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
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
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
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
third he permits one to have two wives if the first be sickly decret causa 32. quaest 7. cap. Quod proposuisti contrary both to the Gospel Matth. 19. and to another decreet of the Canon Law Decretal lib. 4. tit 9. cap. Quoniam Pope Nicolas saith Dist 40. cap. A quodam Judaeo that that Baptism which is ministred without express mention of the three persons of the Trinity is firm and sure enough But Pope Zacharie Dist eadem de consecrat cap. In Synodo hath decreed the contrary All these decreets are set down in their Canon Law and hath the strength of a law in the Roman Church not as privat mens but as Popes decreets And yet some of them are directly repugnant to the Word of God that themselves cannot deny but they are heresies and some of them so directly repugnant to the decreets of other Popes that either the one or the other must be heresie But it may be ye will answer that suppose the Pope may err as he is Pope and that in matters of doctrine yet he cannot err with his Council either Provincial or General as Bellarmin saith Whereunto I answer first if General Councils lawfully conveaned together may err in matters of doctrine unless they be confirmed by the Pope as Bellarmin grants and if the Popes may err themselves alone and that judicially in matters of doctrine as hath been proved why may they not err also being joyned together seeing Councils have this priviledge only by his confirmation and allowance As Bellarmin saith lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. Secondly I say either Pope Steven the 6. with his Council erred in condemning of Formosus and his acts which he made as Pope and in decreeing his ordinations to be void and null because the man was wicked by whom they were ordained Sigebert in Chron. which is an error of the Donatists or else Pope John the 9. with his Council of 72. Bishops erred in justifying Formosus and his decreets and condemning the acts of Pope Steven with his Council Last of all since General Councils that have been confirmed by their Popes have erred the sixth General Council confirmed by Pope Hadrian in epist. ad Thracium quae est in 2. actione 7. Syn. Canon 2. hath sundry errors which they themselves will not defend as the rebaptizing of hereticks For the counsel of Cyprian is confirmed there wherein this is decreeted And also it is ordained Canon 13. that Elders Deacons Subdeacons should not separat from their wives contrary to the Canon of the Roman Church as is said there And the marriage of Catholicks and Hereticks is judged null and voyd Canon 67. which your self cannot deny to be an error contrary to the express truth of God 1. Cor. 7.13 And the forbidding of Ministers to remain with their wives Canon 12. contrary to the sixth Canon of the Apostles Either therefore a General Council confirmed by a Pope hath erred or else the Apostles have erred in this Canon for they judge them to be the Canons of the Apostles The first General Council of Constantinople and the General Council of Chalcedon which are both by their own confession approved by the Popes Bellarm lib. 1. de Concilijs cap. 5. And yet both these have decreeed that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal priviledges of authority honor and dignity in Ecclesiastical affaires with the Bishop of Rome except only the first place or seat the which by their own confession is an error Therefore either lawful General Councils confirmed by the Pope have erred or else the Pope is not the head of the Church and hath not a preeminence of authority over the rest for they have made the Bishop of Constantinople equal with him or else there are two heads of thier Church the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople I omit the rest Augustin saith de baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 2. cap. 3. That Provincial Councils may be corrected by General Councils and of General Councils the former may be amended by the latter If they may be mended then they may err And here he speaks not of a matter of fact but of a matter of faith For he speaks of the baptism of hereticks Now to conclud seeing the Churches in all ages before the Law in the time of the Law and in the time of grace yea and the Apostles and Peter himself have erred and seeing the Church of Rome that claims this priviledge of not erring above all other Churches hath erred also and that not only her people which they call Laicks but also her Clergy severally and together in Councils as well Provincial as General And seeing the head which as they say is the Rock and foundation of the Church hath erred in life in Office in matters of Faith and Religion not as privat men only but as Popes both by themselves alone as also with their Councils as well Provincial as General Seeing I hope I have proved all these things sufficiently then may I not with the judgement of all men safely conclud that that main pillar whereupon the whole weight and pillar of your Religion depends that the Church cannot err that it is an error and such a dangerous and damnable error whereupon all the errors of your Religion is built that whosoever will believe it they hazard the endless salvation of their souls Ground then Christian Reader thy salvation not upon this that the Church cannot err for that is false but upon this that as long as she sticks to the Word of God written in the Old and New Testament she errs not and when she swerves and it were but an inch broad from the Scripture then she errs And therefore two learned Papists Gerson de examinat part 1. consid 5. and Panorm affirms the one saith Simplici non authorizato sed excellenter in sacris literis erudito c. that is that more credit is to be given to one unlearned and simple but yet excellently beseen in the holy Writ in a point of doctrine then to the Pope And such a learned man saith he ought to oppone himself to a General Council if he perceive the greater part to decline to the contrary of the Gospel either of malice or of ignorance The other saith extra de elect cap. Significasti That more credit is to be given to an unlearned and simple man that brings for him the Scripture then to a whole General Council And this for answer to the testimonies of Scripture which ye cited Now as concerning the Fathers testimonies which ye bring in they will serve you no further then the Scripture hath done For they will go no further with you then this that the Church of Christ and his covenant with her shal endure for ever the which we grant and they that will read them will find them so And if ye prove any further out of them it shal be answered by Gods grace For it were too fashous to the
when Martin Luther and Zuinglius first came to the Gospel The Latin words are cum Martinus Luther Zuinglius primum accessissent ad Evangelium So it saith not that they were the first that came to the Gospel but that it was easie to you to spew out cursed speaches when they came first to the Gospel So that this word primum that is first is not in comparison with them that knew the Gospel before but in comparison with that time in the which they themselves knew not the Gospel It is an adverb of time and you take it for an adjective noun But there is a vail over your eyes that ye can neither see what we or your selves writes So then to conclud seeing the Religion which Martin Luther taught hath the warrant from Christs Testament and seeing all that ever professed the true Religion that hath Christ to be the author of it in his Scripture visible or invisible are his predecessors Therefore the Religion which Martin Luther taught was the true Religion And seeing your Religion hath not Christ to be the author of it in his latter Testament but is that apostasie and defection that Antichristian Kingdom that was fore-spoken of in the Scripture Therefore I conclud that your Church and Religion which he oppugned is not the true Church and Religion but that Antichristian Kingdom And this for the first part of your objection Now we come to the second M. Gilbert Brown As for the other part of the objection which he alledges to be ours that is that our Religion was never said against we say not so for why all hereticks and others infected with false doctrine have ever said against the same almost at all times For how soon that Christ our Savior planted the truth the Devil immediatly sew popple in the same according to the parable set down in S. Matthew M. John Welsch his Reply I come now to that part which ye say is untruly alledged of you which moved you to say that either I knew not your proofs or if I knew them that I altered the same that I might the better oppugn my own invention Of my knowledge of your proofs I will speak nothing But let us see whither this be my invention or not or rather your own proof You for the confirmation of the truth of your Church and Religion brought in this as a proof that I nor no Minister in Scotland was able to assign the true Church that spake against it Either then ye prove nothing or else this must be one of your proofs because it was never spoken against by a true Church Now compare these words with mine and see whither I speak ignorantly or untruly of your proofs I said that ye affirmed your Religion to be true because it was never spoken against Here our words are one except this that ye add be a true Church I understand the same and therefore I gave the instances first of Christ and his Apostles next of the primitive Church thirdly of these that lived in Popery which spake against your Religion all which I appeal your conscience whither think ye that I judge them a true Church or not Now in that ye expound it otherwise of hereticks this is neither my words nor meaning but your own invention So that by this it may appear that either ye have not understood my words alledging your objection or else ye have altered the meaning of the same that ye might the more easily answer to your own inventions and gain-say my words M. John Welsch his Answer to the objection Your Religion of the Roman Church was never instistituted nor preached neither by Christ nor by his Apostles as I offer me to prove by their writings which is the only touchstone whereby all Religion should be and must be tryed M. Gilbert Brown I think in this M. John takes upon him an impossibility for it is said that it is impossible to prove a negative proposition except it be set down in the Word of God which is of authority and that I am sure he cannot find because Papistry by him is not so old as the Word of God is But in the mean time M. John proves nothing He offers very fair and when ever he proves any thing contrary to us with Gods grace he shal get an answer And note here that M. John can say nothing to our argument for to it he gives no answer M. John Welsch his Reply In your answer to this Section First ye think it impossible because of the form of it Next ye say it is but an offer and I prove nothing Thirdly that I answer nothing to your argument nor can answer nothing Now of all these in order And first to the form ye think it impossible to prove because it is a negative proposition Is not this a negative proposition that the Popes of Rome are not the Antichrist You cannot deny it Again I ask is this sentence to be found in the whole Scripture I suppose ye will never be able to find it Then I say if it be true that ye say then ye your self in your book and this your answer and Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. and Sanderus 40. demonstrations and all the rest of you that takes in hand to prove the Pope not to be the Antichrist takes in hand in your judgement an impossibility and so do you indeed not because it is a negative proposition but because he is the Antichrist in very truth What would the Pope your head think of you if he heard you say so Certainly I think he would not inrol your name among the defenders of his Catholick faith whereof this is the foundation Secondly is there not many formal syllogisms that have the proposition or assumption negatives and will you say they cannot be proved if the matter be true because they are negatives What is this but to raise the foundation of Logick and Raison Logick is not Rhetorick and Physick is not Logick both these are negative propositions and I suppose neither of them are so found in the Scripture and will you say that it is impossible to prove them because they are negatives What you mean by this I understand not unless you do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strive about words prove and improve forbidden by the Apostle 2. Tim. 2.14 Thirdly ye except these negative propositions which are set down in the Word of God which hath authority as ye say I assume But your Religion in substance is condemned in the Word of God therefore by your own confession it may be proved suppose it be negative For Nazianzen saith lib. 5. de Theologia That these sentences that are collected out of the Scripture by a necessary consequence are of the same truth and authority with these sentences that are expresly set down in the Scripture And whereas ye say Papistrie by me is not so old as the Scripture I grant that What then Therefore it is not
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
the necessitie of satisfaction the numbering over the sins to the Priest Canisius a great Papist in his Catechism cap. 5. de praeceptis Ecclesiae saith That the worshipping of images the set fastes and the forty dayes of Lent and all that are done in the sacrifice of the Mass prayers and oblations for the dead alia and others he saith all these are traditions because they are such that they cannot be defended by the Scripture And Lindanus another great defender of your Romish faith and Religion he reckons out for Traditions lib 4. Panopliae cap. 100. in fine illius libri tab 6. that there are seven Sacraments the consecration of the water and oyl in Baptism the real presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Sacrament Communion under one kind that the Lords Supper is a sacrifice that it should be kept and adored privat Masses Confession of sins to the Priests satisfactions pardons Purgatorie and that Peter was in Rome Martinus Peresius another Papist numbers the single life of Priests among the unwritten traditions The truth is strong that hath so far glanced in the consciences of some of you and hath opened your mouthes to confess and to set it down in writ to the world that the principal heads of your Religion yea the very foundation and ground of it as the supremacie of your Popes and the sacrifice of your Mass and the rest are unwritten traditions which have not the beginning nor original nor authoritie in the Lords written Word and which cannot be defended by the same as some of your selves have confessed So it is no wonder suppose ye refuse to have the controversies of Religion decided by the same Let the Reader now judge what he may think of your Religion that hath not God in his Scripture in the principal and main foundations thereof as some of your selves have confessed to be the author and beginner thereof So what needs any further proof against their Religion Out of their own mouthes the falshood of their Religion is convicted This therefore was the true cause wherefore ye refused to have the coÌ„troversies of Religion decided by the Scripture And for this cause also hath your Church heaped up so many false calumnies accusations and blasphemies against the same calling it obscure a Hosius lib. 3. de authorit contra script Andradius lib. 2. orthod explic Lindanus in Panoplia sua lib. 3. cap. 6. darksome doubtsome b Bellarm. de verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 4. not necessary but only profitable imperfect c Juel pag. 521. defens Apolog. Lodovicus a canon a dead ink a dumb and dead thing d Pigius controv 3. de Ecclesia dumb Judges e Eckius a black Gospel an inky Divinity f Pigius hierarch lib. 3. cap. 3. a nose of wax that may be drawn every way g Fox pag. 804. containing in them diverse erroneous and damnable opinions h Hermannus a Papist which wâ—re of no greater authority then the fables of Asop without the approbation of the Church and by the i Pope Leo the 10. ex Juel defen Apolog. pag. 273. Pope himself a fable of Christ And for this cause also did they hide it up in an unknown language forbidding the translating of it in the vulgar language and the reading of it by the people in their mother tongue lest they should have perceived the falshood of their Religion and so it should have lost the credit at their hands So ye have been wise in your generation Sed veritas tandem vincet but the truth shal overcome at the last You grant it to be a witness but yet you deal subtilly while as ye put in an exception if it be not corrupted For if you be of that mind with your Church and especially with Canus lib. 3. cap. 13. de locis Theologicis Lindanus lib. 1. cap. 11. de Optimo Genere interpret and the Colledge of Rhemes you think the Hebrew and Greek fountains of the Scripture to be corrupted And therefore it is decreed in the Council of Trent the old Latin vulgar translation to be authentick which notwithstanding by the confession of some Papists as Andradius Pagnin and Arias Montanus it hath missed the sense and meaning of the holy Ghost sometimes So you not only put the Lord in his Scripture out of the bench that he should not judge and give out the sentence of doom against your doctrine but by this exception also ye remove him from the bar that his testimony in the Hebrew and Greek fountains against you should have no credit Let all men judge now what prejudice ye give against your own Religion when as ye will not admit the Lord in his Word in the Hebrew and Greek fountains neither Judge nor witness But you say I have no Scripture for me that the Scripture ought to be Judge What will ye say then to Jesus Christ in John 12.48 speaking to such as ye are He that refuseth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him the word that I have spoken it shal judge him in the last day Unless now ye be a man of perdition ye must confess that the Word of Jesus Christ whereof so much is written as may make a man believe and by believing to get eternal life is Judge and judgeth presently and shal judge also in the latter day Therefore the Apostle saith That God shal judge the secrets of mens hearts by Jesus Christ according to his Gospel So the Gospel shal be the rule of that great judgement in that great day and so is it the rule of his worship while we are in the way to that judgement Suppose you now decline the judicatorie of the same here because in your conscience ye know and your own mouthes have confessed it that ye are not able to justifie your Religion thereby yet nill ye will ye ye shal be judged by the same Word in the last day But whom will ye have to be your Judge Ye say the holy Ghost Bellarmin saith that we and your Church agrees in that that the holy Ghost should be supream Judge of all controversies lib. 3. de verbi interpret cap. 3. But is not the Scripture the holy Ghosts own infallible voice and breath So then when the Scripture is Judge the holy Ghost is Judge because the Scripture is the immediat voice of the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost hath given out and gives out his judgement in all controversies of Religion in and by the Scripture and the holy Ghost illuminats the eyes of those that are fore-ordained to life to see the truth in the Scripture 2. Tim. 3.16 Rom. 10.17 and works in their heart faith to apprehend it and believe it and formes a spiritual judgement in their hearts to try and judge for the spiritual man judgeth all things 1. Cor. 2.15 And all this he works by the means of the Scripture for it is the
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
as far in word as ye do in deed the consciences of the poor people would at the last withdraw themselves from under your tyranny and would go out of your fellowship for the safety of their souls so under the cloke and pretence of the Scripture ye keep them in your communion And surelie were not for this cause only you would regard no more of the testimony of the Scripture then of the testimony of the fables of Esop For the chief authority and all the surety and certainty of all Religion with you as Bellarmin de sacr lib. 2. cap. 25. and Stapleton lib. 1. cont Whitaker cap. 10. confesses is not the testimony of the Scripture but the authority of your own Church So I assure thee Reader it is but for a show that they bring forth the Scripture to prove the heads of their Religion Let the matter therefore be tryed betwixt us by these examples which ye set down here M. Gilbert Brown 1. We say with Saint Augustin Epist 28. ad Hier. that the Sacrament of Baptism is so necessary to infants that they cannot come to heaven without the same which is contrary to their negative saith where they call it the Popes cruel judgement against infants departing without the Sacrament First I say that Christ taught the same doctrine in these words Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter in the Kingdom of God John 3.5 We say this is spoken properly of the Sacrament of Baptism because there is no regeneration of water and the Spirit of God but in Baptism The same is the doctrine of the Apostles also When they exspected the patience of God saith S. Peter in the days of Noe when the Ark was building in the which few that is eight souls were saved by water whereunto Baptism being of the like form now saves you also 1. Pet. 3.20.21 And S. Paul saith For as many of you as are baptized in Christ have put on Christ Galat 3.27 And Ananias said to S. Paul And now what tarriest thou rise up and be baptized and wash away thy sins invocating his name Acts 22.17 and 2.38 And S. Paul himself in another place Christ hath saved us by the washing of regeneration and renovation of the holy Ghost Tit. 3.5 Rom. 6.3.4 1. Cor. 6.11 Mark 16.16 I think there is no Christian reader that sees these places but he must say that Baptism is most necessary to infants except he will believe rather the exposition of the Ministers then the Word of God Maister John Welsch his Reply First ye begin at the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism whereof ye affirm that it is so necessary that infants cannot come to heaven without the same As for Baptism we grant that it is a most effectual seal and pledge of our ingrafting in Christ Jesus and of the remission of our sins through his blood and regeneration through his Spirit so that either the neglect or the contempt of it because it is the neglect and contempt of the covenant it self and of Christ Jesus the foundation of the covenant is damnable But that it is so absolutly necessary to infants that without it they cannot come to heaven to wit these whom he hath predestinat it being neither neglected nor contemned but death preventing the receiving of it that we allutterly deny as impious ungodly and cruel For first I say there is none that is in the covenant of grace and who hath God to be their God and are holy that can perish This you cannot deny But the children of the faithful who are of his secret election are such before they be baptized And this I prove The Lord promised to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.17 And this Peter also testifies The promise saith he is made to you and to your children Acts 2.39 And the Apostle saith That the children of the faithful are holy 1. Cor. 7.14 Therefore the children of the faithful who are of Gods secret election suppose they die without Baptism do not perish Secondlie if Baptism were absolutly necessary to salvation then the grace of God were bound to the Sacrament This cannot be denyed But your Master of Sentences saith that the grace of God is not bound to the Sacraments and it is impious so to think that Gods free grace and salvation is bound to the instrument Thirdlie if Circumcision was not absolutly necessary to salvation in the Old Testament then Baptism is not absolutly necessary now because Circumcision was as straitly enjoyned to them as Baptism is enjoyned to us and Baptism is suceeded in the room of the same but Circumcision is not absolutly necessarie For Lombardus is rebuked by the Doctors of Paris because he so thought And David doubts not to say of his child who died the seventh day and so before he was circumcised I shal go to him c. and so he pronounced that he was saved and all the time that they were in the wilderness almost 40 years Circumcision was neglected which plainly shows that it was not so absolutly necessary that salvation could not be obtained without it Therefore Baptism is not so absolutly necessary to salvation as ye suppose for the grace of God is of no less force in the New Testament then it was in the Old Fourthlie we read of sundry that received the holy Ghost before they were baptized and seeing the holy Ghost where he is regenerats to eternal life Therefore life eternal is not bound absolutly to Baptism Fifthlie what a cross and disturbance is this that your doctrine brings to the consciences of all these parents whose children have been prevented by death before they could be offered to be baptized If they believe your doctrine how often will this come in their mind that their children are damned And seeing the infants themselves are not in the cause that they are not baptized but their death preventing by Gods providence or the Parents neglecting or contemning the same or persecution or one impediment or other hindering wherefore are ye so cruel to judge them to be damned for that whereof themselves are causeless And last of all if ye be acquainted in the Histories of the Church of God in the first age ye will find many that delayed to be baptized until their latter age which they would never have done if they had thought it simpliciter necessary to salvation as ye do And Ambrosius doubts not to say That Valentinian wanted not the grace of Baptism suppose he wanted Baptism it self the which he would never have said if he had thought it absolutly necessary to salvation And Bernard saith I cannot altogether despair of the salvation of them who wants Baptism not through contempt but only through impossibility to get it And in that same place he saith So also if our Savior Christ for this cause when he had said he that believeth and is baptized shal be saved did
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
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
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 rest which is exceeding many and because if you be a right defender of the Catholick Faith you will say with the rest of your Clergie that the Pope cannot err Therefore a Pope Gelasius by name saith de duabus natura in Christo Neither the substance of the bread nor nature of the wine ceaseth to be any more then they were before but remain in their own substance And he calls them there An image and resemblance of the body and blood of Christ Now tell me Master Gilbert do not these speak as plain as we Will you avow your transubstantiation which they so flatly deny And as our Savior saith A Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand so the manifold divisions among your selves concerning this transubstantiation is a very sure argument of the falling both of you and your doctrine Some of you expounds this word hoc this (1) Bonaventure Gerson contra Florentiū lib. 4. of the bread (2) As Thomas lib. 4 seu dist 8. Occam in 4 sent d. 13. q. 16.17 Some of Christs body (3) Innocent 3 de offic miss pag. 3 object 14 Scotus in l. 46. d. 8. q. 3. and some calls it an individuum vagum (4) Durandus rational 4 some saith it signifieth nothing (5) Holcot in 4. sent quaest 1 and some saith it signifieth a thing which is common both to terminus à quo and terminus ad quem Secondly in the exposition of the word est is some for it is some for it is changed Thirdly some (a) Thomas saith the substance of the bread and wine returns to nothing some saith (b) The gloss of Gratian and the extravag de cōsecr dist 2 cap. Species c firmit extr de summa Trinitate it passes in the body of Christ Fourthly some saith (c) C. non oportet ibi gloss de consecrat dist 2. c. Cum Martha para verum eleemos the water in the Sacrament returns to nothing some saith it is changed in the blood with the wine some saith it is (d) Thomas 3974 art 8. turned in Christs vital humors some saith it is turned in the wine and after in the blood some saith (e) Durand lib. 4. cap. 42. they dare not define it Fifthly some saith (f) Thomas Epist 59. 3. quaest 79. the worms that are bred of the Sacrament comes of the quantitie other some saith (g) Durand lib. 3. cap. 41. they are bred of the substance Sixthly some saith Christ (h) Idem lib. 4. cap. 41. consecrated by the word he blessed some by the (i) M. Gilbert words This is my body and the blessing together some (k) Gloss in cap. Utrum in verbis perferri de cons dist 2. will have the consecration to be made in heaven and some frankly (l) Scotus in repor dist 8. qu. 2. confesses That they neither know the words nor the number of them whereby this consecration is made And to omit six hundred the like I will only touch these few (m) Gloss in l. tribus some saith The body of Christ is taken bodily with the mouth (n) Cajetan tom 2. cap. 2. 3. 5. some saith That it feeds (o) Gloss ibidem some saith As soon as it is pressed with the teeth the body of Christ is caught up to heaven (p) Durand rational lib. 4. But other some faith It passeth from the teeth to the heart and then the bodily presence ceases (q) Bonavent 4. dist 13. art 2. qu. 2. and other some will have him go to the stomack c. but not to the mind And yet he saith He doubts whither he goes to the belly or not for the variety of opinions and in so great variety he saith what to hold is hard to judge And suppose he holds it That the body of Christ goes not into the belly of a mouse or is casten out into the draught because saith he the ears of well disposed persons would abhor it and infidels and hereticks would jest at it and laugh us to scorn Yet sundry others holds as Alexander de Hales part quaest 45. Thomas Aquin parte 3. qu. 80. art 3. Antonius Archiepisc part 3. tit 13. cap. 6. That not only it goes into the belly but also Christs body may be vomited up or purged out in the draught and that brute beasts may eat Christs body it may go into the belly of dogs and swine O filthy mouthes unclean spirits what heretick what Capernait was ever so gross and carnal yea so barbarous and brutish as ye are So not only are ye more gross then the Capernaits who thought that saying hard but also like the barbarous Canibals who eat the flesh of man O blind leaders of the blind shal myce dogs and swine eat and drink the precious body and blood of Christ Shal they then have eternal life I think the ears of all Christians will abhor this your doctrine and their hearts will tremble at it These absurdities together with Scriptures and Fathers against the same hath made some of your great pillars to say as Fisher against the captivity of Babylon That no man can prove by the words of the Gospel that any Priest in these days doth consecrat the very body and blood of Christ And others as Lindanus Panop lib. 4. Canisius and Petrus a Soto supra citati That transubstantiation it but a tradition which hath not the author of it in the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same And others as Tonstal de Sacramentis That it had been better to have left every man to his own conjecture as they were before the Council of Lateran then to bring in such a question I have been longsome in this but yet it so behoved me because it is the foundation of their sacrifice of the Mass and their other idolatries and abominations So then to conclud this seeing your doctrine of Transubstantiation is agreeable neither to the doctrine of Christ nor his Apostles nor ancient Fathers nor your own Canon Law and Popes as they have been cited And seeing ye are at such variance among your selves concerning the same therefore it is to be rejected as heretical damnable and blasphemous by all Christians And this for the fourth point of your doctrine SECTION X. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass Master Gilbert Brown WE have only in our Church that heavenly action and sacrifice which we call the blessed Mass that our Savior did at his latter Supper and was (a) Levit. 2. per totum 6.20 prefigured by the Law of Moses and fore-spoken by the (b) Mal. 1.10 11. Isai 19.19.21 and 56.7 Prophets For Christ being the chief Priest of all Priests according to the order of (c) Genes 14.18 Psal 109.4 Heb. 7.3.17 Melchisedec in this action according to the order of (d) Heb. 9.12.13.14 Aaron upon the Cross took (e) Matth.
26.26.27 bread and wine and having given (f) Luke 22.19 thanks to his Father of heaven (g) Mark 14.22 blessed the same by the which (h) 1. Cor. 10.16 blessing and heavenly words he made them his body and blood as I said before and (i) Luke 22.29 gave or offered himself then for them that is for his And last of all gave the same body and blood to his Apostles to be eaten which we call to (k) 1. Cor 10.16 communicat And when he had done the same he commanded his Apostles and by them the lawful Pastors of the Church till the worlds end to do the same for the (l) Luke 22.19 remembrance of him And seeing that our Priests do the same as our Savior did how can M. John say that our Religion in this was not instituted by Christ Master John Welsch his Reply I come to another point of your doctrine concerning the sacrifice of the Mass which suppose ye call blessed yet is it most abominable idolatry as by the grace of God shal be made manifest And first concerning the word it self MASS you are of such variety of opinions among your selves concerning it that (a) As Doctor Bellarmin in his answer to Duplessis Mornay de Eucharist lib. 11. cap. 1. Genebrard in Liturg. S. Denis from the word MISSAH Deut. 16.10 that properly signifieth sufficiency but Bellarmin refutes this lib. 1. de Missa cap. 1. some of you saith it is taken from the Hebrew some (b) Bulinger ibidem from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies a secret sanctificatioÌ„ from the which comes mystery from the Greek some (c) As Bellarmin ibidem and sundry others from mitto missio or dimissio from the Latin and (d) Some because the sacrifice and prayers is sent to God in the same as Hugo de S. Victor de sacram lib. 2. part 8. cap. ult some saith it is called the Mass for one cause and (e) Some because an angel as they say is sent unto the same as Lombard in 4. sent dist 13. Thomas part 3. quaest 83. And some because the people is dismissed and sent forth as Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 1. some for another I will only speak this of it that it is usually taken by the ancient Writers for the dismission or skailing as we call it of the Church after the publick service was done to God as Bellarmin grants in the first acception of this word Mass And therefore in the end of your Mass the Deacon crys Ite missa est that is Go your way the Congregation is dismissed But now the Papists takes not the word in this sense for the skailing of the Church or dismission of the people after the service of preaching prayer and so forth but for that abominable sacrifice of theirs wherein as they suppone they offer up Christ his very body and blood in a sacrifice for the quick and the dead as M. Gilbert doth here And for this cause they call this sacrifice the Mass that is first sent from the Father to us that Christ his body and blood might be with us next sent from us to the Father that he may interceed and may be for us with the Father as Durandus lib. 4. ration divin testifieth But how can he be sent from them to heaven seeing he descends in the mouth stomack and belly of the Priest for to be sent down to the belly of the Priest to be sent up to heaveÌ„ are things contrary So by this stile of the Mass as they take it it is plain that either Christ descends from heaven in the earth dayly in the Mass which some of them grants also Turrian 1 tract cap. 11 fol. 59. which is contrary to an article of our faith That he sits at the right hand of hâ—s Father whom the heavens must contain until the time that all things be restored Acts 3.21 or else their Mass-Priests dust and ashes are the creators of their Creator which is a blasphemy Thus much now for the name of the Mass which all Christians should abhor according to that of David That he would not take the name of false Gods in his mouth Psal 16 4. For that word which is proponed by men for an Article of our Faith which is not found in the Scripture neither in proper terms nor yet in substance and by necessary consequence out of the same should be rejected by the Church of God as a profane and a bastard word But the Mass is such For it is proponed by the Church of Rome as an Article of our Faith and yet it is neither found in proper termes nor in substance nor by any necessary consequence out of the Scripture Therefore it should be rejected as profane and idolatrous by the Church of God This for the name Now to the matter This is one of the greatest controversies betwixt you and us concerning your sacrifice of the Mass which as ye account it most heavenly so we account it most abominable as that which injures the Son of God which derogats from his death and passion which is injurious to his everlasting Priesthood which is idolatrous vain needless and fruitless which hinders and overthrows the true service of God all which shal be made plain of it by Gods grace The matter of our controversie therefore is Whither Jesus Christ God and man his body and blood be personally and corporally offered up in your sacrifice of the Mass as ye call it And whither this your sacrifice be a propiciatory sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead This your Church affirms and holds and this we deny Now let us see your reasons first and then we will set down what reasons we have for us out of the Word of God to the contrary As to yours First ye say it way prefigured by the Law of Moses Next prophesied of by the Prophets And thirdly done and instituted by Christ our Savior and commanded by him to be done to the end of the world As to the first This sacrifice was prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Testament for the which purpose ye quote Levit. 2. and 6.20 Unto the which I answer That the sacrifices of the Old Testament were figures and shadows of that great and bloody sacrifice of Christ Jesus ones offered up upon the cross never to be offered up again as the Apostle saith Heb. 9.25.26.27.28 and of our spiritual sacrifices and service to God whereof the Apostle speaks in these places here cited Rom. 12.1 Heb. 13.15.16 The which also were fulfilled in that one and only sacrifice of himself upon the cross for the sins of the world and are fulfilled in our spiritual sacrifices of our selves and of the calves of out lips continually But that these were figures of your abominable sacrifice in the Mass there is not a syllable in the whole Scripture to prove the same For that which was prefigured
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
good heed what ground is in the institution for this their sacrifice for if they prove it not here it will never be proved by the Scripture You say therefore that Christ took bread and wine we grant that yet here is no sacrifice What then He gave thanks yet here is no sacrifice What next He blessed it Yet here is no sacrifice And whereas ye say that by this blessing and his heavenly words the bread and wine is changed in the body and blood of Christ that I have sufficiently as I hope overthrown already But to return to the words of the institution after the blessing of the bread which Luke expones by giving of thanks the text saith He gave What gave he but that which he took and had blessed And what took he and blessed he but the bread And therefore the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we bless c. So then it was bread which he gave and not his own body and blood corporally And unto whom gave he it The text saith unto his disciples both in Matthew Mark and Luke all with one consent Now that which was given to his Disciples was not properly offered up in a sacrifice for a sacrifice is an offering to God And the text saith here He gave it to his Disciples So there is not a syllable in the institution that can make for your pretended sacrifice You here corrupt the word of Jesus Christ wonderfully For first you expone by giving offering up in a sacrifice Next whereas the Scripture in Matthew Mark and Luke have but giving once refers this giving not to God but to the Disciples And he gave it to the Disciples you alledge here two givings the one to God which is your own invention whereof the Scripture makes no mention the other to the Disciples which is the form of a Sacrament and not of a sacrifice for a Sacrament is given to us a sacrifice to God So all the grounds of your sacrifice of the Mass is two the one is your devised transubstantiation so one error leans upon another the other is not the words of Christ And he gave it to his Disciples but your own words and your own exposition only And he gave or offered up himself then for them These are your own words and not the words of the holy Ghost So this sacrifice of your Mass hath not the words of Jesus Christ as Matthew Mark and Luke have set them down to be the ground of it but only your own words and your own interpretation For how dare ye be so impudent as to affirm that Christ gave it twise once in an offering for his Disciples and another time in a Sacrament to his Disciples seeing we will believe Matthew Mark and Luke the sworn pen-men of the holy Ghost who say only he gave it to his Disciples as a Sacrament and makes no mention at all that he gave it to God as a sacrifice Do you think the Lord will never take an account of you for such a manifest lie of the Son of God of his Scripture of his Apostles and holy Writers who writ it they all saying He gave it to his Disciples and you affirming beside that giving to them that he gave it that is offered it up for them O sinful man Who will venter the salvation of his soul upon so smal a threed yea upon so impudent a lie as ye make of the Son of God O repent or else you shal one day feel the fierceness of the Lords hot wrath and indignation upon your soul and carcass for evermore Leave off therefore to be the cause of the damnation of souls for you deceive them and makes them believe that this monstrous abomination of your Mass hath Jesus Christ to be the Author of it while it hath not so much as a syllable in the whole institution that gives so much as an inkling of it Are you wiser then the wisest of your generation Bellarmin who for all the arguments that he brings never so much as once gives an inkling of this your argument For he thought it was too plain a lie to affirm a double giving here out of the words of the institution and too absurd an exposition to expone He gave that is he offered it up And therefore he hath no such reasoning for his sacrifice of the Mass Yea that which ye think is plain out of the institution that Christ offered up his body and his blood in the Supper he saith That the action of offering cannot be easily distinguished and separated from the other actions which was done joyntly there together by the words of the institution Bellar. lib. 1. de missa cap. 12. fol. 669. And more plainly he saith That the Evangelists have not expresly said that Christ offered up himself unto the Father in the Supper lib. 1. de missa cap. 24. fol. 706. This is a plain speaking Now your sacrifice of the Mass hath no express warrant out of the institution of Christ if you will believe him whose controversies are allowed by the Pope to be printed But it may be ye thought that this your doctrine would have been swallowed up without further tryal therefore you regarded not what you writ You have stoln your self in such credit with the simple among you who are deceived and blinded by your lies that ye are not ashamed to be plain enough in speaking untruths lies of the Word of God But the Lord will recōpence this one day But now to return to the rest of the words of the institution as ye rehearse them And last of all ye say He gave his body and blood to his Disciples to be eaten He gave it spiritually and they did eat it spiritually and he gave them Sacraments of his body and blood the bread and wine corporally to them and they did eat them corporally suppose for a spiritual use and end For that which he gave they did eat he gave the bread and wine therefore it was bread and wine which they did eat and drink And therefore the Apostle saith plainly For whosoever shal eat of this bread c. 1. Cor. 11. He calls it bread that is eaten And our Savior saith Verily verily from henceforth shal I not drink of the fruit of this vine with you Matth. 26.29 That which he gave his Apostles to drink corporally in the latter Supper was the fruit of the vine so the Evangelists saith But Christs blood was not the fruit of the vine therefore it was not his his blood which they corporally drank but wine which was the fruit of the vine-tree I go forward And when he had done this ye say He cōmanded his Disciples that is the lawful Pastors of the Church to do the same for the remembrance of him to the end of the world That is true that which he did here he commanded to be done by his Disciples to the end of the world but never a syllable
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
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 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
the body and blood of Christ From time this was taught the people then what followed but all adoration and worship to be given to the Sacrament where Christ is really present Then how could it be but a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living seeing it was that self-same body and blood under the forms of bread and wine which was offered up upon the cross for the sins of the world The next was that of Purgatory for seeing say they that there is a fire of Purgatory after this life where through men must pass to heaven and seeing in these flames their sins must be purged therefore a remedy must be fore-seen and where is there a remedy to be found but in the sacrifice of the Mass where the Son of God is offered up that will relieve our souls after we are departed These will help the souls of our parents and friends that are there already Upon the which was founded the Masses and sacrifices for the dead and from thence came the most part of the donation of lands to the Churches to have Masses said for their souls So then to conclud the loss of the Communion in the Sacrament of the Supper Next the sanctification of the oblations of the people which at last was turned to that which the Priest consumed himself alone Thirdly the avarice of the Priests which bred their damnable doctrine that the Supper was not only a Sacrament but a sacrifice c. Fourthly the applying of the prayers conceived of the gifts of the people unto the round host and calice which the Priest consumed Fifthly the abusing of the word sacrifice which the Fathers and Church used Sixthly the publick and universal negligence and ignorance of Pastor and people Seventhly the confusion of languages And last of all their damnable doctrine of Transubstātiation and Purgatory These were the degrees by the which their abominable sacrifice hath been created nowrished entertained and perfected in that measure and strength that at the last it took such deep root in the hearts of all men almost that nothing could root it out except only the power of the Lords Spirit by the voice of his Word And yet this abuse was perceived by sundry whom the Lord stirred up as Arnold de Villanova anno 1200. and Albigenses and Waldenses in France who taught That the sacrifice of the Mass was a manifest abuse and that the Masses both for the living and the dead was directly contrary the institution of our Lord. And some of their own Doctors in their writings doth contradict this propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass as the Maister of Sentences distinct 12. lib. 4. de consecrat and Thomas of Aquin in summa part 3. quaest 83. 73. Lyranus in Epist ad Heb. cap. 10. affirming That Christ once died for our sins and that once oblation is sufficient for all our sins and that it cannot be reiterat and that the Sacrament is an ordinary memorial and representation of that only one sacrifice which was offered up upon the cross the which doctrine of theirs cannot stand with their dayly immolation and real oblations of the Son of God in their Mass And that nothing may be lacking to the manifesting of it we will show also the Authors and times of the entring in of the ceremonies of the same The mixing of water with the wine in the calice is ascribed to Pope Alexander the first de consecrat dist 2. Can. in Sacram. oblat anno 111. he also put to this clause to the Mass Qui pridie quam pateretur Secondly Sanct. sanct sanct Dom. Deus Sabaoth is put to by Pope Syricius the first anno 121. Thirdly Gloria in excelsis is put to by Pope Telesphore the first anno 139 Fourthly the singing of the Creed after the Gospel put to by Pope Mark the first and according to some by Pope Julius the first anno 335. Fifthly Pope Zepherin ordained that the wine should be put in glasses and Urban the first ordained that the vessels should be of gold or silver or at the least of tin anno 213. Sixthly Pope Felix the first ordained to celebrat Masses in the names of the Martyrs above their graves and relicks anno 267. Seventhly the offerture of the Mass is ascribed to Eutychian the first anno 270. Eightly the Kyrieeleison to Sylvester the first anno 314. Ninthly the celebration of Masses in linnen clothes to Eusebius and him also Tenthly the standing up at the reading of the Gospel to Anastasius the first anno 401. Eleventhly the blessing of the Pax. to Innocentius the first anno 405 dist 2. cap. Pacem Twelfthly the Antiphones the Introits and the Graduals to Celestin the first anno 427. Thirteenthly Orate pro me fratres Deo gratias sanctum sacrificium to Leo the first anno 444. Fourteenthly the nine-fold repetition of Kyrieeleyson and the singing of Hallelujah to Gregory the first anno 593. Fifteenthly the singing of Agnus Dei thrise to Sergius the first anno 688. Sixteenthly the incense and offerture restored by Leo the third anno 800. Seventeenthly their Transubstantiation invented by Lanfrancus an Italien anno 1036. decreed in the Council of Lateran in substance anno 1059. And made the 13. Article of Faith by Innocent the third anno 1215. Decret tit 1. de summa Trinit fide cap. Firmiter credimus I omit the rest as their Canon compiled by one named Scholasticus as Gregory witnesses lib. 2. 7. 9 and fundry other ceremonies So that between the first and last inventers and authors of their Mass it is more then a thousand years And thus much touching that abominable sacrifice of the Mass which is not the Lords ordinance but the invention of the Popes and Clergy of Rome Master Gilbert Brown I thought such like to have proved the ceremonies of this blessed sacrifice by the same holy Word but because it were something long some I have continued the same till another place SECTION XII Of the manifold abuses of the Mass Master John Welsch his Reply AS for your Ceremonies you did most wisely in rejecting the probation of them till another place and so to hold the Reader in the halfe as we speak because ye are never able to do it and it is good to delay to enterprise a thing that is impossible But how can you be so impudent as to write that you will prove the ceremonies of your Mass by the Scripture seeing the Mass it self hath not the warrant out of the same but contrary and repugnant to the same as hath been proved And I can scarcely think M. Gilbert that you have spoken this in earnest when you said you would prove the ceremonies of your Mass by the same holy Word which is the Scripture For what then will you say to the Council of Trent Sess 22. cap. 5. who referrs not the institution of them to the Lord Jesus in his written Word but to the Church by the unwritten traditions
body of Christ the bread which is a seal of his body but properly the body of Christ which whosoever receives receives not to death but to life seeing he is life and salvation it self The nineteenth is the blowing and mumbling of the Priests on the bread and wine their turning of their back to the people when they pronounce the words of consecration their so oft signing with the sign of the cross in their Mass 25. times their keeping and inclosing of Christs body as they suppone in a box their burning of candles before it The ordinance of Honorius the 3. confirmed by Pope Innocent the 4. de celebrat Miss Canon Sane de custod Euchar. cap. 1. their carrying of it in procession upon their solemn days which they call the Feast of God in their Temples Villages streets their carrying of it to the sick and diseased with these blasphemous words spoken by the Priest to the patient Behold my friend God your Creator which I have brought unto you Ordinance of Pope Urban anno 1564. What blasphemie is this And what a God is this that cannot come by himself but must be brought by another And what comfort can this God bring to the patient that cannot bring himself to the patient but as he must be born by the Priest What a mockery of God of his Word of themselves and of the poor people is this Do their Priests the thing that Christ did in the Sacrament Did he any of these things or commanded he them to be done Crossed he the bread and wine Did he blow and mumble the words upon it Commanded he the bread to be kept in a box to be carried in processions to be carried to the sick to burn candles before it What spirit hath revealed to you these things seeing the Spirit of Christ hath not revealed them in the Scriptures You must seek therefore for a new Gospel to prove these ceremonies for the Gospel of Christ makes no mention of them yea this keeping of the sacrifice it is forbidden by your own Canon Law de consecrat dist 2. cap. 3. Gradibus So ye both fight against the Scripture and your own Canon Law The twentieth abuse is their manifold stiles and titles that they give to their Mass which cannot be all agreeable to the same some taken from the persons in whose name and honor they are celebrat as the Masses of the Trinity of the Name of Jesus of his cross crown and five wounds of our Lady of the Angels of the Saints some taken from the persons and matters whereof they are said For there are sundry sorts of Masses for sundry sorts of persons and matters as one for the Pope another for the Emperor the third for the King the fourth for a man 5. for a woman 6. for the bridegroom 7. for the bride 8. for prisoners 9. for them that saills 10. for them that goes a voyage 11. for the dead 12. for him of whose soul there is doubt 13. for the pest 14. for the rage 15. for the tempest 16. for the fire 17. for all sorts of diseases both of man and beast And last of all some of their styles are taken from the diversity of times and seasons wherein they are said one sort of Mass for Summur another for Winter one for the time of Lent another for the time of flesh one for Christmas another for Pasch another for Whitsunday and other some for other Feast days Now these Masses are so diverse that the Mass that it said at one of these solemn times cannot serve for another the Mass for Lent cannot serve for the time of flesh the Mass for Pasch cannot serve for Christmas and so forth of the rest In the which there are many horrible abuses First if the Mass be one with the Supper as they say then as there is but one Supper of the Lord which is instituted only for the remembrance of CHRIST which is but one in general for all and whereof all the faithful are partakers of whatsoever rank they be be they great be they smal be they rich by they poor and which serves for all times For as our Savior did institut but one Baptism to serve for all persons and for all times so he did institut but one Supper to serve for all persons and all times If therefore the Mass were one with the Supper it should be but one for all persons and for all seasons But this diversity of Masses doth testifie that it is not the institution of Jesus Christ but the institution of Antichrist and that it is not one with the Lord his Supper as they falsly alledge Yea it doth testifie that they have forsaken the truth of God and are given over of God to believe lies and to be deceived by strong delusions that they might be damned Secondly what needs several Masses of the Trinity of the holy Spirit of the Name of Jesus For seeing the three persons of the Trinity are one and they all concurr in the work of our faith the Father giving his Son by his holy Spirit in the Word and Sacraments therefore this diversity as though the persons of the Trinity were separat is needless Thirdly this would be marked that suppose they have stiled their Masses from sundry persons yet they have not ascribed a singular Mass to Jesus Christ that it might be named simply the Mass of Jesus Christ and this no question is not without the providence of God that seeing the Mass is not the institution of Christ but of Antichrist not the ordinance of God but of Satan he would not that such a blasphemous and idolatrous invention should have the same stile to be called the Mass of Christ simply without any further addition as the Supper is called the Lords Supper Fourthly they have a several Mass to the Name of Jesus unto the which Boniface the sixth hath given pardon of three thousand years to them that say this Mass devoutly Missale Romanum as though his Name were a thing separat from himself and as though there were some special vertue in the syllables letters of that Name after the manner of Magiciens and Sorcerers Fifthly their Masses to his cross and crown is manifest idolatry in ascribing that which was proper to Jesus Christ to the tree whereon he hang and to the crown of thorns which he bure as though either they had redeemed us and not himself who was crucified on the tree or else that they were one with himself which are both blasphemy Sixthly their Masses to the honor of the Virgin Mary to Angels and Saints is manifest idolatry For the Supper was not instituted in the honor of any creature but only to the honor of him who did redeem us Seventhly wherefore serves any Mass for the Pope For if he be such a one as himself and his Church have written of him to wit That his will is heavenly that he may make something of nothing that
holy Ghost therefore who was the giver and preserver of it And as for the ceremony it was a sign of the presence of Gods Spirit in them who was lawfully ordained Now as to the second that ye will have it a Sacrament because it hath an external form and also a promise of grace That will not follow For then you should have innumerable Sacraments For prayer alms-deeds and the ordination of Magistrats and many others have external forms and have promises of grace joyned with them and yet you will not say that they are properly Sacraments For in all the Sacraments of the New Testament which properly are Sacraments there must be first not only an external action but an earthly and visible element as water in Baptism and bread and wine in the Supper And therefore Augustin saith in Joan. tract 90. Let the word be joyned with the element and then it is a Sacrament Secondly they must have their express warrant and institution from Jesus Christ in the Scripture as Baptism hath Matth. 28. and the Lords Supper Matth. 26. Thirdly they must not only have a promise of grace but a promise of remission of sins and sanctification For they must be seals of that Covenant which is common to all Christians as Baptism and the Lords Supper is But this ceremony of imposition of hands wants all these three For neither is there any earthly element neither seals it up the Covenant which is common to all but proper to the Ministery only neither hath it the express institution of Christ in all the four Evangelists And whereas in the 20. of John he there ordains his Apostles we read he breathed on them and said Receive the holy Ghost But not a word that he laid his hands on them or commanded them to use it to others The which without all question he would have done if he had ordained it to be a Sacrament And Petrus a Soto a Papist saith That the making of the imposition of hands to be a Sacrament is a tradition Therefore it is not a Sacrament properly of the New Testament Secondly if the ordination of any by imposition of hands were a Sacrament the ordination of a Bishop by the same especially should be a Sacrament For the place which ye quote here is of Timothy who was a Bishop as your Church affirms And Bellarmin saith de Sacramento ordinis lib. 1. cap. 5. If this be not a Sacrament then it cannot be proved by the Scripture that ordination by imposition of hands is a Sacrament And he saith If this be not granted they will lose all the testimonies of the Ancients to prove imposition of hands to be a Sacrament for they speak of the ordination of Bishops But the ancient Schollers and Doctors of your own Church in 4. dist 24. and Dominicus a Soto a learned Papist lib. 10. de justitia jure qu. 1. art 2. affirms That this is not a Sacrament properly and so neither the ordination of the rest of the Ministery can be a Sacrament seeing a Bishop is above the rest in your order Last of all the Council of Trent sess 23. cap. 2. 3. is not against it and sundry of the rest of your Clergy Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacr ord cap. 9. makes all the seven Orders of your Church as Priests which you distinguish in two sorts to wit in Bishops and inferior Priests Deacons Sub-Deacons Exorcists Lectors Door-keepers and your Acoluthyts every one of them by themselves Sacraments And your Master of Sentences lib 4 dist 24. cap. Si autem calls all the Orders in the plural number Sacraments So if ye durst let the people know the secret of this your doctrine ye make not only seven Sacraments but fourteen in very deed But this were dangerous to you to sowe abroad For you fear it would cast your doctrine in some suspicion with them and be an occasion to them to examine it by the Scripture the which if they would once begin to do ye know your hope were lost As for Calvin and Melancthon they call it a Sacrament taking the word in an ample sense for these ceremonies that have the foundation in the Word which have a promise of a blessing joyned with them and not in that sense that Baptism and the Lords Supper are called Sacraments as Calvin in that first place which ye quote plainly acknowledgeth For these are his words Let the Christian Church saith he be content of these meaning of Baptism and the Supper and let them not admit nor acknowledge desire or look for any other third Sacrament till the end of the world And as for imposition of hands which the Church useth in their ordinations he saith I will not be against it that it be called a Sacrament so being I reckon it not among the ordinary Sacraments And Melancthon in that same place reckons up prayer alms marriage the Magistrat in the number of these unto the which he gives this name of a Sacrament whereby he makes it plain that he takes this word Sacrament amply and largely as hath been said before and not in that sense that Baptism and the Supper is called Sacraments So you play your self M. Gilbert in the ambiguity of this word Sacrament and deceives the Reader with the same And whereas ye call your Priests the only lawful Ministers now adays I will answer to this more fully afterward only this now First seeing the fountain and ground upon the which all the lawful callings in your Church depends and is derived as your selves confess is the supremacy of your Pope whom I have proved to be the Antichrist in my other Treatise and seeing the office of your Priesthood in sacrificing the Son of God as ye suppose is most abominable idolatrous and Antichristian as I have proved also there therefore you are not only not lawful Ministers of Christ but the Ministers of Antichrist And as for the style of Priest I answered it before it is not so much as once ascribed to the Ministers of the Gospel to signifie their proper calling in the whole New Testament SECTION XVI Concerning Matrimony and whither it be a Sacrament Master Gilbert Brown EIghtly our doctrine is that Matrimony is a bond undissoluble because our Savior saith That which God hath joyned together let no man separat Matth 19.6 And such like he saith That whosoever demits his wife and marries another commits adultery upon her Mark 10.11.12 And in S. Luke 16.18 we have the same And S. Matthew 5.35 19.9 is of the same opinion albeit one may put away his wife by him for fornication this is the doctrine also of the Apostles of Jesus Christ for it is written in S. Paul That a woman that is under a husband her husband living is bound to the law but if her husband be dead she is loosed from the law of her husband Therefore her husband living she shal be called an adulteress if she be with another man
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
Acts 2. and Thomas of Aquin 3. part quaest 52. art 1. 3. two great Papists and yet Bonaventure in 3. distinct 22. quaest 4. and Bellarmin lib. 4. de Christo cap. 16. affirms the contrary That his soul was in the place of pain and yet suffered no pain Next Thomas of Aquin affirms 3. part qu. 52. That Christ descended only into that place of hell called Limbus Patrum but Bellarmin saith It is more probable that he went to all the parts of hell And this is the consent which you Papists have among your selves not only in this point but almost in all the points of your doctrine Now as to the places of Scripture which ye quote they serve nothing to this purpose For the 2. of the Acts it speaks of that bondage of the grave which kept him under until he rose again and therefore the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth death and not hell as ye translate it here and Peter saith whom God raised up The Apostle speaks then of that part of Christ which had fallen and was raised up but it was the body only and not the soul which fell down and was raised up therefore he speaks of the sorrows of death whereby his body was kept in bondage and not of any local descension of Christs soul As for the places of the Psalms which ye quote here Peter brings them not in to prove this local descension as ye say whereof he makes no mention but to prove his resurrection as he saith in the 31. verse most plainly He knowing this before speaking of David spake of the resurrection of Christ that his soul should not remain in grave neither his flesh should see corruption So if ye will believe the Spirit of God in the Apostle interpreting these places they speak of the resurrection of Christ and not of the delivering of the soul out of hell for he was in Paradise as he saith himself and it is the body that was raised and not the soul And the Hebrew word is NEPHESCH which not only signifieth the soul but also the life as Gen. 37.21 Let us smite his soul that is take away his life And it signifieth also the body of the dead wherein there was life as Levit. 21.1.11 And this word Hell is SCHEOL in Hebrew which most usually is taken in the Scripture for the grave So then the meaning is this The Lord will not leave his Nephesch that is the body wherein his life was in Scheol that is in the grave which speech is usual in the Scripture Now as to the other Psalm 29.3 it is spoken properly of David where he thanketh God who had saved his life from the hands of his enemies which by a borrowed speech frequented in the Scripture is called the delivery of his soul from the grave As for the 4. of the Ephesians these lower parts of the earth is not Hell as ye expone it but the earth it self which in respect of the world is the lowest part and so it is taken in the Psalm 139 15. where David saith Thou hast fashioned me beneath in the lower parts of the earth where here it is not taken for Hell as you take it in that place of the Ephesians otherwise ye must say that David was born in Hell which I suppose ye will not say So hereby is meant then the lowest and basest degree of his humiliation So now to conclud this neither in these points M. Gilbert nor in any point of doctrine wherein ye differ from us is your doctrine agreeable to Christs doctrine and his Apostles as hath been I hope proved sufficiently You must therefore provide you for better weapons and armor and stronger defences for the overthrow of our doctrine and uphold of yours then ye have done otherwise your shots will be but as shots of paper and your bulwarks but of intempered morter which suddenly will rush down at the light of the truth of God The Lord open your eyes to see the truth and suffer you not to continue any longer to cause the blind go out of the way as you have done Amen SECTION XX. Concerning the difference betwixt Popery and the Reformed Religion Master John Welsch ANd our Religion which we profess and all the particular heads of it was instituted by Jesus Christ and his Apostles which I offer me also to prove either by word or writ against whosoever will plead the contrary The which if I fail in I will be content to lose my life therefore by his grace Master Gilbert Brown There is much promised here but nothing done and it is a thing impossible to him to do For why the difference chiefly that the Protestants differ from us is in denying abhorring or detesting as may be seen in their Confession of Faith which they compel all men to swear and subscribe As we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God upon the Church the civil Magistrat c. except such things were expresly contained in the Word of God M. John Welsch his Reply As for my promise and performance I answere◠〈◊〉 that before and whither that be a thing unpossible 〈◊〉 or not let this my answer be a tryal thereof You are bold enough indeed in affirming it to be impossible but what have ye for you You say because the difference chiefly that we differ from you is in denying and abhorring What a raison is this Can we not prove our Religion out of the Scripture because we deny yours which is contrary to the same Is it impossible to prove the truth because falshood is denyed and abhorred What new Logick or Divinity is this I would never have believed that ye had been such an unskilful reasoner if your self had not bewrayed the same And certainly your Church is not beholden to you For if your reason hold forth it will follow that it is impossible to you or any man else to prove the heads of your Religion by the Scripture For in your Confession of Faith and form of abjuration set down by the Monks of Burdeaux anno 1585. there they deny and abhor the Protestants and their doctrine and compel all men who desire the fellowship of the Roman Church and their absolution to abjure renounce and subscribe the same But I suppose your Church will not allow this manner of reasoning of yours And whereas you say that the chief difference wherein we differ from you is in denying and abhorring c. of your Religion I ask you Doth not our Religion differ as far from yours as yours doth from us This you cannot deny For are not two contraries equally different one from another Doth not light differ as far from darkness white from black Christ from Antichrist as darkness from light black from white and Antichrist from Christ And are not yours and our Religions contrary one to another But your self will not deny and Bellarmin confesseth in
not himself of his own righteousness but knows himself to be misterful of true righteousness sola autem fide in Christum justificatum and to be justified only by faith in Christ Ambrose in cap. 3. ad Rom. cap. 4. 9. saith They are justified by faith only through the gift of God And in the 4. chapter he hath thrise by faith only sola fides And in the 9. chapter also Sola fides posita est ad salutem that is only faith is appointed for salvation Chrysostome in homil de fide lege naturae saith The thief believed only and was justified And in homil 3. ad Tit. If thou gives credit to thy faith wherefore brings thou in other things as though faith only were not sufficient to justifie Augustin it is a known saying of his lib. 1. contra duas Epistolas Pelag. cap. 21. Works go not before justification but follow him who is already justified And in another place How vertuous soever ye report the ancient righteous to have been yet their vertue saved them not but the faith of the Mediator August de fide operib cap. 14. Cyrillus Alexandrinus lib. 10. in Joan. cap. 18. saith Man by faith only sticks in Christ inhaeret Christo Theophylactus in comment ad Galat. cap. 3. saith Only faith hath in it's self the vertue of justifying Bernard serm 22. in Cantic in the 1200. age saith Man being justified by faith only shal have peace towards thee What more plain now could the Fathers speak of Justification by faith only which you will not deny The Reader may learn how much credit is to be given to you who so boldly affirmed that neither Scriptures nor Fathers said with us against you I hope they will try you before they trust you in time to come For dare you say M. Gilbert that I have fained here ought of these Fathers and have not brought in their own words speaking Deny it if ye dare Be not so impudent and shameless M. Gilbert in your untruths and lies again for by this ye will both discredit your self and your Religion As for the 2. of James which ye quote here that by works a man is justified and not by faith only I answer This word to be justified is taken in the Scripture two manner of ways First to be accounted righteous before the tribunal of God and in this sense only a lively faith apprehending the death and righteousness of Christ justifies us and of this is the controversie Next it is taken for a declaration of ones righteousness as in the 3. of the Romans vers 4. That thou may he justified in thy words that is declared to be just when thou judges And in this sense it is taken in this place So that this is the meaning of it Ye see then by works man is justified that is declared by his works to be just and not by faith only that is by the profession of his faith in Christ So then James speaks not of our Justification before God which is by faith only but of the declaration of our righteousness before men which he calls Justification and that for these reasons 1. Otherwise James should be contrary to Paul who saith That a man is justified by faith without works which is blasphemous to think therefore James speaks of our Justification before men whereby our Justification before God is declared and made manifest 2. The scope of the whole chapter and whole Epistle testifies the same For his purpose is to cast down the arrogancy and presumption of such who bragged of their Faith as though the bare profession that they believed in Christ were sufficient to save them suppose they did not bring forth the fruits thereof Therefore the Apostle takes this in hand to prove that they are not justified by a dead faith but only by that faith which brings forth the effects thereof And therefore he saith in the 14. verse What availeth it my brethren when a man saith he hath faith when he hath no works can that faith save him And in the 18. verse Show me thy faith out of thy works and I will show thee my faith by my works And because it may be ye say this is my commentary therefore hear how one of your own great and chief pillers Thomas of Aquin in Jacob. 2. expones the same from whose judgement I hope ye will not appeal Here he speaks saith he of works that follows faith not according to that sense wherein Justification is said to be the infusion of righteousness but according to that sense that Justification is called exercitatio justitiae the practise or declaration and confirmation of righteousness So if ye will believe him Justification here is taken not for our justification before God but for the declaration of our righteousness And so the ordinary Gloss in Jacob. 2. exponing that place writes Abraham was justified without works by faith only but nevertheless the offering up of his son was a testification of his faith and righteousness What can be more clearly spoken by any Would you have more then this So then this place of James speaks not of our Justification before God and therefore serves not to prove this your doctrine As to the 2 of the Romans v. 13. It is true it is not the hearers of the Law but the doers of it which are justified if rhere were any who had fulfilled it But the Apostle concluds in the 3. chapter all under sin both Jew and Gentil and therefore gathers that by the works of the Law no flesh is justified And so we will leave this to you to do that also in the 19. of Matthew spoken to the young man Do the commands c. And as for the rest of the testimonies I wonder to what purpose ye have quoted them except for to make a show of Scripture and testimonies For they speak only of the necessity of good works which as they cannot be separat from true faith so no man can attain to salvation without them because where ever Christ dwels by true Faith not only he justifies them but also sanctifies them and makes them fruitful in good works The which we grant and therefore do urge the same continually knowing for a truth that without holiness no man shal see God Heb. 12.14 and that the ax is laid to the root of the tree and that every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shal be hewen down and cast in an unquencheable fire Matth. 3.10 They speak not therefore of the efficient or formal or instrumental cause of our Justification but of our sanctification with the fruits thereof and therefore serves not to prove the controversie that is in hand As for Augustin his testimony as you corrupt the Scriptures so do ye his testimony also for this was the opinion which was risen up in the Apostles days as he testifies there for these are his words That some thought that faith only was
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
let us read why do we strive Ireneus saith lib. 4. contra haeres cap. 63. That the lawful exposition of the Scripture which hath no peril with it is according to the Scripture themselves What can be more plain M. Gilbert And I ask you further Would you have vs to ascribe more to the interpretation of the Fathers then the learned of your Church do As Cajetan a Cardinal in Praefat. in Comment in lib. Mosis and Doctor Andradius the first saith That God hath not tyed the exposition of the Scripture unto the exposition or sense of the Fathers If God hath not bound it as he saith why then should we bind it Wherefore there he desires the Reader Not to mislike it if sometimes in the expounding of them he fall into a sense agreeable to the text though it go against the stream of the Fathers If he speak truth then that sense that is agreeable to the text suppose it be against the stream of their expositions is to be received and preferred before them And Andradius that learned man saith That the Fathers spake not Oracles when they exponed the Scriptures but might therein be deceived Defens fid Trident lib. 2. And he saith more That the oversights of the translation which they followed must needs cause them sometimes to miss the meaning of the holy Ghost And yet you would have the sense of the Scriptures to be decided by them who sometimes have missed the meaning of the holy Ghost And he concluds in the end That the holy Ghost is the only and faithful interpreter of the Scriptures Thus the fairest flowers of your garden and chiefest pillers of your Faith have written So that if they speak true whom I know not if ye will presume to contradict the exposition of the Scripture is not tyed unto the exposition of the Fathers and it is lawful to go with the text against the stream of their expositions And whereas you say if I will be as good as my word the matter will soon be ended I am glad of it if you think as you speak My word was M. Gilbert as your self hath written it that there be very few points of controversie between us wherein I will not get some testimonies of sundry Fathers of the first six hundred years proving with us against them meaning your Church And I desired any man to set me down any weighty point of controversie one or mo and he should have the proof of it These were my words Now ye say if I will be as good as my word the matter will soon be ended Whither I have been as good as my word in this or not let the Reader judge And I appeal your conscience M. Gilbert before the Lord in the great day whither it be true or not For not only in that example of Justification which ye cast in but almost in all the heads which are debated among us I have brought in sundry testimonies of sundry Fathers with us against you Yea I have been better then my word in that For I have brought in testimonies of sundry that lived after the six hundred years and not of these only but also testimonies of sundry of your own Doctors Jesuits Cardinals Bishops Canons Councils and Popes proving with us in some points against your selves I look therefore M. Gilbert that ye shal be as good as your word and that the matter shal end here between you and me For both you have said that the matter would soon end if I were as good as my word and also ye have promised and subscribed with your hand to reform your Religion in all things wherein it is not conform to their testimonies The which if you do then must you renounce the supremacy of your Pope the sacrifice of your Mass your Transubstantiation your Justification by works your Merits of works your perfect fulfilling of the Law of God your erroneous opinions that the Church cannot err that the Scripture should not be Judge with sundry others For in all these I have brought the testimonies of sundry Fathers and in some of them the testimonies of your own Doctors Councils Canons and Popes with us against you Either therefore take shame and falshood for ever more upon you or else keep your word and your writ which ye have subscribed here and reform these points of your Religion As for that calumny wherewith ye charge us to have taken away a great part from the Scripture I know you mean the Apocrypha which bears not the mark and stamp of Gods Spirit as being neither written by Prophets nor yet the most part of them in the prophetical language the Hebrew tongue wherein all the Old Testament was written except some things of Daniel and Ezra which were written in the Chaldaick language which was known then to the Jews nor yet received as Canonical by the Church of the Jews which your (a) Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 10. Church will not deny Nor yet acknowledged Canonical by the testimonies of sundry (b) Melito lib. 4. cap. 26. Euseb Origen lib. 6. cap. 25. Euseb Athan. in synop Hilar. in prolog explan Psalm Cyrill in 4. catechis Ruffinus in expos symboli Hieron in prologo galeato Fathers (c) Synod Laodicen Canon 59. confirmed by the Council Trullan Councils and of your (d) Greg. Mag. in comment in Jobum lib. 19. cap. 16. Hugo Cardinalis in prolog Josuae Cajetan Cardinal in fine comment Hester Arias Montanus who was present at the Council of Trent in aeditione quadam Hebraicorum Bibliorum interlinearium interpretationum selves also Papists of great name some rejecting all some more some fewer containing also many things repugnant to the truth of God set down in the Canonical Scripture Last of all wanting that majesty of Gods Spirit which so evidently shines in the Canonical Scripture And therefore most justly say we that ye underly the curse of God pronounced in his Scripture Rev. 22.18 for the adding unto the holy truth of God And look to it M. Gilbert what you will say to your Cardinal Cajetan who hath denyed sundry Books and parts of the Canonical Scripture in the New Testament Master John Welsch Now if the first thing I offer me to prove be sound of verity that is that our Religion is that self-same and no other then that that Jesus Christ preached and his Apostles and theirs is not so but devised by the man of sin and that Antichrist that whore of Babylon then the plea is won But if I prove the second also then I hope they will never open their mouth to speak evil of the truth of God as though it were but a new Religion M. Gilbert Brown When M. John proves the thing that he is not able to prove we shal do the thing that we are not able to perform but it is a wonder of him to put in so many ifs and doth nothing to the matter For it is a true
saying in Philosophy that a conditional Proposition proves nothing It appears he hath been in haste that he might not have leasure to (a) I proved all that was required at my hands prove any head for example of his promise For we understand that M. John is a man who may err as many man hath done before by his judgement and therefore he must have no (b) I desire no credit without warrant as your Popes and your Church do of her disciples credence of us except he bring his warrant and ye shal be (c) M. Gilbert is once beguiled for this is performed sure that he is never able to perform his sayings Master John Welsch his Reply This my Reply I hope satisfies for answer to this section SECTION XXIII Concerning the Visibility of the Church and whither the Visible Church may make defection Master John Welsch THirdly I answer The Spirit of God fore-tels that when the Antichrist shal come the defection shal be universal and all Nations shal be drunken with the wine of her fornication M. Gilbert Brown Where this is written M John tells not For I am sure as it is set down here there is no such thing in our Bibles no not in their own corrupted Bibles except they have augmented them of new That there shal be an universal defection it is altogether repugnant to the Word of God as I have shewed before in proving the Church always to continue For the same place where I believe he alledges to hath these words And it was given unto him to make war with the Saints and to overcome them And power was given him upon every tribe and people and tongue and nation and all that inhabit the earth adored it whose names be not written in the book of life of the Lamb Rev. 13 7.8 Here any man may see that the Saints of God that shal be persecute by the Antichrist such that is written in the book of life shal not make defection then it shal not be an universal defectioÌ„ And also M. John afterward in finding some of his Religion that said against the Antichrist the Pope the time bygone is contrary to himself here that the defection shal not be universal And where he saith that all Nations shal be drunkâ—n with the wine of her fornication the text is otherwise Because all Nations have drunken of the wine of the wrath of her fornication that is that the people of all Nations that have obeyed her shal be punished with the wrath of God and not that all the world should make defection M. John Welsch his Reply You fight against your own shadow M. Gilbert and whereas ye can find nothing justly to quarrel in my words being rightly taken and taken as the Scripture takes them you devise a meaning of your own brain and would father it upon me that ye may the more easily have somewhat to speak against For I neither spake it nor meant it that the elect should make defection in the time of the Antichrist I am so far from it that suppose I believe assuredly that this prophesie is fulfilled in your own Church yet I know assuredly that the Lord reserved his own elect to himself who was kept free from your Idolatry as he promised Rev. 14. and Histories record of some whereof I did set down some of their names But this is the doctrine of one of your own Church Dominicus a Soto in lib. 4. sent dist 46. quaest 1. art 1. who believed it assuredly That the faith of Jesus Christ and Religion should be utterly extinguished through the persecution of the Antichrist if Bellarmin speak true of him lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 17. And so turn the point of your sword M. Gilbert upon your own brother who so taught and not upon me who is far from it And if ye will say wherefore then called I it universal I answer Because the Scripture calls it a defection without any addition or restraint and your Rhemists grant That this defection shal be a revolting of Kings People and Provinces and the publick intercourse of the faithful with the Church of Rome shal cease And that the dayly sacrifice shal be abolished most universally throughout all Nations and Churches of the world by Antichrist himself Annot. upon 2. Thess 2. And Bellarmin saith lib. 3. cap. 16. That he shal be Monarch of the whole world Therefore this Kingdom by your own confession shal be universal and seeing his Kingdom is an apostasie or defection for as many as shal obey him shal make defection from the faith therefore by the doctrine of your own Church it must be an universal defection And the Scripture saith expresly That he shal make all both smal and great c. to receive a mark on their right hand and on their fore-heads and that no man may buy or sell c. and that all Nations have drunken of the wine of the wrath of her fornication Rev. 13.16 and 14.8 and 18.3 Now whither I might call that universal which the Scripture calls all and your Rhemists and Bellarmin makes so general and universal that it shal possess all the Kingdoms of the earth let the Christian Reader judge And let me ask you M. Gilbert Do you not believe that the Church is Catholick or Universal And do you not think with one of your own number to wit Costerus a Jesuit in Enchirid. that the Church is called Universal because the faith of the Church is scattered in all Nations and yet for all this all particular Nations and all particular men receives not this faith and yet notwithstanding it is Universal and is called Universal still And doth not the Scripture prophesie that in Abraham all the Nations shal be blessed Gal. 3.8 and yet for all this there were and is millions of the Gentils that are not blessed in him Why then in like manner may not the defection in the time of the Antichrist be called universal although the elect be exeemed from it But wherefore insist I to refute this vain quarrelling of words which serves to no purpose So then this that I said is both in your Translation and ours in substance and is not contrary to that which I said afterward As for that place of Scripture which ye cite here Rev. 3.7 8. it is not spoken here of the Antichrist but of the persecution of the Roman Emperors As for that calumny of yours in calling our Bibles corrupted and augmented this is your sin M. Gilbert whereof one day ye shal make an account to the Majesty of God for the slandering and bearing false witness of the truth of God And to speak the truth this is true of you For both you have added to the Scriptures of God first the Apocrypha next your traditions which your Church hath decreed to be received with equal reverence and godliness with the Scripture Concil Trident. sess 4. thirdly the Decretal Epistles of your Popes which
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
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
Image of these who were first authors of their Orders 2. The Basilidians worshipped Images Irenaeus lib. cap. 23. and used invocations so do you 3. Carpocras had some painted Images in great estimation both of others as also of Christ Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 3.24 So do the Papists paint Christ and say that his form was painted by Luke the Evangelist 4. The old Idolaters did excuse their Idolatry that they did not worship the Images but the thing represented by the Image August in Psal 113. in con 2. Lactant lib. 2. cap. 2. So do you excuse your Idolatrie 5. It was the custom of the old Idolaters to afflict and whip their own bodies that they might please their own Gods Iren. lib. 1. cap. 21. So do some of you now 6. It was their custom also to light candles at noon day in the time of their service Iren. lib. 6. cap. 2. So do you 7. Basilidians and Carpocratians kept secret their doctrine counting all other men dogs and swine Iren. lib. 1. cap. 23. Epiph. haeres 24. So do you keep secret your mysteries from the common people and will not suffer the Scriptures to be read of all lest say ye precious pearls be cast before swine 8. Marcosij they spake some Hebrew words in Baptism to astonish and affray the hearers Iren. lib. 1. cap. 18. But you are worse who in all your service speak nothing but an unknown language and that say you to make their mysteries to be had in greater reverence 9. The Heracleonits anointed their dead with oyl balm and water superstitiouslie August de haeres cap. 16. Epiph. haeres 36. and so do you 10. Marcion and the Pepuzian hereticks permitted women to baptize Epiph. haeres 42. au ad quod vult cap. 27. So do you 11. The ossenes taught that it was not needful that prayers should be made in a known language Epiph. haeres 19. ante Christum So do you and therefore your prayers are in Latin 12. The Messalians affirmed Baptism only to serve for the washing away of the sins going before it Theodoret. divin decret cap. de Bapt. So do you 13. The Tatians and sundry other hereticks affirmed marriage impure Epiph. haeres 46 So doth your Pope Siricius in their Priests Gratianus Epist. 82. cap. Proposuisti 14. The Manichees damned marriage in their elect and perfect but suffered it in the rest August Epist. 74. So do the Papists in their Priests and religious men they damn it but they do tolerat it in the laicks and yet the Spirit of God calls it A doctrine of Devils to forbid marriage 1. Timothy 4.1.2.3 15. The Manichees they had the Communion under one kind So doth the Papistical Church The Council of Constance so decreed it against the Scriptures with these hereticks Such like their Fasting and your Fasting is alike For they made choise of meats and abstained from flesh but yet used their delicats and so do you 16. The Manichees affirmed there was two beginnings so doth Augustinus Steuchus a Papist in sua Cosinopoea in principio Genes where he saith That the crystallin heaven is coeternal with God The which if it be true then certainly it is God For that which is without beginning is God and so there are two Gods If Calvin or any of us had written such how would heaven and earth have been filled with cryes against us 17. Montanus an heretick received the whole Scripture but yet he denyed that it contained all doctrine needâ—ul to salvation Epiph. haeres 48. So doth the Papists And from this error springs their traditions their ceremonies infinit in number partly Jewish partly Ethnick 18. This Montanus was the first who prescribed certain laws of fasting the Scripture appointing no such thing Apollo apud Euseb lib. 5. cap. 17. So doth the Papists their fastings are upon their prefixt and set days 19. Montanus taught that smal faults was to be suffered for after this life neither was the souls to be delivered from the prison till they had payed the utmost farthing Tertull. de anima in fine So doth the Papists also 20. Such like the doctrine of the Montanists was that Abrahams bosome was beside Hell or in the uppermost part of Hell 21. That the Patriarcks before the coming of Christ were in Hell 22. That only the Martyrs souls go immediatly to Paradise 23. That prayers and oblations should be made for the dead 24. That extream unction should be given after Baptism 25. That the sign of the Cross should be used as testifieth Tertullian in lib. de animo de coron milit All which your Church hath renewed 26. Helcesaitae made two Christs one above another beneath So doth your Church make two Christs one in heaven having a true natural body with his own essential properties in a certain place visible another in earth made of the bread and wine with all the essential properties of a true body invisible in the Sacrament 27. Sampsaei kept the dust of the feet and the spittle of two women which they worshipped as Goddesses which they affirmed did serve to cure diseases and which they used as amulets Epiph haeres 53. haeres 19. ante Christum So doth your Papistical Church keep the relicks of Saints worship them and carry them about as serving either to preserve or to recover health The like also was the superstition of the Ossens 28. Cathari gloried in the merit of their works and affirmed that they were made righteous with an inherent righteousness Isid etymol. cap. 8. de haeres Christ. The Papistical Church in this heresie goeth beyond them for both they glory of their works and affirm that we are justified with an inherent righteousness 29. The hereticks called Angelici and also the Caini they worshipped Angels Aug. ad quod vult cap. 39. Epiph. haeres 38. So do the Papists 30. The hereticks called Apostolici admitted none in their number but those who vowed wilful poverty and chastity August de haeres cap. 40. Epiph. haeres 61. So the Papists admit none to their religious Orders but such who vow both 31. There were some hereticks who went bare-footed August ex Philastrio quorundam cap. 68. So do the Franciscan Friers and those who are called Coâ—digeri 32. The Donatists denyed that the true preaching of the Word was a note of the pure Church and therefore Augustin in sundry places calls them back to the Scriptures So doth your Church 33. The Collyridians worshipped Mary and therefore they are called Idolaters by Epiphanius haeres 74. So do the Papists 34. Armenij worshipped the Cross of our Lord and therefore they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is worshippers of the Cross Epiph. in Panoplia So do the Papists 35. The Pelagians affirmed Adam would have died suppose he had not sinned So doth Augustinus Steuchus a Papist of great name in his Annotations upon the 2 of Genesis He saith Death is natural and sin is not the cause of
proper to Jesus Christ only To be the head the spouse and foundation of his Church to be that corner stone that precious stone and that proved stone to be that rock of offence to be the Sun that gives light to his Church to be the Prince of Pastors and to have all treasures of wisdom and understanding hid in him and to have all power in heaven and earth given him and to have the fulness of power Epa. 5.23 Col. 2.8 Eph. 1.21.22.23 Isa 28.16 and 8.14 Matth. 21.41 Malach. 3.20 Matth. 28.18 2. Pet. 5.4 Col. 2.3 But all these things the Popes of Rome have arrogated to themselves as is manifest by these places before quoted Bellarmin in praefat de sum Pontif. lib. 1. ceremon tit 7. de majorita cap. Unam sanctam de constitut cap. licet In sexto de translat cap. Quanto in glossa Yea he hath not left so much unto Christ as his style but it is ascrived to him For Bernard writing to him saith Tu es unctione Christus that is Thou art Christ c. de consider ad Eugenium yea he hath claimed a greater power to himself then ever we read that Jesus Christ the Prince of glory and the Lord of life used as to deliver damned souls out of hell and make them Saints in heaven that as many as pleases him Clement 6. Papae Bulla So not only hath he made himself equal in authority in office in styles with the Prince of glory the Lord Jesus but also he hath lifted up himself above him And that there may be nothing wanting to make it manifest that he is this Antichrist as though it had been too little to him to have lifted up himself above all powers in heaven in earth in hell and to have matched himself with the eternal Son of God both in works styles and offices and to arrogat a greater power then ever he did exercise He hath matched himself with the majesty of the Godhead claiming to himself these things which are only proper to the Godhead De translat cap. Quanto As the Popes will is for reason He hath an heavenly arbitriment he changes the nature of things Of nothing he makes something He may depose and set up in Kingdoms whom he will He hath an absolut jurisdiction that no man may say to him wherefore dost thou this He may liberare ex toto sicut ipse Deus that is absolve a man from the whole as God may do Yea that he may do all that God may do except sin the key not erring Panormitan de elect cap. licet ab All which things are only proper to the majesty of God And as he hath matched himself with the majesty of God himself in his judgement will and power so doth he claim to him the self-same worship and adoration which is only proper to God This worship is only proper to God To fall down before his feet and to adore him and therefore Satan craved it of Christ and he refused to give him it And John would have given it to the Angel but the Angel refused it Wherefore did Christ refuse to give it and the Angel refuse to receive it Rev. 22.8.9 Matth. 4.9.10 but because it was written The Lord thy God thou shalt worship and him only shalt thou serve But that worship which the Devil craved to be given to him and which the Angel refused as proper only to God that doth the Pope claim to him and receive from others as his own Archbishops and Canon Law and men of his own Religion do testifie Antonius saith 3. part sum tit 22. cap. 5. printed Lugduni 1516. He receives adorations prostrations that is worship and falling down before his feet which saith he the Angel refused to receive of John Steuchus saith de donat Constant p. 141. Constantin the Emperor worshipped the Pope as God and gave unto him divine honors and worshipped him as the lively image of Christ And Blondus saith Lib. 3. inst Romae that all the Princes of the world worship the Pope ut summum Deum as the most high God And Joannes Faber saith Praefat. in institut the Pope calls himself by words the servant of servants but yet he permits himself to be worshipped which the Angel in the Revelation refused And Frier Mantua saith Cujus vestigia adorat Caesar aurato vestiti murice Reges Whose feet meaning the Popes or footsteps Caesar and the Kings of the earth adore or worship And yet lest any should doubt whither he be the Antichrist or not he is not only made equal with the majesty of God in power arbitriment and adoration but also the very Godhead it self and the very style of the majesty of God is ascribed to him Aventinus saith Lib. 7. the Popes of Rome earnestly desire domination Divinitatem divinity or Godhead And de electione it is said That he is taken up in the fellowship of the invisible Trinity Cap. Fundamento in Sexto And Baldus saith The Pope is a God in the earth And the common voice of the Canonists is Dominus Deus noster Papa that is the Lord our God the Pope Canonist extra Joan. 22. cap. Cum inter in glossa And he is called by his Doctors Optimus Maximus most good in grace most great in power Stapleton in praefat in princ fid doct And Aventinus saith that it is written in his fore-head Deus sum I am God And Gomesius saith Vict. in tom 4. Hieron praefat the Pope est quoddam numen a certain Godhead showing himself to be a visible God in the earth And in the Council of Lateran one saith to the Pope Tu es alter Deus in terris Thou art another God upon the earth And the Tridentin chapter calls him Terrenum Deum an earthly God And his Canon Law saith It is manifest that the Pope was called God by Constantin dist 96. cap. Satis evidenter What needs more He must be blinded by God that sees not the Popes to have lifted up themselves above all that is called God and is worshipped But yet I say further He hath lifted up himself above the majesty of God First in making that to be Gods word that is not Gods word in decreeing the Apocrypha to be Canonical Scripture And his Canon Law reckons in the decretal Epistles among the Canonical Scriptures of God distinct 19. in Canonicis Now what is this but to prefer his authority to the authority of God He denies forgiveness to them that break his law but he sells the break of Gods law for money It is certain that there is no redemption out of Hell 2. Tim. 2.13 and yet the Popes of Rome claim that authority to deliver souls out of Hell and to make them Saints in heaven It is impossible to God ex injustitia facere justitiam to make wrong to be right because the Scripture saith He cannot deny himself and he cannot lie Heb. 6.18 But the Popes Canonists
that the Jesuit Varadius wrote to Barerius Non posse ab aliquo fieri ullum magis meritorium opus quà m si Regem intersecerit That there could not be a more meritorious work then for him to kill a King Cresuel in his Philopat sect 2. num 160. 162. affirmeth That subjects may not only lawfully dethrone heretical Princes but also are obliged by divine precepts yea even upon the greatest hazard of their souls His words are Obligati sunt subditi ad Principos haereticos depellendos hujusmodi Principes suos non tantum legitimè possunt deturbare sed etiam ad hoc praecepto divino ac vinculo arctissimo ac-extremo animarum periculo tenentur But let us hear what H. T. replyeth First saith he art 7. p. 100. What this or that particular Doctor may hold or the Popes flatterers if he have any adds nothing to the creed of Catholicks nor is it justly chargeable on the whole Church Answer Sir if you had not the whores fore head that refuseth to be ashamed ye could not write so for this is so well known to be the commonly received doctrine of your Church that Cresuel Eudem ingenuously confesseth it For Cresuel plainly avoweth That it is the universal opinion of your Divines and an article of your Faith that any Prince who openly maketh defection from the Roman Catholick Religion and would withdraw others from the same doth presently fall from all his power and dignity by vertue both of Divine and Humane law and that before any sentence of the Pope and their subjects are all free of any obligation of oath to obedience and they ought to cast such a man out of their dominions as an Apostat lest he infect others Now lest ye think we wrong him not citing his words faithfully we shal set down his own words Universa Theologorum Schola tenet est certum ac de fide quemcunque Principem Christianum si de Romano Catholica Religione manifestè deflexerit alios avocare voluerit excidere statim ab omni potestate dignitate ex ipsa vi juris divini ac humani Hocque ante omnem sententiam Pontificis subditos quoscunque liberos esse ab omni juramenti obligatione quod de obedientia praestitissent posséque ac debere hujusmodi hominem tanquam apostatam ex dominatu eficere ne alios inficiat Cresuel Philop. num 37. Likewise Eudem affirmeth Apol. cap. 3. Non est propria Jesuitarum sed totius Ecclesiae quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta nostra doctrina That this is not the peculiar doctrine of the Jesuits but of the whole Church of Rome received from ancient times 2. But if the testimony of these two Doctors be not sufficient I hope the infallible judgement of two Popes è Cathedra will abundantly convince that this is the doctrine of the Romish Church The first is Pope Urban who Can. 23. quast 5. Can. excommunicatorum saith We esteem them not murderers who being possessed with the zeal of their mother the Catholick Church against these that are excommunicat shal happen to kill any of them The second is Pope Sixtus the fifth who when he heard that King Henry the third of France was killed by the Monk he went to his Consistory where before his Cardinals at Rome Sept. 11. 1589 he had a Panegyrick Oration which he began thus Animo meo saepe c. When I pondered in my mind and was intent upon the thoughts of these things which lately have fallen out by God providence I thought I might make use of that of the Prophet Habakkuk There shal be a work done in your dayes which none shal believe when it shal be told The King of France is dead by the hands of a Monk for to that may the words of the Prophet be rightly applyed c. a brave application of Scripture indeed And a little after We with grief truly did often fore-tell that as he was the last of his family so he should have an unusual and shameful end See more of this Oration cited by learned Hornbeck contra Bullam Pap. Innocent 10. Now can any Papist for his heart disown this treasonable doctrine which the Pope approveth except he disown his faith and Religion For doth not the faith and Religion of Papists depend on the Popes decrees so strongly and with such a spirit of delusion that he can make the most pestilent doctrines pass with them for Evangelical truths and the most abominable actions for patterns of holiness For Bellarmin expresly affirmeth and no Papist that I heard of did ever disallow it That if the Pope did err in commanding vices or prohibiting vertues the Church should be obliged to believe that vices are good and vertues evil unless she should speak against conscience Bellarm. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. And that in good sense Christ hath given to Peter the power to make sin to be no sin and that which is no sin to be sin Bellarm. contra Barclay cap. 31. We can dissent from the most eminent in our Church when they hold any thing contrary to the Word of God but so cannot Papists do with the Pope whom they acknowledge to be infallible 2. But let us hear what H. T. saith further We saith he abominat and detest that doctrine to wit that if the Pope excommunicat an heretical Prince it is lawful for his own subjects to kill him For it is defined by the Council of Constance and therefore of faith with us that it is heretical to affirm it lawâ—ul for a subject to kill his Prince upon any pretence whatsoever Sess 15. Ans O matchless audacity For doth not the Bulls and Dâ—cretals of your Popes the Writings and Disputations of your Doctors and your actings and practises prove you a liar Yea if there were no more then the Acts of the Parliament of Paris who condemned the Books of Bellarmin Suarez Mariana Santarella c. to the fire and banished the Jesuits the Kingdom it were sufficient to convince you of falshood 2. Whereas ye say that the Council of Constance hath declared the doctrine of King-killing heretical it is a mere forgery For your great Doctor Suarez who did write fifteen Volumes of Divinity saith to King James of famous memory that the Council of Constance forbiddeth not the killing of a King excommunicated by the Pope His words are Ubi legit Rex in Concilio Constantiensi particulam illam Principis per Papam excommunicati vel deprivati aut illam per suos subditos aut alios quoscunque The truth is the case propounded to the Council by Gerson was not about the murdering of Soveraign Princes but about the killing of a great Officer of the Crown who ruleth tyrannically and exalts himself above his King For John Duke of Burgundy who had killed Lewis Duke of Orleans pretended him to have been a Tyrant of that kind So then Tyrants are declared inviolable