and chosen and these that are called but not chosen and both may err Therefore it is manifest that the Church militant here beneath may err And to prove this more amply that she hath erred before the Law under the Law in Christs time and after Christ First Adam being made in perfect holiness and integritie how grievously did he err when contrarie Gods commandment giving more credit to the Devil then to his Maker he brake that first covenant For Tertullian saith Who will doubt to call Adams fall an heresie Contra Marcionem lib. 1. Now if Adam in his full light did not stand but so foullie erred which is he that is come forth of his loyns born in ignorance and blindness that dare challenge this prerogative to himself that he cannot err except the man of sin and son of perdition that is the Popes of Rome Now he being thrust out of Paradise hath two sons the elder Cain for the murther of his brother is accursed of God and the author of the Synagogue of Babel that is the wicked The Church of God remained in the posteritie of Seth Gen. 5. and at the last Religion began to be so prophaned that at length it grew to such a hight that Religion being contracted only in the familie of Noah it could be punished with no less then with an universal destruction of all living creatures by the flood except only these that were preserved in the Ark with him Gen. 6. Of Noahs three children two of them fell both themselves and their posterity The true Church and Religion remained in the family of Sem and neither were they free from Idolatrie God calling Gen. 12. Abraham out of his own countrey serving strange Gods Josu 24.2.3 His eldest son Ismael being circumcised is commanded to be casten out of the Church of God Gen. 21.12 and 25.23 and 31.34 and 35.2 Isaac hath two sons the elder is refused the youngest is chosen and so the elder with his posteritie fell away Jacobs familie was not clean neither from Idolatrie being polluted with strange Gods by his wife Rachel till he cleansed his house And as for his posteritie what stiff-neckedness what rebellion what Idolatrie was among them so that no threatning no blessing no correction nor teaching could keep them in the puritie of Gods worship and Religion In the Church under the Law the people are Idolaters the hie-Priest Aaron the maker of the Idol to the people Exod. 32. In the time of the Judges after the death of Josua they worshipped Baal and strange Gods Judges 1.12.13 and every man did that which seemed good in his own eyes when there was not a King in Israel which was very oft in those dayes and therefore they are given over to the crueltie and tyrannie of their enemies round about them In the time of Heli there was no open vision 1 Samuel 3.1 And Solomon saith Where there is no vision the people perish Prov. 29.18 In Sauls time the Ark of the Lord was not sought 1. Chro. 13.3 and so there wanted a chief part of the publick worship of God for God was consulted at the Ark. And in the time of Solomon in his old age when his heart was turned from the Lord the Scripture testifieth that they forsook the Lord and worshipped strange Gods of the Ammonites 1. Kings 11. Such like in the time of Rehoboam Solomons son Juda committed Idolatrie and built hie places wherein they worshipped contrary to Gods commandment Jehoram King of Juda made Juda and Jerusalem to commit spiritual fornication and Idolatrie 1. Kings 14 22.23 as the house of Ahab made Israel to commit Idolatrie Seeing then the worship of God was corrupted both in Juda and in Israel and there was no other visible Churches upon the earth except in Juda and Israel will it not follow then that all the particular Churches on the earth may err and fall also to Idolatrie Such like in the time of Achaz a strange altar is placed in the temple of the Lord at the commandment of the King by Vriah the Priest and the King with the whole people at the Kings commandment offers upon that altar and the altar of the Lord is removed out of his place 2. Kings 16.10.11 c. In the time of Joash both the King and the Nobilitie forsake the house of the Lord and worship Idols so that the hot wrath of the Lord was kindled against Juda and Jerusalem for their Idolatrie 2. Chro. 24. Such like in the time of Achaz he made hie places in all the corners of Jerusalem and in all the cities of Juda and there burnt incense to strange Gods 2. Chro. 28. In the time of Manasses the whole publick worship of God was so defaced and Idolatrie so universallie set up that the Scriptures testifie Juda sinned more hainouslie then the very nations did whom the Lord cast out before their face Chron. 33.9 The whole host of heaven was worshipped in stead of the true God I beseech thee Reader to read this chapter and there thou shalt find that there was not so much as an outward face of a Church at that time Yea in the very time of good Kings as Joash and Amasia who both in the beginning embraced the worship of God but yet made defection in the end The hie places were not removed 2. Kings 12.3.4 and 14.4 which was an error in the worship of God The Scripture testifies that the feast of the Passover was not kept so preciselie according to the Word of God since the days of Samuel no not in the reign of the best Kings as it was in the 18. year of Josias Chr. 35.18 and there was 400. years and more between Also the Scripture testifieth that the feast of the
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
resemblance with the lamb hath such clokes of styles is so deceivable and is such a strong delusion as the Scripture testifies of it Is it any wonder suppose the beginnings of this mystery and of the whoredoms of this Queen be not distinctly marked and set down Ninthly it is likely enough that the great credit wherein the first Bishops of Rome was for their piety and godliness and the lofty estat of their successors after them together with their cruelty and tyranny did so dazel on the one side the eyes of the godly that they were not inquisitive in marking the changes and beginnings of their corruptions and so bridled the mouthes of other some that they durst not write the things they saw and if they writ any thing they writ it but barely and corruptly for the tyranny of your Church was such that none durst mutter against your Church and Religion but he was taken without further as an heretick and condemned and executed where ever your tyranny reached Last of all suppose they had been written by the Histories of every age and that distinctly yet considering the universal power craft and policy of your Church and Kingdom is it any wonder suppose they be not now extant at all but either burnt or else so falsified and corrupted that the beginnings thereof should not have been perceived For seeing in the purer times when the power and dominion of your Church was not yet come to the hight such was the ambition and falshood of your Popes that in the presence of a Council of 217. Bishops in Carthage anno 430. where Augustin was present they did alledge a false Canon of the Council of Nice for to have established their supremacy and under one of their hands sent it to the Council by their Legats the which was espyed and found out by the whole Council that not only it was decreed and ordained in that Council he should have no prerogative over the Churches of Africk and that none should appeal to him under the pain of deposition and excommunication but alâ—o he was rebuked by the Fathers of that Council in their letters to him If he was so bold then what marvel suppose since he hath falsified and corrupted every History and Writing that he saw might bear any wayes witness of the corruptions tyrannies and abominations of that Church and Religion of his And hence it is I am sure that we find so little written of the beginnings of their corruptions and of them that resisted it And your Index expurgatorius devised in the Council of Trent for blotting out every thing in the writings of men that might testifie of your corruptions doth also sufficiently witness unto the world what ye did in the former times So to conclud this suppose we could not assign to you the circumstances of the changes of your Religion yet it follows not but your Religion and Church may be corrupted and decayed But to satisfie your demand suppose I hope the things already said will satisfie the consciences of the godly What crave you that all the circumstances of changes in your Religion may be assigned to you First then I say there is nothing that may serve either to make the man of God wâ—se unto salvation or yet that may make him perfect in every good work but the Scripture testifies For it is able to do both these If these circumstances then serve either for salvation or perfection I say they are set down in the Scripture so that we need not to go to Histories to search the same The first then ye crave is the time when the change began The Scripture tells you That the mystery of iniquity began to work even then in the Apostles days and that it doth already work and so grew on from degree to degree till he that withheld it was removed that is till the Empire of Rome began to decay and the seat of it removed from thence as the Fathers expounded it Augustin Chrysostome Jerome and so the city left to the Pope the man of sin for him to set his throne there for Rome that seven hilled City Rev. 17 9 behoved to be the seat of the Antichrist as it was fore told by the Scripture So if you will believe the Scripture you have the time What crave you next The place I say the Scripture testifieth of the same that that mystical Babylon which Bellarmin lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap 2. Rev. 17. your chief champion grants to be Rome that sits upon sâ—ven hills that had the dominion over the Kings of the earth that is the place where first your Church and Religion began to decay So there the place if you will believe the Scripture What crave you next The author The Scripture also hath fore told That the beast that came out of the bottomless pit and slew the witnesses of God and made war with the Saints and overcame them and made all to worship the image of the beast and the harlot Babel the city of Rome the mother of whoredoms who made all Nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication Rev. 12 7. and 14.8 That is your head and Church they are the authors and mothers of this decay and corruption What is the fourth thing ye require The Church that said against the same The Scripture will tell you that too The two witnesses of God whom she killed the woman that fled in the wilderness the Saints with whom she made war and who would not worship the beast nor receive his image the hundred forty and four thousand that John saw standing with the Lamb on mount Sion who was not defiled with your idolatry but followed the Lamb whithâ—rsoever he went Rev. 11. and 12 and 13. and 14. These then are the true Church which spake against your corruptions who are like unto Eliahs seven thousand that had not bowed their knees to Baal What crave you more The matter it self they said against The Scripture and ye will believe will satisfie you in this point also The doctrine then that was said against Was the mystery of iniquity that deceivableness of unrighteousness that strong delusion 1. Thess 2 Rev. 13. That doctrine of the dragon that spiritual idolatrie and abomination Rev. 17.18 That doctrine of Devils in forbidding marriage and commanding abstinence of meat c. 1. Tim. 4. What crave you last The number from whom they departed The Scripture will also bear witness of this seeing your Religion is a departure from the faith 1. Thess 2. then all these that ever professed the faith of Jesus set down in his written Word even the Lord Jesus the head the Apostles the layers of the foundation the primitive Churh the woman that fled in the wilderness the Saints with whom ye made war and all the elect and chosen of God that abhorred your idolatrie These are the true Churches from whom you departed What now crave you more Will not the
there Polycarpus and sundrie others Euseb lib. 5. cap. 25.26 The first that took upon him the style to be called Universal Bishop was the Bishop of Constantinople anno 581. resisted by Pelagius and after him by Gregorius Bishops of Rome lib. 4. epistola 32.38 39. And yet for all this Boniface the 3. anno 607. obtained this style of Phocas the Emperor the murtherer of his predecessor Platina Sabellicus Marianus Scotus complained of by the Church of Ravenna in Italie and resisted by sundrie as shal be proved afterwards The first that appointed laws of fasting was Montanus the heretick anno 145. Euseb lib. 5. cap. 17. accounted heresie by Apolonius and Augustine against the fasting of the Manicheans The Manicheans were the first we read of that ministred the Communion under one kind as the Papists do now so forth of many other old condemned heresies which your Church hath renewed as shal be proved afterward The first that gave the rise to Transubstantiation was Mark a notable Magician anno 115. who by his inchantment having first caused a cup of white wine to bear the color of blood made his followers believe that by his invocation over it that grace which is above all things had powred his blood into the cup refuted by Epiphanius Haeres 34. and Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 8. The first that decreed Transubstantiation in effect was Pope Nicolaus the 2. anno 1090. in causing Berengarius to recant De consecrat Distinct 2. cap. Ego Berengarius but yet it was not decreed as an universal doctrine before Pope Innocent the 3. his time in a Council of Lateran anno 1215. as Tonstal witnesses de Sacramenta The Greek Church never consented to it Bertramus Berengarius Waldensis withstood it The first that decreed the worshipping of Images was Hadrian in the 2. Council of Nice against the express Scripture after the example of Marcellina an heretick who worshipped the Image of Jesus resisted by sundry Fathers and Councils Concil Eliber Concil Constant Conc. Francof The first that imposed single life and condemned marriage in their Clergy was Pope Syricius anno 290. distinct 82. cap. Proposuisti as the Manichees did before him resisted by sundrie Sigebert H. Mutius Let these examples serve as a taste to the reader How stronglie now ye have manned and fortified your own Church and Religion by your proofs let the reader judge Now let us see how ye disprove ours The question now comes in of the truth of our Church and Religion whither it be from Jesus Christ or not You say it is not from him but from others since his time If ye had gone the straight way to have proved this and to have satisfied the consciences of men you would at the nearest have run to the Scripture and by the same have disproved it But you in stead of this go a far by-way and would father our Religion on flesh and blood dust and ashes in pointing us out Martin Luther to be the father and author of the same as though it had not an ancienter pedegre to reckon unto nor had not the beginning and foundation of it from the root of Jesse the bud of the Lord from whom it hath sprung And for to get your self the better credit you busie your self in marking the circumstances of his preaching as time place matter opposition c. Now that ye are so skilled and acquainted with that history of Martin Luther that you can assign all these circumstances it is no wonder for that was the most notable and remarkable period of the decaying of your Babel and of the erecting up again of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ which your head and Clergy had stamped under foot for so many years which suppose the beginning of it was but like a little leaven and as a grain of mustard seed which of all seeds is the least yet now since it hath so sowred almost the whole mass even the most part of the Kingdoms of Europe which once was under your spiritual bondage and hath grown up into such a high tree having fair and great branches under the which the Lords sheep may get rest and warmness and in the which his souls that mounts upwards to that Kingdom doth build their nests so that neither can all your purgations nor yet all your axes of fire and sword of buls and pardons of preachings and writings stay the spreading of the one nor cut down the branches and root of the other That M. Luther began at that time and in that place and preached against these doctrines we do not deny and that is not controverted But here lyes all the question whither if that doctrine that he preached against was Antichristian or not and whither that Religion which he neither invented nor yet first preached for sundry before him did preach that same doctrine whose names I set down in my answer to your objection but only raised it out of the grave of darkness wherein ye had buried the truth of God Here then I say is the question whither that Religion which he preached hath the warrant from Jesus Christ in his Testament or not The which if ye ever disprove by the written Word of God then shal we grant you all that ye say the which is as impossible to you to do no not suppose your King would call all your wise men and Clergy together as it was to all the wise men of Babel to tell and interpret Nebuchadnezar his dream yea suppose your King would reward you gloriously with honor and riches if ye could do it yet are ye not able to win your wages yea suppose he would tear you in pieces and make your house a jakes unless ye did it as the wise men of Babel was because they could not tell and interpret the Kings dream This is therefore the point which lyes in question betwixt us which ye should have proved if ye could But know ye for a truth that suppose he raised out of the grave the truth of God which ye had buried yet was he neither the inventer nor the first preacher of it but it hath for the beginning and Author of it Jesus Christ the Son of God and the foundation of it in the New Testament of his holy Scripture This for the Author time and place which ye assign Now to the Churches that spake against him I answer They were but such as was made drunken with the wine of your fornication and deluded by your strong delusions being deceived by the golden cup wherein you propined them to be drunken out as it was prophesied of you Rev. 17.4 But the measure of your iniquity being full and the time of the lurking of the truth of God being run out God of his infinit mercy by his ministery and the rest that followed since hath opened the eyes of a great part of these Kingdoms who first said against him to see your Church to be the whore Rev. 17.1 your Kingdom to
condemned in the Scripture I deny that For Antichrist and his Kingdom are not so old as the Scripture and yet the Scripture condemned it For not only condemns it present heresies but also the heresies that was to come And seeing Papistrie is that Antichristian Religion as shal be made manifest by Gods grace therefore it hath the express condemnation of it in the Word of God The form therefore of it no wayes will make it impossible to be proved As for the next thing that I prove nothing bu offers very fair I answer it was not my purpose then but I hope ye shal have a proof now of that which I offered then As to the third then that I can say nothing to your argument which ye would hâ—ve the Reader to mark When I read this I marked this that ye would earnestly have the Reader perswaded of the invincibleness of your argument and my inability to answer But what bring ye with you to perswade him of the same Your reason is because I have not answered it Will this follow I have not suppose it were so as ye say therefore I cannot It will not follow I have not answered I cannot answer to it But as you have a new Theology so have you a new Logick But said I nothing to your argument What is not answered sufficiently in the same Your argument was the antiquity of your Religion and continuance of it from Christ by a lineal succession never interrupted c. and the novelty of ours My answer was Yours was not institut by Christ nor his Apostles in his Scripture as ours was and yours was gain-said in the chief points by the testimonies of the Fathers the first six hundred years and the principal points of our Religion confirmed by sundry of their testimonies Thirdly yours was that Antichristian apostasie that the Scripture fore told should come and in the hight of your tyranny and Idolatry was gain-said by many before Martin Luther and ours was professed by sundry before him whose names I set down all which I offered to prove and now shal do by Gods grace Now you say this is no answer But is that no answer that cuts the very throat of your Religion if it be verified and invalidities your argument that it do never stand up to under-prop your Religion again For that Religion which is not instituted by Christ in the Scripture whose main foundations is gain-said by the testimonies of sundry of the Fathers of the first 600. year which is Antichristian and which was gain-said by the Saints that they persecuted and slew hath not the continuance from Christ by a lineal succession never interrupted nor spoken against by a true Church till Martin Luthers days This I am sure ye will not deny But your Religion is such as I offered then to prove and now have in some points and shal in other some points by Gods grace The which if it be verified then I hope ye will not deny but that your Religion hath neither antiquity continuance nor succession from Christ till Martin Luthers dayes And that Religion cannot be newly forged and invented since Martin Luthers dayes which hath the warrant and institution of it in the Scripture c. This you cannot deny But our Religion is such as then I offered to prove and now have done in some points and shal do in other some points by Gods grace Therefore our Religion cannot be newly forged and invented c. but is the only true Religion So that this answer if it be proved doth sufficiently vindicat our Religion from novelty Now if this be no answer to your argument then I say no more but ye will answer it the sooner And because ye formed your own argument your self in your answer to me and I have answered to it else therefore I will now insist no further upon it And as for your lineal succession of Bishops it will come in question afterward therefore I omit it now SECTION V. Concerning the Judge of Controversies namely whither GOD speaking in the Scripture be Judge of Controversies Maister Gilbert Brown AS for the written Word it is true that it is a most faithful witness and it be not corrupted to Christ and his Church as our Savior testifies himself John 5.39 of the which opinion there is sundry Protestants chiefly young Merchiston in his discourse upon the Revelation in the 21. proposition and other places 2. Cor. 3.6 John 6.63 But that it ought to be Judge to decide all controversies in Religion M. John hath no Scripture for the same It is the holy Ghost that must be Judge and the holy Writ must bear witness thereto For this cause the holy Ghost was given to the Church by the Father and the Son that he might teach it all truth John 14.25.26 This holy Ghost gives judgement by the Pastors of the true Church as he did by the Apostles and Priests at the Council of Jerusalem It hath pleased the holy Ghost and us saith the Apostle Acts 15.19.28 and so he hath ever done since the beginning of the Church when it was troubled with heresies and false doctrine as the Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon M. John Welsch his Reply You first here decline the Scripture as Judge to decide all controversies in Religion And you are not the first that have done this but all your Roman Clergy with you And suppose there were not another thing to make the consciences of men suspect your Religion that it is not found in the book of God yet this is a great presumption that ye give out of it your selves For what may all men think of the same but that if ye were perswaded in your conscience to justify your Religion to be from Jesus Christ in his written Word ye would never decline the judicatorie of it and the declining of the same is an evident demonstration that ye are privy to your selves in your own consciences that it is not from God in his written Word But wherefore say I that ye are privy to your selves of this Ye have made it known to the world by your confession in your own books that many of the chief points of your Religion controverted between you and us which ye maintain have not their original beginning nor authors in the Scriptures but in your unwritten traditions So Petrus a Soto a Papist of great name confessed He calls all these observations Apostolick traditions whose beginning principium origo author cannot be found in the whole Scriptures in his book against Brentius And then he reckons out a number of the chief and principal heads of their Religion saying Of the which sort are the oblation of the sacrifice of the altar the invocation or prayers to Saints the prayer for the dead the supremacie of the Pope of Rome the consecration of the water in baptism the whole sacraments of orders matrimonie pennance confirmation and extream unction the merits of works
only means and instrument whereby the holy Ghost works faith in our hearts Thus I reason therefore He only can be Judge in controversies of Religion whose authority is such that none may appeal from the same whose judgement is infallible true who will not be partial nor favor parties and who is able to convict and perswade the conscience of the truth and make the party to rest in the same But only the holy Ghost in by the Scripture hath these proprieties no other Therefore the holy Ghost in and by the Scripture is only Judge And whereas you say that the holy Writ must bear witn ss to it What will you say then to all the chief points of your Religion almost which the learned and great defenders of your faith before cited have confessed are unwritten traditions which have not their beginning nor authority from the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same Upon the which I reason thus That doctrine is not the holie Ghosts which the Scripture bears not witness to this ye say your self for ye say The Scripture must bear witness to it But all the chief points almost of your Religion as the supremacy of the Pope the sacrifice of the Mass invocation of Saints the five bastard Sacraments the worshipping of Images Transubstantiation Communion under one kind Satisfactions Pardons Purgatory Merits of works c. have not their authoritie from the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same as your own Catholicks as ye call them testifies Therefore your Doctrine and Religion is not the holie Ghosts and that by your own testimonie Now trulie M. Gilbert I fear ye lose your style if you defend your Religion no better then this And whereas you say That the holy Ghost gives out his judgement by the Pastors of the true Church I grant indeed that the Pastors gives out publick sentence in controversies of Religion because they are the Lords witnesses messengers and mouthes to testifie proclaim interpret and discern his truth from falshood But first the rule of this their judgement should be the Word of God unto the which they are bound in all their testimonies and judgements from the which if their judgements swerve but an inch-broad they are not the judgements of the holie Ghost so that all their decreets and determinations in the worship of God and man his salvation should onlie be received accordinglie as they agree or dissent from the same For the Apostle pronounces him accursed suppose he were an Angel that would preach another Gospel then that which he preached Gal. 1 8. And he preached nothing but out of the Scripture Acts 26.22 But your Roman Church by the contrary saith That their decreets and sentences should be taken without all tryal and examination because whatsoever they decree say they in manners or doctrine whither they be comprehended in the Scripture or not they cannot err Bellar. de Eccles lib. 1. de Consil cap. 18. lib. 3. c. 14. Next if it be asked of you whom ye judge to be the Pastors of the true Church You will answer as ye do that your Church is the only true Church and your Bishops and Popes the only true Pastors so that they only must be the Judge to end all controversies And Bellarmin is plain in this for he saith lib 3. de verbi interpret cap. 5. 9. lib. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 2. The Pope is chief Judge in all controversies in Religion either he himself alone or with his Council and that in his judgement and sentence all men should rest and he should be obediently heard of all the faithful in all matters of controversie whether he can err or not And their Canon Law hath decreeted That no man should rebuke him suppose he should carry with him innumerable souls to hell And they teach that their decreets should not be examined of any whither they be agreeable to the Scripture or not but that they should be received as the express Word of God and the Gospel Dist 40. cap. Si Papa Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 18. Rhemist annotat in 2. Thess 2. v. 12. Joannes Maria verractus editus anno 1561. Hosius lib. de express verb. Dei pag. 97. But first judge thou Reader in what suspicion they have their Religion in their own hearts They have declined the holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture and that not only as Judge but in the authentick Greek and Hebrew as witness So their Religion cannot stand if the Lord be either as Judge in his Scripture to give out sentence of it or as witness in the authentick copies to hold his hand at the bar and depone against it Now whom would they have as Judges Their own Pastors and the Pope and all their determinations to be received without a tryal as the Gospel and express Word of God as though their Religion could not be justified unless the Fathers and forgers thereof the Popes and Bishops of Rome were set on the bench to be Judges thereof Now what an unrighteous thing is this both to be partie and Judge For the chief controversie is of themselves whither he be the Antichrist or not And his Ministers and Church Antichristian or not But what show of reason can you have for this The Prince of life the Son of God who is the righteous Judge of the whole world in that great controversie wherein it is called in question whether he was the Messias or not desired not to be the Judge For he said If I testifie of my self much more if I judge of my self my testimony is not true John 3.31 but referred this controversie to the Scripture saying Search the Scriptures c. John 5.32 And yet you that are but flesh and blood dust and ashes yea monsters and incarnat Devils as your own Writers and Councils have testified of some of your Popes who may err and have been hereticks as some of your Popes have been and that by your own testimonies you will not only bear witness of your selves but also be Judges in the controversies of your selves rejecting the judgement of the holy Ghost in the Scripture All men saith the Apostle are liars How then shal I certainlie know but they may lie How shal my conscience rest in their judgement Shal I have no better warrant for my salvation then the testimonies of your Bishops and Popes who are but men and so may lie who are partie and so never will condemn themselves who of all men have most foully erred What is this but to make the voice of your Bishops and Popes of greater authoritie then the voice of God in his Scripture For seeing it is the sense of the Scripture that is called in controversie and the sense of the Scripture is the Scripture it self And your doctrine is that I must embrace such and such interpretations of the Scripture that are called in controversie and my conscience must rest in the same
plainly as you thought Were you afraid that the hearts of men should have skunnered with this your doctrine if ye had been as plain in your writ as ye are in your own judgement Next I say you have the Lord in his written Word as contrary to this your doctrine as light is to darkness For as to the first the Scripture testifies plainly that we are dead in sin John 5.25 Col. 2 13. Eph 2.1 And that the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God Rom. 8.17 and therefore we have need to be born again John 3.5 that is to receive a new life ere ever we can be able to enter into the Kingdom of God and that it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do Philip. 2.13 and that of our selves we are not sufficient to think any thing as of our selves 2. Cor. 3 5. and that all the imaginations of mans heart is only evil continually Gen. 6 5. Where then is there any place left to free-will And as to the second the Scripture saith Eccles 7.20 There is not a righteous man in the earth who doth good and sinneth not therefore no perfect keeping of the Law And who may say my heart is clean and I am pure from sin Prov. 20.9 If no man may say so then no man can keep perfectly the whole Law And by the works of the Law no flesh is justified in his sight Rom. 3.20.28 therefore no flesh is able perfectly to keep the Law for if he could keep the Law he would be justified by the Law But the Apostle saith that no flesh can be justified by the Law therefore none can keep the Law And therefore the Scripture saith Rom. 8.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Law is impossible because of the weakness of the flesh For the which cause the Son of God took on him our nature to fulfill this impossibility of the Law And James calls the Law a yoke which saith he neither we nor our fathers were able to bear Acts 15.10 If they said that they could not bear it that is perfectly obey it who obtained a higher measure of grace then ever any since did what shal we then say of all other men after them And what arrogancy and presumption is this in these of the Roman Church to say and to bear others in hand that they are able to bear that yoke which the Apostles was not able to bear And JESUS CHRIST hath taught us to pray dayly Forgive us our sins Matthew 6. which needed not if we were able to keep the whole Law And beside the plain testimony of the Scripture every mans own doleful experience tells them of their manifold and continual sinning What a damnable doctrine is this then which blinds their eyes so far that neither they see nor feel the inward corruptions of their own heart within them rebelling against the Law of God nor yet the perfection which the Law of God requires Now to the testimonies of Scripture which ye quote And first that in the 19. of Matthew If you would enter into life keep the Commandments I answer The same is to be said to you who seek for life righteousness by the works of the Law Keep the Commands But that are ye unable to do or any man else except the man the Lord Jesus as hath been proved and as unable as this young man was to whom it was said at the last It is as impossible to him to go into heaven as to a camel or cable rope to go through the eye of a needle But ye will say Wherefore then would our Savior Christ have commanded him to keep the Commandments if he would have life I answer Not because he was able to do it but to bring him to a conscience of the breach of it For by the Law as the Apostle saith cometh the knowledge of sin Rom. 7.7 And to cast down that presumption that he had of himself that he had observed and kept the Law that in conscience of sin he might be brought to seek for life eternal in Christ Jesus only And lest ye say that this is my exposition therefore hear what the Apostle saith Gal. 3.10.14 As many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse for it is written Cursed is every man that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them and that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident Now this is spoken not only of the Jews but of the Gentils that believed in Christ Jesus and were under grace Upon the which I reason thus If as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse and no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God then no man is able to get life eternal by keeping of the Law and so this young man to whom Christ gave his answer neither had kept nor could keep the Law but the first is said by the Apostle therefore the second is true Next the Law requires a perfect obedience with all the heart with all the understanding and thought and strength unto all the commandments and that continually Matth. 22.37 Luke 10 17. Mark 12.31 So that James saith He that breaks one is guilty of all James 2.10 And the Law doth pronounce them accursed That continues not in the doing of all things c. Deut. 27.16 in this perfection Now who is he that is come out of the loins of Adam except only the Lord Jesus who hath continued in the perfect obedience of all things without the breach of any in thought word or deed Are you able or hath every one of your Roman Churches performed or is able to perform this obedience that the Law requires Seeing therefore that none is able and this young man neither had performed not yet was able to perform this perfect obedience to the Law therefore of necessity it must follow that our Savior gave him this command Keep the Commandments c. not because he was not able to keep them but to bring him by the Law to a conscience of the breach of them As for the rest of the Scriptures which ye bring in they are easily answered John 14.15 24. If ye love me keep my Commandments c. And he that loves me not keeps not my word c. I grant the Lord hath commanded obedience to his Commandments And I grant they that loves him keeps them and all the children of God loves him and begins also obedience to all his Commandments But yet as their love is not in that perfection which the Law requires with all their heart with all their understanding and with all their strength so their obedience is not in that perfection And nevertheless the perfection of their obedience is forgiven being covered with the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ and through him is acceptable in his presence and of him also shal be
crowned with a crown of glory suppose freely And to prove this If any had obeyed the Commandments perfectly then surely the Apostles Paul James John Peter should have done it For they loved him in as great and greater measure of love then ever any since did And our Savior testifies of them to his Father That they have kept his word John 17.6 But the Apostle Paul testifies of himself Rom. 7 That he did not the things he would but the thing that he hated that he did and to will was present with him but to perform he found it not and he saw a law in his members rebelling against the law of his mind and leading him captive unto sin And John saith of himself and of all men 1. John 1.8.9 If we say we have not sin we make him a lier and the truth is not in us And himself twise would have worshipped an Angel Rev. 29.10 and 22.8.9 contrary to the Law Deut. 6 1. And James saith That in many things we offend all James 3 2. And Peter to whom our Savior said thrise If thou love me keep my laws went not with a right foot to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2.11 12. Therefore none is able perfectly to keep them We see then there is a keeping of the Commandments and a keeping of them in perfection The first common to all the faithful suppose not in an equal measure The second only possible to Adam ere he fell and to the Saints in that Kingdom As for the 11 of Matthew Take up my yoke c for my yoke is sweet and my burden light And the 1 John 5.3 his commandments are not grievous I answer Our Savior and his Apostles calls his commandments light sweet and not heavy not because the perfection of the Law is possible to any to perform in this life but first because the Lord Jesus hath taken away the curse of it and also requires not of us that perfection which the Law requires under the pain of the curse of the Law if it be not satisfied And because he by his Spirit renews the hearts of his own and makes them able with joy to begin that obedience so that what they do they do it not upon constraint as being under the Law but willingly for the love of Christ and they delight in the same according to the law of their mind as the Apostle speaks of himself Rom. 7. But yet within they find a law in their members rebelling against the law of their mind leading them captive unto sin So in these respects are his commandments called light and sweet But Acts 15 the Apostles calls it an unsupportable yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear And Romans 8 it is called impossible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3 20. and 7.14 c. Gal 3.10 As for Philippians 4.13 where the Apostle saith He is able to do all things by him that strengthens him The Apostle speaks not here of his ability to perform the Law in that perfection which the Law requires For he hath testified the contrary both of himself and of all others as hath been said But only this that through him he is able to sustain all sorts of condition both to abound and to be in scarcity to be full and to be hungry This is not my exposition but the Apostle so expounds himself in the former verse so that I wonder upon what show ye could quote this testimony As for Philip. 2. it is true the Lord worketh in his own both to will and to do but yet it follows not that they are able perfectly to obey the Law For if that measure of grace had been wrought in any it had been wrought in the Apostles but not in them as hath been shown and that by their own testimony therefore in none else Next what can be more clear for the overthrow of your Free-will then is this place of Scripture If the Lord work in us both to will and to perform then we are not able to will of our selves that which is acceptable to God As for the examples which ye cite of Noah Abraham Job Zacharias and Elizabeth David Ezechia Josia Juda and Asa and these whom the Lord reserved to himself pure from the Idolatry of your Antichristian kingdom fore-spoken there They walked indeed in integrity and sincerity in the commandments and ways of the Lord and therefore have received a good testimony and report of Gods Spirit in the Scripture all which we grant unto you But that they answered the law in that perfection that it requires the Scripture which hath registred their walkings and their own testimonies will gain-say it Noah fell in drunkenness Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith Rom. 4. which is a most sure argument that he fulfilled not the law Job saith If I would affirm my self to be righteous my own mouth would condemn me Job 9 2 3.20 Zacharias believed not the word of the Lord spoken to him by the Angel therefore was striken dumb Luke 1.20 David fell in adulterie murther and provoked the Lords anger by numbering the people 2. Sam. 12 and 24. and he saith of himself My iniquities are more in number then the hairs of my head Psal 40.13 And in another place If thou mark iniquity O Lord who can stand Psal 130.2 And enter not in judgement with thy servant for no man living shal be righteous before thee Psal 143.2 Ezechias heart was lifted up 2. Chron. 32.25 Josias harkened not unto the words of Necho according to the word of the Lord. Asa put his trust not in the Lord his God but in the King of Syria 2 Chron 16.7 The like is to be said of these whom the Lord did reserve to himself in the midst of the kingdom of darkness that they did keep the commandments of God but not in that perfection which the law required For they were not more righteous then the Prophet Esay and the Apostles were But the Prophet saith That we are all unclean and all our righteousness is as a menstruous cloth Esai 64. And the Apostle saith In many things we sin all James 3. And Augustin saith All the commandments of God are accounted to be done when that which is not done is forgiven ad Bonif lib. 1. cap. 7. And in another place Epist 60. For the want of love it is that there is not a righteous man in the earth that doth good and sinneth not And Ambrose saith in Gal. 3. The commandments of God are so great that they are impossible to be kept And Jerome saith in Gal. 3 Because no man can fulfil the law and do all things that is commanded And Bernard saith Cant. serm 5. The commandments of God cannot nor could not be fulfilled of any man And Chrysostom saith in Gal. 2. No man hath fulfilled the Law And Thomas one of the chief pillars of your own Church writes in Gal 3. lect
4. That it is impossible to fulfil the whole Law and Vega a Papist saith lib 11. in consil cap 20 That venial sins are properly against the Law Upon the which I reason He that daylie transgresses the law fulfills not nor is not able to fulfil the law for to fulfill the law and transgress the law are contrarie but your own doctrine is that no man can keep himself at least from venial sins and Vega as hath been said saith that venial sins are against the law Therefore if your selves speak true no man is able to fulfil the law I conclud therefore that this doctrine of yours is contrarie to the doctrine of Jesus Christ and his Apostles set down in the Scripture and also contrarie to the doctrine of the Fathers and contrarie to the doctrine of the most learned and chief Doctors of your Roman Church And this for the second point of your doctrine SECTION VIII Whither a man by his Free-will may resist the will of GOD. Master Gilbert Brown THirdly Our doctrine is that man of his Free-will may resist the will of God which is contrary to their doctrine ratified by Act of Parliament in the year 1560. And also against their Psalm book of Geneva Yet our doctrine is the doctrine of Christ For Christ said to them of Jerusalem How oft would I have gathered together thy children but you would not Matth. 23.37 And S. Steven Ye stiff-necked and of uncircumcised hearts and ears ye alwayes resist the holy Ghost as your fathers your selves also Acts 7 51. The same was the faith and belief of the Apostle S. Peter saith Our Lord is not willing that any perish but that all return to pennance 2. Pet. 3.9 And S. Paul hath Our Savior God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth 1. Tim. 2.4 This was the doctrine of the Prophets before Psal 5.5 Ezec. 18.23 and 33.11 Now then if God wills that all men should return and yet all men doth not the same whereof proceeds it but of their Free-will which will not work with the will of God Therefore our Savior saith in sundrie places If thou wilt enter into life keep my commands If thou wilt be perfect go and sell all that thou hast Matth. 19.17 He that will follow me let him deny himself Luke 9.23 Master John Welsch his Reply As for this third point of doctrine I cannot wonder enough what ye mean by it For have you sold your self so far to untruth and lying that for to bring the truth of God which we profess in hatred you will father on us that doctrine which never so much as once entred into our thoughts let be to teach it or write it Did you think when you writ this that the truth of it would never come to light Or thought you that ye regarded not to be controlled of lying at the last so being that for a season ye might make our Religion to be more abhorred through your calumnie But frost and falshood as they say will never have a fair hinder end If you mean then by resisting the will of God a voluntary disobedience and repining against the Spirit of God and his revealed will in his Word as the testimonies which ye quote here imports Then I say there was never man of our Religion that professed taught or writ the contrary and ye will not find a syllable neither in the Confession of our Faith confirmed by the Act of Parliament neither in our Psalm book to the contrary For our doctrine is flat contrary to this to wit that man of his Free-will resists that that is good and chooses the contrary So ye fight here with your own shadow And if ye mean any other thing set it down in plain termes and I hope by his grace it shal be answered So I cannot wonder enough what ye mean to write and subscribe so manifest an untruth Now surelie M. Gilbert I think it had been greater wisdom to you to have saved your own credit and not for a little hatred to our Religion to have blotted your self with lying and untruth for ever I would pray thee Christian Reader if thou wilt not credit me read our Confession thy self and I hope thou shalt wonder with me what the man meant in subscribing so manifest a calumnie This for the third point SECTION IX Concerning Transubstantiation and Christs real and substantial Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Master Gilbert Brown Fourthly Our doctrine is that our Savior gave his true flesh and very body and blood under the forms of bread and wine to be eaten of his Disciples at his last Supper and that to be received by their very mouth And this I say by the written Word is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Christ saith John 6.51 And the bread which I will give you is my flesh for the life of the world And at the latter Supper Take ye and eat ye this is my body And Drink ye all of this For this is my blood of the New Testament which shal be shed for many unto remission of sins Matth 26.27.28 And in S. Mark This is my body and this is my blood of the New Testament which shal be shed for many Mark 14.22.24 And S Luke saith This is my body which is given for you and this is the calice of the New Testament in my blood which shal be shed for you Luke 22.19.20 This same is the doctrine of the Apostles For S. Paul saith This is my body which shal be delivered for you and this calice is the New Testament in my blood and whosoever shal eat this bread and drink the calice of our Lord unworthily he shal be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. And after For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgement to himself not decerning the body of our Lord 1. Cor. 11.24.25 27.29 And in the chapter befo e The calice of benediction which we do bless is it not the communication of the blood of Christ And the bread which we break is it not the participation of the body of the Lord 1. Cor. 10.10 M. John Welsch his Reply I come now to the fourth point of your doctrine your Transubstantiation and real presence The first ye quote is the 6. of John And the bread which I will give is my flesh c. This makes nothing for your real presence For first our Savior speaks not here of that sacramental eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in this sermon which was not instituted a year after that For he speaks here of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood without the which there is no life So our Savior testifies in the 53. verse Except ye eat saith he the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you But your selves grants that men may be saved without that sacramental eating therefore
nothing Thirdly then this should not be called Transubstantiation or changing of one substance into another but an annihilation of one substance that is a turning of it to nothing and a bringing in of another substance in the room of it And fourthly Thomas of Aquin your great defender of this doctrine is against this lib. 4 dist 8. But if you say they are turned in Christs body which the word Transubstantiation imports then I say as oft as the Sacrament hath been ministrated as oft hath there been some quantitie of substance added to his body and it shal still grow in greatness and quantitie as long as it shal be ministred but this is monstrous to think And to end this if you say there is no substance of bread and wine left in the Sacrament then let me ask you whose are the whiteness and redness and roundness that we see What means this taste in our mouthes of bread and wine if there be no substance of them there May we not say to you as Christ said to Thomas who doubted of his resurrection Put thy finger here behold my hands put thy hand in my side and be not incredulous but believe So may not we say to you who doubteth whither the substance of bread and wine be here remaining yet touch them taste them look on them and feel them and be not incredulous but believe For behold there would not be such a color such a taste and smel and there were not substance of bread and wine here And I pray you tell me what is this that rots then and growes in worms in the bread and souers in the wine if they be long kept If their substance remaineth not will you say Christs flesh and blood rots and consumes and souers What is this but to make him mortal yea to crucifie him again And if you will not say that then either must you confess that their substance remaines and is not changed or else Christs flesh and blood is transubstantiated in these substances which rots and souers or else that the accidents is changed again in their substances and so ye shal not have one but mo changes in your Sacrament Yea if their substance be gone and nothing but their accidents remaining then how could Pope Victor the 3. and the Emperor Henry the 7. have been poisoned with them as Fasciculus temp Platina Blond testifieth accidents and Christs body could neither poison them nor be capable of poison therefore they felt by experience that there was no Transubstantiation in the Sacrament So we see the texts ye brought with you is against you as the sword that Goliah brought to slay David cutted off his own head But yet you will say If the bread be not his body why then did he call it his body this is the chief thing you have for your doctrine answer this and the plea is won Unto this then I answer that in that same sense he said This is my body In the which he said afterward which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Luke 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is given in the present time But there can be no sense of these words but this the bread was broken and signified that his body should be broken with the sorrows of death for his body was not broken before he suffered and the Apostle saith it is bread which is broken so then as the breaking of the bread signified the breaking of his body so the bread signified his body and as his body was not broken indeed when the bread was broken so the bread could not be his body in very deed when he so called it For the resemblance and likeness thereof between the bread and his body the bread it is called his body c. and this phrase is very frequent in the Scripture to give the name of the things signified to the sign as shal be seen afterward M. Gilbert Brown Now let the Ministers come in here with their natural reasons against the omnipotencie of Christ that he cannot be in two places at once and with their figurs signs similituds symbols and spiritual eating of a natural body with many the like which are the inventions of their own brains not contained in the written Word And who can say but that our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and not theirs M. John Welsch his Reply Ye prevent our answers here and first ye bid us hold away our natural reasons against the omnipotency of Christ that he cannot be in two places at once Whereunto I answer that we shal bring no reason neither natural nor supernatural against the omnipotency of Christ for we acknowledge it and adores it But we say to you pretend not his omnipotency for your monstrous imaginations which have no warrant of his will in his Scripture For first we say this argument of yours will not follow Christ is able to make his body to be in two places both at once in heaven and in the Sacrament therefore he makes it to be so For you must first prove he will do so for your self M. Gilbert can do many things which you do not because you will not so from can to will it follows not And if you say that Christ hath willed so because he said This is my body I have answered to it before refute you it and all your Roman Clergy if you can For you might as well say Christ willed the cup wherein the wine was to be changed in his blood and New Testament and himself to be changed in a vine-tree and a door and a rock to be changed in him because so hath he and his Apostles spoken John 10. and 13. 1. Cor. 10 and 11. and these speaches are as true as that and yet there is no change here Next I say your own School-men and great defenders of Transubstantiation Thomas of Aquin and others say lib. 1 cap. 84. lib. 2. cap. 25. contra Gent. That it is against the omnipotency of God to affirm that he may do any thing which implyes a contradiction in its self for that is rather to be called a weakness then a power And the Scripture affirms that God cannot lie nor deny himself nor be tempted and that yea and nay it not in Christ Heb. 6. 2 Tim. 2. James 1.2 Cor. 1. but to Christs body both to be a true body like to us in all things to wit essential except sin as the Scripture saith and to be in mo places at once which makes him to have not a true body like ours For Augustin saith ad Dardanum speaking of Christs glorified body If it be a true body it is then in a certain place and take away from bodies their quantities they are no more true bodies implyes a contradiction and is yea and nay in him and Christs body both to be visible and invisible at one time to be in a certain place in heaven with his own length and
And what is the cause that ye cannot understand the doctrine of your own Church which acknowledges a spiritual eating of Christ by faith both by the Word and by the Sacrament also de consecr dist 2. cap. Ut quid I had never have thought that ye had been so far blinded of the Lord. But I leave you to the Lord. Let the Christian Reader now judge whether our doctrine or yours be the invention of mans brain and which of them have their warrant out of the written Word of God M. Gilbert Brown And further I say of these words This is my body which shal be delivered for you 1. Cor. 11.24 which is a true proposition and therefore this must follow But there was no body delivered for us but the natural body of Christ therefore it was his natural body that he gave to his Disciples to be eaten Then if it were his natural body it was not natural bread As Saint Ambrose expounds the same Let us prove saith he this not to be that that nature formed but that thing which the blessing hath consecrate and greater strength to be in blessing then in nature for nature it self is changed by blessing He hath the same more amplie in the fourth book in the 4 chap. de Sacramentis Maister John Welsch his Reply First I answer the words of the Apostle is not as ye cite them here which shal be delivered but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is broken and in the present time and so in Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is given so you are not faithful in translating this place of Scripture both contrary to the Greek and Syriak copies Upon the which I reason thus this proposition is true This is my body which is broken for you so the Apostle saith but Christs body was not broken then really for not a bone of him was broken at all as the Scripture testifies Exod 12. and the Scripture saith John 19. and all men confesses that he suffered but once so only his sufferings are signified then by the breaking of the bread in the Sacrament here so as Christs body was not broken then really that is suffered but his suffering only signified by the breaking of the bread so his body was not given really and corporally to be eaten but only signified Secondly I say it is true that Christs natural body was delivered to the death for us but yet it will not follow upon this that it was his natural body which he gave to them to be eaten corporally for his natural body was really delivered to death for us and it was but given to them spiritually to be eaten You must coyn a new Logick M. Gilbert ere you can make these two stick together and the one necessarilie to follow upon the other For by that same reason you may as well conclud that Christ gave his natural body to be eaten corporally in the word for he gives himself to be eaten in his word as well as in his Sacrament 2. John 6.35 Bellarmin grants this also lib. 1. de Eucharist cap. 7. and also he gives that same body to them in the word which was delivered to death for the self same Christ is offered and received as well in the word as in the Sacrament So from his bodilie death to a corporal eating of him it will not follow And further by that same reason you may as well say that the Fathers before Christ under the Law did eat Christs body corporally for they ate that same spiritual food and drank that same spiritual drink in their Sacraments which we do now in ours So the Apostle testifies even that self same Christ his body and blood which was delivered to the death and yet it will not follow that they did eat his natural body c. As for Ambrose it is true he so speaks but he expones himself in that same chapter while as he saith Before the blessing another form or thing is named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified If the bread then signifie the body of Christ it is not changed in his body And because of this holy use to signifie the body of Christ Ambrose saith That the nature is changed by blessing and that this is his meaning his words following will declare it where he saith Shal not the words of Christ be of force to change the form of the elements In that same sense Ambrose saith the nature of the elements is changed in the which he saith the form of them is changed for he affirmeth both there But ye will not say I suppose unless you will overthrow your transubstantiation that Ambrose means that the form of the elements is changed in substance but only in use and signification for you say the forms remains therefore you must also grant that Ambrose means not by the change of nature the change of the substance of them but only the change in the use of them from a common use to a holy use And because it may be you will delay to subscribe to the truth of our doctrine until you hear the sentence and judgement of the Fathers Therefore I will set them down here Tertullian saith contra Marc. lib. 4. This is my body that is a figure of my body Chrysostome saith in 1. Cor. cap. 10. What is that which the bread signifies the body of Christ Theodoret saith dialog 1. and 2. The bread and wine is signs and figures of the body and blood of Christ And he saith Our Savior in the institution of the Sacrament enterchanged the names and gave to the sign or symbol the name of his body and these mystical signs of these holy things whereof are the signs Unto the which he answers Are they not signs of the body and blood of Christ Hieronymus saith in Mat. 2.6 That Christ by taking of the bread which comforts the heart of man representeth the truth of his bodie Cyrillus saith ad Euop Matth. 11. Bas Liturgia Nazian in orat 2. de Pas funere Gorg. Our Sacrament avoweth not the eating of a man Basilius and Nazianzen calls the bread and wine in the Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figurs or signs of the body of Christ Cyprian saith lib. 1. ep 6. ejus contra Adima cap. 12. Psal 3. The Lord called bread made of many grains his body and wine made of many grapes his blood Augustin saith Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body while as he gave but the sign of his body And he calls it the figure of his body and blood And their Canon Law saith de conseer dist 2. cap. Hoc est The heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is called after a manner the body of Christ while as it is but the Sacrament of his body And the Gloss there saith The heavenly bread that is the heavenly Sacrament which represents truly the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly I omit
The second thing is that you say Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action which you mean the Mass did offer up his body and blood under the formes of bread and wine It is true indeed that Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck is an high-Priest and not according to the order of Aaron but yet neither is it certain out of the Scripture that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine in an external sacrifice For the Scripture saith only he brought it forth For this is the proper signification of the Hebrew word Hotzsi as in sundry places of Scripture Ezech. 22. Psal 135. Exod. 8. Num. 30. and so the Chaldaick Paraphrast Amena which is to bring forth and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Cyprian Epist ad Caecil Chrysost hom 35. in cap. 14. Genes Joseph lib. 1. cap. 19. Ambros upon the 7. cap. Epist ad Heb. he brought forth for to refresh Abraham c. And Cardinal Cajetan saith the same upon the 14 of Gen. There is nothing written there of a sacrifice or oblation but a bringing forth of bread and wine to refresh the victors saith he which is not to sacrifice And it is certain that he gave it to Abraham and his company to refresh them with after the slaughter of these Kings And the Apostle Heb 7 whereas he sets down these things wherein Melchisedeck was a type of Christ he doth not so much as give any inkling of this For there he compares Melchisedeck with Christ First that as Melchisedeck was both King and Priest so was Christ Next as Melchisedeck was without father and mother beginning and ending the Scripture not mentioning of it so was Christ Thirdly as Melchisedeck was greater then Aaron and had a more excellent Priesthood then the Levitical Priesthood so was Christs But never a word here of a sacrifice of bread and wine wherein Melchisedeck should have resembled the sacrifice of your Mass as ye suppose So you find out here that which the Spirit of God found not out and so ye make your self wiser then the holy Ghost in his Epistle But we will learn not to be wise above that which is written and to search no further then the Spirit of God hath found out already And suppose it were granted to you which ye are never able to prove that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine yet what to do hath this with your devilish abomination of your Mass wherein ye say the substance of bread and wine is gone away only the formes remaining For if your sacrifice in the Mass be like the sacrifice of Melchisedeck then the substance of bread and wine should remain as it did in the sacrifice of Melchisedeck and the bread and wine should be offered up and not Christs body and blood as bread and wine only were offered up in Melchisedeck his sacrifice So then either Melchisedeck his sacrifice is not a type of your sacrifice in the Mass or else true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament and not Christ his body and blood which is offered up Choose you then whither you will deny your sacrifice to be according to the order of Melchisedeck or else will you let go your real presence your transubstantiation and your personal offering up of Christ Jesus in your abominable Mass for one you must do Thirdly if Christ offered up such a sacrifice at his Supper as was prefigured by Melchisedeck which you affirm here then must it follow that Christ fulfilled that figure perfectly and so the same sacrifice needs no more to be offered up again and so here will follow the desolation of your Mass-Priests whose work is chiefly in repeating of this sacrifice again Fourthly I would ask you whither is this sacrifice which ye say he offered up according to the order of Melchisedeck in his last Supper one with that sacrifice which he offered up upon the cross or not If it be one then I say as he died and shed his blood on the cross and purchased an everlasting redemption by the same so this sacrifice of your Mass must be joyned with his death and shedding of his blood and must have the like vertue and effect to redeem us and so two absurdities will follow The one that Christ not only should twise have died once in the Supper and afterward upon the cross but also dies and is crucified continually in your Mass and yet the Scripture saith he died but once The other that that sacrifice of his upon the cross is superfluous for what needed him to die again to redeem mankind since the first offering of himself in the Supper was a sufficient redemption For if his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption which you cannot deny and if the sacrifice of him in the Supper be one with that of necessity it must follow that as his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption even so his sacrifice in the Supper must be a sufficient redemption for mankind And therefore Alanus a great defender of your Catholick faith saith according to the judgement of the Council of Trent That the new Covenant is founded on the blood of Christ offered up in the Supper before he was crucified and that Christ was truly our passover the day before he suffered and he saith This is the foundation of all Christian doctrine according to the judgement of the Council Alanus de Euchar. lib. 2 cap. 28. Now if this be true that he was our Passover before he died and the covenant was founded in his blood which he offered up in the Supper then certainly Christ died in vain which is more then blasphemous and so blasphemous must that doctrine of your Mass be which carries with it such a blasphemie And if you will say it is not the same with that sacrifice upon the cross then I say First you are contrary to your own Church in this who saith it is one with that sacrifice of the cross Next Christ his body and blood is not offered then in the Supper for his body and blood was offered up upon the cross and so your Mass is gone or else make two Christs one in the Supper under the forms of bread and wine which the Disciples saw not and another who was offered up upon the cross which was seen of all So whither will ye go and unto what side will ye turn you M. Gilbert for the uphold of your Mass For there are rocks and sand-beds on every side So neither did Christ offer up himself in a sacrifice at all in his last Supper neither did he it according to the order of Melchisedeck But now let us see how ye prove this sacrifice out of the institution And seeing this point of doctrine is such a weighty point as whereupon the salvation and damnation of souls doth hing therefore I pray thee Christian Reader deceive not thine own soul to thy everlasting perdition but take
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.
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
Mass-Priest any longer for they all agree in this that the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross hath accomplished all the sacrifices of the Old Law and that the vertue of it is everlasting and therefore should not be reiterat and that the sacrifice of Christians are not propiciatory but only spiritual Seeing therefore the sacrifice of the Mass was so long unknown to the Church of Christ it remains now that we show by what degrees it crap in For as after the going down of the Sun darkness comes not in immediatly but there is a twi-light before the darkness come even so after the bright stars of the primitive Church had ended their course in process of time and piece and piece first the third part of the Sun Moon and Stars were darkened till at the last the bottomless pit was opened and that great darkness came up as the smoak of a great furnace that darkened both the Sun and the air Out of the which this great abomination of the sacrifice of the Mass did proceed For Bertram who lived between the 800. and 900. years after Christ saith Our Savior hath done it once in offering up himself for he hath once offered up himself for the sins of the people and this oblation is always celebrat every day but in a mystery And he saith That once oblation of Christ is handled every day by the celebration of these mysteries or Sacraments in the remembrance of his Passion Bertram de corp sang Dom. in Heb. 7. There he oppones a real sacrifice to a mystery and Christs sacrifice once made to a dayly commemoration or remembrance of his suffering Haymo such like reckoning out the sacrifices of Christians he calls there The praises of the believers the penitence of sinners the tears of supplications their prayers and alms Haymo in cap. 5. Ose in cap. 2. Abac. Malac. 1. Theophilact who lived in the 900. year after Christ he saith in Joan. cap 81. That there is but one sacrifice and not many because Christ hath offered up himself once And he saith in another place ab Heb. cap. 10. Christ hath offered up himself once a sufficient sacrifice for ever and we have need of no other sacrifice to wit propiciatory And Anselm who lived in the thousand year of God and after he saith That which we offer every day is the remembrance of the death of Christ and that there is but one sacrifice not many for it hath been once only offered up And again Our Lord saith he bade take eat not sacrifice◠and offer up to God Anselm◠in Epist ad Heb. cap. 10. So this was the doctrine of the most learned who lived a thousand years after Christ that Christ offers up himself but once and that sacrifice was sufficient and everlasting and the sacrifices of Christians are spiritual and the Sacrament which they called sometimes a sacrifice was a commemoration of Christs one sacrifice once offered up upon the cross But from thence unto this time this abuse and sacrifice of their Mass crap in but by diverse degrees and by the concurrence of many causes SECTION XI Concerning the Degrees and Means whereby the Sacrifice of the Mass crap in First I will set down the estat of the publick worship of God in the primitive Church the first three hundred or four hundred years after Christ and then the means and degrees whereby this abominable Sacrifice crap in FIrst it is manifest that in the primitive Church the Communion or Sacrament of the Lords Supper was ministred ever week once upon the Lords day and in some place it was ministred every day as appears by these Authors Justin Martyr in Apolog. 2. Tertull. apolog Aug. de consecrat dist 2. cap. Quotidie And therefore Ambrose who lived in the three hundred age exhorteth to a dayly receiving of it Ambros lib. 5 cap. 4. de sacrament Next from the Communion was excluded◠first these who were not sufficiently instructed in the grounds of Christianity who were called Catechumeni that is catechised and instructed by questions and answers Next these who had not ended out their repentance◠and satisfaction to the Church who were called Poenitentes that is penitents And thirdly these who were possessed with an evil spirit who were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All these after that the first prayer the reading of the Scripture the sermon and the rehearsing of the Creed at the which they were present were ended they were commanded by the Deacon to retire themselves and to depart out of the Assembly or Congregation that place might be given to the faithful who was to cōmunicat in these words Ite missa est that is Go your way depart And from this first came the word Mass in the Church of God and this Bellarmin confesses lib. 1. de missa cap. 1. that the word in Latin is called missio or dimissio or missa and in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Pagans used that same word after their sacrifice was ended in Apule l. 11. de metamorph And the abuse easily growing in the frequent using of this word it came to pass by time that all the worship of God as the first prayers the singing of the Psalmes the reading of the Scripture the preaching of the Word the rehearsing of the Symbole which was performed in the Assembly before the dimission of these who were catechised was called Missa Catechumenorum As Bellarm. confesses lib. 1. de missa cap. 1. And the rest of the worship of God which was done after their departure to the demission of the faithful as the celebration of the Supper c. was called Missa Fidelium Conc. Valent. cap. 1. Bellarm. ibidem Alcuinus de officijs Eccles cap. de celebratione Missa So then this word Mass which the Church of Rome ascribes now unto their pretended sacrifice came first from the demission or skailing of the people as they call it from the Lords service and was never heard of in the Church of Christ nor read of in any Author Hebrew Greek or Latin for the space of 400. years almost after Christ And Jerome who lived in the year 422. and was an Elder in Rome who writ so many volumes made no mention of this word Mass at all For that Commentary of the Proverbes which is ascribed unto him where mention is made of the Mass is not his See Marianus Victorius Reat in praefat in 8 tom operum Hier. For beside other things there mention is made of Gregory who lived almost 200. years after him And Ambrose makes mention of it only once S. Augustin twise or thrise for all the volums which they writ if these book be theirs For Erasmus in his censures upon the sermons de Tempore saith that many of them are found under the names of others Authors savors little either of Augustines learning or phrase See James Gillotius in praefat ad Ambros And that neither of them in the
And to Bellarmin who saith the Church instituted them lib. 2. de missa cap. 13. and so referrs the institution of them not to CHRIST in his written Word but to the institution of the Church and to your own Doctors and Canon Law and Writers who ascribes the institution of them to your Popes and others of your Church as I have proved before O M. Gilbert What a preposterous love is this that ye bear to your abominable sacrifice that ye are not ashamed to write that the very ceremonies of it hath their warrant in the same holy Word and that contrary your own general Council of Trent and all your learned Doctors and Writers I think ye thought that we had never read your ceremonies or never known them that ye write so boldly of them Shal the Council of Trent say they are instituted by the Church by Apostolical traditions which your Church confesses are not written in the Scripture And yet are not you ashamed to say they have their warrant by the Scripture and so openly to contradict the doctrine of your own Council of Trent I will say no further but surely either they err in this point or else ye and if they err then the general Church may err and hath erred and so one of your main foundations is gone Choose you whither you will take this blot to your self or let it fall on them But because ye account this Mass of yours most heavenly and ye vaunt that ye only have in your Church that heavenly action and because it is the chiefest point of your service and worship which ye give to God in your Church and also because ye so impudently affirm that the ceremonies thereof hath their warrant out of the Scripture Therefore I will discover here as shortly as I can the abominations absurdities blasphemies idolatries vain idle superstitions Jewish and Ethnick ceremonies of the same that poor folks be not deceived any longer therewith For certainly for as heavenly as ye think it is I dare affirm that it is nothing else but a very sink and filthy closet of all abominations idolatries and horrible blasphemies So that as it is said in the Proverbs of the vertuous woman that many women have done vertuously but thou surmounts them all Prov. 31.23 So it may be said of the Mass Many services and worships devised by man have been idolatrous blasphemous and abominable but this sacrifice of the Mass brought in the Church of God by Antichrist in idolatrie abominations and blasphemies surmounteth them all so that the like of it hath never been before it nor never shal be after it For beside the fore said abuses that it is a will-worship instituted by man that it hath corrupted the Sacrament of the Supper which was given us to assure us of the grace of Christ and hath turned it in a sacrifice and that a propitiatory sacrifice and meritorious not to the Priest only but to the beholders also and not to the present only but to the absent and not only for the living but for the dead that it hath abolished the death of Christ and the vertue of that one sacrifice and that it hath spoiled Christ Jesus of his Priesthood and communicated it unto others beside these intolerable abuses it abounds and overflows with other intolerable abominations As first their altars in their Mass whereon they think they sacrifice the Son of God and therefore in the beginning of their Mass the Priest saith And I will go in into the altar of God whereby they renew either Judaism or Paganism for their material altars was a part of the Ceremonial law of the Jewes which was abolished by the death of Christ and Numa Pompilius 700 years before Christ ordained that the Ethnick Priest when he went about to offer sacrifice that he should draw near to the altar This entry of the Mass is said to be the ordinance of Pope Celestin the first about the year of God 426 And because the Priests take the altars for the Table whereon the Supper is celebrat which he confounds with the abominations of the Mass also because M. Gilbert said he was minded to prove the ceremonies of the Mass by the Scripture therefore I will ask him and his fellow Priests these few things concerning their altars First where read they that Christ did ever institut in the New Testament that the Table of our Lord should only be of stone and not of timber or any other mettal as their altars whereon they chant their Mass must be according to their law Dist 1. cons cap. Altaria si non Secondly where read they in the New Testament that the Table of the Lord should be consecrated with oyl and chrism with a sprinkling of water mixed of wine and salt of ciphers of holy water at the four corners of the same at the middle part and that none may do this but a Bishop if a Clark do it that he be degraded and if one of the Laicks do it that he be excommunicat Canon Non alij What folly is this that a Priest hath authority as they think to sacrifice the Son of God yet he may not powr a little oyl upon a stone That the Bishop compass the altar seven times singing the 51. Psalm Thou shalt wash me with hysop c. prophaning the truth of God And there to bury the relicks of some Saints put in a little shrine with three grains of incense that God for their cause may hear the prayers and accept of the sacrifice offered up upon that altar And then anointing the table of the altar with oyl and singing Jacob erected up a stone c. Where I say read you these in the New Testament that Christ commanded these things to be done to the table of his Supper which ye do to the altars whereon ye say your Masses And such like where read you that none should chant their Masses but on such altars as are consecrated And such like that your altars are not lawful where there is not found the bodies or relicks of some Martyrs Canon Placuit ut altaria Such like that ye dedicat your altars whereon ye chant your Mass to others then to Christ as unto the Virgin Mary Peter and other Saints departed And such like that the Priest should kiss the altar often and namely when he approaches unto it carrying the calice Hath Christ commanded this Hath the Apostles used them Hath the Scripture made mention of them What think you will you answer to God when it shal be said to you Who required all these things at your hands And wherefore also transgress ye your own law in having mo altars then is necessary seeing by it ye are commanded by express terms that superfluous altars be destroyed Canon Eccles vel altaria To conclud this then with Ambros in Epist ad Heb. cap. 8. 10. As our sacrifice saith he which is no other thing but our prayers and thanksgiving
him as by another But to what purpose do ye quote the 9. of Matthew That the Son of man hath power to forgive sins For will you say that the Ministers of the Church have that absolut authority that he had The which if ye do then are ye blasphemous As for the word Priest wherewith ye style the Ministers of the Church I know that you and your Church takes more pleasure in this style then in all the styles which the holy Ghost hath given to the Ministers of the Church in the New Testament For among the manifold styles which are given to his Ministers yet hath he never given this style of a sacrificing Priest as proper to them throughout the whole New Testament But as your office of Priesthood is not written in Christ his latter Testament so neither is your style of sacrificing Priests contained in the same But new offices must have new styles SECTION XIV Of Extreme Vnction and whither it be a Sacrament Master Gilbert Brown SIxthly our doctrine is to make the Priests of the Church to anoint the sick with oyl in the Name of our Lord and to pray over him because it is the doctrine of the Apostles as we have in S. James in these words Is any sick among you let him bring in the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the Name of our Lord and the prayer of faith shal save the sick and our Lord shal lift him up and if he be in sins they shal be remitted him * James 4.15 August tom 4. super Levit. quaest 84. And because we find here an external form which is the anointing with oyl of an internal grace which is remission of sins therefore we say it is a Sacrament Now take from these places the vain subterfuges of our new men that will have him a Mediciner for the body in this and not for the soul the matter will be plain of it self M. John Welsch his Reply As to your doctrine of anointing of the sick with oyl and that not by every man but by a Priest not in all sicknesses but in the extremity of death not with every oyl but with oyl consecrated by the Bishop which Bellarmin makes essential to this Sacrament cap. 7. de extr unctione and that not all the parts and members of the body but the five organs of the senses and the reins and feet and that by this form of words Let God forgive thee whatsoever thou hast sinned by the sight hearing smelling c. by this holy unction and his most godly mercy The which you will have to have two effects The one the health of the body if it be expedient for the soul the other remission of the relicks of sins that remains and this ye make to be one of your Sacraments And for this purpose ye only bring one testimony of Scripture So that all the show of warrant you can pick out of the Scripture is this only place of James For I suppose with Bellarmin and sundry others you have seen that that place of Mark 6.13 which is also alledged by the Council of Trent for the confirmation of this doctrine would carry no show to make any thing for you and therefore it may be you have omitted it But this place serves nothing for your purpose For first I say this was a ceremonie annexed to the miraculous gift of healing as is plain both by the text using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Lord will lift him up which is properly spoken of the health of the bodie and also by that place of Mark 6.13 where it is written that the Apostles anointed many sick with oyl and they healed them The which gift was not only given to the Apostles but also to the very Churches as is plain of the 1. Corinth 12. Unto another is given the gift of healing c. Now seeing this extraordinary gift is ceased in the Church of God wherefore will you superstitiously use the ceremonie So either avow M. Gilbert that your Priests have this miraculous gift of healing which I suppose ye will not or else leave off the ceremonie Secondly by this argument ye may as wel make all the rest of the ceremonies which our Savior and his Apostles Peter and Paul and the believers in the primitive Church used toward the sick blind lame and dead Sacraments As the laying on of hands Mark 16.18 which had both a command and a promise joyned with it anointing of the eyes of the blind with clay John 9.6 washing in the pool of Siloam c. John 5. Mat. 9.29 Acts 3.6 20.10 For why should not their examples be as well followed as the example of the Elders of the primitive Church And seeing you use not these ceremonies because ye want the miraculous gift which was joyned with them why do ye use this ceremonie superstitiously seeing ye want this gift also Thirdly I say this place can make nothing for your doctrine for this place saith Call the Elders of the Church and let them c. but you call for a sacrificing Priest This text saith in the plural number Call for the Elders your doctrine saith one Priest is sufficient This place speaks of oyl not mentioning a syllable of consecration blessing of it by the Bishop and that nine-fold salutation that ye give unto it Hail O holy oyl with the bowing of the knee and other ceremonies There is not a syllable in this nor in any other Scripture that speaks of these things and yet your doctrine will have all these ceremonies This place saith And the prayer of faith shal save the sick and you attribut it to the ointment This place puts no difference of sickness but your doctrine is that none be anointed but he who is lying in the bed and at the point of death This place only specifieth the anointing of the sick some of you reckons as the Council of Florentine seven parts some the five senses as necessary And therefore this moved Thomas of Aquin lib. 4. sent 4. dist 23. quaest to say That the form of this Sacrament is not extant in the Scripture Now if it be not extant in the Scripture what to do have we with it seeing the Scripture is able to make a man wise unto salvation and to make the man of God perfect in every good work Fourthly Beda Ecumenius and Theophylactus in their Commentaries upon these places and Thomas Waldensis lib. 2. de sacr Alphonsus de Castro de haeresibus two archpapists affirms that in the 6. of Mark 5. of James the self-same unction and anointing is meaned But Bellarmin de extr unct Jansenius in Marc. 6. two other Papists affirms and proves by firm reasons that that anointing in Mark is no Sacrament therefore neither is this anointing in James a Sacrament seeing as said is in both the places the self-same unction is meaned Fifthly I say all the
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
sufficient to obtain salvation without works neglecting to live well and to hold the way of God by good works and being secure of salvation which is in faith had not a care to live well as he saith And in the end of that chapter he concluds the whole matter saying How far therefore are they deceived who promise to themselves everlasting life through a dead faith The which error we condemn also with you For we acknowledge the necessity of good works as the fruits of a living Faith but not as the efficient formal or instrumental cause of our justification SECTION XXII Concerning the Authority of the Fathers M. Gilbert Brown FUrther I say since the difference chiefly in Religion betwixt us and them is about the understanding of the Word of God * Not we M. Gilbert but one of the chief pillers of your own Church Cajetan a Cardinal which was sent in Germany against Luther the Popes Legat who saith in plain words That the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doth gather insufficient arguments to prove Christ to be the Son of God that the 2. and 3. Epistle of John is not Canonical Scripture that the Epistle of Jude is Apocrypha that the last chapter of Mark is not of sound authority that the history of the adulterous woman in S. John is not authentical and of S. James Epistle that the salutation of it is profane albeit they deny a great part of the same to us what is the cause that they will not abide the tryal of the ancient Fathers of the first six hundred years seeing that they were of his Religion as he affirms If he be as good as his word the matter will be soon ended And if our Religion be not sound consonant to theirs in all things wherein they differ from us we shal reform the same Master John Welsch his Reply You said a little before M. Gilbert that the chief difference wherein we differ from you is in denying abhorring or detesting c. Now you say that the difference chiefly of Religion betwixt us is about the understanding of the Word of God How well these two agree let the Reader judge It is no wonder suppose you dissent from your brethren as I have proved in sundry points before seeing ye dissent from your self It is true indeed that many of our controversies are about the right sense and understanding of the Scripture but yet if Petrus a Soto Lindanus Peresius Canisius all great and learned Papists speak truth the most part of the weightiest and chiefest points of your Religion which are in controversie between us are but unwritten traditions which have not their beginning nor author in the Scripture and cannot be defended by the same And whereas ye would have us to refer the controversies about the sense and right meaning of the Scriptures to be decided by the writings of the Fathers of the first six hundred years we receive their monuments and writings gladly but yet so that we put a difference between them and the writings of the holy Ghost in the Scripture For as I have proved sufficiently before as I hope that only the Scriptures of God have this prerogative to be the supreme Judge of all controversies in Religion and no other and the best way to learn the sense of the Scripture is by the Scripture it self for seeing all the Scripture is inspired of God therefore it ought to be exponed by God in the same For he who made the Law can best interpret the Law And the Levits practised this in the Old Testament who exponed the Scripture by the Scripture Nehem. 8.8 and the Apostles in the New Testament who taught nothing but that which the Prophets said should come to pass Acts 26.28 And if a Father yea a Saint yea if an Angel would preach beside that which the Apostles preached let him be accursed So then nothing can be a warrant to us of the truth of the sense of the Scripture but the Scripture it self And as for the Fathers expositions as they may not be Judge as hath been said because they may err and have erred as hath been proved and your selves will not deny and they dissent oftentimes one from another in the exposition of the same So let their expositions be taken in so far as they agree with the Scripture For would ye have us ascribe that unto them which they themselves have refused and have ascribed unto the Scriptures only Hear therefore what Optatus the Bishop of the Church of Milevitan a learned man who lived about the year of God 369. saith writing against the Donatists who claimed to themselves only the title of the Church of Christ as ye do They called for a Judge he brings the Testament of Christ for a Judge and speaking to them of a point of Religion that was controverted whither one should be twise baptized or not He saith You saith he affirm it is lawful we affirm it is not lawful between your say it is lawful and our say it is not lawful the peoples souls do doubt and waver Let none believe you nor us we are all contentious men Judges must be sought for If Christians they cannot be given on both sides for truth is hindred by affection A Judge without must be sought for If a Pagan he cannot know the Christian mystery If a Jew he is an enemy to Christianity No Judge therefore of this matter can be found in earth A Judge from heaven must be sought for But why knock we at heaven when here we have his Testament in the Gospel Optatus lib. 5. contra Parmenianum And he renders a reason of this in that same Book Christ saith he hath dealt with us as an earthly father is wont to do with his children who fearing left his children should fall out after his decease doth set down his will in writing under witness and if there arise debate among the brethren they go to the Testament He whose word must end our controversie is Christ Let his will be sought in his Testament saith he Augustin in Psal 21. expos 2. urgeth the same reason of Optatus against the Donatists We are brethren saith he to them why do we strive Our father died not untestate he made a Testament and so died Men do strive about the goods of the dead while their Testament be brought forth When that is brought forth they yeeld to have it opened and read The Judge doth hearken the Counsellers be silent the Cryer biddeth peace All the people is attentive that the words of the dead man may be read and heard He lyeth void of life and feeling and his words prevail Christ sitteth in heaven and is his Testament gain-said Open it let us read We are brethren why do we strive Let our minds be pacified Our Father hath not left us without a Testament He that made the Testament is living for ever he doth hear our words He doth know his own word
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
our Ministers in Scotland except they be put to death by the Pope they bear not the testimony of Christ For these are M. Johns own words And S. John saith That the beast shal slay the two Witnesses Rev. 11.7.8 Now by M. John the beast is the Pope and the Witnesses is the Ministers therefore the Pope must slay the Ministers and after that their bodies must ly three dayes and an half not in Scotland but in Jerusalem for there was the Lord of these two Witnesses slain Rev 11.19.11.12 And after they must revive and ascend up to heaven in a cloud in the sight of their enemies and so forth Which things I trust shal come to pass to none of them in our dayes nor long after the Laird of Merchistons doomsday in his 14. Prop. Master John Welsch his Reply As for the first thing which you infer here concerning the invisibility of the Church because you have the same argument afterward I refer the answer of it to that place As for the second thing which ye infer that except the Ministers of Scotland be put to death by the Pope they bear not the testimony of Christ I answer As it is true that it is prophesied of the Antichrist that he shal slay the two Witnesses of God Rev. 11.7 and that he shal make war with the Saints and overcome them Rev. 11.12.13.15.17 so is it likewise prophesied that his cruelty shal not always continue but at the last The Lord shal take his Kingdom in his own hand and the Gospel shal be preached to them that dwel upon the earth and Babel that great city shal fall Rev. 13.6.8.9 and 18.21 So that the blood which your Church hath spilt of the Saints of God already in all the parts of Europe these three hundred years by past and that in such abundance that suppose the Lord may number them yet no man is able to number them And the patience and suffering of our brethren is a sufficient evidence that both your Popes are the Antichrist and they are the Ministers of Christ suppose they slay no mo of them And although the Lord hath shortened your power yet ye want no good will to spill the blood of the rest That ransacking of Germany that cruel persecution of Queen Mary and bloody Inquisition of Spain in the Low Countreys and that most savage and cruel massacre of Paris and that Spanish Navy which the Lord discomfited with his own mighty and outstretched arm in the 1588. year of God doth sufficiently testifie what heart ye bear to the Ministers of Scotland if your power were according to your malice But fulfill ye the measure of your fathers that the blood of all the righteous may come upon you As for the Prophesie of the ignominious handling of the bodies of these Witnesses after their slaughter it is also fulfilled by your Popes and their authority upon the carcasses of the Saints of God which in all parts almost where ever their blood was shed was most ignominiously handled as though they had been not the bodies of men but the dead carions of dogs and swine Let both Histories and some who yet live bear witness of this As for the time and place and their reviving and ascending up to heaven it is to be understood after the manner of prophesies mystically and figuratively as I have proved before The time of three days and an half signifying all the time of your tyrannous cruelty The place of their ignominy is the streets of that great City which is here called Sodom and Egypt and the place where our Lord was crucified not literally but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritually as the text saith Rev. 17.9 18. And also called Babylon in the 14. and 17. and 18. of the Revelation which is literally that seven hilled City which hath dominion over the Kings of the earth Rev. 11.8 and 17 5. which as Bellarmin lib. de Rom Pont. cap. 2. confesses is Rome properly So as this great City is neither Sodom nor Egypt nor Babylon suppose it be called so literally but only mystically and spiritually as the Scripture saith and your self will not deny for the likeness between them Sodom for her filthiness and uncleanness Egypt and Babylon for her tyranny and cruelty over the Saints of God wherein she resembles them So is she not literally the place where Christ was crucified but only mystically and spiritually for the likeness between them that as by the authority of the Emperor of Rome his Deputy Pilat our Lord was crucified for the false challenge of treason against the Emperor which was falsly and wickedly laid to his charge and therefore is said here by the holy Ghost to be crucified at Rome that is by the authority of the Rulers at Rome So by the authority of the Popes who now reign and have reigned these many years at Rome Christ is crucified again in his members because they will not receive his mark and worship him And as Jerusalem boasted her self to be a holy City and the spouse of Christ and yet was an harlot a murderer and a persecuter of the Saints so Rome doth boast her self to be an holy City and the spouse of Christ and the Head of all and yet is now and is long since become an harlot and a murderer and a persecuter of the Saints And if ye will ask When did the bodies of the Saints ly in the streets of Rome I answer As by the gates in the city in the fourth command Exod 20. is not meant the gates of the City properly but the authority and jurisdiction of the City so by the streets of Rome is not only meant the gates within the walls of Rome but all the places and parts whither his power dominion hath spread its self So that all the places where the Popes of Rome have exercised their tyranny over the Saints are called here the streets of that great City All these therefore who have been cruelly murdered by the Popes authority in England Scotland France the Low Countreys c. and whose bodies have been cast out and whose bodies have been ignominiously handled they have lyen in the streets of that great City And as all the rest of this Prophesie is to be understood spiritually so is this reviving and ascending of these Witnesses to heaven in the sight of their enemies to be understood not literally but spiritually So this is not the meaning of the holy Ghost that these Witnesses whom the Antichrist shal slay shal be raised up again in their own persons which yet shal be at the last day in the general resurrection but that the Lord shal raise up other Witnesses indued with that same Spirit which they were indued with preaching the same truth and maintaining the same cause against Antichrist as that Prophesie in the 3. of Malachie of the sending of Elias before the coming of Christ was fulfilled as our Savior testifies Matth. 11.10.14 not in the
raising up of Elias in his own person again but in the sending of John Baptist in the vertue and spirit of Elias So this Prophesie concerning the reviving of these two Witnesses whereby was figured the faithful Ministers of Christ who was murdered in the time of Popery as John Wicleff John Hus Jerome of Prague M. George Wishart and many others is fulfilled not by raising up of their persons again but of others his faithful servants who in their vertue and spirit have defended and maintained that same doctrine and cause against the Antichrist as Martin Luther Calvin Bucer Peter Martyr M. Knox and sundry others whom the Lord hath and dayly raises up in all Countreys for the overthrow of your Babel As for your trust what will come to pass we pass not for so much hath been fulfilled of these prophesies which testifies your Head to be the Antichrist and the Ministers of the Reformed Church to be the faithful servants of Christ And the rest concerning your dayly consumption and final abolition 2. Thess 2.8 Rev. 18.2.21 and 19.20 we know assuredly shal come to pass because the Lord hath so thought it and said it And as for any further proof of the clemency and meekness of your Popes if so the Lord will we desire it not For as it is said of the wicked man Your compassions are cruel and your by past cruelty testifies of what spirit ye are And suppose you say you trust that this among the rest shal not come to pass yet I fear you long to see that day upon the Ministers of Scotland which your brethren rejoyced to see fulfilled in that cruel persecution of Queen Mary in England and in that bloody massacre of Paris of the Saints of God there For we cannot think but that ye are of the same spirit and mind which your brethren were of otherwise ye are not a right Catholick As for the Laird of Merchistons conjecture concerning the day of Judgement he hath his own probable reasons and if you be as good as your word as your favorers have reported of you we will see the refutation of his book by you And suppose I know the time to be uncertain to man or Angel as our Savior saith Matth. 24.36 yet his conjecture thereof is in greater modesty and sobriety then your determination thereof Whereby if the doctrine of your Church be true concerning the Antichrist whom ye imagine is yet to come and the time of his reign which ye say is to be but three years and an half then not only the year but the very day thereof may be known of them that live in those days For the Scripture saith He shal be abolished by the brightness of his coming 2. Thess 2.8 Yea that which is greater arrogancy and presumption the learnedest of your Church Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 17. pag. 418. hath taken upon him to determine the very day of the coming of Christ to Judgement to wit 45. days after the perishing of the Antichrist It is manifest saith he that after the death of the Antichrist there shal be but 45. days to the end of the world Master John Welsch Now if all this be true both concerning the Antichrist the largeness of his dominion the estat of the Church of God and his true Pastors all that time which I offer me to prove by the Scripture And also that the Pope of Rome is that only Antichrist that was to come and is now disclosed then I say no man should think that the Church of God was ever open and visible in that flowrishing estat as it is now Master Gilbert Brown But what if all these sayings of his be false what shal follow then but that M. John and the rest of the Ministers are deceived and deceive others with such vain and untrue expositions upon the Word of God For take away M. Johns own invention and the Word shal never have such a meaning And although M. John offer never so oft to prove the same I say he is never able to do it nor all the Ministers in Scotland Master John Welsch his Reply If all these sayings of mine concerning the largeness of the dominion of Antichrist the estat of the Church of God and his true Pastors all that time be false then not only have I been deceived but also Bellarmin the Rhemists and Sanderus the chief defenders of your Church have been deceived and deceive others For they have spoken and written as much and further in these points then ever I did as I have proved before by their own testimonies And yet I suppose your Head and Clergy will judge them to be as far from error as you are So either you or they must be deceived in this And as for the fulfilling of these prophesies in your Popes of Rome I hope it hath been proved sufficiently which ye nor all the Clergy of Rome is never able to improve As for the rest of your answer wherein ye prove that the Pope is not the Antichrist I have answered to it in the other part of my Treatise concerning the Antichrist therefore I omit it now Master Gilbert Brown What he means that the Pope is now disclosed I know not for I understand that he hath not been like their Church that sometimes is visible and sometimes not for he hath always been known by the visible Church to be the visible head thereof in place of Christ Master John Welsch his Reply My meaning is this That suppose in the darkness of Papistry he was taken to have been the Vicare of Christ yet now the Lord hath smitten him and consumed him by the sword of his mouth 2. Thess 2.8 that is the Word of God and hath discovered him to the full to all these whose eyes the Lord hath opened that he is that Antichrist which the Scripture hath fore-told was to come And where you say that he hath been always known by the visible Church to be the visible Head thereof in place of Christ I see you regard not what you say for the maintenance of that Head and Kingdom of yours For certainly either hath the Lord wonderfully blinded you or else ye speak against the light of your own conscience For are you ever able to produce one syllable in the whole Scripture to prove this Yea hath not his Monarchie and Supremacie been condemned First by the Son of God Matth. 18.1 and 20.25.26 Mark 10.42 Luke 22.25 Next by the Apostles themselves 2. Cor. 1.24 1. Pet. 5 3. Thirdly by the Fathers of the primitive Church in their Synods and Councils Provincial and General as by the Bishops of Africk Cyprian Epist 55. ad Cornel. about the year 255. By the General Councils of Nice 1. Canon 5.6.17 wherein was 318 Bishops anno 327. Of Constantinople Canon 2.3 5. wherein was 150. Bishops anno 381. Of Ephesine Canon 8. where was 200. Bishops anno 436. Of Chalcedonense Actio 16. anno 454. where there
to be his seat Rev. 18. therefore Constantin the Great leaving the City of Rome to Sylvester the Bishop of R me made yet the way more easie till at the last they first got the primacy of honor next of authority and jurisdiction over their brethren and then last of all did subdue the necks of Kings and Emperors unto them The which they did not attain unto at the first but piece and piece and that not without long and great resistance both of the Church as I have proved before condemning his Monarchy in all ages and of the Emperors as we shal see hereafter And as they ever grew in their superiority so did the purity of the Church of Christ decay and as a pest infects not a Kingdom all at once but piece and piece so did your Antichristian heresie it infected not all at once but piece and piece till at the last it went over all While as then Merchiston makes the beginning of his reign to be in the 316 year of God and the Church from thence to become invisible His meaning is that then that let which the Apostle speaks of was begun to be removed that his seat and throne might be in Rome and from thence as they grew in hight so was the Church ay more and more continually obscured till at the last the Lord did scatter that darkness by the light of his Gospel which came to pass in our days Master Gilbert Brown The Church that is set down to us in the Word of God can no way be invisible for when the holy Writ speaks of the Church of Christ it speaks of a visible number of men and women and no wise of Angels or spirits as may be seen in these examples Numb 20.4.3 Kings 8.14 Matth. 16.18 and 18.17 Acts 15.3.4 and 18.22 and 22.28 1. Tim. 3.15 Master John Welsch his Reply I come now to your arguments First you say that the Church that is set down to us in the Word of God can no ways be invisible because say ye when it speaks of the Church it speaks of a visible number of men and women and no ways of Angels or spirits I answer This is most false For the Scripture sets down to us that Church which is the body of Christ Eph. 1.22.23 and whereof he is the head and Savior Eph. 5.23 and which is built upon the rock Col. 1.18 which is called the congregation of the first born whose names are written in heaven Heb. 12.23 and that Jerusalem which is the mother of us all Gal. 4.26 Matth. 16.28 And this is the Catholick Church which comprehends all the elect as well triumphant as militant which is invisible for the respects before said as I have proved And suppose the elect that are here militant may be seen as they are men and ofttimes also in respect of their outward profession yet it follows not but that they are invisible in so far as they are a part of the Catholick Church And also that sometimes through the extremity of persecution they may be latent and lurk so that they are not openly visible and known to all as I have said before As for these places of Scripture to wit Num. 20 4. 3. Kings 8.14 Acts 15.3.4 and 20.28 and 18.22 and 1. Tim 3 15 they speak all of particular Churches which we grant unto you are visible suppose not ay alike as hath been proved As for the 16. of Matthew it speaks of the Church of the chosen for they only are built upon this rock and against whom the gates of hell prevail not and they are invisible in respect before said as hath been proved As for the 18 of Matthew it is quoted afterward therefore I refer the answer of it unto that place Master Gilbert Brown The Scripture also in many places compares the Church to visible things that cannot be unseen as He hath placed his tabernacle in the Sun A city cannot be hid set on a mountain It is also compared to a light set on a candlestick to lighten the whole house and not to be put under a bed or a bushel with many the like which I have omitted for brevities cause saving some here at the end Moreover our Savior commands us to complain to the Church if our brother offend us and also we ought to joyn our selves to the true Church or else we cannot have remission of our sins But how can a man complain to it if it cannot be seen Or joyn himself to it if it be invisible The Church of Christ may never want the true preaching of the Word and right administration of the Sacraments but these things are always visible because by the Ministers they are the signs and marks of the Church therefore the true Church may be always known by them To be short not only the Word of God affirms the Church to be alwayes visible as I have noted before but also the ancient Fathers in all their works as partly I have marked also Psal 18.6 read S. Aug. on this Mat. 5.15 Isai 69.9 Dan 2.35 Mich. 4.1.2 Read Hieron on these places Aug 1. tract in Epist Joan. item de bapt lib. 4. cap. 1. Matth. 18.17 Cyprian de simpli praelat Jer. 1. Epist ad Damas Aug. lib. 19. contra Faust cap. 11. Origen homil 30. in Matth. Cyp. lib de unitat Eccles Chrysost hom 4. in cap. 6. Isai August lib. 3. contra Epist. Parmeni cap. 3. item tract 1. in Epist Joan. tract 2. item Epist 166. ad Donatistas M. John Welsch his Reply As for the 18. Psalm it speaks not of the visibility of the Church there but of the Lords wonderful and glorious works and specially in disponing such a glorious place or tabernacle or throne to the Sun to shine in the which demonstrates the glory of the Lord. As for Augustine exposition it results of the corrupted old Translation which was not taken from the Hebrew fountain but from the version of the Septuagints therefore Pagninus Vatabius and Arias Montanus a Papist and Tremellius expone it not so but after the Hebrew Secondly he means not here of the Catholick Church but of particular Churches which were exceeding far enlarged in his days but yet this hinders not but that they should be obscured in the time of the Antichrist as it was fore-told and your Church acknowledges As for the 5. of Matthew 15.16 there not the Catholick Church but the Pastors of particular Churches are compared to this light which is set up in the candlestick and to the city set up upon the hill top which cannot be hid that is the eyes of all is on them and therefore they should be so much the more wake-rife and careful because their doings cannot be hid As for Isai 2.3 and 60.20 and 61.9 and Dan. 2.35 and Mich. 4.12 they prophesie of the greatness and clearness of the Church of Christ in the time of the Messias and of the propagation of the Gospel throughout the
blasphemous reason of yours Martin Luther is the author of our Religion For now your are inforced to grant the contrary that infinit numbers have taught the same doctrine before him The truth is too strong for you M Gilbert that compells you to grant the thing that ye would wish with all your heart the people never knew it But comfort your self M. Gilbert for the truth will be victorious at the last and your darkness dayly more and more will be discovered Indeed the least stroke that ye can give for the defence of your Pope is to call them all hereticks who have spoken against him For I grant the Pope and his Clergy is not such fools as being their own Judges to condemn themselves and to justifie them who not only have taught it but also sufficiently did prove it and many thousands sealed with their blood that he was the Antichrist and his Church Babel But with them they have the Son of God and the Apostles Paul and John hereticks for they also did condemn his idolatry and tyranny and errors But whereabout now will ye contend M. Gilbert Ye say whether their doctrine be heresie or not I would you and your Church would stand upon this and give over all your other contentions while this were first proved Whether their doctrine in so far as they agree with ours and ours in so far as it dissents from yours be heresie or not that is be against the Scripture or not the which if you would do then I hope our contention would soon be ended But for as fast as you run to this now you will flee from it as fast again when we desire to have yours and our doctrine tryed by the Scriptures which of them is heresie and consequently whether ye or we be hereticks And therefore you ever refuse to let your doctrine be tryed by the Scripture but run to your pretended antiquity and successions Councils and lying miracles and many other vain starting-holes like a wild Fox when he is hunted out of one hole he flies to another and dares never abide the fair fields And mark their craft Reader when we affirm that our Religion hath Jesus Christ to be the Author of it in the Scriptures as we offer to prove the same ye refuse this tryal by the Scriptures and say That Martin Luther invented our Religion and we had none that professed it and taught it before him When we again reply That we had sundry of all sorts many hundred years before him even when your Kingdom was at the hight and produces their names they not being able to deny it they slip from that again and say They contend not whether there was such that taught such doctrine or not but they contend whether that was truth or heresie so they run from one starting hole to another But I will ask you M. Gilbert if it be proved that this their doctrine was not heresie will you contend any more then Shal the plea cease then Will you ever slander our Religion of novelty in saying Martin Luther was the first that began it and we had none who professed before him But you will say This you have not proved It is true I had not proved it then but now I hope I have proved it sufficiently that your Popes are the Antichrist and your Rome Babel which was one of the principal heads of the doctrine which ye taught and sundry others also Disprove you it if you can M. Gilbert Master Gilbert Brown But he saith They preached the same Religion that he preaches c. Let M. John name any of these his Doctors that he will abide at in Religion and I shal let him see that he was not of his Religion in all things For that is the thing that we say That albeit M. John and his brethren have renewed many old condemned heresies of hereticks yet they were not of their Religion in all things And therefore this that M. John calls the only truth was never professed in all heads as it is now in Scotland before in no Countrey no not by any one man let be by a number which thing M. Robert Bruce grants himself in his Sermons in these words And God hath chosen a few hearts in this Countrey where he hath begun his dwelling place for God dwells now in the hearts and consciences of his own by his holy Spirit And surely so hath he dwelt with 〈◊〉 these thirty years in such purity that he hath not done the like with any Nation in the earth he hath not remained with any Nation without error and heresie so long as he hath done with us c. So God dwelt in no place without error and heresie the space of thirty years while now in Scotland Master John Welsch his Reply But you say they dissent from us in some things and is not of our Religion in all things Whereunto I answer That suppose this were true yet it will not follow but that they are of our Religion seeing they and we do agree in the main foundations thereof For we have learned to call them brethren which do hold the foundation as the Apostle saith suppose they have built hay straw or timber upon the same Otherwise if ye will be content to be measured with that same measure wherewith ye measure us if you will have none to be accounted of your Religion but these only that profess with you in all things as your Church doth now then not only by your reason shal ye want the Lord Jesus his Apostles the primitive Church as ye do indeed and that not only in the first six hundred years but long after till the thousand year and long after that also to be of your profession because not only the weightiest points of your doctrine have not their original in the Scripture and are unwritten traditions by the testimony of some of your selves but also sundry points of your Religion have been brought in after these dayes being unknown in the former ages as your selves will not deny and I have proved in some heads in the other part concerning the Mass Yea you shal want all the Fathers by this reason of yours For there is not one of them but they have their own errors which ye your selves will not defend and the most part of them are with us against you in many things which you cannot deny and that which is more ye shal want almost all the general Councils except three or four and many of your own Popes Doctors Bishops Cardinals and Jesuits for not only have some of them had errors and some of them been hereticks by your whole confessions but also some of them have been with us in some points against you as I have proved before so that I need not repeat them now As for example Pope Gregory affirms That the books of the Macchabees are Apocrypha Lib. 19. cap. 16. in morali And so have sundry others of your Clergy as
it and the infants and Adam would have died suppose they had not sinned 36. Also they affirmed that after the fall there was left in man a freedom to will good and so doth the Papists suppose they differ in this that the Papists joyn grace to be a preveener and worker with free-will 37. The Pelagians affirmed that the Gentils might by Philosophie have known God and been saved So Andradius a Papist lib. 3. orthod explic So Catharinus a Papist who was present at the Council of Trent affirms in his Commentary upon 1. Tim. 4. That some unfaithful men may be saved Which is as much to say as some may be saved who know not God nor Christ Which is horrible and more then Pelagian 38. Also they affirmed that a man may fulfil the Law and be perfectly righteous So do all the Papists 39. They affirm that infants want original sin So doth Pighius a Papist in his Book of Controversies in the controversie of original sin That in them that are baptized original sin is taken away And he writes also That Mary was born without original sin And Thomas of Aquin writes That Mary had the fulness of all grace In 3. parte summae quaest 27. art 7. Which is to equal her with God For only in him the fulness of all dwelleth And many other heresies of the Pelagians have the Papists renewed 40. A kind of hereticks called Anomi taught that the obedience to the Law was not needful So do the Papists First in affirming That concupiscence without consent is not sin and is not forbidden in the Law Secondly some of them say as Sylvester Prierias It is honesty saith he but not of necessity that God should be loved above all things And so Molanus another Papist affirmeth de theolog pract tract 3. cap. 16. concl 1. num 11. The same Molanus also saith That it is not commanded of God that we should pray for our enemies in special cap. 8. concl 3. num 19. And yet the Scripture saith most plainly Pray for them which persecute you And in another place he affirms That it is not commanded that we should salute our enemies with a friendly and loving heart cap. 16. concl 3. And also he saith That he who doth not tell to him who is ignorant his manifest defect is not unrighteous Tract 2. cap. 20. conclus 2. And again he saith He who gives counsel to do a less evil to eschew a greater sins not Cap. 23. conclus 5. Such like contrare the second Command they universally teach That the worship of Images is no break of it And they call the Cross Their only hope What horrible blasphemie is this And Torrensis a Papist objected to Catharinus another Papist in his book de residentia cont Cathar That he denyed the Law of Moses to be Gods Law and the precepts of Paul to be Christs precepts Mo also I might bring but these will suffice Now of these things I may most justly conclud That your Religion hath renewed many of the old condemned heresies And as you made one argument so I will make another What ever was heresie in old times is heresie yet and the defenders thereof hereticks this you cannot deny because it is your own proposition but these former heads which I have set down wherein I have used no calumnie as ye have done was heresies in old times and the defenders thereof hereticks as witness the ancient Fathers therefore they are heresies yet and the defenders thereof hereticks And so by your own argument many points of your Religion are old condemned heresies and your selves hereticks who do defend them SECTION XXVII Concerning Antichrist Master Johns Conclusion ONe thing which I hope will cut off all controversie I offer to prove the Pope to be the Antichrist And if this be true then all men that profess him secretly or openly as it is said in the Rev. 14.10 shal drink of the wine of the wrath of God Master John Welsch Preacher of Christs Gospel at Kirkubright Master Gilbert Brown If this controversie of ours shal not be cut away while M. John prove the Pope to be the Antichrist certainly it will indure ten hundred thousand years after the Laird of Merchistons doomsday Then it must follow seeing that is a thing impossible to be done that all these that will not openly and privatly obey the Pope and reverence him as the Vicare of Christ because he is chosen by God to rule his Church here on earth that they must drink of the wine of the wrath of God Our merciful Lord illuminat M. John with his holy Spirit and grace that he may understand the truth and receive the same and so become a member of his true Church whereby he may be partaker of the merits of Christ that his soul may be safe Amen Master Gilbert Brown Priest and defender of the Catholick Faith Master John Welsch his Reply It is not impossible to prove your Popes to be the Antichrist It hath been proved already by the learned on our side to the which you and all your Clergy of Rome is not able to answer It hath been taught and sealed with the blood of infinit number of Christians And I have not taken so long a term as you have set down here and yet I hope I have proved it sufficiently Put all your might to disprove it if you can And as to that threatning of yours M. Gilbert wherein ye say that all those who will not openly and privatly obey the Pope c. must drink of the wine of the wrath of God If it may be believed then how doth this stand first with your Popes pardons whereby he gives men pardon or licence to profess subscribe and swear to our Religion as it is reported that some of your own Religion have confessed it Next how stands it with the dissimulation of your Jesuites and seminary Priests when they come to any place where our Religion is openly professed Thirdly what comfort is this which ye have pronounced to your own poor Countreymen who do not openly avow Papistrie but have subscribed and communicat with us Is this an open profession or not And if it be not if ye be a true Prophet then must they drink of the wine of the wrath of God then must they be condemned in Hell by your judgement because they profess him not openly And last of all if this threatning of yours be true then beside the many infinit thousands who profess him to be the Antichrist you condemn to Hell all the Greek and Eastern Churches who in number far exceed them who obey you and all the Churches that have been six hundred years and more after Christ For they obeyed not the Pope openly nor privatly as Christs Vicare over them as I have proved before And also you condemn a number of your Anti-Popes to Hell with their Cardinals Bishops and Churches who followed them For they gave out themselves to be Popes and
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
upon this rock But your Popes of Rome are not one singular person but many Therefore your Popes of Rome are not this rock upon the which Christ promised to build his Church What difference is there between your argument for the Pope and this argument against the Pope seeing both are grounded upon the like phrase Choose you then M. Gilbert whether will you have the Antichrist not to be one singular person but a succession of many Or will you have the Popes not to be the rock whereupon the Church is built For the one ye must Thirdly I say the Apostle Paul saith speaking of the Antichrist That the mystery of iniquity is begun even now to work 2. Thess 2.7 And John saith This is the spirit of that Antichrist which ye heard was to come and is even now present in the world 1. John 4.3 And the Apostle saith The Lord shal destroy him with his presence 2. Thess 2.8 And your doctrine is that he shal not come while the end of the world Now what a monstrous man will you make him whose spirit was in the dayes of the Apostles and who must continue till the end of the world if the Scripture be true a man of fifteen hundred years of age already Is this credible Or are you able to perswade men that have but the least drop of reason left in them and believe the Scripture that the Antichrist should be but one singular man since the Scripture saith that his spirit was present in the world and his iniquity even then began to work in the Apostles dayes that is ◠1500. years since and he shal continue to the end of the world Fourthly is it possible that one singular person can perform all these things which either the Scripture or your own doctrine tell he shal do For the Scripture saith He shal resemble the Lamb with horns He shal speak like the Dragon He shal do all the power of the former Beast He shal make all men to worship the beasts image He shal make all both rich and smal c. to receive his mark c. so that no man shal buy or sell but he that hath his mark c. so that all Nations shal be drunken with the wine of her fornication Rev. 13 and 14. and 17. and 18. And your doctrine is that he shal build the Temple of Jerusalem which the Turks have now in possession that he shal destroy Rome that he shal abolish all Religion and all the outward ceremonies thereof that he shal conquer and overcome the strongest Empires in the earth and be Monarch of the whole world Bellarm. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. and Rhemists annot upon 2. Thess 2. and Sanderus in his demonstrations Now is it likely or can it be that any one mortal man is able to perform so great and so wonderful things Was there ever yet any King Emperor or any other creature under heaven that ever performed so great and wonderful things and specially in so short a time as ye assign to your imaginary Antichrist as of three years and an half That one city of Troy kept all the Grecians for the space of ten years almost besieging it before they could overcome it The Temple of Jerusalem was seven years in building by Solomon who had riches and wealth above all the Kings in the earth who had an hundred fifty three thousand and six hundred workmen for the same 2. Chron. 2. That great Conqueror Alexander with whom no Monarch is comparable neither in power nor happy success was not able to conquer all Asia the space of ten years which was the fourth part of the world And shal we think that a miserable Jew by the help of their scattered people being an enemy to God and all good men shal be able to overcome that great Monarchy of the Turks against whom all the power of Christendom hath not prevailed not only to overcome them but also to overcome all the Empires and Kingdoms in the earth and to restore the city of Jerusalem and build the Temple again from the foundation and abolish all Religion both true and false except his own For this is the doctrine of your Church concerning the Antichrist and that in so short a time as three years and an half as you ascribe unto him Who will believe you M. Gilbert Will any Turk Christian or Jew himself believe that any one man suppose his age were never so long and his person never so strong can be able to accomplish and perform so many and so wonderful things as your own doctrine affirms shal be done by the Antichrist So this doctrine of yours that the Antichrist shal be but one singular person can neither stand with the Scripture nor yet with your own doctrine concerning the Antichrist Fifthly as partly hath been proved this is the common phrase of the Scripture in the person of one to understand a multitude And therefore Daniel in the describing of the Monarchies he compares them to sundry beasts in the singular number to a Lyon a Bear a Leopard c. and yet by them was not signified one certain person but a succession of Kings in the self-same Kingdom and therefore the Antichrist is likened to a beast to signifie a Kingdom and succession of persons in that Kingdom Rev. 13. Tertullian calls the Antichrist A City which prostituts its self to fornication to wit spiritual de resurrectione carnis Ambrose in Apoc. 17 calls the woman clad with purple who is Antichrist the city of the Devil Augustin calls that beast which is the Antichrist the ungodly and body of the wicked who fights against the Lamb a people contrary the people of God which joyntly with their head is called the Antichrist an heretical Church which is called Babylon Nonnulli non ipsum Principem sed universum quodammodo corpus ejus id est ad eum pertinentem hominùm multitudinem simul cum suo Principe hoc loco Antichristum intelligi volunt Homil. 10. in Apoc. homil 13. de civitate Dei lib. 18. cap. 2. lib. 20. cap. 19. Gregory a Pope saith in moralibus lib. 33. cap. 26 The beast is a multitude of them who preach the Antichrist And Thomas a Papist saith The beast which is the Antichrist is a body and so not a singular person And the ordinar Gloss saith The head and the body together make the Antichrist And Hugo a Cardinal calls him an university or commonality So not only the Scripture and reason but also the testimonies of these Fathers and some of your selves concurr all in this that the Antichrist is not a singular person but a body an estat a succession So I hope the Reader hath seen nothing either by Scripture or by reason alledged by M. Gilbert wherefore the Pope may not be the Antichrist Master Gilbert Brown Thirdly S. Paul saith He shal be an adversary and is extolled above all that is called God or that
the sins of others What is this else but to make themselves in a part Saviors of themselves and Saviors of others also Yea what is this else but to make themselves God For who can satisfie the justice of God but God himself Thirdly as it hath been proved before Christ offered up himself once by shedding of his blood upon the Cross never to be offered up again which hath purchased an everlasting redemption the which is the only ground of mans salvation How they have overturned this by their abominable sacrifice of the Mass and their sacrilegious Mass-Priests I hope hath been proved sufficiently before so that they have both evacuat the vertue of the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in setting up another sacrifice for the redemption of souls And also they have spoyled him of the dignity of his Royal Priesthood in joyning unto him collegues and fellow-Priests to offer up himself dayly in their pretended sacrifice Fourthly as they spoyl him of his Priesthood so do they spoyl men of that redemption righteousness and salvation which his death hath purchased both in the fountain matter and form thereof The Scripture testifies that the only fountain and efficient cause of our salvation is Gods free love and grace 2. Tim. 1.9 Tit. 2.11 Eph. 1.5 and 1. John 3.16 They teach That an infidel by the works of preparation as they call them even done without faith may procure and merit Gods favor Masuenda in disput Ratisb cum Bucero Scholast And also they joyn with the grace of God mans free-will as a party worker with it as though God did not renew it being corrupted or repair it being perished but only relieve it being weak and raise it up being faint by the which they abolish if the Apostle speak true Rom. 11.6 and 4 5. the grace of Christ for if our salvation be of grace it is not of works and if it be not of works then it is not of grace and so not at all As to the matter of our justification the Scripture ascribes it only to Christ his obedience and his death Rom. 5.19 They by the contrary suppose they grant that Christ hath fulfilled the Law and perfectly satisfied God yet they teach that this righteousness of Christ is not our righteousness by the which we must be justified but they place it in our own works and in our own merits And of this comes the third that whereas the Scripture testifies that this righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us by faith Rom. 4.22.23.24.3.5.6.7 They acknowledge not this imputation but placeth the form of our justification in the merit of our works and so they spoyl man of righteousness and salvation For Bellarmin saith lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 2. That the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is not required to our justification And the Council of Trent Can. 10. Accurseth them who say that we are justified justos formaliter per Christi justitiam by the righteousness of Christ. And as they have spoyled Christ of the first part of his office of his Priesthood so do they spoyl him of the second part thereof which consists in his intercession in joyning with him innumerable Intercessors and Mediators as well of Angels as of Saints departed at whose hands they seek all manner of grace which is only proper to Jesus Christ to give and that not only for the vertue of the merits of Christ but for their own merits and intercession Every Parish almost among them had their own Patron and every malady disease or calamity their own Saint or Angel to run to And as their doctrine hath robbed the Lord Jesus of his Priestly dignity and man of the benefit of eternal life purchased to him by the same so have they robbed him of that glory and worship that is due unto him in plucking away his glory from him and giving it unto creatures 1. As unto Angels and 2. Unto Saints departed and especially unto the Virgin Mary 3. Unto their relicks 4. Unto images of the Trinity of the Saints of the Cross 5. Unto things consecrated as water oyl c. 6. And unto the Sacrament of the Eucharist unto whom they give that worship which is only due unto God as prayer worship vows sacrifices c. So that if they may be justly called the Antichrist whose doctrine spoyls Christ of the office of his mediation and man of his salvation purchased thereby and God of his due glory which man is bound to give him for his creation and redemption and sets up other Saviors and Mediators other Priests and Intercessors beside him and teaches another way of mans salvation then he hath taught and worship other Gods then the God that made heaven and earth and after another manner then he hath commanded Then I say the Popes of Rome may justly be called and is in truth the Antichrist and adversary to God For they are guilty of all this abomination And because I know that the poor and ignorant people and these that are blinded with the strong delusions of that man of sin will not believe these things of him and of his Church but as Thomas said of Christ Unless I see the print of the nails and put my finger in the print of the nails and put my hand into his side I will not believe Even so unless they see their idolatry and grope it as it were with their hands they will not believe it therefore I am compelled for their conviction and information that none of them that is ordained to salvation perish to let them see their idolatries and to make them to grope their abominations and that by their own Books For I shal not speak here beguess for that were great foolishness to alledge here any other thing then that which is written in their own Books seeing he hath promised to give an answer lest he should challenge me of lying of them I protest therefore Christian Reader that I shal forge nor fain nothing of them but shal only set down those things which are to be found in their own writings And first in their service and Mass Book secundum usum Anglicanum Horae beatae Mariae suffragia c. printed anno 1520. they pray to the Archangels and Angels to defend them in battel to defend them that none condemn them to keep both their soul and body from godless desires and from unclean cogitations to keep their mind from pollution to confirm them in the fear and love of Christ Secondly they pray to the Saints departed That by their merits and intercession they may be defended from all evils obtain all gifts and get eternal life Yea they seek of them Defence in this world from all evils and everlasting life And they pray to God the Father that by their merits and intercession they may be delivered both soul and body from Hell fire and may obtain through their merits faith patience and everlasting life So not only they
That which is offered is ordained to a true real and voluntar destruction But Christ now being glorified cannot be changed and utterly destroyed therefore he cannot be sacrificed if your selves speak true or else as oft as he is sacrificed in your Mass he is utterly destroyed which is blasphemy Seventhly the Scripture saith Where there is remission of sins there is no more offering Heb. 10.18 That is all external propiciatory sacrifice ceases but remission of sins is already obtained by the death of Christ as the Scripture testifieth Heb. 1.3 and your selves will not deny Therefore there needs no more oblation of Christ in your Mass for the same Eightly the Scripture saith That without shedding of blood there is no remission Heb. 9 22 But in your sacrifice of the Mass there is no shedding of blood as your selves grants For ye call it an unbloody sacrifice therefore by your sacrifice of the Mass there is no remission of sin Further the Scripture acknowledges no other Priest of the New Testament but Christ only These Priests saith the Apostle to the Hebrews 5. and 7. speaking of the Priests of the Old Testament were many because death hindered them to indure but he speaking of Christ because he abides for ever hath an everlasting Priesthood which cannot pass from one to another So Christ is the only Priest of the New Testament Now if it be true which you say that Christ is offered up in your Mass and that by your Mass-Priests then are there mo Priests of the New Testament then Christ which is plain against the Scriptures What will you say to this That Christ is the principal Priest of the New Testament and yours are secondary Priests and under him by whose ministery he offereth up himself to God But first was not the Priests of the Old Testameâ—t only secondary Priests This you will not deny seeing their sacrifices were figurs of his and their Priesthood figurs of his Priesthood But the Apostle oppones the Priesthood of Christ not to another principal Priesthood but to the Priesthood of men which was but secondary and saith it cannot stand with that secondary Priesthood in the Old Testament therefore it cannot stand with your Priesthood of the New Testament And the reason which the Apostle alledges will not only serve to exclud the Priests of the Old Testament that was but secundary Priests also but also all other sacrificing Priests whatsoever of the propiciatory sacrifice of the New Testament For the reason is because he bides for ever and hath a Priesthood which cannot pass from one to another which will serve as well against your Mass-Priests as against them For they are mortal as the Priests of the Old Testament were and his Priesthood cannot pass from one to another as it might have done among the Priests of the Old Testament and also doth among your Priests For to what purpose should your Priesthood and sacrifice serve seeing Christ his sacrifice hath fulfilled all the types of all the sacrifices of the Old Testament If you say to signifie Christ his sacrifice to come as theirs did then that is false for he is sacrificed already But if you say to signifie and represent his sacrifice already done then I say what needs him to be sacrificed again for that purpose For the Word and Sacraments doth represent him sufficiently and so your Mass needs not to represent his sacrifice And if you say it represents his sacrifice then I say it is not one with that sacrifice of his upon the cross which you will be loath to grant For your Church saith that it is one with that in substance And I say further if your will say with Bellarmin lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. That this place of the Apostle only excluds absolutly the multiplication of Priests in the same dignity and power with Christ that then they exclud yours also For if you offer up the same sacrifice which he offered up then you have the same power and dignity which he had But this you say you do For it is no matter of the difference of the manner since the sacrifice is one Seeing therefore Christ God and Man which ye say ye offer up in your Mass is of that same dignity which he was of when he was offered up upon the cross and seeing the equal dignity of the sacrifice makes the equal dignity of the Priest that offers it up therefore sacrilegious are your Mass-Priests and excluded here by the Apostle And thirdly I say this is a vain distinction of yours of principal and chief Priest and secondary Priests For this is the nature of this sacrifice of Christ that it cannot be offered up by none but by himself And fourthly if your Mass-Priests be but Ministers in this sacrifice and Christ the principal as you say who offers up himself by you then I say as ye offer up Christ as instruments for your sins and the sins of the people it should follow that Christ offers up himself in your Mass by you for his own sins and the sins of the people But this is blasphemy and expresly gain-said by the Scripture Heb. 7.27 And last of all I say seeing as your Church saith Christ his sacrifice in the Mass is one with that sacrifice upon the cross therefore as Christ offered himself upon the cross without the ministery of secondary Priests so should he be offered up in your Mass without the ministery of the same or else it is not one with that So your Mass-Priests are no wayes to be called secondary Priests to Christ except in that respect that Judas with the band of men of war and hie-Priests were the instruments and ministers of Christ his taking death and crucifying even so you are the instruments and ministers of the crucifying of Christ dayly in your Mass so far as in you lyes and in this respect keep ye your style of Mass-Priests And because they have a common distinction in their mouthes of a bloody and an unbloody sacrifice For they affirm that sacrifice of Christ upon the cross to be bloody and that sacrifice of him in the Mass to be unbloody Therefore I will take away this refuge and vain starting-hole from them And first I say this distinction of theirs of a bloody and unbloody sacrifice of the self same thing that is sacrificed wants all warrant in the Word of God For there is not so much in the whole New Testament as a syllable that tells us that there is a proper sacrifice of Christ which is unbloody and you are never able to bring one instance to the contrary Secondly I say it is repugnant to the Scripture Heb. 10.10 11.12.14 for the Scripture only acknowledges such a sacrifice of Christ as is joined with his death as hath been proved before See Heb. 9.24.25 Not that he should offer himself often for then should he have suffered often since the beginning of the world Now if the Apostle his argument be true