old heresie in the very time of the Apostles Maister John Welsch his Reply As for this calumny of yours the tryal of it will come in afterward therefore I refer the answer of it to that place And whereas you say that you know not whom I call Fathers either your malice makes you to dissemble your knowledge in this or else palpable must your ignorance be And where you say that Ireneus Cyprian c. and the rest of the holy Fathers are no ways with us against you and that I will not be able to prove it I have not only proved that already in sundry heads of our Religion but also that sundry of your own Popes Cardinals Doctors Bishops Councils and Canon Law have been with us in sundry points of our Religion which we profess against that which ye profess And as for that example of justification by faith only which ye cast in which is one of the chief grounds of our Religion This I will prove both by the Scripture and by the testimonies of the Fathers of the first six hundred years Our doctrine then concerning Justification is this That as our sins was not inherent in Christ but imputed to him 2. Cor. 5 21. which was the cause of his death so his righteousness whereby we are accounted righteous before God is not inherent in us but imputed to us and therefore the Scripture saith that he is made of God unto us righteousness 1. Cor. 1.30 Next the only instrument that apprehends and as it were takes hold of this righteousness of Christ is a lively Faith which works by love and brings forth good fruits so that neither is Faith an efficient or meritorious cause of our salvation for only Christs death and righteousness is that but only an instrument to apprehend the same Neither is every Faith this instrument but only that living Faith which I have spoken of so that true Faith is never without the fruits of good works no more then fire is without heat and yet neither are our works nor the work of Faith it self the meritorious cause of our salvation but only Christs death and righteousness Neither are the fruits of this lively Faith the instrument to apprehend and take hold of Christs righteousness but only Faith it self This then is our doctrine which is so plainly confirmed by the Scripture that he must be exceeding blind that seeth it not The places to confirm the same are these Rom. 3.28 We conclud that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were justified by works then hath he wherein to rejoyce but not with God Ephes 2.9 By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of your selves for it is the gift of God not by works that none should boast And Phil. 3.9 I have counted all things loss that I might win Christ and might be found in him not having my own righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God through faith And again Tit. 3.5 Not by the works of righteousness which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Seeing the Scripture so expresly removes all works both of nature and of grace both going before Faith and following after it and therefore the Apostle saith We are not saved by the works of righteousness which we had done and of all men even of those who were justified already and sanctified as Abraham Paul and the Ephesians were from our justification and salvation as the causes thereof therefore we are only justified and saved by a lively Faith apprehending the righteousness of Christ Secondly the Scripture not only removes works as we have said from the cause of our Justification and salvation but also ascribes it to Faith as in these places John 3.16 Whosoever believeth in him shal have eternal life And Luke 8.48 Thy faith hath saved thee c. And again Ephes 2.9 We are saved through faith And Rom. 4.3.4.5 Man is justified by faith And Rom. 3.26.28.30 God shal justifie circumcision of faith and incircumcision through faith And Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness And lest ye should say the Scripture hath not by Faith only read the 8. of Luke and 50. verse where our Savior saith to Jairus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only believe and she shal be saved Therefore Faith is the only instrument to lay hold on the promise of God And lest ye should say this was not a justifying Faith I answer This Faith which Jairus had was that same Faith which the woman with the bloody issue had but her Faith not only healed her body but her soul also Luke 8.48 which Bellarmin grants lib. 1. de justif cap. 17. pag. 84. our Savior testifieth saying Thy faith hath saved thee c. therefore this is a justifying Faith also Secondly seeing the Faith of miracles justifying Faith is both one in substance with your Church as Bellarmin c. 5. l. de justif the Rhemists annot in 2. Cor. 12. say if it be a greater work to work miracles as they say then to be justified therefore if only Faith suffice to obtain miracles as Bellarmin grants lib. 1. cap. 20. pag. 97. why should not Faith only be also sufficient to justifie For if it suffice for the greater work much more for the less Thirdly the Scripture ascribes our Justification to grace and not to works and so oppones them that the one cannot stand with the other in the matter of our Justification We are justified saith he freely by grace and not by works Rom. 3.24 And to him that worketh the reward is imputed not according to grace but to debt but to him who worketh not but believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly his faith is imputed to him for righteousness Rom. 4.4 And in another place If it be of grace it is no more of works or else were grace no more grace but if it be of works it is no more grace or else work were no more work Rom. 11.6 Seeing therefore our Justification is only of free grace and grace if the Apostle be true cannot stand with works therefore our Justification is not by works or else it were not of grace and so not at all and so the foundation of our salvation were overturned I hope therefore this our doctrine of Justification is plainly warranted by the Scripture Now to the Fathers because ye say it cannot be proved by them they speak as plainly as we do Origen hath these words in epist ad Rom. cap. 3 And the Apostle saith that the justification of faith only sufficeth solius fidei so that he that believeth only is justified suppose no work be fulfilled of him Hilarius Canon 8. in Matth. saith For only faith justifieth fides enim sola justificat Basilius in homil de humil saith This is a perfect rejoicing in God when a man vaunts
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
did not obey the other As also a number of the Fathers of your own Religion who in two General Councils the one of Constance where there was almost a thousand Fathers the other of Basel did not obey the Pope in defining General Councils to be above the Pope So if ye speak truth infinit millions of Christians in all ages and innumerable Churches and thousands of your own Religion are condemned to Hell But this is false M. Gilbert and who will believe you And to the end now my conclusion yet holds sure That seeing his Kingdom is that second beast that hath two horns like the Lamb and speaks like the Dragon Rev. 13.11 And himself is that man of sin and son of perdition that adversary and Antichrist that was to come 2. Thess 2.3.4 And his doctrine is that Apostasie and abomination sore-told in the Scripture Rev. 17. And his seat that Harlot and mystical Babylon that mother of whoredoms who is drunken with the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus Whosoever receives his mark on his fore-head or hand that is openly or privatly professes obedience unto him shal as the Angel proclaimed drink of the wine of the wrath of God yea of that pure wine in the cup of his wrath and he shal be tormented with fire and brimstone before the holy angels and before the Lamb. And the smoak of his torment shal ascend for evermore and they shal have no rest day nor night which worship the beast or his image And as for your prayer I beseech God M. Gilbert that he may open my eyes and inlarge my heart to understand and imbrace his truth more and more and to make me to grow up in that spiritual communion with Christ and his members more and more But that which ye call truth is heresie and that which ye call the true Church is Babel and therefore that doctrine and Church of yours is that strong delusion and whore of Babel with the which whosoever shal communicat is excluded from the merits of Christ and shal be partaker of her plagues and finally shal be damned SECTION XXVIII That the Pope is Antichrist Master Gilbert Brown IF the Pope be the Antichrist what is the cause that M. John would not set down some place out of the Word of God that proves the same But good Reader I will let you see how far M. John is against the Word of God in this and that by some examples only First our Savior shew unto the Jews that albeit he came in the name of his Father yet they would not receive him If another saith he shal come in his own name him ye will receive This no doubt as Augustin expones the same is meant of the Antichrist that the Jews shal receive Now it is out of all controversie that the Jews never received the Pope Therefore the Pope is not the Antichrist Again the Pope came never in his own name but in the Name of Christ for he is called the Vicare of Christ and the servant of the servants of God therefore he cannot be the Antichrist Master John Welsch his Reply I come now to prove that which I offered before to prove to wit that your Popes which ye will have to be the Head of the Church of Christ are the self-same Antichrist that the Scripture fore-told should come Thou wouldest know Christian Reader of what weight this controversie is Whether the Pope be the Antichrist or not For this supremacy of his unto them is the foundation whereupon their Religion and the safety of their whole Church depends so that they call it The Rock whereupon the Church is built against which the gates of Hell shal not prevail Rhemist annot upon Matth. 16. And Bellarmin calls him in his Preface before the controversie of the Popes supremacy The foundation which upholds the house of God the Pastor which feeds his flock the Emperor which governes his host the Sun which gives light to the starrs that is to the Ministers of the Church the Head which gives life to his body So that remove his supremacy the house of God must fall the flock of Christ must be scattered the host of the Lord must be discomfited the starrs that is the Ministery must be darkened and the body must ly still without motion And he applyes these Prophesies Isai 28.16 and 8.14.15 spoken and fulfilled only in the Son of God unto him a calling him that foundation stone in Sion upon the which the whole Church is built and that proved stone against the which the gates of Hell hath never nor never shal prevail and that corner stone which joyns both Jew and Gentil as two walls together in a Christian Church and that precious stone from whence the infinit treasure of grace is most plenteously derived unto the whole Church as unity in doctrine the bond of peace the unity of faith which is salvation it self and the very life of Religion And he saith There is no way to Christ but by Peter in whose room their Popes succeed So that in their judgement there is no way to Christ but by the Pope And he calls him that rock of offence and stumbling stone spoken of in Isai chap. 8. Upon the which whosoever shal fall shal be broken and on whom it shal fall it shal dash him in pieces O blasphemous mouth Let the heavens be confounded at this And therefore this is of such a weight that Boniface the 8 hath made it an article of our Faith whose words are these We declare we affirm we define and pronounce that it is altogether needful to salvation to all creatures to be under the Pope of Rome Extra de minoritate obedientia cap. unam sanctam So that Bellarmin saith when the Popes supremacy is called in controversie The sum of all Christianity is called in question and when that is controverted Then it is controverted whether the Church should stand any longer or not or fall and dissolve Unto them therefore it is an article of Faith which must be believed and practised under the pain of the loss of salvation And unto us he is that self-same Antichrist which the Scripture hath fore-told time hath made manifest and the Church hath suffered Unto them he is the Head of the body of Christ the Pastor of his flock the Sun that gives light to the starrs the foundation of the house of God and a mortal God among men Unto us he is Gods enemy the son of perdition the second beast and false prophet 2 Thess 2.13 Rev. 13.11 the adversary of true Religion a pest in the body a tyrant in the Common-wealth and Antichrist in the Church So thou sees Christian Reader of what weight this controversie is Let us see then how he defends him from being the Antichrist and then you shal hear our reasons to the contrary You ask wherefore I set not down some places of Scripture to prove the Pope to be the Antichrist I answer Not
say and would ye have the salvation of mens souls to lean to this point of doctrine that they caÌ„not err which is the rock foundation of your Church which above all others have erred most grievously O malicious and cruel man that would deceive the poor flock of Jesus Christ for whom he shed his blood with such heresie and abomination Then this prerogative is not granted to your Popes the head and foundation of your Church And surely if the foundation may be turned up-side-down and the head may become sensless and dead I see not how the house can stand and the body can be whole and one of your greatest Papists Bâ—llarmin plainly confesseth lib. 4 de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. that if the Pope err of necessity tota Ecclesia errabit that is the whole Church shal err Upon the which I reason If the Pope may err and hath erred then the whole Church may err and hath erred so Bellarmin one of the learnedest Papists that ever was writ But the first hath been proved by your own Doctors Cardinals Popes Councils Canon Law Ergo by your own doctrine the whole Church may err Here we might stay now and go no further for this sufficiently overthrows this point of your doctrine that the Church caÌ„not err that by the confession of the learnedest of your side But yet I will pursue the rest If you say it is granted to the body then it is either graÌ„ted to the people or to the Clergy To the people I suppose ye will not for if your Popes may err much more may your people err And if the Apostles other famous Churches may err much more may your people err yea if not it should follow that your people were above their head the Pope which I suppose ye wil not say If ye say the Clergy then either it must be your Doctors severally by themselves or as they are gathered together in a Council But as they are several ye will not say For your Bellarmin controversies would convince you to the face for almost there are few controversies which he handles and he handles more then 300 but he brings in some of your own Writers dissenting from him and whom in many places he confutes And I think if Popes have not this priviledge surely the Doctors of your Church severally have not this priviledge But because as Bellarmin confesseth Lib. 2. de author Concil c. 11. If a general Council err then the whole Church may err for it represents the whole Church And therefore he brings this in as a reason to prove That general Councils cannot err because the whole Church cannot err For saith he the general Council represents the whole Church therefore it cannot err Let us examine this for if it be found that general Councils may err surely your cause is gone First then what will ye say to thirteen general Councils whereof seven is utterly rejected the other six are in part allowed and in part rejected which all have erred as Bellarmin de Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 6. 7. confesseth But it may be you answer that these were not approved by the Popes of Rome and therefore they might err and have erred but these Councils that are altogether allowed of him cannot err nor have not erred Indeed it is true that this is your doctrine That neither general nor provincial Councils can err that is allowed by the Pope Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 2. 5. and that general Councils lawfully conveaned may err unless they follow the instructions of the Pope And therefore Bellarmin saith cap. 11. that they may err three manner of wayes 1. If in defining of any thing the Fathers of the Council dissent from the Popes Legats 2. If it be against the Popes instruction suppose both the Fathers and the Legats of the Council agree together 3. They may err before they have received the Popes confirmation and judgement suppose all both Fathers and Legats consent together because saith he the Popes judgement is the last from the which no man may appeal and he may approve and disprove the General Council notwithstanding of their consent with his own Legats And therefore he saith in another place Lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. That the whole strength or certainty of lawful Councils depends only of the Pope So then this is your last refuge All depends on his instruction and confirmation he hath a priviledge that he cannot err and the General Councils receives the same through his approbation and confirmation But I answer The Pope can give no greater prerogative to others then he hath himself But as hath been proved before the Popes may err and have been hereticks therefore they cannot give this prerogative to others And if ye will say as some of you do that the Pope suppose he may err privatly as he is a privat man and as a privat teacher yet he cannot err as he is Pope in his office judicially Whereunto I answer first That some of your own Church as Gerson and Almane de potestate Ecclesiae Alphonsus de Castro lib. 1. cap. 2. contra haeres Canus loci Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 1. and Pope Adrian the sixth all these teaches That the Popes may err and teach heresie as they are Popes Either therefore the Popes may err as they are Popes judicially and teach heresie or else not only these Doctors of your own Church but also the Pope himself hath erred and that in a point of doctrine and so however it be the Popes as they are Popes judicially may err in points of doctrine Secondly I say besides nine Popes which have been hereticks and that when they were Popes sundrie of them have made decrees not only contrary to Gods Word but also contrary one to another and that in matters of doctrine As for example Pope Celestin the third made a decree cap. laudabilem de conversione infidelium that when of married persons the one falls in heresie the marriage is dissolved and the Catholick partie is free to marry again contrary to the truth of God Matth. 6. and 19.9 and also contrary to the decreet of Pope Innocentius the third lib 4. decretal cap. Quanto Thirdly either your Canon Law errs or else Clements decrees that all things should be common and that wives also should be common causa 12 quaest 1. Dilectissimis Gelasius Pope affirms de consecrat cap. Comperimus That the mistery of the body and blood in the Sacrament cannot be divided and that the Sacrament cannot be taken in one kind only without great sacriledge and yet the Council of Trent hath decreed the contrary and the whole Romane Church practises the contrary Pope Martin decreed dist 50. cap. Qui semel that the Priests who are deposed for any fault may never be admitted to any degree of the Priesthood again Pope Syricus distinct 82. cap. Quia and Pope Calixtus distinct 82. cap. Presbyter have decreed the contrary Pope Gregory the
without further tryal because he hath so decreed it What is this but not only to make him equal to the Lord For God only hath that priviledge to be believed because he so speaks mans testimony so far only is to be credited as it may be warranted by the Scripture but also to preferr his authoritie to the voice of God in his Scripture seeing he is Judge of the same and not that onlie but to hang my salvation upon his voice and testimonie And seeing ye will have them Judges what is the cause that their Canons Laws and determinations are not as authentick as the Scripture and insert in the Canon of the Scripture But let us see your reasons First you say That the holy Ghost was given to the Church by the Father and the Son that he might teach it all truth I grant this that the holy Ghost is given to every one of the elect as wel Pastor as people to lead them in all truth in so far as may bring them to salvation And yet ye will not make every one of them Judges next every one of the elect may err notwithstanding of this promise suppose not totally and finally and therefore cannot be Judges of Religion Secondly you alledge the example of the Council of the Apostles and Elders It is true in that controversie that arose among the Christians concerning the observing of the ceremonies of the law of Moses that the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church after reasoning defined the same and writes the same to be observed by the Disciples everie where but first they were Apostles and was infallibly governed by Gods Spirit that they could not err in teaching and writing but your Pastors are not Apostles and may err Next they assemble with the Elders and the whole Church and all with one accord defines Acts 15.12.22.23 You in your Council excludes all except your Bishops to be ordinary Judges to give out judgement and your Popes neither Elder nor brethren having power of voting with you Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 1. Thirdly they define according to the Scripture saying As it is written c. Act. 15.15 This controversie to make us to understand if we will not be more then blind that this rule should be followed in all Councils to determine in controversies according to the Scripture Upon the which I reason if the Apostles who had that high measure of Gods Spirit which never man had since so that in writing and teaching they could not err if they I say did determine the controversies of Religion according to the Scripture how much more then are all Pastors since who may err both severally and jointly together in a Council bound to follow the same rule And whereas ye call their Elders Priests you stile them not as the holy Ghost hath stiled them there so there they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Elders and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is sacrificing Priests as ye suppone Your third reason is the practise and custom of the Church in deciding the controversies of Religion in Councils we grant that this is a very commodious mean to search and find out the truth by the Scripture For first the more they are that seek the truth it is the more easily found Next the consent of many in determining a truth will be of greater authority to repress hereticks then if it were agreed upon only by a few But yet they should determine nothing but that which is warranted by the Scripture and their determinations only in so far forth to be received as is agreeable to the same And this we grant hath been done in the Council of the primitive Church And therefore the Emperor Constantine speaking to the Fathers of the Council of Nice saith Sunt libri Prophetici Apostolici qui apertè quid credendum sit docent c. That is there are the Books of the Prophets and Apostles who teacheth plainly what we should believe All contention therefore laid aside let us take the soveraign decision of these things which are called in controversie out of the Scriptures which are inspired by God And this we grant and this we require But that Councils ought to determin any thing of their own authority in matters of Religion which binds the conscience without the warrant of the Word that we deny Master Gilbert Brown It is a wonder that M. John will refer any thing to the written Word seeing that he and his have no warrant that the same is the Word of God but by the authority of the Roman or Papist Church For understand there was no Church worthie of credit immediatly before Luther but that Church Master John Welsch his Reply You wonder that I refer any thing to the Scripture But what a wōder is this that ye are so far blinded of God that you think that a wonder in me which Abraham hath done which the Prophets have done which our Savior and his Apostles have done and which the Fathers have done for all these have referred the infallible testimony and decision of the will of God concerning his worship unto the Scriptures Luke 16 29. John 5 39. Acts 26.22 Rom. 12. and 16.26 2. Tim. 3.16 2. Pet. 1.10 Rev. 1 3. cap. ult yea which your self also hath done for ye make it a witness But what hath moved you to think this a wonder in me which so many and your self also have done before me Because say ye that he and his that is our Church have no warrant that it is the Word of God but by the authoritie of the Roman or Papist Church I grant indeed that you and your Church are plunged in this blindness and miserie that all the warrant that you have not only of the Scriptures themselves that they are inspired of God but also of all your doctrine and Religion is the testimony of your Roman Church that is of your Pope and Clergy for so ye interpret the Church So Bellarmin grants de Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 25. That all the certainty of all doctrine depends upon the authority of the present Church meaning the Pope and his Clergy And Stapleton saith lib. 1 contra Whitak de author script cap. 10. That it is no absurd thing not to believe God but for the testimony of the Church Pigius saith That it is not needful to believe all that Matthew and John writ in their Gospels to be true because that they might fail in memory and lie as all men may do Ecclesiast hierar lib. 1. cap. 2. And Hermannus saith That the Scripture would be of no more authority then the fables of Esop were not the testimony of the Church And so blind and miserable must you be that hangs the certaintie of all Religion and of man his salvation upon so smal a threed as the testimony of your Popes and Clergy What peace in conscience can any man have that professes your Religion which teaches that the
as far in word as ye do in deed the consciences of the poor people would at the last withdraw themselves from under your tyranny and would go out of your fellowship for the safety of their souls so under the cloke and pretence of the Scripture ye keep them in your communion And surelie were not for this cause only you would regard no more of the testimony of the Scripture then of the testimony of the fables of Esop For the chief authority and all the surety and certainty of all Religion with you as Bellarmin de sacr lib. 2. cap. 25. and Stapleton lib. 1. cont Whitaker cap. 10. confesses is not the testimony of the Scripture but the authority of your own Church So I assure thee Reader it is but for a show that they bring forth the Scripture to prove the heads of their Religion Let the matter therefore be tryed betwixt us by these examples which ye set down here M. Gilbert Brown 1. We say with Saint Augustin Epist 28. ad Hier. that the Sacrament of Baptism is so necessary to infants that they cannot come to heaven without the same which is contrary to their negative saith where they call it the Popes cruel judgement against infants departing without the Sacrament First I say that Christ taught the same doctrine in these words Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter in the Kingdom of God John 3.5 We say this is spoken properly of the Sacrament of Baptism because there is no regeneration of water and the Spirit of God but in Baptism The same is the doctrine of the Apostles also When they exspected the patience of God saith S. Peter in the days of Noe when the Ark was building in the which few that is eight souls were saved by water whereunto Baptism being of the like form now saves you also 1. Pet. 3.20.21 And S. Paul saith For as many of you as are baptized in Christ have put on Christ Galat 3.27 And Ananias said to S. Paul And now what tarriest thou rise up and be baptized and wash away thy sins invocating his name Acts 22.17 and 2.38 And S. Paul himself in another place Christ hath saved us by the washing of regeneration and renovation of the holy Ghost Tit. 3.5 Rom. 6.3.4 1. Cor. 6.11 Mark 16.16 I think there is no Christian reader that sees these places but he must say that Baptism is most necessary to infants except he will believe rather the exposition of the Ministers then the Word of God Maister John Welsch his Reply First ye begin at the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism whereof ye affirm that it is so necessary that infants cannot come to heaven without the same As for Baptism we grant that it is a most effectual seal and pledge of our ingrafting in Christ Jesus and of the remission of our sins through his blood and regeneration through his Spirit so that either the neglect or the contempt of it because it is the neglect and contempt of the covenant it self and of Christ Jesus the foundation of the covenant is damnable But that it is so absolutly necessary to infants that without it they cannot come to heaven to wit these whom he hath predestinat it being neither neglected nor contemned but death preventing the receiving of it that we allutterly deny as impious ungodly and cruel For first I say there is none that is in the covenant of grace and who hath God to be their God and are holy that can perish This you cannot deny But the children of the faithful who are of his secret election are such before they be baptized And this I prove The Lord promised to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.17 And this Peter also testifies The promise saith he is made to you and to your children Acts 2.39 And the Apostle saith That the children of the faithful are holy 1. Cor. 7.14 Therefore the children of the faithful who are of Gods secret election suppose they die without Baptism do not perish Secondlie if Baptism were absolutly necessary to salvation then the grace of God were bound to the Sacrament This cannot be denyed But your Master of Sentences saith that the grace of God is not bound to the Sacraments and it is impious so to think that Gods free grace and salvation is bound to the instrument Thirdlie if Circumcision was not absolutly necessary to salvation in the Old Testament then Baptism is not absolutly necessary now because Circumcision was as straitly enjoyned to them as Baptism is enjoyned to us and Baptism is suceeded in the room of the same but Circumcision is not absolutly necessarie For Lombardus is rebuked by the Doctors of Paris because he so thought And David doubts not to say of his child who died the seventh day and so before he was circumcised I shal go to him c. and so he pronounced that he was saved and all the time that they were in the wilderness almost 40 years Circumcision was neglected which plainly shows that it was not so absolutly necessary that salvation could not be obtained without it Therefore Baptism is not so absolutly necessary to salvation as ye suppose for the grace of God is of no less force in the New Testament then it was in the Old Fourthlie we read of sundry that received the holy Ghost before they were baptized and seeing the holy Ghost where he is regenerats to eternal life Therefore life eternal is not bound absolutly to Baptism Fifthlie what a cross and disturbance is this that your doctrine brings to the consciences of all these parents whose children have been prevented by death before they could be offered to be baptized If they believe your doctrine how often will this come in their mind that their children are damned And seeing the infants themselves are not in the cause that they are not baptized but their death preventing by Gods providence or the Parents neglecting or contemning the same or persecution or one impediment or other hindering wherefore are ye so cruel to judge them to be damned for that whereof themselves are causeless And last of all if ye be acquainted in the Histories of the Church of God in the first age ye will find many that delayed to be baptized until their latter age which they would never have done if they had thought it simpliciter necessary to salvation as ye do And Ambrosius doubts not to say That Valentinian wanted not the grace of Baptism suppose he wanted Baptism it self the which he would never have said if he had thought it absolutly necessary to salvation And Bernard saith I cannot altogether despair of the salvation of them who wants Baptism not through contempt but only through impossibility to get it And in that same place he saith So also if our Savior Christ for this cause when he had said he that believeth and is baptized shal be saved did
the truth for no exhortation or admonition no Laws Ecclesiastical nor Civil could make them to reverence the Lords institution in receiving the sweet pledges of their salvation as the Lord had commanded therefore the Lord gave them over as it was fore-told to strong delusions that they might believe lies And beside this just judgement of God as this doctrine was most profitable to the Priests so was it most agreeable to their corruption and therefore was easily embraced and believed For what was more easie to practise then to hear and see a Mass and to bring their offering unto the Priest This required no examination of themselves before no mortification of their sin no sad and heavy hearts with fear and trembling to come to the same as the Communion did but only their eyes to see and ears to hear suppose they neither knew nor understood what was said or done in the same And yet what was so profitable as it was which was able to obtain remission of sins and redemption of souls to appease Gods wrath and to obtain all grace and to help for all necessities both for the living and dead present and absent man and beast as they affirmed So this was not the strait way to salvation for who was not able to practise this doctrine that is to see and hear a Mass And yet our Savior saith The way is strait that leads to eternal life and many shal seek to enter in and shal not be able Matth. 7.13 From this sprang the aboundance of their oblations that they spared neither silver nor gold houses lands nor heritages For what would not a man give to get salvation so easily both to himself and to others So it was no wonder suppose the Priests were earnest in beating in the ears of the people such a profitable doctrine for themselves For it was a gold mine unto them And suppose the people having forsaken the love of the truth and being given over of God to believe such strong delusions for the contempt of his ordinance embraced such a plausible doctrine which brought heaven to them and theirs so easily as they supponed and by these degrees the pretended sacrifice of the Mass was not a little promoved And yet these abuses crap not in while after Gregory the Great who lived in the 600. year after Christ suppose a great part of these abuses is ascribed to him Hitherto now hath this sacrifice been confusedly conceived and all things almost prepared for her birth From these now followeth other corruptions which did ripen this monstrous birth As first where the Priest was wont to bless and consâ—crat by prayer so much bread wine as might serve the whole people who did communicat in the primitive Church the communion of the people in this Sacrament being lost as we heard before and the Priest himself alone or at the least two or three with him only communicating the oblations of the people which was not only of bread and wine and water according to the express Canons of the Church de consecrat dist 2 cap. Non oportet cap. In sacramento But corruption growing with the riches of the Church also of gold silver of sheep and oxen as we read in the time of Gregory in Dialog These oblations I say was not brought unto the altar to be consecrated by prayers to God but only so much bread and wine as might serve the Priest only and which at last the abuse growing he began to make himself and to bring unto the Sacrament Upon the which followed other two abuses The first that the stile of offering and sacrifice in the Sacrament was taken from the peoples action of offering their oblations for the which cause especially the Sacrament was called a sacrifice therefore the prayer in the Canon was not in Gregories time pro quibus tibi offerimus for the which we offer unto thee but qui tibi offerunt who do offer to thee And their oblation was called sacrifices as is manifest by the ordinance of Pope Gelasius where it is ordained that the sacrifices which the people should offer up in the Mass should be distribut in four parts This stile I say of offering and sacrifice was taken from them and ascribed only to the Priests action and his action was called the sacrifice And this was no little step to their pretended sacrifice The next which did put even some life and breath in it was the applying of all the prayers which was used to be said and made in the sanctification of the oblations of the people to the sanctification of that smal round bread and portion of wine which was reserved for the Sacrament and appointed for the Priest and the few that was to communicat with him So that here was a manifest change wherein they passed from the oblations of the gifts which was presented to God by the people and offered to him in the Sacrament of the Supper which were called sacrifices as we have proved it before to a sacrifice of a round bread and a little cup of wine which the Priest only or at the least with other two or three eat and drink in the same and consequently from a sacrifice of the fruits of the earth offered to God by the people to a sacrifice of the eternal Son of God which the Priest supponed he offered up to God in the same So by this means it received as it were some life and breath This alteration is so manifest that the prayers in their own Canon of the Mass and Liturgies will prouve the same Precamur te saith the Canon ut accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata that is We pray thee thou wouldest accept and bless these gifts these presents these holy and unspotted sacrifices And again Remember of them pro quibus tibi offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis pro se suisque omnibus that is These for whom we offer unto thee or who doth offer unto thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves and all theirs And again Supra quae sereno propitio vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus es munera Abelis Abrahae Melchisedech c. that is That thou wouldest vouchsafe to look upon them with a favorable and merciful countenance as thou hast vouchsafed to accept of the gifts of Abel Abraham and Melchisedeck c. And again Jube haec perferri per manus angeli tui in sublime altare tuum that is Command them to be carried by the hands of thy angel unto thine hie altar in the sight of thy Majesty And again Tua de tuis that is We offer of thy own thy own to thee I would ask you M. Gilbert dare ye in your conscience say that these prayers were made of the eternal Son of God whom ye pretend to offer up in your Masses For can either
his Preface before the Controversies and in his Preface de 〈◊〉 Pontifice that you differ from us in the main and â—â—â—â—tantial points of Religion therefore of necessity we must also differ from you in the main substantial points of our Religion And so the chief difference wherein we differ from you is not in denying and abhorring but in the main and fundamental grounds of our Religion Otherwise it shal follow that the chief difference that ye differ from us is in denying and abhorring of our Religion which I think your Church will not digest Whereas you say that this may be seen by our Confession of Faith Our Confession hath not only the detesting and denying of your abominable errors in general and particular but also the confession of our Faith in general referring the particular heads thereof to that confession which is ratified and established by Act of Parliament And so here M. Gilberts untruth and calumny of our Confession may be seen As for this form of exacting of an oath and subscription to Religion if you find fault with it you not only gain-say the Scriptures of God impaires Princes lawful authority and the Church of their Jurisdiction and lawful power the example of Moses Deut. 29.10 and of Josua 24.25 Jehoiada the High-Priest 2. Kings 11.17 Josia 2. of the Kings 23.3 Asa 2. Chron. 15.12 And of the people returning from the captivity of Babel with Nehemias chap. 10. But also blots your own Church who as may be seen in that Confession of Faith and form of abjuration set out by the Monks of Burdeaux whereof we spake before doth the same As for this exception which ye put in here I answered to it before Master Gilbert Brown For if this be a true ground of theirs that nothing ought to be done or believed but such things as are expresly contained in the Word of God but their general Confession or their negative faith is not expresly contained in the Word of God therefore it ought not to be done nor believed M. John Welsch his Reply As for this ground which ye alledge to be ours it appeareth certainly M. Gilbert that as ye said of me either ye know not our grounds or else ye wilfully invert them for your own advantage For our ground is that nothing ought to be done or believed in Religion but that which may be warranted by the testimony of the Scripture either in words and sense together or else by a necessary collection out of the same The which with Nazianzene we say Are of the same truth and authority with the first And according to this sense we say That all the heads of our Religion as well negative as affirmative are expresly contained in the Scripture and so ought both to be believed and practised These are but silly shifts M. Gilbert which ye bring to discredit the truth of our Religion You knew full well the blindness and simpleness of the people in this Countrey and therefore you regarded not how silly and simple your reasons were Master Gilbert Brown That their faith is contained in the Word of God so far as it differs from ours he will never be able to prove neither by word nor writ And if he will cause our Kings Majesty to suspend his acts against us that we may be as free to speak our mind as he he shal have a proof hereof If not let him prove the same by writ and he shal have an answer by Gods grace As for his life we desire not the same but rather his conversion to the truth M. John Welsch his Reply As for our ability to prove the truth of our doctrine I answered it before Judge thou Christian Reader of the same by this my answer As for the suspending of his Majesties acts against you that is not in our hands and for all the good ye could do you have but too much liberty And if you speak no better for your Religion then you have done else in this your answer your Church will be but little beholden to you for it And certainly if you will bind and oblige your self to face your own cause and defend your Religion by word I hope that licence of a safe passage and conduct would be granted to you by his Majesty to let you speak for your self what ye have for you for the defence of it for that space without any danger to your person and that surer and with greater safety then John Hus had who notwithstanding of his safe-conduct yet was burnt And whereas you promise an answer do what you can M. Gilbert for now it is time to plead for your Baal And let your answer be more firm then this or else ye will lose more then ye will win by it That you desire not my life I am beholden to you if you speak truth considering the bloody generation of your Roman Church who these many years by past hath spilt the blood of the Saints of God in such abundance that if any can tell the starrs of heaven he may number them whom your Church hath slain for the testimony of the Word of God And as for that which ye call conversion it is aversion from the truth and the losing of salvation the which I hope shal be dearer to me then a thousand lives suppose they were all included in one Master John Welsch Secondly I offer me to prove that there be very few points of controversie betwixt the Roman Church and us wherein we dissent but I shal get testimonies of sundry Fathers of the first six hundred years against them and proving the heads of Religion which we profess Let any man therefore set me down any weighty point of controversie one or mo and he shal have the proof of this SECTION XXI Concerning Justification by Faith Master Gilbert Brown WHom M. John calls Fathers here I know not except Simon Magus Novatus Aerius Jovinianus Pelagius Vigilantius and such For indeed there is none of these and many the like but they were against us and with them in some heads But I am sure S Ireneus S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Jerome S. Basile S. Chrysostome with the rest of the holy Fathers is no way with them and against us as M. John will not be able to prove for all his offer As for example it is a chief ground in their Religion that only faith justifieth This I say can neither be proved by the Scriptures nor ancient Fathers of the first six hundred years For why the contrary is expresly contained in the Word of God Do ye see saith S. James that by works a man is justified and not by faith only James 2.24 with many other places that agrees with the same Matth. 7.21 and 19.17 and 34.35 John 14.15.21 1. John 2.3.4 Rom. 2.13 1. Cor. 13.2 and 1.19 Gal. 5.6 Tit. 1.16 And S. Augustin saith himself de fide operibus cap. 14. That this Justification by faith only was an
in their own name because they were not truly sent of God And this is that saih he which is said now meaning in this place if any shal come in his own name that he is not truly sent of God neither hath Gods power So then a false Prophet is said both to come in the Name of God and in his own name In the Name of God falsly vaunting so in his own name because God sends him not but he intrudes himself without a lawfull calling Now to answer you then I say the Pope comes in the Name of Christ as his Vicare I grant he and his Clergy so vaunt but falsly For the truth is he hath come and he comes in his own name and that truly because the Lord never sent him but he hath intruded himself without God his calling therefore this cannot free him but he may be the Antichrist But how prove ye that he comes in Christ his Name and not in his own name Because say ye he calls himself the Vicar of Christ and the servant of the servants of God A pretty argument He so calls himself Ergo he is so Who will credit either you or him in your own cause Is this all ye can do for your Pope He is called so Ergo he is so Augustin saith Non attendamus ad linguam sed ad facta Tract 3 in Epist Joan. Let us not take heed to the tongue but to the deeds For if all be asked all with one mouth confess Christ let the tongue cease a little ask the life Interroga vitam and again whosoever denyes Christ factis by his deeds is Antichrist The idolaters of Ephesus might have reasoned so for their great Goddess Diana Acts 19.27 She is called a great Goddess Ergo she is so indeed And what false Prophet yet ever came but they said they came in the Name of God they called themselves and were called by these whom they deceived the servāts Prophets of the Lord Jer. 23.25 Ezec. 13.6.7 and yet will you frame this argument for them as you do for your Pope All the false Prophets said they came in the Name of God were called by these whom they deceived the servants of God therefore they came not in their own name but in the Name of God Did not the false Apostles in Ephesus say they were the Apostles of Christ yet they were found liars Rev. 2.2 And did not the Synagogue of Satan call themselves Jews and yet they blasphemed in so speaking Rev. 2.9 Doth not the Harlot with whom the Nations of the earth have committed fornication say in her heart she is a Queen Rev. 18.7 and yet she is that great Harlot Rev. 17 4. And is not her cup of gold and yet the drink therein is abomination And should not the Antichrist sit in the temple of God and yet he is the son of perdition and an adversary to God and to Jesus Christ 2. Thess 2.4 And said not the Devil of himself that all the Kingdoms of the world were given to him and he would give them to whom he would Matth. 4.8 9 and yet he was a liar So if this argument of yours will follow The Pope is called the Vicar of Christ and the servant of the servants of God therefore he came never in his own name and so he is not the Antichrist you may with as good reason conclud that the false Prophets and false Apostles came not in their own name but in the Name of God because they are called the servants of God both by themselves and also by these who were deceived by them Yea you may with as good reason conclud that the Antichrist is not the son of perdition and adversary to God 2. Thess 2.3.4 that all the Kingdoms of the world are given to the Devil and that he hath the power in his hand of giving them to whom he will because the Scripture fore-told of the one that he should have horns like the Lamb Rev. 17. and the other ascribes this right and power to himself Matth. 4.9 It is good therefore that you cannot defend your Pope from being the Antichrist unless with him also you defend all the false Prophets false Apostles false Churches the Antichrist and the Devil himself from being the thing which they are indeed But who will venter the salvation of their soul upon this so silly and foolish a reason But I pray you M. Gilbert let me ask you this Is your Pope the servant of the servants of God and the Vicar of Christ as he calls himself Dare you avow this in the presence of him who shal judge the quick and the dead that he is so as he calls himself Did ever Christ Jesus either tread upon the necks of Kings and Emperors with his feet Or was he ever lifted up and carried upon the shoulders of noble-men Or did he ever give his feet to Emperors to kiss as your Popes have done as your own Histories do witness And have ye ever read what one of his own Archbishops of Colen one of his own Religion writes to Pope Nicolaus the first five hundred years ago Speaking to him he saith Thou pretends the person of the Pope but thou playes the tyrant we feel under the habit of a Pastor a wolf the stile belyes the parent Thou vaunts thy self to be God by thy deeds while as thou art the servant of servants thou contends to be Lord of Lords according to the discipline of Christ our Savior thou art the least of all ministers of the Temple of God but thou by the ambition of ruling goes to ruine whatsoever likes thee is lawful Aventinus lib. 4. annalium This was evil in those dayes but there are worse since And what now Reader shal we say of the Pope since his own Archbishop hath so written of him You say he is the Vicar of Christ but Christ Jesus in his latter Testament did never leave him to be in his stead For in the 4. Ephes 11. He gave Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors for the work of the ministery and the building of the body of Christ But that he ever left a Pope to be head of the Church in his stead to be a Monarch in this earth to reign in Rome and to be Lord over the servants of God there is not a syllable in the whole Book of God to prove it And because you say he is the servant of servants what service I pray you doth he whereby he makes it manifest that he is a servant indeed For the principal service of the Ministery of the Church stands in preaching the Word which he neither doth neither thinks that it appertains to him to do Yea what is it that appertains to any Lord King or Monarch in the earth that he ascribes not to himself and doth not also practise Yea as though that were too little what either stile or properties or works which are peculiar only to
own selves covetous boasters proud blasphemers disobedient to parents unthankful unholy Without natural affection truce-breakers false accusers incontinent c. Traitors heady high-minded c. From such turn away TO THE LOVERS OF THE Reformed Religion in Britain and Ireland Grace mercy and peace DEarly beloved in the Lord The great increase of Popery every where is so visibly seen and so evidently known that to speak any thing to prove and evidence the same were altogether needless seeing he is a great stranger in our Israel that knoweth it not But alace there is very great decay of zeal and hatred against that Whore that if our glorious Predecessors whose excellent Motto it always was No peace with Rome were alive they would wonder to see us so brutish and sensless indifferent and lukewarm in ae matter of so great moment wherein the honor and glory of God the eternal happiness and felicity of our own and our posterities souls and the safety and preservation of Kings Kingdoms our lives estats and all that is near and dear to us is so much and so nearly concerned Therefore for letting us see our hazard in all and every one of these as we have revised and republished the above written excellent Treatise of that learned godly and eminently zealous and faithful servant of Christ M. John Welsch whose memory is very precious in the Church of Christ who doth learnedly and plainly to any ordinary capacity discover the abominations of that Whore and solidly prove her doctrine both to be most heretical and damnable and her self to be the very Antichrist that all who love the truth of God and the salvation of their immortal souls may be stirred up to a just zeal and indignation against her So we have thought fit to subjoyn this following Treatise for discovering to all and every one who love the Reformed Religion and resolve to adhere thereto what treasonable and bloody principles and inhumane and matchlesly cruel practises are maintained and committed by Papists in reference both to Kings Princes and People who profess the Reformed Religion and consequently what all and every one of us may expect to meet with if Popery prevail that so being convinced of our hazard both in body and soul and in all that is near and dear to us we may be stirred up to a real hatred and indignation against that Whore and may be much in the exercise of prayer repentance and other lawful and commanded duties for the putting a stop to the growth of the spreading abominations of that Whore which is earnestly prayed for by Yours for the truth M. C. A BRIEF DISCOVERY OF THE BLOODY REBELlious and treasonable Principles and Practises of Papists SECTION I. Showing that the principles of Papists are treasonable and rebellious against the person and authority of Princes and peace of Kingdoms c. And the excuses of H. T. the Author of the Manual of Controversies are proved to be frivolous and naught THE Church of Rome was formerly most hateful to the Churches of Christ in Britain and Ireland not only because of her most damnable and heretical doctrine but also because of the rebellious and treasonable principles and practises maintained and committed by her against the persons and authority of Princes and peace of Kingdoms her faith being accounted faction and her Religion rebellion Therefore Papists of late have endeavored by all means to ingratiat themselves in the favor of Princes and Magistrats making ample profession of loyalty and fidelity and charging Protestants with the odious crime of disloyalty And thus we see their late Writers denying and disowning the doctrine of Rebellion and Parricide that our Divines have justly charged them with For H T. the Author of the Manual of Controversies c. printed at Doway 1671 calleth it a loud slander to charge Papists with maintaining that if the Pope excommunicat a Tyrant or heretical Prince his own subjects may lawfully kill him Therefore to unmask a little the bloody rebellious and treasonable principles of Papists we shal prove First that it is no slander but a real truth that the Church of Rome holdeth that if the Pope excōmunicateth a King his own subjects may lawfully kill him 2. That the Pope can dispense with the alleageance of subjects to their Princes and if he so dispense then they are loosed from subjection and alleageance to them 3. That no faith nor oath is to be kept with Hereticks 4 That the Pope and Synagogue of Rome have been the Authors of warrs combustions and confusions in Christian Churches and Kingdoms all Europe over 5. That their continual practise ever since the Reformation hath been to plot and practise treasons and rebellions assassinations and murders both of Princes and people who professed the Reformed Religion 6. That whereever they got the upper-hand and dominion in any Kingdom or Common-wealth they have practised most unheard-of cruelties and barbarous inhumanities against the professors of the Protestant Reformed Religion For the first and second of these points to wit that Papists hold that if the Pope excommunicat a King his own subjects may lawfully kill him And that the Pope can dispense with the alleageance of subjects to their Princes and if he so dispense then they are loosed from subjection and alleageance to them I shal evidence it to be their commonly received doctrine both by the writings of their approved Doctors and Bulls of their Popes and their dayly practises And lest they say we wrong them we shal for the most part set down the words of the Authors themselves 1. I shal begin with Doctor Ranchin a Papist and a famous Lawyer in France in his Book intituled A review of the Council of Trent lib. 2. cap. 10. who setteth down these following positions as commonly received in the Church of Rome to wit That it is necessare to salvation to believe that every creature is subject to the Pope of Rome That he it set over Emperors and Kingdoms That he carryeth both the temporal and spiritual sword That he may depose Emperors c. and transfer their Empires and Dominions from one line to another That he may absolve subjects from their oath of alleageance That upon just cause be may set up a King in every Kingdom for he is the overseer of all Kingdoms in Gods stead That it belongeth to the Pope to correct Kings when they offend Much more hath this Author to this purpose 2. But let us hear their own Doctors themselves Augustinus Triumphus de potest Eccles quaest 46. art 2. as Doctor Usher citeth him saith There is no doubt but that the Pope may depose all Kings when there is a reasonable cause so to do Thomas Aquinas their Angelical Doctor holdeth 22. quast 12 art 2. That so soon as a Prince is denounced excommunicat for Apostasie ipso facto his subjects are free from his soverainity and absolved from the oath of alleageance which they are bound to him Bannes and
as we said before and the Kingdom interdicted but also King James was by a Bull sent unto England a little before Queen Elizabeths death excluded from the Crown and all that were not Roman Catholicks were declared incapable of and excluded from the succession whereof his Majesty complaineth in his Apologie For Bâ—llarmin tells King James Tort pag. 19 That the Pope claims a dâ—uble right to England one by reason oâ— his Apostolick power which he extends over all men according to that Charter Psal 44. Thou shalt establish them Princes over all the earth The other proper by a right of Dominion for saith he England and Ireland are the Churches Dominions the Pope is direct Lord and the King his vassal XXI Neither were they less active in stirring up wars and combustions in other Kingdoms for a Priest of their own named John Brown aged seventy two in his voluntary confession to a Committee of Parliament set down by M. Prin in his introductioÌ„ to Canterburies doom p 202. saith That the Jesuits who are the Popes agents were the only cause of the troubles which fell out in Muscovia when under pretence to reduce the Latin Church and plant themselves and destroy the Greek Church the poor King Demetrius and his Queen and these that followed him from Polonia were all in one night murdered by the usurper of the Crown and the true progeny rooted out That they were the only cause that moved the Sweds to take arms against their lawful King Sigismund and chased him to Poland and neither he nor his successors were ever able to take possession of Sweden for the Jâ—suits intention was to bring in the Romish Religion and root out the Protestants They were the only cause that moved the Polonians to take arms against the said Sigismund because they had perswaded him to marry two sisters c. They were the sole cause of the war in Germany and Bohemia which began anno 1619. which caused the death of many thousands They have been the cause of the civil wars in France moving the King to take arms against his own subjects the Protestants where innumerable people have lost their lives for the Jesuits intentions were to set their Society in all Cities and Towns conquered by the King and quite to abolish the Protestants They were the cause of the murder of the last King of France They were the only projectors of the Gun-powder treason and their penitents the actors thereâ—f XXII M. Baxter in his key for Catholicks chap. 45. 46 47 48 49 proveth at large by good evidence that the Jesuits had a special hand in the late Civil War that burnt in the bowels of these three Nations till it had near consumed them Whose evidence I intreat that the Reader would read and seriously ponder From all which I hope it is evident enough that the Pope and Church of Rome have been the continual Authors and instigators to wars and combustions in Christian Churches and Kingdoms SECTION IV. That the continual practise of Papists ever since the Reformation hath been to plot and practise bloody and treasonable Conspiracies Assassinations and Murders both of Princes and People who profess the Reformed Religion IN the former Section we have proven that the Pope and Synagogue of Rome have been the grand Authors of warrs confusions and combustions in Christian Churches and Kingdoms In this Section we are to prove that not only have they been the Authors and instigators to bloody wars and confusions in Christian Churches and Kingdoms but that in all Protestant or Reformed Churches Kingdoms or States they have been secretly and under-hand always plotting and practising bloody and treasonable conspiracies assassinations and murders both of Princes and people who profess the Reformed Religion It would be too tedious to declare at large what plots and conspiracies the Pope and his dependers and vassals have had in all the Reformed Churches ever since Luthers Reformation we only shal instance some few not our near hand in France Ireland and in Britain I. I told in the former Section how the Pope and his sworn vassals were the Authors of the massacre of Paris anno 1572. which was surely hatched in hell and carried on with all the subtilty of that old Serpent for when the Pope and Court of Rome and Queen Catharin de Medicis and Charles the 9. her son saw that fire and fagot and force of war could not undo the Protestants they said come and let us deal subtily with them and ensnare them by pretences of friendship and flatteries therefore they not only concluded a peace with them but gave the sister of the King of France to the King of Navarre in marriage that so they might massacre the Protestants at the marriage and they suspecting no treachery came to the City of Paris where the Queen of Navarre was poysoned by a pair of perfumed gloves and the Admiral and the greatest part of the Protestant Nobility were all massacred in a morning the massacre was so cruel that it made the river run with blood and there were thirty thousand Protestants killed in one moneths time of which more afterward II. We also hinted before how King Henry the 3. of France although he lived and died a Papist and while he was Duke of Anjou had foughten several battels against the Protestants and was one of the plotters in the massacre of Paris yet because he did not joyn with the holy League and obey the Popes will in all things the Pope excommunicated him and stirred up James Clement a Jacobin Monk to commit that horrible parricide upon his Royal person III. We did also a little touch how his successor King Henry the 4. was opposed and molested by the Pope and the holy League his sworn servants and excommunicat and the Spaniards brought in the Kingdom to joyn with the holy League to his ruine But God so blessed his enterprises that he foyled them often but he being weary of war and consulting with flesh and blood for peace and ease to himself and quyet to his Kingdom turned Papist and sought absolution from the Pope and at length obtained it But because they thought him not a heart Papist and cordial for them in all things they plot his death by secret assassination and after several attempts one whereof wounded him in the mouth Râ—villac stroke him through the very heart although to please the Pope he caused recall the Jesuits which for their bloody principles and practises were banished the Kingdom So this is the Pope and his Jesuits method when they cannot overcome any Prince that they think no cordial favorer of theirs by open hostility they excite and stimulat some scholer or other of theirs secretly to assassinat him For John Chastel a scholer of the Jesuits who stroke King Henry the fourth of France in the mouth and broke out one of his teeth intending to have cut his throat when he was examined confessed that he being guilty of
much less do we hold that the Pope may loose all subjects from their oath of loyalty and command that a Jesuit stob or poyson a King when he turneth enemy to the Roman faith Satan himself cannot charge us with these therefore we intreat that none would hearken to the Author of Philanax Anglicus or the like who endeavor to traduce and calumniat us as if the Protestants of integrity did teach and practise rebellion c. Look to our Confessions and the approved writings of our Doctors and to the practises of Protestants in the Kingdoms and Common-wealths where they live and they will be forced to confess we own no such doctrine Who more loyal subjects then the Protestants in France to King Henry the third and King Henry the fourth They owned them assisted and fought for them when almost all others abandoned them How faithful were our predecessors in Scotland to King James they crowned him in his cradle they preserved him owned and assisted him and made him a glory to Europe for understanding learning and wisdom I shal not insist further on this seeing Peter du Moulin hath learnedly vindicated the Reformed Churches from this false aspersion hatched in hell of purpose to alienat the affections of the Magistrat from us But this only say as we desire to render to God the things that are Gods so we desire to render to Cesar the things that are Cesars But to conclud Doth not the truth and honor of God which ought to be dearer to us then our own salvation our own and posterities welfare and safety in body soul and all that is near and dear to us call us to consider and seriously to lay to heart the increase and prevalency of Popery Since the Reformation there was never generally more prevailing of Popery and more hazard of being ruined thereby then now and yet never less sense thereof zeal against it In former times the least appearance of the prevalency of Popery did alarm all to deal according to their place and station most seriously for suppressing thereof I shal not insist in shewing how zealous our predecessors in Scotland were against Popery and how they left no mean unessayed for total extirpation thereof out of the land nor how ready they were upon the least appearance of any danger to discover the danger and petition and supplicat the Kings Majesty and Estats of Parliament for remedy For instance when news came of the preparation of the Spanish Armado 1588. what fasting praying and humiliation was all the Land over and all other means essayed for preventing that dismal-like stroke And anno 1592. when the plots of the Popish Lords who had conspired to bring in the Spaniards in the Kingdom was discovered what zeal and forwardness did all the Land show for defence of the Reformed Religion and suppressing of Popery I will not I say insist at large on these seeing the Acts of our Parliaments wherein there are so many excellent statuts and laws made against Popery and the Histories of these times doth abundantly declare what zeâ—l and hatred all ranks and degrees had against that Romish Whoor But I shal only make this inference If they had such love to the truth and such zeal against Antichrist who had not such light and were not so strongly engaged as we are shal they not arise in judgement against us and condemn us For should not the truths of God be as precious to us as to our predecessors Are there not as many obligations lying upon us as was upon them Is not Popery that same damnable Antichristian idolatry now that it was then Why then are we so dreadfully lukewarm and indifferent and so little zealous against it Should we be silent when Christ suffers If in any thing and at any time we be obliged to confess him before men and to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints is it not in this thing and at this time when Antichrist is endeavoring to rob us of the purity of the Gospel and to entangle us with the yoke of his Idolatry and superstition Do we not see what we may expect if Popery prevail notwithstanding of all their specious pretences and fair and plausible insinuations The massacre of Paris the Spanish Inquisition and their unheard-of cruelty in Ireland to our own flesh and blood together with the Marian days in England ought never to be forgotten by us but alwayes raise in us a perfect detestation of and holy zeal and indignation against that Scarlet Whoor What may we expect if Popery prevail but that sad Dilemma either to be burnt at a stake or loose our souls and bodies eternally for the portion of these that worship the Beast and receive his mark is to be casten in that lake that burneth night and day Rev. 14.10.11 THE CONCLVSION NOw although we can expect nothing but either loss of life and all that is near and dear to us or to loose our souls eternally if Popery prevail yet how little concerned are we in these matters How luke warm and indifferent are we in this age and generation as to any Religion How few are they that are stirred up to deal with God by prayer and supplication for continuing of the Gospel in purity with us and to lay seriously to heart the abounding iniquity of these days that may justly provoke the Lord to give us up to the tyranny of Antichrist It is true many apprehend no hazard from Antichrist and think that all the noyse that is made of the prevalency of Popery is without any real ground and cause But let such think what they please yet really our hazard is not so little as is apprehended if we consider the diligence activity and vigilancy of Antichrist upon the one hand and the lightness unstability lukewarmness and Gallio-like temper of this generation together with the dreadful evils whereby the Lord is provoked to remove the candlestick and give us up to strong delusions to believe lies on the o her hand I. First I say if we consider the diligence and activity of Antichrist for is not Antichrist as active and diligent as ever Hath he not been still endeavoring by all manner of way to get his deadly wound cured and the Reformed Churches brought again under his subjection and especially Britain and Ireland which he looks upon as his great eye-sore Therefore he hath erected for educating of the children of Scots and English Papists a Colledge at Doway in Flanders another at Rome the third at Valladolit in old Castile a fourth in Sevil in Spain a fifth in S. Omers in Artois a sixth in Madrid in new Castile in Spain a seventh in Lovain in Brabant an eight in Liege in Luikland a ninth in Ghent in Flanders Now these that are educated in these Colledges especially at Rome they are bound by oath to come over to Britain and Ireland for propagating of Popery and accordingly some comes over to
breadth and not to have his own length and breadth at once in the Sacrament is a manifest contradiction is yea and nay in Christ therefore both by the Scripture and your own doctrine the omnipotency of Christ cannot be alledged or pretended for this your doctrine which is yea and nay and implyes a manifest contradiction So this in very truth is the invention of your own brain which is alledged for your Transubstantiation and wants the warrant yea is gain-said both by the written Word and your own School-men Next ye would have us to hold away our figurs symbols and similituds I answer our own figurs we shal hold away but these figurs symbols and signs wherein our Savior hath delivered his truth to us we must and will acknowledge So then obeying rather God who hath set them down in his Scripture then you who forbids us to acknowledge them and what a monstrous exposition would you make of infinit places of Scripture if you would admit no figures in them but all to be understood plainly and literally as they were spoken The Scripture ascribes to God eyes ears foot hands and a face and the Scripture calls Christ a door a vine Now if you will admit no figurs here but will have all these places exponed literally as you will have us to do in the Sacrament then you would be reckoned in the number of the old hereticks called Anthropomorphitae who because they saw the Scripture speak so of God they taking it literally and exponing it without figurs as you would have us to expone the Sacrament they thought that God was bodilie yea you must make another monstrous Transubstantiation of Christ in a door and vine-tree for so he calls himself And to come to the Sacraments themselves how many transubstantiations will you make in all the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament if you will remove figurs and signs from them and expone them literally as you would have us to do in this Sacrament Circumcision is called the covenant Gen. 27. and yet it was but the sign of the covenant the Lamb in the Passover is called the Passover of the Lord Exod. 12. and yet it was but the sign of the Passover the Rock in the wilderness is called Christ 2. Cor. 20. and yet it was but a sign of Christ the Ark is called the Lord Psal 24. and yet it was but a sign of the Lord the land of Canaan is called the rest of the Lord. Heb. 4. and yet it was but a sign of that rest and Baptism is called the washing of regeneration Tit. 3. and yet it is but the sign of our regeneration Do you think that the forms of speaches in all other Sacraments are figuratively taken and the form of speach in this Sacrament only to be literally understood What reason can there be of this diversity But it may be you think that the form of speaches in all other Sacraments should be taken figuratively but the phrase of speach in this Sacrament is to be taken literally But first what then will you say to this speach This is my body which is broken for you and this The cup is the New Testament in my blood and the cup is my blood and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 11. Luke 22. Mark 14. 1. Cor. 13. all figurative speaches and to be understood figuratively otherwise Christ should have been broken in the Sacrament which is both contrary to the Scripture and also absurd For then he should have suffered twise once in the Sacrament and once upon the cross and not only should there be one transubstantiation in the Sacrament but many as of the cup in the blood of Christ and of the bread and cup in the participation of the body and blood of Christ and so you should not only have one transubstantiation but many And how I pray you can Sacraments which are but figurs signs and symbols be understood but figuratively And how can duo diversa individua alterum de altero praedicari in praedicatione and be spoken of another without a figure as it is here This bread is my body c. Can you or any at all of your Roman Clergy understand such propositions otherwise then figurativelie What an unreasonable thing is it then to you to forbid us to acknowledge figurs in this Sacrament which is but a figure and sign seeing they are so frequentlie used in the Scriptures of God and especiallie in Sacraments as also in this Sacrament So nil ye will ye signs and symbols tropes and figurs ye must admit in the exposition of this Sacrament Last of all ye think a natural bodie cannot be spirituallie eaten Would you be so absurd and blasphemous as to have Christs bodie naturallie eaten For then his bodie must be naturallie chawed digested turned over in our substance and casten out in the draught and so be mortal and suffer again Apage hanc blasphemiam Let me ask you whither is Christs bodie the food of the soul or the food of the bodie If you say it is the food of the bodie to fill the bellie then I say it must be naturally eaten but you are blaspemous in so thinking But if you say it is the food of the soul as it is indeed and as our Savior saith John 6.35 then it cannot be eaten naturally For as the food of the body cannot be eaten spiritually so the food of the soul cannot be eaten naturally but spiritually by faith And if you understood this true eating of Christ by faith all your contention would take an end But this is the stone which ye stumble at and therefore ye forbid us to come in with a spiritual eating of Christs natural body as though it could be eaten otherwise then spiritually by faith Will you neither understand the Scriptures John 6 35. nor the ancient Fathers August tract 26. in Joh. 6 lib 3. de doct Christ cap. 16 Clemens Alex Hierom. S Basilius Bernardus supra citat nor your own Church Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 7. and your Canon Law de consecrat dist 1. cap. 5. who all acknowledge a spiritual eating of Christ by faith What gross darkness is this wherewith the Lord hath blinded you above all that ye cannot understand it As Christ dwells in us and we in him so do we eat him and drink him But the Apostle saith he dwells in us by faith Ephes 3. therefore we eat him and drink him by faith And seeing your Church grants that the eating of Christ corporally doth no good and the eating of him by faith only will bring eternal life as our Savior saith John 6. what needs then this corporal and real eating of Christ And why are ye like the gross and carnal Capernaits who can understand no eating but a corporal eating of him
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