Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	word_n	work_v	year_n	44	3	4.1520	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

was a stranger and was to preach in a strange tongue and to strangers yet did preach with such boldness and authority as if he had been before the meanest Congregation whereat Trochrig being astonished could not but on his acquaintance with him question him thereanent whence he had such confidence and was so little moved whilst he preached before strangers so grave and judicious an Auditory and in a strange tongue To whom Ex intimo animi sensu respondit vultu velut ad condolentiam compassionem non ad contemptum vel dedignationem composito Vah Ego ne hominum quorumvis faciem aut curem aut metuam qui memini reputo apud me me coram S. Sancta gloriosà illa majestate consistere cujus verbum in ipsius conspectu servis creaturis ejus annuncio Crede mihi quum ea me subit cogitatio vultus hominum quorumcunque curare aut magni facere non possum etiamsi vellem vel maxime he answered in a humble way as one humbled and not lifted up O do I either care for or fear the face of any man who remembers and considers that I am standing before that holy and glorious Majesty whose word I preach in his sight to his servants and creatures Believe me when the impression of that is upon my spirit I cannot although I most willingly would care for or esteem the countenance of men He was most zealous and tender of all the truths of GOD and studied to the utmost of his power to advance the Kingdom and interest of CHRIST not esteeming his life dear to him for the cause of CHRIST yea accounting it his greatest honor to suffer for him and his truth witness these words of his in the fore-cited letter VVho am I that he should first have called me and then constitut me a Minister of glad tydings of the Gospell of salvation these sixteen years already and now last of all to be a sufferer for his cause and Kingdom c. He shined most brightly as a star of the first magnitude in Kirkubright and Air the space of sixteen years and in France about twelve or thirteen years how long he lived after he came to England I cannot learn but I suppose it was not very long For the sad case of the Churches of France Bohemia and Germany brake his heart His wife was a very eminently godly woman the daughter of John Knox our famous Reformer He had two sons that came to maturity one whereof was a Doctor of Physick the other to wit M. Josias was a very faithful and eminent Minister of the Gospel There are several of his Sermons in manuscripts in the hands of many It is a great loss that these candles should be hid under bushels and not set on candlesticks As concerning this Treatise it is both learned solid clear and easie to be understood by very ordinary capacities and the greatest and weightiest points of Controversie are handled therein as concerning the Church the Mass Antichrist Justification by Faith the merit of works the Judge of Controversies and several other very weighty points of Controversie so learnedly solidly and convincingly that now for the space of seventy years none ever did attempt to make a reply thereto We need not detain you longer in showing reasons that moved us to republish this Treatise at this time for the great increase of Popery and ignorance of the people of this Countrey is reason sufficient for publishing Treatises of this kind especially such an one as this which is preferable to other Treatises of this nature on several accounts First it handles both convincingly clearly and yet briefly the most weighty points of Controversie betwixt us and Papists whereas other Treatises generally either handle only some one or two heads or else they are so voluminous that common people neither can have money to buy or time to read them 2. The Author spent much time in praying for a blessing on this work and therefore we may expect a blessing on it 3. The whole Treatise savors of much piety and zeal especially the Epistle to the Reader where is laid out to our serious consideration GODS goodness to us on the one hand and our unanswerableness to him on the other with the Authors fears lest the Gospel be removed from us if we do not repent and reform The consideration whereof will undoubtedly have great influence on a gracious soul to stir him up to mourn and lament for the sins of the Land and deal seriously for the LORDS abiding with us I know not any thing more useful through GODS blessing for stirring us up and awaking us out of our security in this secure and stupid generation then the serious consideration of the things held out in that Epistle Was our provocations so great seventy years ago that the godly and learned Author expected nothing but the removeal of our candlestick except we did repent And what can be expected now but the powring forth of wrath to the utmost on us except speedy and serious repentance prevent it seeing GOD out of his infinit long-suffering and patience hath continued the Gospel with us to this day and we have multiplied our provocations above the iniquities of our Fathers as if they had been smal things We have exceedingly surmounted them notwithstanding that our light hath been greater and our mercies mo then theirs were O if the consideration of these things would lead us to repentance That the reading of this Treatise might be less tedious and you may more easily take it up I have divided the same in Sections annexing a title to each Section And because the Section concerning the Mass did agree to be placed after the Section concerning Transubstantiation we have transposed it and placed it there I intended to have annexed thereto An answer to H. T. his Manual of Controversies printed anno 1671. and sent into the Countrey for seducing of poor souls but because it would have caused the Book to swel to a Volume I forbare intending if the LORD will to publish it shortly and in the mean time I have annexed A Discovery of the bloody and treasonable principles and practises of Papists that all may see that not only Papists are Hereticks and Idolaters but also bloody Traitors and incendiaries unworthy to live in any Christian Kingdom or Commonwealth As it was the design of the blessed Author in writing and publishing this Treatise at first to confirm the weak establish the wavering convince and stop the mouth of gain-sayers and to discover and lay open the errors idolatries and abominations of that Whoor of Rome that the poor people may be made to flee from Babylon lest being partakers of her sins they be made also partakers of her plagues which are no less then to have their portion in that Lake that burneth with fire and brimstone which is the second death So it is our design in republishing the same For what man is he

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.

certainty and warrant of all the doctrine in the Scripture and the Scripture it self that they are of God but the testimony of your Popes and Clergy What is it to expone the certainty of the Lords Scripture and of all Religion comprehended in the same to the mocking and derision of the wicked if this be not Yea is not this to prefer the voice and authoritie of your Popes and Clergie to the voice of God himself For what is the testimonie of your Church but the testimonie of men And is not the Scripture the testimonie and voice of God himself Do ye not therefore lift up the authoritie of your Church that is your Popes and Clergie above the authoritie of God in his Word which as you say that there is no other warrant of the Divinitie of the Scripture but only the testimonie of your Church But God be thanked in Christ Jesus who hath delivered us from this blindness for we have other warrants whereupon the certaintie of our salvation and the Divinitie of the Scripture depends then by the testimonie of the true Church much less the testimonie of your Church which is Antichristian and given over of God to believe lies and so worthy of no credit But how prove ye it Ye say there was no other Church immediatly before Luther but that of yours which was worthy of credit Whereunto I answer first that is false for there was a true Church immediatly before him which ye persecuted as I have proved else where Next I say your argument will not follow there was no other Church immediatly before him c. Ergo we have no other warrant that the Scripture is the written Word of God For we have also the testimony of the Church of the Jews concerning the Old Testament and of the primitive Church in all ages concerning both the Old and New Testament which are not only other warrants then the testimonies of your Roman Church but also worthie of more credit Next I say we have many more principal and more effectual warrants that the Scripture is of God then the testimony of the Church either past or present As first the testimonie of the holy Ghost crying testifying and sealing up in all consciences of the godly not only the truth of the doctrine contained in them but also the Divinitie of the Scripture which Stapleton lib. 1. de authorit script cap. 1.6.7 denyes not and therefore the Scripture saith That the Spirit that is the holy Ghost hears witness that the Spirit that it is the doctrine is truth 1. John 5 6. Secondly the testimony of the Scripture it self warranting and testifying of it self the whole Scripture is inspired of God 2. Tim. 3.16 The Old Testament warranted both by the testimony of its self the histories and prophesies testifying of the books of Moses and also by the testimony of the New Testament both in general 2. Pet. 1.19 Luke 24.44 and 16 29 John 5.39 and also in particular as the books of Moses Matth. 1.5 and 19.7 and 22. John 3.14 and the historical books as the history of the Queen of Saba Matth. 12. and of the widow of Sarepta Luke 4. and of the Psalms in sundry places Acts 2. and 13. and of sundrie of the books of the Old Testament Heb. 11. and Ruth also Matth. 1. and out of Isaiah Ezechiel and Jeremy many testimonies are cited and out of the Books of the smal Prophets Acts 7.42 And such like the New Testament hath the confirmation of it out of the Old Testament For whatsoever thing were prophesied in the Old Testament concerning the Messias are fulfilled in the New Testament so if the Old Testament hath authority the New Testament also hath authority And such like Peter by his testimonie confirmes the Epistles of Paul to be the written Word of God Thirdly the majestie of the doctrine which shines in it the simplicitie puritie and heavenliness of the speach therein which is not to be found in any other writings whatsoever the ancientness and antiquitie of them as the Books of Moses far ancienter then any other writing The accomplishment of the Prophesies and Oracles in them as they were fore-told their miracles and wonders whereof they testifie the testimonies of the holy Martyrs that shed their blood in the defense of the truth of them their wonderful preservation notwithstanding of the rage and cruelty of sundry tyrants who sought them out most diligently to have destroyed them all testifying of the Divinity of the holy Scripture So then to conclud this seeing we have the testimony of Gods Spirit sealing up the truth of them in our hearts and the testimony of the Scripture it self testifying of its self so many manner of wayes and sundry other arguments out of the Scripture it self and the testimony of the Church in all ages all warranting to us the Divinity of the holy Scripture I cannot but wonder at the unsearchable judgement of God in blinding you so far that ye have set it down in writ that we have no other warrant of the holy Scripture but the authority of your Church SECTION VI. Concerning the necessity of Baptism to Infants Master Gilbert Brown ANd albeit here it were not necessary to me to prove any heads of our Religion by the Word of God because M. John hath promised to improve the same by the Word which he is no ways able to perform yet to satisfie the Christian Reader and that he may know that the Word of God is only on our side and with us so that their exposition and notes be taken from the same I will set down God willing some heads for examples cause that that same doctrine which we teach and practise is the same that our Savior and his Apostles preached before and is written in the same that he calls the touchstone Master John Welsch his Reply Howsoever ye say this M. Gilbert that that doctrine which ye teach and practise in your Church is that same which our Savior and his Apostles teached before and is written in the Scripture yet in very truth there is nothing less in your conscience For if you and your Roman Church were so perswaded wherefore then should ye have declined to have it tryed by the same And wherefore have some of your own chief pillars and defenders of your Roman Religion who knows the certaintie of the same wherefore I say would they have proclaimed it by writ unto the world that the most part and the principal heads of their Religion are unwritten traditions which have neither their original beginning nor authoritie in the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same And wherefore would your Roman Church have heapt up so many false accusations and blasphemies against the same And wherefore last of all would ye have set up your Pope and his Bishops to be supream and soveraign Judge over the same as you do But this you do because you know that if ye rejected the Scripture

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 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

Mass-Priest any longer for they all agree in this that the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross hath accomplished all the sacrifices of the Old Law and that the vertue of it is everlasting and therefore should not be reiterat and that the sacrifice of Christians are not propiciatory but only spiritual Seeing therefore the sacrifice of the Mass was so long unknown to the Church of Christ it remains now that we show by what degrees it crap in For as after the going down of the Sun darkness comes not in immediatly but there is a twi-light before the darkness come even so after the bright stars of the primitive Church had ended their course in process of time and piece and piece first the third part of the Sun Moon and Stars were darkened till at the last the bottomless pit was opened and that great darkness came up as the smoak of a great furnace that darkened both the Sun and the air Out of the which this great abomination of the sacrifice of the Mass did proceed For Bertram who lived between the 800. and 900. years after Christ saith Our Savior hath done it once in offering up himself for he hath once offered up himself for the sins of the people and this oblation is always celebrat every day but in a mystery And he saith That once oblation of Christ is handled every day by the celebration of these mysteries or Sacraments in the remembrance of his Passion Bertram de corp sang Dom. in Heb. 7. There he oppones a real sacrifice to a mystery and Christs sacrifice once made to a dayly commemoration or remembrance of his suffering Haymo such like reckoning out the sacrifices of Christians he calls there The praises of the believers the penitence of sinners the tears of supplications their prayers and alms Haymo in cap. 5. Ose in cap. 2. Abac. Malac. 1. Theophilact who lived in the 900. year after Christ he saith in Joan. cap 81. That there is but one sacrifice and not many because Christ hath offered up himself once And he saith in another place ab Heb. cap. 10. Christ hath offered up himself once a sufficient sacrifice for ever and we have need of no other sacrifice to wit propiciatory And Anselm who lived in the thousand year of God and after he saith That which we offer every day is the remembrance of the death of Christ and that there is but one sacrifice not many for it hath been once only offered up And again Our Lord saith he bade take eat not sacrifice● and offer up to God Anselm● in Epist ad Heb. cap. 10. So this was the doctrine of the most learned who lived a thousand years after Christ that Christ offers up himself but once and that sacrifice was sufficient and everlasting and the sacrifices of Christians are spiritual and the Sacrament which they called sometimes a sacrifice was a commemoration of Christs one sacrifice once offered up upon the cross But from thence unto this time this abuse and sacrifice of their Mass crap in but by diverse degrees and by the concurrence of many causes SECTION XI Concerning the Degrees and Means whereby the Sacrifice of the Mass crap in First I will set down the estat of the publick worship of God in the primitive Church the first three hundred or four hundred years after Christ and then the means and degrees whereby this abominable Sacrifice crap in FIrst it is manifest that in the primitive Church the Communion or Sacrament of the Lords Supper was ministred ever week once upon the Lords day and in some place it was ministred every day as appears by these Authors Justin Martyr in Apolog. 2. Tertull. apolog Aug. de consecrat dist 2. cap. Quotidie And therefore Ambrose who lived in the three hundred age exhorteth to a dayly receiving of it Ambros lib. 5 cap. 4. de sacrament Next from the Communion was excluded● first these who were not sufficiently instructed in the grounds of Christianity who were called Catechumeni that is catechised and instructed by questions and answers Next these who had not ended out their repentance● and satisfaction to the Church who were called Poenitentes that is penitents And thirdly these who were possessed with an evil spirit who were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All these after that the first prayer the reading of the Scripture the sermon and the rehearsing of the Creed at the which they were present were ended they were commanded by the Deacon to retire themselves and to depart out of the Assembly or Congregation that place might be given to the faithful who was to cōmunicat in these words Ite missa est that is Go your way depart And from this first came the word Mass in the Church of God and this Bellarmin confesses lib. 1. de missa cap. 1. that the word in Latin is called missio or dimissio or missa and in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Pagans used that same word after their sacrifice was ended in Apule l. 11. de metamorph And the abuse easily growing in the frequent using of this word it came to pass by time that all the worship of God as the first prayers the singing of the Psalmes the reading of the Scripture the preaching of the Word the rehearsing of the Symbole which was performed in the Assembly before the dimission of these who were catechised was called Missa Catechumenorum As Bellarm. confesses lib. 1. de missa cap. 1. And the rest of the worship of God which was done after their departure to the demission of the faithful as the celebration of the Supper c. was called Missa Fidelium Conc. Valent. cap. 1. Bellarm. ibidem Alcuinus de officijs Eccles cap. de celebratione Missa So then this word Mass which the Church of Rome ascribes now unto their pretended sacrifice came first from the demission or skailing of the people as they call it from the Lords service and was never heard of in the Church of Christ nor read of in any Author Hebrew Greek or Latin for the space of 400. years almost after Christ And Jerome who lived in the year 422. and was an Elder in Rome who writ so many volumes made no mention of this word Mass at all For that Commentary of the Proverbes which is ascribed unto him where mention is made of the Mass is not his See Marianus Victorius Reat in praefat in 8 tom operum Hier. For beside other things there mention is made of Gregory who lived almost 200. years after him And Ambrose makes mention of it only once S. Augustin twise or thrise for all the volums which they writ if these book be theirs For Erasmus in his censures upon the sermons de Tempore saith that many of them are found under the names of others Authors savors little either of Augustines learning or phrase See James Gillotius in praefat ad Ambros And that neither of them in the

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

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