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 â—â—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
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
the sins of others What is this else but to make themselves in a part Saviors of themselves and Saviors of others also Yea what is this else but to make themselves God For who can satisfie the justice of God but God himself Thirdly as it hath been proved before Christ offered up himself once by shedding of his blood upon the Cross never to be offered up again which hath purchased an everlasting redemption the which is the only ground of mans salvation How they have overturned this by their abominable sacrifice of the Mass and their sacrilegious Mass-Priests I hope hath been proved sufficiently before so that they have both evacuat the vertue of the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in setting up another sacrifice for the redemption of souls And also they have spoyled him of the dignity of his Royal Priesthood in joyning unto him collegues and fellow-Priests to offer up himself dayly in their pretended sacrifice Fourthly as they spoyl him of his Priesthood so do they spoyl men of that redemption righteousness and salvation which his death hath purchased both in the fountain matter and form thereof The Scripture testifies that the only fountain and efficient cause of our salvation is Gods free love and grace 2. Tim. 1.9 Tit. 2.11 Eph. 1.5 and 1. John 3.16 They teach That an infidel by the works of preparation as they call them even done without faith may procure and merit Gods favor Masuenda in disput Ratisb cum Bucero Scholast And also they joyn with the grace of God mans free-will as a party worker with it as though God did not renew it being corrupted or repair it being perished but only relieve it being weak and raise it up being faint by the which they abolish if the Apostle speak true Rom. 11.6 and 4 5. the grace of Christ for if our salvation be of grace it is not of works and if it be not of works then it is not of grace and so not at all As to the matter of our justification the Scripture ascribes it only to Christ his obedience and his death Rom. 5.19 They by the contrary suppose they grant that Christ hath fulfilled the Law and perfectly satisfied God yet they teach that this righteousness of Christ is not our righteousness by the which we must be justified but they place it in our own works and in our own merits And of this comes the third that whereas the Scripture testifies that this righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us by faith Rom. 4.22.23.24.3.5.6.7 They acknowledge not this imputation but placeth the form of our justification in the merit of our works and so they spoyl man of righteousness and salvation For Bellarmin saith lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 2. That the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is not required to our justification And the Council of Trent Can. 10. Accurseth them who say that we are justified justos formaliter per Christi justitiam by the righteousness of Christ. And as they have spoyled Christ of the first part of his office of his Priesthood so do they spoyl him of the second part thereof which consists in his intercession in joyning with him innumerable Intercessors and Mediators as well of Angels as of Saints departed at whose hands they seek all manner of grace which is only proper to Jesus Christ to give and that not only for the vertue of the merits of Christ but for their own merits and intercession Every Parish almost among them had their own Patron and every malady disease or calamity their own Saint or Angel to run to And as their doctrine hath robbed the Lord Jesus of his Priestly dignity and man of the benefit of eternal life purchased to him by the same so have they robbed him of that glory and worship that is due unto him in plucking away his glory from him and giving it unto creatures 1. As unto Angels and 2. Unto Saints departed and especially unto the Virgin Mary 3. Unto their relicks 4. Unto images of the Trinity of the Saints of the Cross 5. Unto things consecrated as water oyl c. 6. And unto the Sacrament of the Eucharist unto whom they give that worship which is only due unto God as prayer worship vows sacrifices c. So that if they may be justly called the Antichrist whose doctrine spoyls Christ of the office of his mediation and man of his salvation purchased thereby and God of his due glory which man is bound to give him for his creation and redemption and sets up other Saviors and Mediators other Priests and Intercessors beside him and teaches another way of mans salvation then he hath taught and worship other Gods then the God that made heaven and earth and after another manner then he hath commanded Then I say the Popes of Rome may justly be called and is in truth the Antichrist and adversary to God For they are guilty of all this abomination And because I know that the poor and ignorant people and these that are blinded with the strong delusions of that man of sin will not believe these things of him and of his Church but as Thomas said of Christ Unless I see the print of the nails and put my finger in the print of the nails and put my hand into his side I will not believe Even so unless they see their idolatry and grope it as it were with their hands they will not believe it therefore I am compelled for their conviction and information that none of them that is ordained to salvation perish to let them see their idolatries and to make them to grope their abominations and that by their own Books For I shal not speak here beguess for that were great foolishness to alledge here any other thing then that which is written in their own Books seeing he hath promised to give an answer lest he should challenge me of lying of them I protest therefore Christian Reader that I shal forge nor fain nothing of them but shal only set down those things which are to be found in their own writings And first in their service and Mass Book secundum usum Anglicanum Horae beatae Mariae suffragia c. printed anno 1520. they pray to the Archangels and Angels to defend them in battel to defend them that none condemn them to keep both their soul and body from godless desires and from unclean cogitations to keep their mind from pollution to confirm them in the fear and love of Christ Secondly they pray to the Saints departed That by their merits and intercession they may be defended from all evils obtain all gifts and get eternal life Yea they seek of them Defence in this world from all evils and everlasting life And they pray to God the Father that by their merits and intercession they may be delivered both soul and body from Hell fire and may obtain through their merits faith patience and everlasting life So not only they
by the grace of God may keep the Commands of God and obey him which is contrary to their Confession of Faith Our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Christ saith If you will enter into life keep the commands Matth. 19.17 And again If ye love me keep my commands John 14.25 24. Matth. 11.29 30. And in another place He that loves me not keeps not my words c. Also Take up my yoke upon you c. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light Now I believe that no man can deny but this yoke and burden of Christ is his Commands and Laws This same doctrine the Apostles teached S. Paul saith Phil. 4.13 and 2.13 I can do all things in him that comforts me And before For it is God that works in you both to will and to accomplish according to his good will And S. John 1.5.3 saith This is the charity of God that we keep his Commands and his Commands are not heavy Now further then these we read that Noe Gen. 6.9 Abraham Gen. 26.5 Job 1.22 were just men and obeyed God And S. Luke 1.6 saith that Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both just before God and walked in all the commands and justification of our Lord without blame There are many other places in the Old Testament of the same matter of the which I have noted some as 3. Kings 14.8.4 and 18.3.4 and 20.3.4 and 23.25 2. Chron. 15.15 Now hold away from these places the Ministers Commentaries and I believe that all men will confess that our doctrine in this and the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is all one M. John Welsch his Reply It appeareth that M. Gilbert is loath that the secrets of the doctrine of his Church should be known to the people because he knows in his heart they would abhor the same their own hearts and consciences witnessing to the contrary Therefore he hath hid up the poyson of it and covered it as secretly as he could But that wherein you are dark the rest of your Roman Clergy are plain For first where as ye say that a man by the grace of God may keep the Commands Bellarmin expones more clearly and sayes By the help of the grace of God Lib. de justific cap. 10. And the Monks in that form of abjuration set out anno 1585 saith That man by the new strength of grace infused in good will may keep the commands So that whereas your words would seem to import that the grace of God is the only cause of this obedience to Gods Commandments in the faithful and so I think every one almost who is not acquainted with the doctrine of your Roman Church will take it and so it may be ye teach them The rest of your brethren are more plain in halfing it betwixt free-will and the grace of God helping free-will as though the strength of nature were the more principal cause and the grace of God but a helper to it And secondly whereas ye say that a man by the grace of God may keep the Commandments of God and obey them Bellarmin saith more plainly cap. 19 pag. 364 lib. 2 de justifi cap. 3. That the Law of God is absolutely possible unto them and they may absolutly fulfil the Law and keep the whole Law and that the works of the righteous are absolutly and simpliciter righteous and proceeding of a perfect holiness without all blemish of sin and that they please God not for the imputation of Christs righteousness covering their imperfections and forgiving them but for the excellencie of the work it self So this is their doctrine Christian Reader Now as he hid his own so hath he hid ours also For our Confession of Faith saith That our sanctification and obedience to Gods Law is imperfect which word he omitted as though it had been our doctrine that the children of God in no measure nor degree keep the Commandments of God Our doctrine therefore is this That of our own nature we are dead in sin Eph. 2.1 and of our selves we are neither able to understand 1. Cor. 2.14 nor think 2. Cor. 3.7 nor will nor do those things that are pleasant to God Philip 2.13 and therefore we must be born anew again John 3 5. ere we can do any thing that is acceptable in Gods sight John 15.5 and this sanctification of ours is not perfect while we are in this life Rom. 7.14 15. but imperfect ever some darkness some rebellion some dregs of the old man yet remaining in us so that we know but in a part 1 Cor. 13.12 and our will is but renewed in part and our heart sanctified in part from the which it cometh that first we do not all the good that we are bound to do and would do as the Apostle saith Rom 7 15.16.17.18.19 20.21.22.23 24. Next that all our righteousness as the Prophet saith is but as a menstruous cloth Esai 64.6 ever smelling somewhat of the corruption of the old man within us and so that they have need to be covered with the righteousness of Jesus Christ and their imperfection to be pardoned By the only strength therefore of Gods Spirit who works both to will and to do in us we begin here obedience to the whole Law of God but yet are not able perfectly so to keep it as our works may abide to be tryed before the Lord in the ballance of his Law and therefore we place the whole hope of our salvation in the only mercy of God through Jesus Christ who is made to us of God righteousness sanctification and redemption by whose mercy we obtain the perfect remission or our sins and so we conclud with David Psal 32. Blessed is he whose sins are forgiven him and whose iniquities are covered This now is the verie simple truth both of our doctrine and theirs in this head Now to answer you Whereas ye say That a man by grace may keep the Commandments of God if you mean that the only cause of the obedience of the children of God to his Law is the renewing grace of God and that this obedience is sincere and hearty not to one but to all the Commandments not only outward but inward suppose not in that high measure of perfection that the Law of God requires then I say you contradict the doctrine of your Roman Church and forsakes their error of free-will concurring with grace and of the perfection of man his obedience here to the Law and so shakes hands with the truth of God which we profess in this point And so becoms a bad defēder of their Catholick faith as ye stile yourself And would to God your eyes were opened so to see and believe suppose ye lost that stile for ever But if ye make free-will the principal cause of this obedience as Bellarmin calls it and if ye understand a perfect obedience as your Church teaches then first tell me why did ye not speak as
it is not of that which he speaks here Secondly he speaks of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood which whosoever so doth hath eternal life to themselves so our Savior Christ promises in the 54. verse But your own doctrine is that the reprobat eats and drinks Christs body and blood in the Sacrament and yet have no life in them therefore he speaks not here of that sacramental eating Thirdly if he speak here of the sacramental eating as you say then your Church not only hath erred foully but also hath been and is the cause of the condemnation of your people these many years because you give them not his blood to drink And our Savior saith not only Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man but also except ye drink his blood ye have no life in you And this reason was so effectual that it hath moved sundry of your own Doctors as Jansenius and Tapperus with sundry others to expone this place not of the sacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ but of the spiritual eating and drinking of him by faith For they did see that it behoved them either to forsake this place as not making for them and grant that it speaks not of the Sacrament or else to confess that their Church hath erred and through this error hath been the cause of the damnation of many in ministring the Sacrament but under one kind And because you say if our expositions vere removed from the Scripture they would ferve for you whom therefore will you credit in exponing of this place If our Savior hear then how he expon s this eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in the 35. verse I am the bread of life he that cometh unto me shal not hunger and he that believes in me shal never thirst So when we believe in Christ we eat him and when we come unto him which is only by faith we drink him So Augustine also expones this place Tractat. 25. in Johan cap 6. Tract 26 de doct Christ lib. 3 cap. 16. Believe saith he and thou hast eaten Clement Alexandrinus lib. 1. Padago cap. 6. and Hieronymus in Psal 147. and Bernard supra Psal 90 vers 3 all expones the flesh and blood of Christ figuratively And if ye will credit none of these then I hope ye will not discredit your own chief Doctors who affirms That this place is not meant of the Sacrament but of the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ by faith As Biel Cusanus Caiâ—tanus Hesselius and Jansâ—nius cited by Bellarm lib 1 de Eucharist cap. 5. And if ye will reply that many others of the Fathers have exponed this place of the Sacrament then Janfenius and Tapperus two Papists will answer you That they did it only by way of application unto the readers and hearers to stir them up to the often receiving of the Sacrament So this place can serve nothing for your Transubstantiation for it speaks not of the Sacrament but of his suffering upon the Cross for the away taking of our sins and the purchasing to us of eternal life The next place ye quote is the words of the institution as Matthew Mark Luke and the Apostles rehearses them Your argument is this Christ calls the bread his flesh and so Paul and the wine his blood therefore the bread is changed in his body and the wine in his blood the outward formes of bread and wine only remaining This is the chief and principal ground of your real presence and Transubstantiation Whereunto I answer First there is not a syllable here that tells us that the substance of the bread and wine is transchanged in the body and blood of Christ unless ye will expone this word is my body for it is changed in my body which is a monstrous exposition for both it is contrary to the native signification of the word est Est Fieri sunt contraria that signifies to be alreadie for to be already and to be in a change are contrary as also it hath not the like form of speach in the whole Scripture to warrant it from the first of Genesis to the last of the Revelation Bring one instance if ye can And Augustin saith in Genes quaest 117. in Psal 105. supr Num. quaest 95. The solution of a question should be warranted by some example of the like speach in the Scripture the which you are not able to do Therefore your exposition is without warrant Next I say by what Art of reasoning can you gather this doctrine out of these places of Scripture Christ saith of the bread This is my body and of the wine This is my blood Therefore the outward formes of the bread and wine only remains but the substance of them is gone Never such an inkling in all these texts of this doctrine of yours Thirdly this interpretation and doctrine which results upon it is false and that for these reasons First because it is plainly gain-said by the Scripture Secondly because it destroys sundry articles of our Faith and many blasphemous absurdities doth follow upon it Thirdly it destroys the nature of the Sacrament And last of all is utterly repugnant to the words of the institution My argument then is this That interpretation and doctrine which is gain-said by the plain testimony of the Scripture which destroyes the articles of our faith and the fundamental points of our salvation which hath many absurdities following upon it which overthrowes the nature of the Sacrament and last of all which is contrary to the whole institution must be false blasphemous and erroneous This cannot be denyed but your interpretation of these words This is my body c. and your transubstantiation which ye gather upon it is such Therefore it must be erroneous c. My assumption I prove thus First your interpretation is gain-said by the plain testimony of the Scripture Your interpretation is that there remains no true bread nor wine in the Sacrament but the substance of it is changed But Matthew Mark Luke and the Apostles all four testifies That Christ took bread brake it and gave it to his disciples And lest ye should say that it was true bread and wine before the consecration but not after the Scripture saith plainly 1. Cor. 10.16 that it is bread which we break and bread which is eaten and the fruit of the vine which is drunken in the Sacrament The Apostle saith The bread which we break c. And as oft as ye eat this bread c. Whosoever shal eat this bread c. And let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread c. And our Savior saith that after he had given the cup and they had drunken of it From henceforth shal I not drink of the fruit of the vine with you c. Therefore true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament contrary expresly to your interpretation Secondly That your
oblation after the consecration I leave the rest of their contradictions so that seeing they have no concord among themselves neither in the matter nor in the form nor in the effect nor in the substance nor in the circumstances of their pretended sacrifice but that the Lord as is said in Hosea hath divided their hearts therefore their Mass must perish And seeing the Lord hath sent such a confusion among them that they understand not the language one of another some saying one thing some another therefore it is Babel the tower of confusion which they are building and not the house of the Lord. To conclud this they will have their sacrifice not a creature but a Creator of all creatures and therefore they worship it with the worship of latria which by their own doctrine is only proper to God Turrian 1. tract cap. 17. Antonius de Padua ex Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 8. Therefore they sing after the consecration It is not bread but God and man my Savior And yet they say That this Creator both begins to be where he was not before after the consecration and ceases to be where he was before and that he is not every where as God is Scarga art 5. fol. 335. Turrian tract 1. cap. 21. And they say That the Priest makes Christ his body of the bread in the Sacrament and Christ the King is made of bread Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. fol. 399. Pope John 22. lib. orat inscrip Antidotarius animae in Breviario missalibus Qui creavit me sine me creatur mediante me he that created me without me that is the Priest is created by my moyen that is he makes that God that made him Now how can he be the true God and a true Creator which hath a beginning and ceases to be which is not every where as God is which is made of bread and wine by a Mass-Priest and that by their own doctrine How therefore shal their Church be cleared from abominable idolatrie that worships that which they call God Creator and Savior and yet such a God as by their own doctrine hath a beginning and ending and is not every where and is made of bread and wine by dust and ashes O! wo be to their souls that worship God which made not heaven and earth and causeth others to do the same And how shal their Mass-Priests be cleared from sacrilegious blasphemy which vaunts that in their Mass they dayly creat their Creator and that of bread and wine and so makes themselves Gods and more then Gods For God created but creatures but they as they suppone creat the Creator And as they worship a false Creator in their Mass so do they worship a false Christ and Savior in the same For the Scripture saith That the true Christ is made of the seed of David of the seed of the woman Rom. 1.3 Gal. 4.4 and not of any other substance But the Christ which they offer up in their Mass by their own doctrine is made of bread and wine and that by the Priest So Bellarmin confesseth ibidem and Pope John 22. ibidem For the one saith That it is no absurd thing to the Priest to make Christ his body of bread And the other saith That Christ the King is made of bread Therefore they worship not JESUS the son of Mary who was made of the woman and of the seed of David but a false Jesus made of bread and baken in the oven and formed by the Priest Therefore of all Idolaters they must be the most blasphemous and abominable And thus much for the Mass SECTION XIII Concerning Confession and Absolution by the Priest Master Gilbert Brown FIfthly our doctrine is that the lawful Ministers and Priests of the Church of Christ have power given them by Christ to forgive and to retain sins because Christ saith to his Apostles Receive ye the holy Ghost whose sins ye shal forgive they are forgiven them and whose sins ye shal retain they are retained John 20.23 And in another place That ye may know saith Christ that the Son of man hath power in earth to forgive sins c. Matth. 6.9 and 16.19 and 18.18 with sundry other places conform to the same And this is denyed by the Protestants Master John Welsch his Reply As for the fifth point of your doctrine that the lawful Ministers of Christ have power given them by Christ to forgive sins and to retain them If you mean that they have this power as Gods Witnesses Ministers and Embassadors yea and Judges too For the Apostle saith We judge them that are within to testifie and to declare to judge and give out judgement according to Gods Word not only by the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments joyned therewith but also by the censures and discipline in excommunicating the obstinat impenitent and absolving the penitent If I say your doctrine be this then you injury us in saying we deny it and you needed not to have quoted these places to confirm the thing which we both teach and also practise But what is the cause ye would not quote the place where we deny this doctrine But if you mean that the lawful Ministers of Christ have an absolut power and full authority not as Ministers and Witnesses only but as Judges and Lords over our Faith to forgive or retain by their own authority and that the very pronouncing of the words of absolution is the cause of remission of sins and that it so scattereth the sins and makes them to evanish as the blast of wind extinguishes the fire and scatters the cloud as Bellarmin saith Controv. Tom. 2. If you mean so this we utterly deny un-you and all men because it is only proper unto God The which the Jews suppose they were blinded did acknowledge and so not so blind as ye are For it is only God that forgives in Jesus Christ Matth 9. It is only his death that hath merited it and only faith that apprehends it and only his Spirit that seals it up and the Word and Ministery that declares testifies and confirms it For the Apostle saith He hath committed to us the word and ministery of reconciliation and we are in his stead to beseech men to be reconciled to God 2. Cor. 5.18.19.20 So we are but Ministers of this Augustin is plain in this Homil. 23. It is the Spirit saith he that forgives and not you meaning of the Ministers and the Spirit is God it is God therefore who forgives and not we There is one argument God only forgives sins therefore not man And again What is man but a sick man to be healed himself Wouldst thou be a Physician to me with me seek the Physician thy self Here another argument He cannot be a Physician to others who needs a Physician himself Further he saith He that can forgive by man can also forgive without man for he may as well forgive by
and so forth And in another place he saith Rom 7.2.3 1. Cor. 7.39 and 7.10.11 To them that be joyned in matrimony I give not command but our Lord that the wife depart not from her husband and if she depart to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband And let not the husband put away his wife Now this is our Religion of matrimony and plain repugnant to the doctrine of the Ministers of Scotland that will licence a man to put away his wife and marry another And they call the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles the Popes cruelty against the innocent divorced in their negative faith Master John Welsch his Reply As for your 8. and 9 points of doctrine concerning Marriage the first that it is undissoluble for no cause the other that it is a Sacrament As to the first I would scarcely have understood this point of your doctrine if your Council of Trent and others of your Clergy who write of it had not been more plain then ye And I think that there are few that knows not this point of your doctrine otherwise who can take it up by this your writing I wonder why ye are so dark in setting down your own doctrine But wherefore should I wonder for darkness may not bide to see the light Your doctrine then is this First you make many causes of separation and divorcement besides adultery Concil Trid sess 24. Can. 8. Bellarm lib. 1. de matrim cap. 14. express against the doctrine of Jesus Christ He that shal demit his wife except for fornication c. he makes her to commit adultery As 1. for the vow of continency to enter in a Monastery or Nunry 2. For heresie 3. And for peril of offending of God Next your doctrine is That suppose there be many causes of separation betwixt the man and the wife from bed and boord as we speak yet the bond of marriage contracted and perfected betwixt the faithful can no ways be broken as long as they both live together no not for adultery So that the party innocent divorced may not lawfully marry another during the life of the guilty party And if they marry they call it adultery and they will have the ground of this to be because it is a Sacrament Bellar. lib. 1. c. 12. So one error follows and leans upon another For if marriage be not a Sacrament then the bond may be loosed by their own doctrine But marriage is not a Sacrament as shal be proved hereafter therefore the bond is soluble Our doctrine is that the bond of marriage contracted and perfected between two Christians is broken by the adultery of either of the parties so that the innocent divorced may lawfully marry another As for our doctrine it is plain in the Scripture in the 19. and 5. of Matthew where there the Lord in plain termes excepts the cause of fornication saying Whosoever demits his wife except it be for fornication and marries another commits adultery So then by the contrary he that demits his wife for fornication which is adultery there and marries another commits not adultery And seeing the Apostle commands 1. Cor 7.2 That every man have his own wife and every wife her own husband and that for the avoiding of fornication and it is better to marry then to burn Therefore the first marriage being dissolved by divorcement justly according to Gods Word it is lawful to the party innocent at least to use the remedy of marriage for the avoiding of fornication Otherwise if he might not use it divorcement were not a benefit but rather a punishment and the innocent should be punished without a fault Now as to the Scriptures which ye quote Matth. 19.6 and 5.31 they have that exception of fornication expresly mentioned And as for the places of Mark 10.11.12 and Luke 16.18 and Romans 7.2.3 and 1. Cor. 7 39. they are all to be understood with that exception of fornication that our Savior expresly sets down in the former two places otherwise Scripture should be contrary to Scripture which is blasphemie to think and our Savior is the best exponer of himself And as for the 1. Corinth 7.10.11 the Apostle speaks not of that separation for adultery but of a separation for a season for other causes or variances in the which case the parties separated are to remain unmarried or to be reconciled together And because ye will not credit us nor the Son of God so expresly speaking in his Scripture yet I think ye will give some credit to your own Doctors Councils Canons and Popes whom if ye be a right Catholick ye think that they cannot err Cajetanus a Cardinal in comment Matth. 19. Ambrosius Catarinus lib. 5. annot in comment Cajetani Papists hold this doctrine with us against the Religion of your Church That adultery breaks the bond of marriage and that the innocent divorced may marry another Pope Zachary Decret causa 32. quaest 7. cap. Concubuisti And the Concil Triburiense ibidem cap. Si quis and another Canon saith That incestuous adultery breaks the bond of marriage so that the party innocent may marrie another Ibid. cap. quaedam And Pope Gregory the third suppose in a Canon he will not have adultery to break the bond of marriage Ibid. cap. Hi vero so that the party innocent may marry another contrary to the doctrine of Christ our Savior yet he permits a man to marrie another if his former wife being taken with some disease be not able to render due benevolence unto her husband Ibid. cap. Quid proposuisti So suppose this Pope will not admit that true cause which our Savior sets down of adultery yet he sets down causes himself which wants the warrant of the Word And Pope Celestin the third set forth a decree that when of married persons one falleth into heresie the party Catholick is free to marry again cap. laudabileÌ„ de convers infidelium confessed by Alphonsus a Papist lib. 1 c. 4. advers haeres So then either your Doctors Canons Councils three Popes err or else the bond of marriage may be broken and the innocent partie divorced may marrie another Your Religion of Matrimonie therefore is not only repugnant to ours and Jesus Christs but also to your own Canons Councils Doctors and Popes Let them therefore condemn your cruel juâ—gement against the innocent divorced And therefore Bellarmin confesses Bellarm. de mat lib. 1. cap. 15. That in this point they have many against them not only us whom he calls hereticks but also Latins Greeks and Catholicks Master Gilbert Brown Ninthly with S. Paul Eph. 5.23 we make it a Sacrament as sundrie of the learned Protestants do as Zuinglius lib. de vera falsa rel cap. de matrimonio Melancthon in locis aeditis 1552. 1558. and chiefly young Merchiston in his 22. Proposition of his discourse upon the Revelation whose words are these Thirdly bodily marriage is by S. Paul called a symbol and a
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 â—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.
sufficient to obtain salvation without works neglecting to live well and to hold the way of God by good works and being secure of salvation which is in faith had not a care to live well as he saith And in the end of that chapter he concluds the whole matter saying How far therefore are they deceived who promise to themselves everlasting life through a dead faith The which error we condemn also with you For we acknowledge the necessity of good works as the fruits of a living Faith but not as the efficient formal or instrumental cause of our justification SECTION XXII Concerning the Authority of the Fathers M. Gilbert Brown FUrther I say since the difference chiefly in Religion betwixt us and them is about the understanding of the Word of God * Not we M. Gilbert but one of the chief pillers of your own Church Cajetan a Cardinal which was sent in Germany against Luther the Popes Legat who saith in plain words That the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doth gather insufficient arguments to prove Christ to be the Son of God that the 2. and 3. Epistle of John is not Canonical Scripture that the Epistle of Jude is Apocrypha that the last chapter of Mark is not of sound authority that the history of the adulterous woman in S. John is not authentical and of S. James Epistle that the salutation of it is profane albeit they deny a great part of the same to us what is the cause that they will not abide the tryal of the ancient Fathers of the first six hundred years seeing that they were of his Religion as he affirms If he be as good as his word the matter will be soon ended And if our Religion be not sound consonant to theirs in all things wherein they differ from us we shal reform the same Master John Welsch his Reply You said a little before M. Gilbert that the chief difference wherein we differ from you is in denying abhorring or detesting c. Now you say that the difference chiefly of Religion betwixt us is about the understanding of the Word of God How well these two agree let the Reader judge It is no wonder suppose you dissent from your brethren as I have proved in sundry points before seeing ye dissent from your self It is true indeed that many of our controversies are about the right sense and understanding of the Scripture but yet if Petrus a Soto Lindanus Peresius Canisius all great and learned Papists speak truth the most part of the weightiest and chiefest points of your Religion which are in controversie between us are but unwritten traditions which have not their beginning nor author in the Scripture and cannot be defended by the same And whereas ye would have us to refer the controversies about the sense and right meaning of the Scriptures to be decided by the writings of the Fathers of the first six hundred years we receive their monuments and writings gladly but yet so that we put a difference between them and the writings of the holy Ghost in the Scripture For as I have proved sufficiently before as I hope that only the Scriptures of God have this prerogative to be the supreme Judge of all controversies in Religion and no other and the best way to learn the sense of the Scripture is by the Scripture it self for seeing all the Scripture is inspired of God therefore it ought to be exponed by God in the same For he who made the Law can best interpret the Law And the Levits practised this in the Old Testament who exponed the Scripture by the Scripture Nehem. 8.8 and the Apostles in the New Testament who taught nothing but that which the Prophets said should come to pass Acts 26.28 And if a Father yea a Saint yea if an Angel would preach beside that which the Apostles preached let him be accursed So then nothing can be a warrant to us of the truth of the sense of the Scripture but the Scripture it self And as for the Fathers expositions as they may not be Judge as hath been said because they may err and have erred as hath been proved and your selves will not deny and they dissent oftentimes one from another in the exposition of the same So let their expositions be taken in so far as they agree with the Scripture For would ye have us ascribe that unto them which they themselves have refused and have ascribed unto the Scriptures only Hear therefore what Optatus the Bishop of the Church of Milevitan a learned man who lived about the year of God 369. saith writing against the Donatists who claimed to themselves only the title of the Church of Christ as ye do They called for a Judge he brings the Testament of Christ for a Judge and speaking to them of a point of Religion that was controverted whither one should be twise baptized or not He saith You saith he affirm it is lawful we affirm it is not lawful between your say it is lawful and our say it is not lawful the peoples souls do doubt and waver Let none believe you nor us we are all contentious men Judges must be sought for If Christians they cannot be given on both sides for truth is hindred by affection A Judge without must be sought for If a Pagan he cannot know the Christian mystery If a Jew he is an enemy to Christianity No Judge therefore of this matter can be found in earth A Judge from heaven must be sought for But why knock we at heaven when here we have his Testament in the Gospel Optatus lib. 5. contra Parmenianum And he renders a reason of this in that same Book Christ saith he hath dealt with us as an earthly father is wont to do with his children who fearing left his children should fall out after his decease doth set down his will in writing under witness and if there arise debate among the brethren they go to the Testament He whose word must end our controversie is Christ Let his will be sought in his Testament saith he Augustin in Psal 21. expos 2. urgeth the same reason of Optatus against the Donatists We are brethren saith he to them why do we strive Our father died not untestate he made a Testament and so died Men do strive about the goods of the dead while their Testament be brought forth When that is brought forth they yeeld to have it opened and read The Judge doth hearken the Counsellers be silent the Cryer biddeth peace All the people is attentive that the words of the dead man may be read and heard He lyeth void of life and feeling and his words prevail Christ sitteth in heaven and is his Testament gain-said Open it let us read We are brethren why do we strive Let our minds be pacified Our Father hath not left us without a Testament He that made the Testament is living for ever he doth hear our words He doth know his own word
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