Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	eternal_a	good_a	life_n	4,162	5	5.3241	4	true

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

The persons to whom the work is done must be obliged and bound by right to render and recompense the worker for the worthiness of the work so that he is not just if he do it not And last of all the work must be our own and not anothers and the power our own whereby it is done and not anothers ere we can be said properly to merit by the same But all these conditions will fail in our works therefore they cannot be meritorious of eternal life For as to the first the Prophet saith That all our righteousness is as a menstrous cloth And James saith We all offend in many things and none there is that have contained in doing all things written in the Law in that perfection which it craves of us as hath been proved before therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life And as to the second all that we can do or is able to do we are bound to do it already by the vertue of our creation and redemption and his other blessings already bestowed yea they oblige us to more then we are ever able to pay according to that saying of our Savior Luke 17.10 Even so ye when ye have done all that is commanded you say We are unprofitable servants because we have done that which was our duty to do Since therefore it is duty it cannot be meritorious of eternal life And as to the third there is no proportion between eternal life and our works the reward by infinit degrees surpassing the work and therefore the Apostle saith The afflictions of this life are not worthy of the glory which shal be revealed Rom. 8 18. Everlasting life being only the just reward of the sufferings of the Son of God Bernard saith What are all our merits to so great a glory serm 1. de annum And Athanasius saith in vita Antonij Not suppose we would renounce the whole world yet are we not able to do any thing worthy of these heavenly habitations As to the fourth the Lord is debtor to no creature For as the Apostle saith Who hath given him first and he shal be recompensed Rom. 11.35 The Lord is all-sufficient in himself and so needs none of your labors and so our works cannot oblige him And therefore Augustin saith serm 16. de verbis Apostoli God is made a debter unto us not by receiving any thing from our hands but because it pleased him to promise And to the last the Apostle saith What hast thou that thou didst not receive now if thou didst receive it why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it 1. Cor. 4.7 Seeing therefore all our works are imperfect and seeing we are not able to fulfill the Law and seeing all that we can do is but our duty and there is no proportion betwixt eternal life and our works and that the Lord is debtor to no man and all our ability of doing is from the Lord only therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life Hear further what the Fathers say in this point Augustin saith in manuali c. 22. All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit my refuge salvation life and resurrection my merit is the compassion of the Lord I shal not be void of a merit so long as the Lord of mercies shal not want Origen who lived two hundred years before him saith in Epist ad Rom. cap. 4. lib. 4. I scarcely believe that there can be any work which may of due demand the reward of God forsomuch as even the same that we can do think or speak we do it by his gift or bounty Then how can he ow us any thing whose grace did preveen us And he saith afterward That the Apostle assigns eternal life to grace only Ambrose saith de bono mor. cap. 1. Everlasting life is forgiveness of sins so then it is not merit Jerome saith adversus Pelag. That before God no man is just therefore no man can merit And again he saith The only perfection of man is if they know themselves to be imperfect and our justice consisteth not of our own merit but of Gods mercy I omit the rest for ●●ortness Now to your testimonies and reason to prove your merit of works which you shamefuly abuse bringing forth Scripture to cloke your damnable doctrine unto the which I answer shortly That there is a reward laid up with God for the works of every one be they good be they evil and according to their works shal they be tryed and every man shal be judged and recompensed accordingly as the Scripture plainly testifieth But that this reward of eternal life promised is of debt and not of grace and that our works are the meritorious cause of the same that the Scripture never affirms For the Lord freely and of his meer grace crowneth his own works in us and that not for the excellency of the work it self but of mercy freely for his Christs sake as both I have proved and the Fathers have testified So these Scriptures serve you to no purpose For the controversie betwixt us is not whither there is a reward promised and whither it shal be rendred accordingly to the same for that we grant but whither this reward is of merit or of grace The Apostle saith plainly in the 6 of the Romans The wages of sin is death but everlasting life is the free gift of God And in the 8 of the Romans it is called an inheritance Now if it be heritage to them that are in Christ and they heirs of it through him then it is not their merit As for the 16. of Ecclesiasticus it is Apocrypha and the text hath not that word merit as the old Interpreter whom ye follow translates it but according to his work As for the 118. Psalm and the 16 of Matthew ye are over seen in the quoting of them for they have no such thing As for your reason that a reward hath ever a relation to a merit that is false For the Apostle in the 4. of the Romans speaks of a reward that is imputed freely not to him who worketh but to him that believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly vers 5. And in this sense the reward of eternal life promised and fulfilled in his Saints is taken in the Scriptures And whereas you say that there is no reward promised but to doing and working that is false also for there is a reward of eternal life promised to the believer vers 5. And as for the promises of reward made to good works it is true it is made to them but not as though our works were meritorious causes of that reward but only that they are effects to testifie of our faith in the merit of Jesus Christ in whom only the promises are made to us and our works and for whose sake only they are fulfilled in his Saints For these causes therefore is the promise of reward made unto works first

Church for calling the marriage of infidels a Sacrament For as we deny marriage to be a Sacrament at all properly so doth your Church deny the marriage of infidels to be a Sacrament properly But to let this pass I say because I will not deceive the Reader as ye do with appearances of contradictions through the ambiguity of the words Alphonsus de Castro lib. contra haeres verbo nuptiae haeres 3. Petrus a Soto lectio 2. de matrimonio two of your Doctors and sundry others say That marriage is not a proper Sacrament of the New Testament And yet the Council of Florence and Trent and sundry others of your Church say the contrary 2. Durandus a great Doctor of your Church saith in 4. dist 26. quaest 3. That marriage is not a Sacrament properly 3. Some of your Church held that carnal copulation in marriage is a part of the Sacrament some the contrary that it is neither a Sacrament nor a part of the Sacrament so Bellarmin testifies lib. 1. de sacram matrim c. 5. pag. 88. 4. Durandus and your Canonists hold That the Sacrament of marriage doth not confer grace unto them that receive it And yet our common doctrine is contrary this as Bellarmin grants ibidem Last of all Canus a learned Papist affirms That every marriage lawfully contracted among Christians is not a Sacrament but only that which is made by the Minister in a certain form of words the which Bellarmin and sundry others deny And you are of great diversity concerning the matter of that Sacrament among your selves These are not now shows of disorders and contradictions but they are so true and manifest that Bellarmin your chief campion hath confessed them de sacram matrim lib. 1. Judge thou now Christian Reader whither is it we or they that is at variance among our selves And this for the ninth point of your doctrine SECTION XVII Concerning Merit of Good Works M. Gilbert Brown ELeventhly our doctrine is that a man in the estat of grace doing good works merits or deserves a reward which is the doctrine of the Prophets Christ and his Apostles as may be perceived in these places and many the like a Gen. 15.1 2. Kings 15.7 Eccles 16.15 and 10.31 Psal 118.112 Prov. 11.18 Sap. 5.16 and ●10 17 Isai 3.10 Jer. 31.16 Fear not Abraham saith God I am thy protector and thy exceeding great reward In another place Therefore be ye of comfort and let not your hands be dissolved there shal be a reward for your work And in the Book Ecclesiasticus All mercy shal make place to every one according to the merit of his works With many more in the Old Testament then I am able to let down here But some of them I have noted And our Savior saith b Matth. 5.12 John 5.29 Matth. 10.42 and 16.1 and 16.27 and 25.34 and 20. Mark 9.41 Luke 6.35 Rejoyce and be glad for your reward is great in heaven And again They that have done good things shal come forth to the resurrection of life but they that have done evil to the resurrection of judgement And whosoever shal give drink to one of these little ones one cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple truly I say unto you he shal not lose his reward And c 1. Cor. 3.8.14 and 9.17.18 Eph. 6.8 S Paul saith Every one shal receive his own reward according to his labor And d 2. John 8. Rev. 22.12 S John saith Look to your selves that ye lose not the things which ye have wrought but that ye may receive a full reward And in his Revelation Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me to render to every man according to his works With many more the like in the Word of God What can our new men say against this doctrine of Christ his Apostles and Prophets seeing that there is no reward without merit because merces and meritum have relation together For there is no reward promised in the Word of God but for doing and working And albeit God hath promised to reward all our good deeds yet this promise is not without a cause that is to them that will labor and work and to do according to his will For he hath promised no reward to them that will not work but to such as deserves the same by their doings as I have noted before in the book called Ecclesiasticus the 16. chapter Maister John Welsch his Reply As for your doctrine of merits of works wherein you say That a man in the estat of grace doth merit eternal life and glory and that as well in respect of the work it self as of the covenant and promise made unto it So Bellarmin lib. 5. de justific cap. 17. yea that the works are in vertue equal and of as great valor as the reward of eternal life is so that there is an equal proportion between the works and eternal life And there are some of your Church and those of the learned among you who have gone further and affirm That the good works of the righteous merits life eternal in respect of the worthiness and excellency of the work it self suppose the Lord had never made a promise or covenant as Cajetanus a Cardinal and Dominicus à Soto as Bellarmin reports of them lib. 5. de justif cap. 19. And M. Reynold saith pag. 105. That good works and evil are laid in different ballance that good works are the cause of heaven as evil works are the cause of hell And Andreas Vega saith in 5 quaest de justific That the reward of glory shal not be greater then our good works have deserved What blasphemy is this your doctrine And surely if in any one point of your doctrine you show your selves to be men who not only knows not the holiness of God the unspeakableness of that other life the perfection and infinit vertue of Christs merits the perfection of his Law and mans infirmity and weakness especially you manifest it in this point For if ye knew any of these things ye would never profess such damnable doctrine For that our works may merit eternal life as ye say and that not only in respect of the covenant but in respect of the work it self there are five things required 1. That the work be perfect according to that measure of perfection which the Law of God requires and the whole Law must be fulfilled and that perfectly and continually 2. The works must not be debt that is such works as we are bound before to do For the paying of that duty which we ow already cannot merit properly a reward For will you say that for the paying of that which you ow already you deserve a reward 3. There must be a proportion and equality between the work wrought and the reward it self For if the work be less and the reward greater then that which is more then the work is not of merit but of liberality 4.

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 Minister of the Gospel first at Kirkubright next at Air in Scotland and last at S. John d'Angely in France The second Edition revised corrected and divided into Sections To which is annexed A Discovery of the bloody rebellious and treasonable principles and practises of Papists in dissolving Oaths committing Treasons raising Warrs and Commotions and using imparalleled cruelties toward Protestants By MATTHEW CRAFORD GLASGOW By ROBERT SANDERS Printer to the City and University 1●72 In hanc pij docti Auctoris Diatriben pij docti viri M. Matth. Crafordij additamentum decastichon Latino-Scoticum ROmulidum qui sacra oupis cognoscere sacra Et fugere haec sancti perlege scripta viri Perspicuè solidè Babylonia scita refedit Queîs miseras animas turba dolosa capit Quae nunc heu passim nullo prohibente vagatur Pro sapidis dapibus toxica tetra ferens Non minimas CRAFORDI etiam vir docte mereris Grates addideris quòd bona multa libro Vulnera quò capiat meretrix Romana nefandi Propinans stupri pocula plena sui The same in English WHo cursed Rome and Romish rites would know And them eschew this Book will clearly show It Babels doctrine truly doth declare Wherewith poor souls false Papists do ensnare Who now alace run freely as they will For wholsome food with poyson them to kill Great thanks also should learned CRAFORD get For these good things he to the Book hath set Which may help much to give Romes Whoor a wound Whose whoordoms so doth in the Land abound J. A. THE PREFACE TO THE LOVERS OF THE REformed Religion in Britain and Ireland DEARLY BELOVED IN THE LORD The name and memory of that Apostolick and singularly godly and faithful servant of JESUS CHRIST M. John Welsch who now is attending his Masters work in the Upper-House without wearying night and day is so precious in the Church of CHRIST that the revising republishing of any of his works who praise him in the gate will I hope be very acceptable to all the learned and godly especially this subsequent Treatise wherein many of the greatest and weightiest points of Controversie betwixt us and Papists are learnedly and solidly debated and the truth of our Doctrine evidently demonstrated and the error superstition and idolatry of the Church of Rome excellently anatomized and solidly refuted especially in such a time as this when Popery so much every where prevaileth and the Pope and his Agents are most active and diligent using all-means to get their deadly wound cured sending over to these Nations dayly swarms of Priests and Jesuits with books beads medals and the like Romish trash thereby to seduce the poor people who are in great hazard partly through their ignorance of the Controversies betwixt us and Papists partly through the lamentable decay of zeal against Antichrist and love to the truth partly through the sad divisions and distractions that are among our selves whereby the poor people are sorely brangled and tempted to Scepteiism and is made use of by Priests and Jesuits as a strong motive to perswade them to Popery although there be far greater divisions among Papists then among us as I have elsewhere demonstrated We shal not detain you long in the entry but only speak a little of the Author and of this Treatise and the causes that moved the reviving and republishing thereof at this time The now triumphing and glorified Author needeth none of our commendation he being among the spirits of just men before the throne and his memory being deservedly very precious in the Church of Christ But because the lives of godly men are useful for imitation we shal give a short description of his life He was descended of an ancient and respective family being a son of an ancient house of the name of Welsch in Nithsdale He was born a little after that blessed work of Reformation began in Scotland and being trained up at Schools he profited very much so that he was excellently accomplished in all kind of literature and eminent for piety and zeal for the Kingdom of Christ And being called to the Ministery of the Gospel about the year 1588. at the town of Kirkubright he was most diligent and laborious in preaching catechising visiting the sick and disputing and convincing of Papists which that Countrey abounded with And his labors were singularly blessed of God for many were brought by his Ministery to see the error superstition and idolatry of Popery and to embrace the truth and many were really converted to God and others were edified and built up confirmed comforted and strenthened so that he as a shining and burning light did inlighten that whole Countrey who at that time was in many places destitut of Pastors After he had remained there several years the General Assembly thought fit to transport him to Air as a Town of greater note and more populous where he was most assiduous and diligent in the work of the Ministery for he preached not only twise on the Lords day but also twise on every day of the week from nine to ten in the morning and from four to five at night where the Lord wonderfully blessed his labors for both in Air and in the Countrey about many were converted by him some of whom were as eminent and lively Christians as readily have been known of latter times After he had continued in the work of the Ministery several years at Air he was commissioned by the Presbytery with some other of his brethren to keep the Assembly indicted at Aberdene anno 1605. for which he with M. John Forbes M. Andrew Duncan M. John Sharp M. Robert Dury and M. Alexander Strachan were arraigned imprisoned and at length banished anno 1606. whereupon he went to France and in a very short time learned the French tongue and acquired such a facility therein as was thought strange by these who knew it He was called to the Ministery in S. John d' Angely a Protestant town in France where his Ministery was much blessed with success But the Civil Warrs arising while he was there that City was besieged on the Protestant interest M. Welsch did much encourage the people and told them that their adversaries should not prevail But in process of time the town was sore straitned and ready to be taken the enemy having raised a battery and by a close approach had made a great breach in the wall M. Welsch hearing

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

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

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 B●llarmin tells King James Tort pag. 19 That the Pope claims a d●uble right to England one by reason o● 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 introductiō 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 J●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 there●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 R●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

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