Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	church_n	reason_n	1,519	5	4.9993	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65422	Popery anatomized, or, A learned, pious, and elaborat treatise wherein many of the greatest and weightiest points of controversie, between us and papists, are handled, and the truth of our doctrine clearly proved : and the falshood of their religion and doctrine anatomized, and laid open, and most evidently convicted and confuted by Scripture, fathers, and also by some of their own popes, doctors, cardinals, and of their own writers : in answer to M. Gilbert Brown, priest / by that learned, singularly pious, and eminently faithful servant of Jesus Christ M. John Welsch ...; Reply against Mr. Gilbert Browne, priest	Welch, John, 1568?-1622.; Craford, Matthew. Brief discovery of the bloody, rebellious and treasonable principles and practises of papists.	1672 (1672)	Wing W1312; ESTC R38526	397,536	586

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

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 cōtroversies 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 w●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

themselves but also may communicat of the superabundance of their merits unto others Malvenda in disput Ratisb cum Bucero omnes fere Scholastici Now is it possible that these men who so lift up themselves in the conceit of their own righteousness can have the knowledge and sense of their misery And as for this full assurance of faith without doubting they call it Presumption And as for the fruits of holiness without the which no man can see God let their fruits of their vow of single life among their Clergy and forbidding of marriage which the Scripture saith is the doctrine of Devils bear witness whereby innumerable abominations murders adulteries whoredoms have been committed in their Cloysters and Nunneries as their visitation doth testifie And in a fish pond there was found six thousand childrens heads which moved Gregory to revoke that determination of his upon this reason that it was better to let them marry then to give such occasion of murder as appeareth by an Epistle of Hulderick Bishop of Ausburgh written to Pope Nicolas the first And Pope Pius the 2. saith that marriage was taken away for some reasons but it should be restored again for greater This is ascribed unto him And as for true prayers which should be in the Spirit with sighs and sobs that cannot be expressed Rom. 8.26 in a known language with words of understanding that men may say Amen to them in stead of this they teach vain repetition and babling in prayers 1 Cor. 14. as though God were served by reckoning up their mutterings so many Avees so many Pater nosters upon a pair of beads They teach to pray in a strange language which is a sign not to them that believe but to them that believe not which cannot edifie nor build up no not the tower of Babel it self suppose it be a tower of confusion So by their doctrine they have spoyled Christ of his spiritual government in the hearts of his own by the work of his Spirit And as for the outward government by the Word Sacraments and Discipline they have both spoyled him of it and also have deprived the people of God of these means whereby their faith may be wrought nowrished and confirmed in their hearts For as for the Word beside their corrupting of it what by Apocrypha what by traditions what by the commandments of the Church what by their corrupted translation and their false interpretations they have starved the people of God for the want of them in keeping them up in a strange language and reading them out so in their Assemblies in a strange language so that the people may have eyes and not read them ears and not hear them minds and not understand them because they are kept up in a strange language And therefore sundry of our predecessors have been accused and burnt by them for reading parcels of them being translated in the vulgar language And as for the Sacraments they have increased the number of them by adding other five unto them they have impaired them of their vertue corrupted them with errors polluted them with ceremonies and have spoyled the people of the fruit of them by reason they are ministred in a strange tongue and they have turned the Sacrament of the Supper in a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead They have taken away the sign of the Sacrament They have abolished the humanity of Christ by their monstrous transubstantiation They have taken away the Communion which should be in the Sacrament by their privat Masses and they have spoyled the people of a sweet pledge of their salvation in taking away the cup from them by their lamed communion under one kind And as for the discipline of Christ they have renversed it also the order whereof according to the Scripture is that the Church of Christ be governed by his own Ministers and his own laws set down in the Word for the salvation of his people Numb 3.10 Heb. 5.4 Ephes 4.11 Exod. 25.30 Matth. 28.20 1. Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.12 all which they have taken away And first concerning the Ministers of Christ Pastors Doctors Elders Deacons which is given of God for the work of the Ministery and building up of the body of Christ they have removed them from the government of the same and have set up other Office-bearers as Legats Cardinals Primats Patriarks Archbishops Lord Bishops Chanons Parsons Vicars Archdeacons Priests Abbots Provincials Popes Inquisitors Commissioners Officers Procutors Promoters and the innumerable rout of their Monks Friers Jesuits whose Sects and Orders as they have been reckoned by some extends to an hundred and one all different in Ceremonies and Orders one from another all unknown in the Scriptures of God and transformed the government of the Church of Christ into a visible Monarchy and Kingdom of the Romans as it is named by Turrian a Jesuit de Eccles ordinar Minist lib. 1. cap. 2. And the Popes having set themselves in the room of Jesus Christ the King of his Church have not only tumbled out Christs Officers and set in their own of whom they exact an oath of obedience to them but have lifted up themselves above the higher Powers Kings and Magistrats as shal be spoken hereafter Claiming to themselves both the Swords and authority to give and to take Kingdoms at their pleasure exacting an oath of obedience of them making them their vassals and tyrannizing over the Church of God And as they have shut out the Ministers who should rule the Church of God so have they shut out his Laws whereby it should be ruled For this new Prince the Pope hath shut out the Canon of the Scripture from being a rule to govern his Kingdom and in stead thereof hath set down his Canon Law Decrees Decretals c. which decretal Epistles Gratian the gatherer of the Canon Law would have reckoned in the number of the Canonical Scriptures Distinct 19 in Canonicis And to what end doth he use these laws Not to further the salvation of Gods people but to satisfie his own if yet a horse-leech might be satisfied and his Courtiers insatiable covetousness ambition and lust For this cause he hath taken in his own hand the election of Bishops from them to whom it belonged For this cause he hath not permitted the causes of the Church to be debated where they rose as equity reason and peace would he should have done But he hath removed them thence to be heard at Rome what by reserving of causes to himself what by appellations what by exemptions And for the same cause he hath committed the feeding and guiding of the flock of Christ to brute and beastly creatures in giving the charge and commodities of the Church to whom he would by presentations preventions reservations translations provisions permutations and commendations How hath he wasted and seized upon the Church goods with his pensions and first fruits and appropriations so that he hath been cryed out upon

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 Cai●tanus Hesselius and Jans●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

oblation after the consecration I leave the rest of their contradictions so that seeing they have no concord among themselves neither in the matter nor in the form nor in the effect nor in the substance nor in the circumstances of their pretended sacrifice but that the Lord as is said in Hosea hath divided their hearts therefore their Mass must perish And seeing the Lord hath sent such a confusion among them that they understand not the language one of another some saying one thing some another therefore it is Babel the tower of confusion which they are building and not the house of the Lord. To conclud this they will have their sacrifice not a creature but a Creator of all creatures and therefore they worship it with the worship of latria which by their own doctrine is only proper to God Turrian 1. tract cap. 17. Antonius de Padua ex Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 8. Therefore they sing after the consecration It is not bread but God and man my Savior And yet they say That this Creator both begins to be where he was not before after the consecration and ceases to be where he was before and that he is not every where as God is Scarga art 5. fol. 335. Turrian tract 1. cap. 21. And they say That the Priest makes Christ his body of the bread in the Sacrament and Christ the King is made of bread Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. fol. 399. Pope John 22. lib. orat inscrip Antidotarius animae in Breviario missalibus Qui creavit me sine me creatur mediante me he that created me without me that is the Priest is created by my moyen that is he makes that God that made him Now how can he be the true God and a true Creator which hath a beginning and ceases to be which is not every where as God is which is made of bread and wine by a Mass-Priest and that by their own doctrine How therefore shal their Church be cleared from abominable idolatrie that worships that which they call God Creator and Savior and yet such a God as by their own doctrine hath a beginning and ending and is not every where and is made of bread and wine by dust and ashes O! wo be to their souls that worship God which made not heaven and earth and causeth others to do the same And how shal their Mass-Priests be cleared from sacrilegious blasphemy which vaunts that in their Mass they dayly creat their Creator and that of bread and wine and so makes themselves Gods and more then Gods For God created but creatures but they as they suppone creat the Creator And as they worship a false Creator in their Mass so do they worship a false Christ and Savior in the same For the Scripture saith That the true Christ is made of the seed of David of the seed of the woman Rom. 1.3 Gal. 4.4 and not of any other substance But the Christ which they offer up in their Mass by their own doctrine is made of bread and wine and that by the Priest So Bellarmin confesseth ibidem and Pope John 22. ibidem For the one saith That it is no absurd thing to the Priest to make Christ his body of bread And the other saith That Christ the King is made of bread Therefore they worship not JESUS the son of Mary who was made of the woman and of the seed of David but a false Jesus made of bread and baken in the oven and formed by the Priest Therefore of all Idolaters they must be the most blasphemous and abominable And thus much for the Mass SECTION XIII Concerning Confession and Absolution by the Priest Master Gilbert Brown FIfthly our doctrine is that the lawful Ministers and Priests of the Church of Christ have power given them by Christ to forgive and to retain sins because Christ saith to his Apostles Receive ye the holy Ghost whose sins ye shal forgive they are forgiven them and whose sins ye shal retain they are retained John 20.23 And in another place That ye may know saith Christ that the Son of man hath power in earth to forgive sins c. Matth. 6.9 and 16.19 and 18.18 with sundry other places conform to the same And this is denyed by the Protestants Master John Welsch his Reply As for the fifth point of your doctrine that the lawful Ministers of Christ have power given them by Christ to forgive sins and to retain them If you mean that they have this power as Gods Witnesses Ministers and Embassadors yea and Judges too For the Apostle saith We judge them that are within to testifie and to declare to judge and give out judgement according to Gods Word not only by the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments joyned therewith but also by the censures and discipline in excommunicating the obstinat impenitent and absolving the penitent If I say your doctrine be this then you injury us in saying we deny it and you needed not to have quoted these places to confirm the thing which we both teach and also practise But what is the cause ye would not quote the place where we deny this doctrine But if you mean that the lawful Ministers of Christ have an absolut power and full authority not as Ministers and Witnesses only but as Judges and Lords over our Faith to forgive or retain by their own authority and that the very pronouncing of the words of absolution is the cause of remission of sins and that it so scattereth the sins and makes them to evanish as the blast of wind extinguishes the fire and scatters the cloud as Bellarmin saith Controv. Tom. 2. If you mean so this we utterly deny un-you and all men because it is only proper unto God The which the Jews suppose they were blinded did acknowledge and so not so blind as ye are For it is only God that forgives in Jesus Christ Matth 9. It is only his death that hath merited it and only faith that apprehends it and only his Spirit that seals it up and the Word and Ministery that declares testifies and confirms it For the Apostle saith He hath committed to us the word and ministery of reconciliation and we are in his stead to beseech men to be reconciled to God 2. Cor. 5.18.19.20 So we are but Ministers of this Augustin is plain in this Homil. 23. It is the Spirit saith he that forgives and not you meaning of the Ministers and the Spirit is God it is God therefore who forgives and not we There is one argument God only forgives sins therefore not man And again What is man but a sick man to be healed himself Wouldst thou be a Physician to me with me seek the Physician thy self Here another argument He cannot be a Physician to others who needs a Physician himself Further he saith He that can forgive by man can also forgive without man for he may as well forgive by

Sacrament of the union of Christ and his Church And yet our new Confession detests the same and will have it but a bastard Such concord is betwixt Christ his Apostles and our new preachers of the Gospel and also among themselves M. John Welsch his Reply The ninth point of your doctrine is you will have Marriage a Sacrament of the New Testament and that properly and that according to the institution of God unto the which the promise of the grace of justification is annexed so Bellarmin lib. 1. de matrim cap. 2. and the Council of Trent saith But mark Christian Reader their ground of this their doctrine They say the bond of marriage among infidels may be broken but say they the bond of marriage among the faithful cannot be broken And they make the cause of this difference to be this because the marriage of Christians is a Sacrament So they reason Marriage among Christians is a Sacrament therefore say they it cannot be broken But what is their principal ground now whereby they prove marriage to be a Sacrament Because say they the marriage of Christians is a bond indissoluble therefore it is a Sacrament which hath the grace of Justification joyned with it So mutually one error upholds another Upon the which I reason If the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery then it cannot be a Sacrament this your Church grants because they make that the ground of this but the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery as hath been proved before both by the Scriptures and also by your own Canons Councils Doctors and Popes therefore marriage is not a Sacrament Secondlie in the Sacraments of the New Testament there are earthly elements as the water in Baptism the bread and wine in the Supper and an express form of words prescribed in the New Testament as in Baptism I baptize thee c. and in the Supper This is my body c. Matth. 26. They have their express institution by Christ in the same and have the promises of remission of sins and justification annexed to them But none of these things are to be had in marriage First no earthly element next no form prescribed in the Word of God thirdly no express institution of it as of a Sacrament fourthly no promise of the remission of sins and salvation annexed unto it Therefore it cannot be a Sacrament of the New Testament properly Thirdly if marriage were a Sacrament and such a Sacrament that signified and gave the grace of justification with it that is remission of sins then wherefore should your Church forbid all your Clergie from the same And wherefore should ye abstain from that Sacrament which is instituted of God to give remission of sins to you and to make you acceptable to God as your doctrine saith Bellarmin lib. 1. de matrim cap. 5. pag. 67. Why should ye deprive your self of that thing which may place you in Gods favor and purchase to you remission of sins as ye say marriage may do it is a token that either ye believe not your own doctrine or else prefers whoredom and adultery which is condemned of God to marriage which is Gods ordinance and honorable among all men Fourthly I say if the marriage of Adam and Eva in Paradise and the marriage of all the Patriarchs and Prophets and Priests and people in the Old Testament was not a Sacrament neither is the marriage of Christians in the New Testament a Sacrament For they were symbols that represented our spiritual conjunction with Christ as well as the marriage of Christians in the New Testament doth the which you will not deny And Pope Leo saith Epist 92. That marriage was instituted from the beginnning that they might have in themselves a Sacrament of Christ and his Church but the first you grant your selves was not a Sacrament therefore neither is the second a Sacrament Fifthly that which is filthiness and pollution cannot be a Sacrament to give forgiveness of sins but Pope Syricius calls marriage pollution and uncleanness Dist 82. cap. Proposuisti c. Plurim 8. Therefore it cannot be a Sacrament if he speak true Sixthly if marriage be such a Sacrament as ye say to give remission of sins then it should be more excellent then virginity because virginity hath not this promise but this ye will not grant therefore it is not a Sacrament Last of all Durandus a great Doctor of your Church saith Ut Capreolus refert in 4. dist 26. quaest unica artic 3. That marriage is not properly a Sacrament As for that place in the fifth of the Ephesians which ye quote where the Apostle saith This is a great mystery speaking of the mutual du●ies of man and wife I answer first he calls not marriage this great mystery but that band of our conjunction with Christ as he expones himself This is saith he a great mystery and then he subjoyns I speak of Christ and his Church Secondly suppose the old Interpreter doth translate this word mystery a Sacrament yet you know if you know the Greek language that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called a secret Thirdly will you have all these to be Sacraments properly which are called mysteries in the New Testament and which the old Interpreter and your Rhemists translats Sacraments then shal you not only make marriage a Sacrament but also the chief articles of our faith 1. Tim. 3.16 and the Gospel Col. 1. Eph. 3 1. 2. Thess 27 and the seven stars in the Revelation chap. 1.20 and the whore o Babel and the iniquity of the Antichrist Rev. 17 5 all Sacraments For they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and some of them are translated Sacraments by the old Interpreter and your Rhemists as marriage is I wonder that ye quote Melancthon as though he were of your opinion seeing Bellarmin acknowledges plainly lib. 1. de matrim cap. 1. 5. that he denyes it to be a Sacrament properly as Baptism and the Lords Supper is but only grants that it is a Sacrament in some respect But you regard not what ye write so being it may carry any show against us The same we answer to you of Zuinglius and Merchiston They call it a Sacrament but not in that sense that Baptism and the Lords Supper are called Sacraments taking the word improperlie and more amply as Bellarmin confesses of Melancthon So here is no discord neither betwixt us and Christ neither among our selves But in very deed you are they who are at discord both with Christ and among your selves For beside this that Bellarmin and Innocentius calls the marriage of the Gentils Sacraments because you may answer that they call them Sacraments improperly as Melancthon Zuinglius and Merchiston calls marriage a Sacrament improperly So if they be at variance with us for calling marriage a Sacrament so is Bellarmin lib. 1. de sacram matrim c. 3 and Pope Innocent cap. gaud de divort at variance with your

sufficient to obtain salvation without works neglecting to live well and to hold the way of God by good works and being secure of salvation which is in faith had not a care to live well as he saith And in the end of that chapter he concluds the whole matter saying How far therefore are they deceived who promise to themselves everlasting life through a dead faith The which error we condemn also with you For we acknowledge the necessity of good works as the fruits of a living Faith but not as the efficient formal or instrumental cause of our justification SECTION XXII Concerning the Authority of the Fathers M. Gilbert Brown FUrther I say since the difference chiefly in Religion betwixt us and them is about the understanding of the Word of God * Not we M. Gilbert but one of the chief pillers of your own Church Cajetan a Cardinal which was sent in Germany against Luther the Popes Legat who saith in plain words That the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doth gather insufficient arguments to prove Christ to be the Son of God that the 2. and 3. Epistle of John is not Canonical Scripture that the Epistle of Jude is Apocrypha that the last chapter of Mark is not of sound authority that the history of the adulterous woman in S. John is not authentical and of S. James Epistle that the salutation of it is profane albeit they deny a great part of the same to us what is the cause that they will not abide the tryal of the ancient Fathers of the first six hundred years seeing that they were of his Religion as he affirms If he be as good as his word the matter will be soon ended And if our Religion be not sound consonant to theirs in all things wherein they differ from us we shal reform the same Master John Welsch his Reply You said a little before M. Gilbert that the chief difference wherein we differ from you is in denying abhorring or detesting c. Now you say that the difference chiefly of Religion betwixt us is about the understanding of the Word of God How well these two agree let the Reader judge It is no wonder suppose you dissent from your brethren as I have proved in sundry points before seeing ye dissent from your self It is true indeed that many of our controversies are about the right sense and understanding of the Scripture but yet if Petrus a Soto Lindanus Peresius Canisius all great and learned Papists speak truth the most part of the weightiest and chiefest points of your Religion which are in controversie between us are but unwritten traditions which have not their beginning nor author in the Scripture and cannot be defended by the same And whereas ye would have us to refer the controversies about the sense and right meaning of the Scriptures to be decided by the writings of the Fathers of the first six hundred years we receive their monuments and writings gladly but yet so that we put a difference between them and the writings of the holy Ghost in the Scripture For as I have proved sufficiently before as I hope that only the Scriptures of God have this prerogative to be the supreme Judge of all controversies in Religion and no other and the best way to learn the sense of the Scripture is by the Scripture it self for seeing all the Scripture is inspired of God therefore it ought to be exponed by God in the same For he who made the Law can best interpret the Law And the Levits practised this in the Old Testament who exponed the Scripture by the Scripture Nehem. 8.8 and the Apostles in the New Testament who taught nothing but that which the Prophets said should come to pass Acts 26.28 And if a Father yea a Saint yea if an Angel would preach beside that which the Apostles preached let him be accursed So then nothing can be a warrant to us of the truth of the sense of the Scripture but the Scripture it self And as for the Fathers expositions as they may not be Judge as hath been said because they may err and have erred as hath been proved and your selves will not deny and they dissent oftentimes one from another in the exposition of the same So let their expositions be taken in so far as they agree with the Scripture For would ye have us ascribe that unto them which they themselves have refused and have ascribed unto the Scriptures only Hear therefore what Optatus the Bishop of the Church of Milevitan a learned man who lived about the year of God 369. saith writing against the Donatists who claimed to themselves only the title of the Church of Christ as ye do They called for a Judge he brings the Testament of Christ for a Judge and speaking to them of a point of Religion that was controverted whither one should be twise baptized or not He saith You saith he affirm it is lawful we affirm it is not lawful between your say it is lawful and our say it is not lawful the peoples souls do doubt and waver Let none believe you nor us we are all contentious men Judges must be sought for If Christians they cannot be given on both sides for truth is hindred by affection A Judge without must be sought for If a Pagan he cannot know the Christian mystery If a Jew he is an enemy to Christianity No Judge therefore of this matter can be found in earth A Judge from heaven must be sought for But why knock we at heaven when here we have his Testament in the Gospel Optatus lib. 5. contra Parmenianum And he renders a reason of this in that same Book Christ saith he hath dealt with us as an earthly father is wont to do with his children who fearing left his children should fall out after his decease doth set down his will in writing under witness and if there arise debate among the brethren they go to the Testament He whose word must end our controversie is Christ Let his will be sought in his Testament saith he Augustin in Psal 21. expos 2. urgeth the same reason of Optatus against the Donatists We are brethren saith he to them why do we strive Our father died not untestate he made a Testament and so died Men do strive about the goods of the dead while their Testament be brought forth When that is brought forth they yeeld to have it opened and read The Judge doth hearken the Counsellers be silent the Cryer biddeth peace All the people is attentive that the words of the dead man may be read and heard He lyeth void of life and feeling and his words prevail Christ sitteth in heaven and is his Testament gain-said Open it let us read We are brethren why do we strive Let our minds be pacified Our Father hath not left us without a Testament He that made the Testament is living for ever he doth hear our words He doth know his own word

some of you have reckoned in the number of the Canonical Scripture Gratianus dist 19. Alphonsus de genero in thesauro Christ Relig. cap. 3. num 5. And also you have corrupted the Scriptures of God by your corrupt translation especially that of the Colledge of Rhemes The which to be true if time would serve I might soon be able to prove which hath been sufficiently proved by that learned and worthy man of God Doctor Fulk unto the which you nor all your Clergy have not answered as yet for ought I know nor never is able to do And as for the last point wherein ye say that the text is otherways then I set down let the Christian Reader judge whether my words be one in substance with this text or not For suppose this be set down in the preterit-time and I spake it in the future time yet it is a prophesie of a thing to come and your Church grants it is not fulfilled yet therefore they are both one in substance And as for your exposition where you expone this of the punishment of the people that have obeyed her and not of their sin in communicating with her Idolatry that is manifestly against the text For this is set down here as the cause of her punishment which is pronounced before in these words Babylon is fallen c. Now the reason because all Nations have drunken of the wine of the wrath of her fornication whereby in the Scripture is signified Idolatry and it is called the wine of the wrath c. because her fornication provoked God to wrath And Aretas exponeth this fornication a defection from every good And in the 18. chapter it is more evident where after the denunciation of her fall this reason is subjoyned Because all Nations have drunken of the wine of the wrath c. and the Kings of the earth have committed fornication with her and the marchands of the earth are waxed rich through the aboundance of her pleasures The which as they cannot be understood of the punishment but of the defection so this drinking cannot be understood of their punishment but of their communication with her Idolatrie And yet however it be this proves that universal defection of the which I spake Master John Welsch And the Church of God shal be latent and flee to the wilderness and there lurk and be fed of God all that time secretly Master Gilbert Brown It is a wonder to hear the Word of God abused not only with false expositions repugnant to the words self but also alledging the word falsly For the text of S. John hath but this for he notes no place because he knowes it may not abide a tryal And the woman fled unto the wilderness where she had a place prepared of God that there they might feed her a thousand two hundred and threescore dayes Here there is no word that she shal be latent nor lurk nor be secret And if M John will mean that the fleeing to the wilderness is nothing but to be invisible and to ly secret then it must follow that the whore of Babylons self must be invisible and secret For the same S John saith And the Angel took me away in spirit into the desert and I saw a woman sitting upon a skarlet colored beast full of names of blasphemy having seven heads and ten horns This word desert signifies more properly to be secret or invisible then the word wilderness It is true appearantly that if this woman signifie the Church of Christ that in the time of the Antichrist she shal be redacted to a smal number as it were in a wilderness and shal not possess every Nation as she had wont to do but that she may be made invisible and not to be seen there is no true Catholick that expones it so And such like this time shal be but short that is for 1260. dayes as the text saith which is but three years and an half And if M. Johns Church had been but so long invisible we should have dispensed with the same But it hath been invisible these thousand years as it is now professed in Scotland and much more as young Merchiston hath in his book upon the Revelation chap. 12. vers 14. M. John Welsch his Reply All that you can find fault with here is this that I said the Church in the time of the Antichrist should be latent and lurk and be fed secretly the which hath stirred you up in such a choler that you have cryed out with admiration that I have abused the Scripture c. Now tell me M. Gilbert whither is it because these same words are not found in the Scripture or because the doctrine it self cannot be warranted by the same If the former then I say you are but a quarreller about words And all the doctrine which ye have set down in this your answer is not set down in so many termes in the Scripture and yet ye will have it to be the doctrine of Gods Spirit suppose it be not so So it sufficeth that this which I said be warranted by the Scripture suppose the same termes be not found If the other then I say beside other places of Scripture this same place which ye quote here confirmes the same For know ye not that the wilderness is a place of refuge and secrecie from the tyranny of their pursuers And they that flie to the same they flie to lurk there and to be kept close and secret from the rage of their persecuters for the safety of their lives So while it is prophesied That this woman whereby is signified the Church which suppose ye conditionally expone so yet Sanderus 40. demonstrat one of your own number expones it to be the Church without all doubt shal flie in the wilderness from the face of the dragon and that for her safety and there be fed c. Is it not then manifest that she shal be secret and lurk then and not be so open and visible as she was before And if this be an abuse of the Scripture then not only your self hath abused it but also sundry of your own Church as the Rhemists Bellarmin and Sanderus For your self saith That in the time of the Antichrist she shal be redacted in a smal number as it were in a wilderness and shal not possess every Nation as she had wont to do For what is this else but to lurk and be latent and to be fed secretly in comparison of that estat wherein she was before And therefore the only thing that I inferred on this in the end was that no man should think that the Church of God was ever open and visible in such a flowrishing estat as it is now And the Rhemists annot in 2. Thess say That in the time of the Antichrist this great defection or revolt shal be of Kingdoms People and Provinces from the open external obedience and communion with the Church of Rome So