INTRODVCTION M. Gilbert Brown An Answer to a certain Libel or Writing sent by M. JOHN WELSCH to a Catholick as an Answer to an objection of the Roman Church c. I received a little scrol which was sent to you by M. John Welsch Minister at Kirkubright in the which there is much promised and little done And because it may appear to some to be something I will God willing answer the same in particular M. John Welsch his Reply AS to your judgement and censure of this my answer to your objection wherein ye think there is much promised and little done I do not regard it For so long as your heart is bewitched with the pleasures of Babel your light is but darkness so while the Lord anoint your eyes with that eye-salve promised in the Revelation 3. and purge your heart by faith ye cannot discern of things different and give upright judgement What I promised I am now by the grace of God ready to perform And whether it was something or nothing much or little that I did let work bear witness and let them that love the truth judge M. Gilbert Brown First he tittles his libel An answer to an objection of the Roman Church whereby they go about to deface the verity of that only true Religion which we profess God forbid that we Catholicks whom he calls the Roman Church seeing that we are the only defenders of the truth as our predecessors the Pastors of the true Church was before us should go about to deface the truth But we go about to impugn all false doctrine repugnant to the truth as the holy Fathers of the primitive Church did before us against the hereticks in their dayes as Ireneus Cyprian Ambrose Augustine Hierome Basile Gregory Chrysostome with the rest of the true Pastors of the Church And seeing that the Ministers of this new Evangel have not only invented some heresies themselves but also have renewed many old condemned heresies confuted by them before as they cannot deny as I shal give some examples afterward as the heresie of Simon Magus of Manicheus Pelagius Aerius Jovinianus Vigilantius with many others what less can we do nor impugn the same as our predecessors did before M. John Welsch his Reply As to your answer First ye deny it and detest it as a blasphemy Next ye go about to clear your selves from the suspicion of it Thirdly ye challenge us and our doctrine with the crimes of novelty and heresie And so ye conclud ye could do no less nor impugn it As to your denying of the defacing of the truth of God so doth the whorish woman Prov. 30.20 after she hath eaten she wipes her mouth and saith she hath not sinned which is true as well in spiritual as in bodily fornication So notwithstanding your Church hath buried the truth of God in the graves of darkness and did overcover it with their traditions and glosses these many years by gone yet you wipe your mouthes and say you have not sinned But look to it in time for ignorance and zeal without knowledge will not excuse you in the day of the Lord. That you detest it as a blasphemy so did the high Priest rent his clothes and said Christ blasphemed Matth. 26.65 when he spake but the truth As for your golden styles which you take to your selves of Catholicks defenders of the truth successors to the Pastors of the true Church and impugners of all false doctrine Your doctrine indeed could not deceive so many if it were not covered with these styles your poyson and abomination would not be drunken so universally if it were not in such a golden cup as this Rev. 17.4 So these are the hyssop wherewith ye would wash you from this iniquity and cleanse you from this sin But may not false Prophets come in sheeps clothing Matth. 7.15 And the ministers of Satan can they not transform themselves as though they were the ministers of Christ 2. Cor. 11.13.14 The Scriptures have fore-told it And did not the false Apostles in Ephesus call themselves the Apostles of Christ and yet they were found lyars And did not the synagogue of Satan call her self the synagogue of the Jews Rev. 2.4.9 that is the Church of God and yet they were not so but the synagogue of the devil Yea and did not Abrahams seed and they that sate in Moses chair and was the successors of Aaron condemn the Savior of the world John 8.37 Matth. 23.2 Therefore not by your styles but by your fruits ye must be tryed Matth. 7.16 For if ye be Catholicks c. ye will teach the doctrine of that good Pastor and chief shepherd the Lord Jesus John 10.14 So it is your doctrine and not your styles that must defend you SECTION II. Whither the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church ANd because Christian Reader by this style of Catholick which they ascrive only to their Church they cause the simple to err and leads many blind-fold to damnation therefore I will take this visard from them Ye are not the Catholick Church as ye style your self and thus I prove it Pope Pius the fifth who wrote a Catechism according to the decree of the Council of Trent Catechism Conc. Trident. in expositione Symb. He there saith That the Church which is called the body of Christ whereof he is the head is called Catholick because it is spread in the light of one faith from the East to the West receiving men of all sorts containing all the faithful which have been from Adam even until this day or shal be hereafter to the end of the world professing the true faith c. Now I reason thus The Catholick Church comprehends all the faithful from Adam till now and that shal be hereafter to the end of the world or else Pope Pius and the Fathers of Trent errs But the Roman Church comprehends not all the faithful from Adam till now and that shal be hereafter Therefore the Roman Church is not the Catholick Church Choose you now which of these ye will deny The proposition I suppose ye will not for then ye should bring two inconveniencies the one upon Pope Pius and the Fathers of Trent that they have erred in defining the Catholick Church and so the Church and the Pope may err The other is upon your self who said that your Church hath not erred And so ye lose your styl of a defender of the Catholick faith for this is a chief point of their faith that the Church cannot err I hope therefore that these are Labyrinths which ye will not wittingly cast your self into and so you must hold fast the proposition All the question is then of the assumption Whither the Roman Church comprehends all the faithful from Adam till now and which shal be to the end of the world or not First I say a particular Church comprehends not all the faithful from Adam c. But the Roman Church is a particular Church or
Church and as Bellarmin sayes as hath been said before If ye go this far as ye do indeed and as Bellarmin doth and your self must do if ye be a right defender of your Catholick faith here or else there is no ground whereupon ye can build the puretie and truth of your Church and Religion Then I say that your ground is as false and erroneous as the stuff that ye build upon it for both they have failed and have been interrupted as shal be proved afterward And mark this Christian reader as the Philistins Church wherein they praised their God Judg. 16. and mocked Samson the Lords servant had two chief pillars whereon the whole house leaned and was born up so hath the Church of Rome two chief pillars whereon the whole weight of their Church and Religion hings the one whereof is this that the Church cannot err the other that the Pope is the head of the Church Take these two from them their house must fall and their Religion can stand no longer For when they are brought to this strait that they see they cannot defend their Religion neither by the testimonies of the Scripture nor yet by the examples of the Church of God when she was in her greater purity and sincerity they are compelled to lay this as a ground to hold all their errors on that the Church of Christ cannot err So take this ground from them their Church and Religion cannot stand Now as to the testimonies which ye quote out of the Old Testament out of Luke 1.33 in the New Testament they only prove that the Church and Kingdom of Christ shal endure for evermore and that his covenant made with her is everlasting The which cannot exeem the militant Church from erring in points of doctrine for both the chaff and evil seed in the Church that is these that are called but not chosen may err and that to death and damnation and yet his Church and Kingdom and his covenant remaineth sure stable and inviolate for the Lord only offers his covenant unto them and they through incredulitie reject it and so he is not bound to sanctifie or save them much less to keep them from error And as for these who are called and chosen all these promises are made and performed in every one of them and the covenant of God is so sure in every one of them that our Savior saith None of them can perish John 10.28 And yet for all this every one of them may err in doctrine suppose not to death and damnation which ye will not deny And if ye would infinit examples not only of the Saints of God of the laicks as ye call them but also of the Priests Prophets Apostles yea and of Popes also and of your own Doctors and Bishops as a cloud of witnesses would stand up and avow the same in your face Now I gather seeing that the militant Church here on earth hath but two sorts of persons in her these that are called and chosen and these that are only called but not chosen and both may err in points of doctrine the one finally to death and damnation the other may err suppose not finally to death and damnation and yet the covenant of God remain sure everlasting and inviolate with his Church Therefore I say the promises of the stabilitie of Christs Kingdom and the perpetuitie of his covenant made with her cannot exeem the militant Church from erring in points of doctrine So ye have lost your vantguard Let us come to the rest and see if they will favor your cause any better then the former hath done The next place ye quote is Matth. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shal not prevail against it And because ye trust that there is not a testimony of Scripture which shal fight more for you then this let us therefore try it to the uttermost and see how far it can be stretched out What argument will ye frame out of this place For if you gather no more but this Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shal never prevail against the Church that is built on the Rock that is on Christ Therefore the Church that is built on him shal never be all utterlie extinguished and abolished by Satan Then Bellarmin tells you that ye spend but time in proving of this for we grant it That the Church of the chosen shal never perish But if you go further and say That the Church of Christ shal never err because Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shal not prevail against it then I say either that exposition is false or else the gates of hell should have prevailed long since against your Church for when it prevailed against the rock whereon the Church was built it prevailed against the Church For raze and overturn the foundation of a house the house cannot stand seeing the standing of the house consists on the firmness sureness of the foundation thereof Now the rock whereon ye say the Church is built unto whom this promise is made is Peter and his successors the Popes of Rome for so ye all with one consent expone the same Rhemists annotation upon this place Seeing then that they are the foundation of the Church as ye say and the gates of hell hath prevailed against them as I shal prove by the grace of God it must follow if your exposition be true that the gates of hell hath prevailed not once only but at many times against â—he Church For first Peter himself erred in a matter of doctrine when he thought with the rest of the Apostles after the resurrection of Christ the Kingdom of Christ not to be heavenlie but earthlie not spiritual but like the Kingdoms of this world proper to Israel Acts 1.6 not common to all by vertue of the promise and also he is commanded to preach the Gospel to the Gentils doubting nothing Acts 10.20 Which testifies that he doubted before whither the Gospel should be preached to them or not and therefore erred in a matter of faith and that after he had received the promise of the holy Ghost And also he erred in the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law Acts 10.14 for he believed that some meats were unclean after the death and resurrection of Christ and therefore he refused to eat thereof And this was a matter of faith also And last of all the holy Ghost testifies that he went not a right foot to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2.11 and therefore was rebuked by the Apostle Paul to his face And as for them whom ye call his successors the Popes of Rome not only may they be hereticks but also some of them have been hereticks And therefore if your argument be good the gates of hell both may and have prevailed against them That they may be hereticks I will fetch no other witnesses but your own Councils Canons Cardinals
promised to the Apostles to dwel with them and to remain with them for ever And in the 16. chap. vers 13. that he shal lead them in all truth I answer first that was the Apostles prerogative the Maister-builders of the Church of Christ that in writing and teaching the doctrine of salvation they should be led in all truth and in none ever since promised nor performed in that high measure Secondly this promise of the Spirit of truth to dwel and remain in them for ever and to lead them in all truth is made and performed in all believers in so far as may sanctifie them and save them and yet ye will not deny but that every one of the believers may err Therefore this promise will not reach so far as to keep the Church from impossibility of erring As to that place in the 17. of John I answered to it before As to the 28. of Matthew I will be with you to the end of the world I answer the same thing to it which I answered to the former that this promise is made not to any visible and ordinar succession for that is to ty the promises of God to persons and places but to the Pastors of the Church whom he sends forth and to all the faithful and is performed in them in so far forth as may save them and inable them for his work But yet this will not exeem them from all possibility of erring As to that in the 1. Tim. 3. vers 15. the Church is called the pillar and ground of truth therefore ye gather It cannot err First I will ask you to whom the Apostle speaks so and upon what occasion he speaks it Ye must say To Timothie that he might know how to behave himself in the house of God which is the Church 2. Tim. 3.14 for so the Apostle writes Then I ask Is not that Church wherein Timothy should have behaved himself called the ground and pillar of truth So the Scripture calls it and ye cannot deny it Now this Church was the Church of Ephesus then the Church of Ephesus is called the ground and pillar of truth But first the Church of Ephesus fell from her first love and the candlestick is threatned to be removed from her unless she repent Rev. 2.5 She did not repent but in time became worse and worse and so heaped fault upon fault till Christ hath now removed his candlestick from her and delivered her over to darkness and death by taking his own elect to himself and giving over the reprobat that hated the truth to the blindness of their own mind so that city is left desolat to the impiety of Mahomet and she that was once called by Gods Spirit the pillar and ground of truth hath now lost the truth Now I say that which may befall one Church may befall any other Church Then that which is befallen to the Church of Ephesus may befall any other But the Church of Ephesus was first craised and then by little and little utterly overthrown and being bereft of the light of Christ is now a Church no longer Therefore I say that there is no Church on the face of the earth howsoever they flatter themselves with glorious styles of Catholick pillars and ground of the truth whose body that is the elect and chosen in it may not be overshadowed with darkness and overtaken with faintness whose chaff that is the hypocrits in it may not be wholly consumed with rottenness and destruction and whose whole frame and outward government may not loose both their strength and beauty Thirdly I say if the Church cannot err as ye say because it is the ground and pillar of truth and if the Church of Ephesus be called the pillar and ground of truth as the Scripture saith and seeing the Church of Ephesus with all the Churches of the East as ye cannot deny hath condemned the Popes supremacy as heresie Therefore one of these two must follow either that the Church that is the pillar and ground of the truth not only may err but hath erred or else it is an heresie condemned many hūdred years ago That the Pope is the head of the Church so Popery is heresie Judge ye which of these ye will choose Last of all I say the Church is called the pillar and ground of truth because it is her office and duty to hold out the word of truth as lanterns and light Philip. 2.16 by preaching it and practising it as the Priest is called the Messenger of the Lord of hosts because his lips should preserve knowledge and declare the message of God Malach. 2.7 But as there were Priests which shew not forth the message of God but caused many to err in the Law and corrupted the covenant of Levi so there may be Churches and have been which have not upheld and maintained the truth but have fallen therefrom Now I come to your last testimony of Scripture Acts 5.39 In that counsel of Gamaliel to the Council of the Scribes and Pharisies That if the doctrine of the Apostles be of God that it cannot be destroyed What do you gather here That the truth doth remain for ever Bellarmin telleth you that ye spend but time in proving that for we grant it unto you It cannot I grant be destroyed but yet it can be persecuted and removed out of places where it was before and obscured and corrupted by mens glosses and traditions as it hath been these 1500. years by the Jews to whom this was spoken That if the doctrine of the Apostles was of God they could not destroy it and yet as was said they banished it and made the Lord to deprive them thereof and to give them over to the blindness and hardness of their hearts because they would not embrace the truth when it was offered Seeing then there is not a syllab in Gods Word that will uphold this main foundation of your Church that the Church cannot err take heed to your self M. Gilbert in time and build not the damnation of your own soul and the damnation of the souls of many others upon a point of doctrine that hath not God to bear witness to it in the whole Scripture I might end here but because this point as I said before is the main pillar that upholds the whole weight of their Church and Religion therefore I will utterly overthrow the same and I will prove out of the Word of God That the Church in all ages both may err and hath erred And first the Scripture testifieth that it is only proper to God alone by nature to be perfectly holy and true and free from all errors Mark 10.18 And contrariwise man by nature is unholy a liar prone to deceive and to be deceived Rom. 3.4 9.10.11.17 and 19. vers so that by nature he is nothing else but a mass of blindness and corruption so that the light he hath he hath it by free grace by Gods Spirit to make
him see so much of his light in the face of Christ as may save him But yet so long as they are in this house of clay they see but in part that part which they see is but obscurely and dimly as the Apostle speaketh 1. Cor. 13.12 So that as long as they are in this world they are subject to sin ignorance and errors But as there are two sorts of men in the visible Church some called and chosen some called and not chosen and as in the diseases of the body some are curable whereof men recovers some are deadly whereof men dies so it is in the errors of the militant Church some are deadly some are curable The chosen that are called may err but their errors are not deadly as the errors of the Apostles were Acts 1.6 and 10. and 11. Gal. 2. Rev. 19. and 22. they recovered by grace from them The called that are not chosen may err and err deadly and never recover as these of whom John speaketh They went out from us saith he because they were not of us c. John 2.19 Now seeing the visible Church here beneath stands but of these two sorts to wit of these that are called and chosen and these that are called but not chosen and both may err Therefore it is manifest that the Church militant here beneath may err And to prove this more amply that she hath erred before the Law under the Law in Christs time and after Christ First Adam being made in perfect holiness and integritie how grievously did he err when contrarie Gods commandment giving more credit to the Devil then to his Maker he brake that first covenant For Tertullian saith Who will doubt to call Adams fall an heresie Contra Marcionem lib. 1. Now if Adam in his full light did not stand but so foullie erred which is he that is come forth of his loyns born in ignorance and blindness that dare challenge this prerogative to himself that he cannot err except the man of sin and son of perdition that is the Popes of Rome Now he being thrust out of Paradise hath two sons the elder Cain for the murther of his brother is accursed of God and the author of the Synagogue of Babel that is the wicked The Church of God remained in the posteritie of Seth Gen. 5. and at the last Religion began to be so prophaned that at length it grew to such a hight that Religion being contracted only in the familie of Noah it could be punished with no less then with an universal destruction of all living creatures by the flood except only these that were preserved in the Ark with him Gen. 6. Of Noahs three children two of them fell both themselves and their posterity The true Church and Religion remained in the family of Sem and neither were they free from Idolatrie God calling Gen. 12. Abraham out of his own countrey serving strange Gods Josu 24.2.3 His eldest son Ismael being circumcised is commanded to be casten out of the Church of God Gen. 21.12 and 25.23 and 31.34 and 35.2 Isaac hath two sons the elder is refused the youngest is chosen and so the elder with his posteritie fell away Jacobs familie was not clean neither from Idolatrie being polluted with strange Gods by his wife Rachel till he cleansed his house And as for his posteritie what stiff-neckedness what rebellion what Idolatrie was among them so that no threatning no blessing no correction nor teaching could keep them in the puritie of Gods worship and Religion In the Church under the Law the people are Idolaters the hie-Priest Aaron the maker of the Idol to the people Exod. 32. In the time of the Judges after the death of Josua they worshipped Baal and strange Gods Judges 1.12.13 and every man did that which seemed good in his own eyes when there was not a King in Israel which was very oft in those dayes and therefore they are given over to the crueltie and tyrannie of their enemies round about them In the time of Heli there was no open vision 1 Samuel 3.1 And Solomon saith Where there is no vision the people perish Prov. 29.18 In Sauls time the Ark of the Lord was not sought 1. Chro. 13.3 and so there wanted a chief part of the publick worship of God for God was consulted at the Ark. And in the time of Solomon in his old age when his heart was turned from the Lord the Scripture testifieth that they forsook the Lord and worshipped strange Gods of the Ammonites 1. Kings 11. Such like in the time of Rehoboam Solomons son Juda committed Idolatrie and built hie places wherein they worshipped contrary to Gods commandment Jehoram King of Juda made Juda and Jerusalem to commit spiritual fornication and Idolatrie 1. Kings 14 22.23 as the house of Ahab made Israel to commit Idolatrie Seeing then the worship of God was corrupted both in Juda and in Israel and there was no other visible Churches upon the earth except in Juda and Israel will it not follow then that all the particular Churches on the earth may err and fall also to Idolatrie Such like in the time of Achaz a strange altar is placed in the temple of the Lord at the commandment of the King by Vriah the Priest and the King with the whole people at the Kings commandment offers upon that altar and the altar of the Lord is removed out of his place 2. Kings 16.10.11 c. In the time of Joash both the King and the Nobilitie forsake the house of the Lord and worship Idols so that the hot wrath of the Lord was kindled against Juda and Jerusalem for their Idolatrie 2. Chro. 24. Such like in the time of Achaz he made hie places in all the corners of Jerusalem and in all the cities of Juda and there burnt incense to strange Gods 2. Chro. 28. In the time of Manasses the whole publick worship of God was so defaced and Idolatrie so universallie set up that the Scriptures testifie Juda sinned more hainouslie then the very nations did whom the Lord cast out before their face Chron. 33.9 The whole host of heaven was worshipped in stead of the true God I beseech thee Reader to read this chapter and there thou shalt find that there was not so much as an outward face of a Church at that time Yea in the very time of good Kings as Joash and Amasia who both in the beginning embraced the worship of God but yet made defection in the end The hie places were not removed 2. Kings 12.3.4 and 14.4 which was an error in the worship of God The Scripture testifies that the feast of the Passover was not kept so preciselie according to the Word of God since the days of Samuel no not in the reign of the best Kings as it was in the 18. year of Josias Chr. 35.18 and there was 400. years and more between Also the Scripture testifieth that the feast of the
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
26.26.27 bread and wine and having given (f) Luke 22.19 thanks to his Father of heaven (g) Mark 14.22 blessed the same by the which (h) 1. Cor. 10.16 blessing and heavenly words he made them his body and blood as I said before and (i) Luke 22.29 gave or offered himself then for them that is for his And last of all gave the same body and blood to his Apostles to be eaten which we call to (k) 1. Cor 10.16 communicat And when he had done the same he commanded his Apostles and by them the lawful Pastors of the Church till the worlds end to do the same for the (l) Luke 22.19 remembrance of him And seeing that our Priests do the same as our Savior did how can M. John say that our Religion in this was not instituted by Christ Master John Welsch his Reply I come to another point of your doctrine concerning the sacrifice of the Mass which suppose ye call blessed yet is it most abominable idolatry as by the grace of God shal be made manifest And first concerning the word it self MASS you are of such variety of opinions among your selves concerning it that (a) As Doctor Bellarmin in his answer to Duplessis Mornay de Eucharist lib. 11. cap. 1. Genebrard in Liturg. S. Denis from the word MISSAH Deut. 16.10 that properly signifieth sufficiency but Bellarmin refutes this lib. 1. de Missa cap. 1. some of you saith it is taken from the Hebrew some (b) Bulinger ibidem from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies a secret sanctificatioÌ„ from the which comes mystery from the Greek some (c) As Bellarmin ibidem and sundry others from mitto missio or dimissio from the Latin and (d) Some because the sacrifice and prayers is sent to God in the same as Hugo de S. Victor de sacram lib. 2. part 8. cap. ult some saith it is called the Mass for one cause and (e) Some because an angel as they say is sent unto the same as Lombard in 4. sent dist 13. Thomas part 3. quaest 83. And some because the people is dismissed and sent forth as Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 1. some for another I will only speak this of it that it is usually taken by the ancient Writers for the dismission or skailing as we call it of the Church after the publick service was done to God as Bellarmin grants in the first acception of this word Mass And therefore in the end of your Mass the Deacon crys Ite missa est that is Go your way the Congregation is dismissed But now the Papists takes not the word in this sense for the skailing of the Church or dismission of the people after the service of preaching prayer and so forth but for that abominable sacrifice of theirs wherein as they suppone they offer up Christ his very body and blood in a sacrifice for the quick and the dead as M. Gilbert doth here And for this cause they call this sacrifice the Mass that is first sent from the Father to us that Christ his body and blood might be with us next sent from us to the Father that he may interceed and may be for us with the Father as Durandus lib. 4. ration divin testifieth But how can he be sent from them to heaven seeing he descends in the mouth stomack and belly of the Priest for to be sent down to the belly of the Priest to be sent up to heaveÌ„ are things contrary So by this stile of the Mass as they take it it is plain that either Christ descends from heaven in the earth dayly in the Mass which some of them grants also Turrian 1 tract cap. 11 fol. 59. which is contrary to an article of our faith That he sits at the right hand of hâ—s Father whom the heavens must contain until the time that all things be restored Acts 3.21 or else their Mass-Priests dust and ashes are the creators of their Creator which is a blasphemy Thus much now for the name of the Mass which all Christians should abhor according to that of David That he would not take the name of false Gods in his mouth Psal 16 4. For that word which is proponed by men for an Article of our Faith which is not found in the Scripture neither in proper terms nor yet in substance and by necessary consequence out of the same should be rejected by the Church of God as a profane and a bastard word But the Mass is such For it is proponed by the Church of Rome as an Article of our Faith and yet it is neither found in proper termes nor in substance nor by any necessary consequence out of the Scripture Therefore it should be rejected as profane and idolatrous by the Church of God This for the name Now to the matter This is one of the greatest controversies betwixt you and us concerning your sacrifice of the Mass which as ye account it most heavenly so we account it most abominable as that which injures the Son of God which derogats from his death and passion which is injurious to his everlasting Priesthood which is idolatrous vain needless and fruitless which hinders and overthrows the true service of God all which shal be made plain of it by Gods grace The matter of our controversie therefore is Whither Jesus Christ God and man his body and blood be personally and corporally offered up in your sacrifice of the Mass as ye call it And whither this your sacrifice be a propiciatory sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead This your Church affirms and holds and this we deny Now let us see your reasons first and then we will set down what reasons we have for us out of the Word of God to the contrary As to yours First ye say it way prefigured by the Law of Moses Next prophesied of by the Prophets And thirdly done and instituted by Christ our Savior and commanded by him to be done to the end of the world As to the first This sacrifice was prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Testament for the which purpose ye quote Levit. 2. and 6.20 Unto the which I answer That the sacrifices of the Old Testament were figures and shadows of that great and bloody sacrifice of Christ Jesus ones offered up upon the cross never to be offered up again as the Apostle saith Heb. 9.25.26.27.28 and of our spiritual sacrifices and service to God whereof the Apostle speaks in these places here cited Rom. 12.1 Heb. 13.15.16 The which also were fulfilled in that one and only sacrifice of himself upon the cross for the sins of the world and are fulfilled in our spiritual sacrifices of our selves and of the calves of out lips continually But that these were figures of your abominable sacrifice in the Mass there is not a syllable in the whole Scripture to prove the same For that which was prefigured
Sacrament of the union of Christ and his Church And yet our new Confession detests the same and will have it but a bastard Such concord is betwixt Christ his Apostles and our new preachers of the Gospel and also among themselves M. John Welsch his Reply The ninth point of your doctrine is you will have Marriage a Sacrament of the New Testament and that properly and that according to the institution of God unto the which the promise of the grace of justification is annexed so Bellarmin lib. 1. de matrim cap. 2. and the Council of Trent saith But mark Christian Reader their ground of this their doctrine They say the bond of marriage among infidels may be broken but say they the bond of marriage among the faithful cannot be broken And they make the cause of this difference to be this because the marriage of Christians is a Sacrament So they reason Marriage among Christians is a Sacrament therefore say they it cannot be broken But what is their principal ground now whereby they prove marriage to be a Sacrament Because say they the marriage of Christians is a bond indissoluble therefore it is a Sacrament which hath the grace of Justification joyned with it So mutually one error upholds another Upon the which I reason If the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery then it cannot be a Sacrament this your Church grants because they make that the ground of this but the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery as hath been proved before both by the Scriptures and also by your own Canons Councils Doctors and Popes therefore marriage is not a Sacrament Secondlie in the Sacraments of the New Testament there are earthly elements as the water in Baptism the bread and wine in the Supper and an express form of words prescribed in the New Testament as in Baptism I baptize thee c. and in the Supper This is my body c. Matth. 26. They have their express institution by Christ in the same and have the promises of remission of sins and justification annexed to them But none of these things are to be had in marriage First no earthly element next no form prescribed in the Word of God thirdly no express institution of it as of a Sacrament fourthly no promise of the remission of sins and salvation annexed unto it Therefore it cannot be a Sacrament of the New Testament properly Thirdly if marriage were a Sacrament and such a Sacrament that signified and gave the grace of justification with it that is remission of sins then wherefore should your Church forbid all your Clergie from the same And wherefore should ye abstain from that Sacrament which is instituted of God to give remission of sins to you and to make you acceptable to God as your doctrine saith Bellarmin lib. 1. de matrim cap. 5. pag. 67. Why should ye deprive your self of that thing which may place you in Gods favor and purchase to you remission of sins as ye say marriage may do it is a token that either ye believe not your own doctrine or else prefers whoredom and adultery which is condemned of God to marriage which is Gods ordinance and honorable among all men Fourthly I say if the marriage of Adam and Eva in Paradise and the marriage of all the Patriarchs and Prophets and Priests and people in the Old Testament was not a Sacrament neither is the marriage of Christians in the New Testament a Sacrament For they were symbols that represented our spiritual conjunction with Christ as well as the marriage of Christians in the New Testament doth the which you will not deny And Pope Leo saith Epist 92. That marriage was instituted from the beginnning that they might have in themselves a Sacrament of Christ and his Church but the first you grant your selves was not a Sacrament therefore neither is the second a Sacrament Fifthly that which is filthiness and pollution cannot be a Sacrament to give forgiveness of sins but Pope Syricius calls marriage pollution and uncleanness Dist 82. cap. Proposuisti c. Plurim 8. Therefore it cannot be a Sacrament if he speak true Sixthly if marriage be such a Sacrament as ye say to give remission of sins then it should be more excellent then virginity because virginity hath not this promise but this ye will not grant therefore it is not a Sacrament Last of all Durandus a great Doctor of your Church saith Ut Capreolus refert in 4. dist 26. quaest unica artic 3. That marriage is not properly a Sacrament As for that place in the fifth of the Ephesians which ye quote where the Apostle saith This is a great mystery speaking of the mutual duâ—ies of man and wife I answer first he calls not marriage this great mystery but that band of our conjunction with Christ as he expones himself This is saith he a great mystery and then he subjoyns I speak of Christ and his Church Secondly suppose the old Interpreter doth translate this word mystery a Sacrament yet you know if you know the Greek language that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called a secret Thirdly will you have all these to be Sacraments properly which are called mysteries in the New Testament and which the old Interpreter and your Rhemists translats Sacraments then shal you not only make marriage a Sacrament but also the chief articles of our faith 1. Tim. 3.16 and the Gospel Col. 1. Eph. 3 1. 2. Thess 27 and the seven stars in the Revelation chap. 1.20 and the whore o Babel and the iniquity of the Antichrist Rev. 17 5 all Sacraments For they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and some of them are translated Sacraments by the old Interpreter and your Rhemists as marriage is I wonder that ye quote Melancthon as though he were of your opinion seeing Bellarmin acknowledges plainly lib. 1. de matrim cap. 1. 5. that he denyes it to be a Sacrament properly as Baptism and the Lords Supper is but only grants that it is a Sacrament in some respect But you regard not what ye write so being it may carry any show against us The same we answer to you of Zuinglius and Merchiston They call it a Sacrament but not in that sense that Baptism and the Lords Supper are called Sacraments taking the word improperlie and more amply as Bellarmin confesses of Melancthon So here is no discord neither betwixt us and Christ neither among our selves But in very deed you are they who are at discord both with Christ and among your selves For beside this that Bellarmin and Innocentius calls the marriage of the Gentils Sacraments because you may answer that they call them Sacraments improperly as Melancthon Zuinglius and Merchiston calls marriage a Sacrament improperly So if they be at variance with us for calling marriage a Sacrament so is Bellarmin lib. 1. de sacram matrim c. 3 and Pope Innocent cap. gaud de divort at variance with your
that spake against the Pope I will but note their persons Robert Grosshed John Gryllis a pâ—eaching Frier anno 1253. Gregory Ariminensis Franciscus de Rupe Scissa Taulerus in Germany Gerardus Rhidit Michael de Cesena Petrus de Carbona and Joannes de Poliaco Joannes Rithetalanda anno 1360. Armachanus the Archbish p in Ireland 1360. Nicolas Orem Matthias Parisiensis Nilus Aâ—chbishop of Thessalonica John Wicleff and the Lord Cobham and sundry others Master Gilbert Brown M. John hath set down here a number of (a) It is false obscure and infamous persons for the most part justly (b) And this also condemned for heresies without their works or books whereby they affirm this that he alledges and all (c) This is also false for Gerard and Dulcimus Navarrensis which I first cited was almost 400. years before M. Luther and Calvin and the Waldenses was more then 300. years before them two hundred years before Calvin began their Religion or thereabout Of the which I contend not whether they spake against the Pope or not For all hereticks from the beginning have barked against the Pope But our contention is whether such heads of Religion as they denyed were heresies or not which as yet M. John hath not (d) But these heads is proven that the Pope is the Antichrist and Rome Babel they are not hereticks therefore our Religion was before Martin Luther proved nor is not able to defend these whom he calls his worthy men for appearantly by this all hereticks are worthy men by him albeit they be not of his Religion in all things Master John Welsch his Reply You calumniat our Religion of novelty and say Martin Luther begin it anno 1517. Unto the which I answered That our Religion hath Christ Jesus in the Old and New Testament to be the Author thereof and hath the primitive Church many hundred years thereafter to be the teachers and professors thereof the which I have proved already by some examples and that even till the smoak of that Antichristian darkness of yours did overspread all as it was fore-told by the holy Ghost At the which time also the Lord did reserve his own elect to himself even these hundred and forty and four thousand which did not bow their knees to your Baal as it was fore-prophesied whereof also a great many is recorded in Histories and of whom I set down some examples here Upon the which I reason That Religion which is warranted by the Scripture and professed in the primitive Church c. and hath sundry that taught and professed it and that even in the midst of Popery when it was at the hight thereof is not a new Religion nor invented by Martin Luther But ours is such as hath been proved Therefore unrighteous and blasphemous must ye be who slanders the Lords truth and Religion of novelty and fathers it upon flesh and blood whereof he is the Author Your answer to the first two we have examined Now let us see your answer to this First you say they are obscure men I answer If you call them obscure because they wanted the outward glory wealth and renown of this world Then suppose it were so yet have they Jesus Christ the Prince of life who was called a carpenters son Matth. 13.54 55 56. and his Prophets of whom some were herd-men Amos 1.2 and his Apostles who were fisher-men Mat. 4.18.21 his Church which consists not of many wise mighty or noble but of the foolish weak and vile of the world for them God hath chosen to confound the wise and noble 1. Cor. 1.26.27.28 to be companions with them and so they are the liker both the Head and the members It is true indeed your Popes and Clergy are not obscure for they have the wealth and glory of the world But as Bernard said to the Pope In this they succeed not to Christ or Peter but to Constantine But they receive their good things in this life with the rich gluttâ—n and therefore they must receive their pain with hâ—m in the life to come But why do you call these obscure whom I named here Are not some of them Friers some of them Provincials of Gray-Friers some of them Masters and Rulers of Universities some of them excellently learned which your own Church cannot deny some of them Bishops and Archbishops some of them Noble-men and some of them as namely the Greek and Eastern Churches in number learning purity of doctrine and godliness far exceeding your Papistical Church Who is worthy or famous if these be obscure Are all men obscure and infamous to you but your Popes and those who submit their necks to him And if you think these too obscure men to be called worthy men then behold yet M. Gilbert more noble personages who have resisted your Popes Monarchy As King Philip le Bell of France the Prelats of France joyning with him in his Dominions about the year of God 1300. And Edward the third King of England despised the Popes curse and appealed from him to God about the year of God 1346. And also sundry Emperors as Constantine the fifth Leo his son and Constantine the sixth in the East and Henry the 4. and Henry the 5. and Frederick the 2. in the West Will you call these Kings and Princes of the whole world obscure men So all sorts of men M. Gilbert both rich and poor Princes and subjects and these also within your own bowels being overcome with the strength of the truth of God have spoken against your Religion Why you call them infamous and hereticks justly condemned I know not except it be because they taught and professed the truth of God and condemned your Antichristian idolatry and abominations But all are not infamous and hereticks whom ye call so and surely if murderers hereticks adulterers Sodomites open bargainers with the Devil and the vile monsters of the earth is to be called obscure infamous and hereticks then your Popes are to be called so who of all men that ever the earth hath born have been the vilest monsters and hereticks as I have proved in my other Treatise concerning the Mass and the Antichrist You say next that you contend not whether they have spoken against the Pope or not for all hereticks have ever barked against him that sore against your heart M. Gilbert because you cannot deny but ye have taught this doctrine with us and if it be so M. Gilbert that these men and Churches and many thousands more of all sorts have taught this doctrine with us many hundred years before Martin Luther for the first two which I named was almost 400. years before him then why were you so shameless both to write it and also speak it to blind your poor Countrey-men to their and your damnation that our Religion was begun by Martin Luther and never professed before him So leave off M. Gilbert to beguile the simple and ignorant people with this sottish and
make them Intercessors but Mediators at whom and for whose merits they seek salvation And upon this ground came that Paganism which they have brought in the Church of God whereby every Nation Village Family every Estat and every malady or affliction have their own Saint to be a Patron for them Upon the which also hath proceeded this canonizing of Saints that is to make men Gods For they say that this canonizing of them is to let men understand that they should be adored and called upon as one of their own Archbishops Antonius saith part 5. summa tit 12. For he saith that seven things appertain to the canonizing of Saints 1. To be reputed publickly to be a Saint 2. To be prayed to by the Church 3. To have Temples and Altars 4. To have offerings and sacrifices offered to their honor 5. To have a festival day 6. To have an Image with a candle in sign of their glory 7. To have their relicks And they say That they may be directly prayed unto with the Lords Prayer which our Savior formed only to be said to God the Father Now how shal they be excused from vile idolatry in this Pope Innocent saith That to the worship which is only proper to God appertains Temples Altars sacrifices feasts And Durandus a Papist saith the same lib. 5. cap. 4. If this then be true which this Pope and this Papist say how then can they be cleared from idolatry that give unto Saints that service which by their own confession is only proper to God as Temples Altars Festival dayes c. And what shal we say to Franciscus and Dominicus two of their canonized Saints in whose persons they have done that lay in them to have abolished the merit the Name of Christ Of this Franciscus they say in their Book of Conformities That he is greater then John the Baptist And preferring him in many things to him they say That John received the word of repentance of Christ but Franciscus say they received it of Christ and of the Pope quod plus est which is more Of John it was revealed by an Angel to his father what he should be but of Franciscus it was revealed to his mother and his servants by Jesus Christ John was like the friend of the bridegroom but Franciscus was like the bridegroom himself They say He is better then all the Apostles for they left but their boats but he left all to his very hose They call him Typicus Jesus a typical Savior a singular crucified one who received in vision the same wounds which Christ hath suffered the same dolors who is the way of life who is the image of Christ as Christ is the image of the Father Yea which is more they prefer him to Christ Jesus They say Christ did but pray but Franciscus by prayer obtained They say The Baptism of Christ forgives original sin but Franciscus hood much more It is written also upon the port of the Cordeliers of Bloys of this Franciscus That his sin shal be sought for but it shal not be found which is only proper to Christ Now these are not particular opinions but approved by the Church of Rome For Pope Gregory the 9. Alexander the 4. and Nicolas the 3. ordained all the faithful under the pain of heresie to believe all Franciscus marks And their Books are set forth by their priviledges As for Dominicus Antoninus who was of that Order compares him with Christ and in a manner prefers him to him Hist. 3. pars tit 23. cap. 1. part 1. 3. Christ saith he did raise in all but three from the dead Dominicus raised three in Rome and by his prayer restored forty to life Christ after the resurrection being immortal went twise to his disciples the doors being shut but Dominicus saith he having as yet but a mortal body which saith he is more marvellous went into the Church in the night the doors being shut that he should not waken his brethren c. And such like of the rest of the miracles wherein he not only compares but in a māner prefers him to Christ Christ saith he said after his death all power is given to me in heaven earth This power saith he is not in a little cōmunicat to Dominicus above all heavenly earthly infernal things that in this same life for he had the Angels to serve him the elements obeyed him And in the end he applyes that which is only spoken of Christ in the 45. Psalm He is more beautiful then the sons of men Also he saith That there was two Images the one of Paul the other of Dominicus At the foot of Pauls Image it was written Per istumitur ad Christum By this man is the way to Christ At the foot of the Image of Dominicus it was written By this man the way is made easie to Christ And marvel not saith he at this for the doctrine of Paul and the rest of the Apostles induceth men to believe and to obey the precepts of Christ but the doctrine of Dominicus induceth men to keep the counsels of Christ and therefore the way to Christ by him is easier So he prefers him to Christ in miracles and to the Apostles But what shal we say to that that follows He is called saith he Dominicus because he is like our Lord and he hath possessive and in possession that which Christ hath absolutly and by authority Christ saith I am the light of the world The Church saith he sings of Dominicus Ye are the light of the world The Prophets testified of Christ and so did they also saith he of Dominicus and of his Order as in the 11. chapter of Zachary where it is spoken of Christ I have taken unto me two rods and I called one the staff of beauty and the other the staff of bands The staff of beauty saith he is the Order of Dominicus the staff of bands is the Order of Franciscus So they abuse the Scripture He compares him also with Christ and in a manner prefers him to him Christ saith he was born upon the bare earth but lest he had been over much hurt by cold he was put into the crib by his mother But Dominicus saith he being in the custody of his nurse even then abhorring the pleasures of the flesh was found oft-times lying upon the bare earth When Christ was born a star appeared signifying that he should illuminat the whole world But saith he when Dominicus was born his Godmother saw a star in his fore-head a prognostication of a new light of the world The prayer of the Lord was ever heard when it pleased him but yet did not ever obtain that which he prayed for as when in the garden he prayed that the cup might be transferred from him But saith he Dominicus desired nothing of God but that which he obtained perfectly according to his desire Christ loved us and washed us from our sins in his
purity and liberty as thou hast had Or if ever Nation after us shal have so long a day after such a manner again And it seems to me that as the LORD confirmed Ezechiah of his promise by causing 2. Kings 20. the Sun to return back again miraculously by the degrees whereby it went down So the LORD hath confirmed his superabundant love towards us in causing the light of the Gospel to return again as it were oft times and that most wonderfully and miraculously by the degrees whereby our iniquities in the righteous judgement of God did hasten it to go down upon us Yea the blessing of Abraham hath come upon us For he hath blessed them that blessed us and hath cursed them who hath cursed us he hath striven against them who hath striven against us and hath made our oppressors to eat their own flesh and to drink their own blood no instrument formed against thee O Church of Scotland hath ever prospered and the tongue that hath risen against thee the LORD hath condemned that all flesh might know that GOD was thy Savior and the strong GOD of Jacob thy avenger And certainly if ever people might have been called Jephzibas Esai 62.6 that is the LORDS delight or their land Beula that is married unto him the Church and Kingdom of Scotland might have been so called For the LORD had delight in us and our land hath a husband even the LORD our Redeemer he was an ornament unto us Esa 60 19. he set his beautie on us Ezech. 16.14 he crowned us with glory and a Diadem by the hand of our GOD was set upon our heads Esai 6.2 And true is that of us which our Savior spake to his disciples Luke 10.24 Many Kings and Prophets hath desired to see the things that we have seen and hear the things that we have heard and have not seen them nor heard them So who are so ladened with mercy and kindness as we have been for we have been made the head and not the tail Deut. 28.13 as the LORD promised And surely if ever people should have been Joshurim Deut. 32.15 that is upright and straight in the eyes of the LORD we should have been so No who should have been so holy as we Who so strong in CHRIST and rooted and grounded in him as we Coloss 2.7 Who so rich in all grace and fruitful in all good works as we For who had so many and so glorious means to have made us to have abounded in all grace as we had What could the LORD have done more to us then he hath done Isai 5.4 For we wanted no mean that ever the LORD commanded in his Word either to have bred grace in us or to have preserved it and increased it But they to whom much is given much shal be required at their hands again For as the LORD made us a spectacle of his mercy wherein he did demonstrat the riches of his free grace in CHRIST JESUS unto all the Kingdoms of the earth and above them all So it had been our part proportionably to have met him with thankfulness again and to have been examples of all grace godliness righteousness and of all good works unto all others and above all others But alace sinful Nation laden with iniquities Esai 1.4 who is so sinful as thou art What Nation so polluted with all abomination and wickedness as thou art Thy iniquities are mo then the sand of the sea they are grown up so high that the top of them reach up to the very heavens Hosea 9.7 and the cry of them is like yea beyond the cry of Sodom there is such a burden of iniquity upon this Land that considering all circumstances both of the means and of the time and space the LORD hath given us to repent I know not if ever Nation was so great in the eyes of the LORD as this Land is For may not that which the Prophet spake of Juda. Ezechiel 22. be most justly said of thee O Scotland For art thou not replenished with blood from corner to corner so that blood touches blood Are not thy Nobles in thee every one ready to shed blood In thee the father and the mother are despised in the midst of thee the widow and the fatherless are oppressed In thee the very abominations of the Gentils are committed The discovering of the Fathers shame and adultery with thy neighbors wife thou art so laden with adulteries incests and whoredooms that the Land groans under thee thou hast prophaned his Sabaths despised his Law contemned his Gospel withholden from him the fruits of his Kingdom and hast trodden under foot the blood of CHRIST and hast grieved that Spirit of grace So that when I think of the number and greatness of our sins I cannot but wonder that the LORD should not have withdrawn his Kingdom long since from us and have given it unto others that would have brought forth the fruits thereof Matth. 21.41 Yea I wonder that he hath not caused the Land to vomit us out for the abominations and sins wherewith we have defiled it in so great a light And surely when I think of the severity of the Justice of GOD in punishing other Nations and Kingdoms for the contempt of his Gospel and the withholding of the fruits of his Kingdom from him my soul trembles For wherefore did the LORD reject the natural branches that chosen generation of whom the Fathers was and of whom CHRIST was according to the flesh Rom. 11 2â— 9.5 and gave them and their posterity over to the hardness of their hearts this 1500. years and more to be damned for ever and ever in that everlasting darkness and yet his wrath is not turned back but because they would not be gathered and knew not in that their day the things that belonged to their peace and would not render to him the fruits of his Kingdom in due season Matth. 23.37 Luke 19.42.43 Mat. 21.41 And wherefore did the LORD remove his Candlestick Rev. 2.5 from a great many of the Churches both of the East and of the West which were planted by the Apostles and were once lanterns of light and hath given them over to strong delusions to believe lies 2. Thes 2.10.12 the one to the impiety of Mahomet and the savage Tyrant of the Church the other to the bondage of that second beast and fearful darkness of that bottomless pit Rev. 13.11 9.1 But because they received not the love of the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness as the Apostle saith 2. Thes 2.12 Now if GOD spared not them but gave them over to a most fearful bondage both of soul and body both spiritual and corporal temporal and eternal how should we not fear as great or rather greater judgements seeing we had all these as examples before us to have fore-warned us and to have made us to fear For we are not to think as our Savior saith to the Galileans that they
Apostles till now never interrupted never spoken against but of late since Martin Luthers dayes But yours say they is newlie forged and invented never heard tell of but since Luther and Calvins dayes Therefore yours cannot be the true Religion and ours must be the only true Religion M. Gilbert Brown This objection consists partly of a truth and partly of an untruth It appears by this that either M. John knows not our proofs or if he doth he alters the same that he may the better oppugn his own invention Our objection or rather one of our proofs whereby we prove that we Catholicks is the only true Church of Christ and have the only truth in all things is this We have aboundantly set down to us by the Prophets and Apostles in the holy writ that the kingdom and Church of Christ shal never fail in this earth and that the gates of hell shal not prevail against it But shal be permanent for ever and shal have alwayes the presence and assistance of the Father Son and holy Ghost who shal teach it all truth and remain with it for ever as may be perceived by these places noted here which were over longsome to be set down at length To the which I adjoyn some of the ancient Fathers exponing the same Out of the Old Testament Psal 60.5 read August upon this Psal 88. v. 1.2.3.4.5.19.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38 read Aug. on these places Psal 104. ver 8. read Aug. Psal 110.9 Esa 9.7 read S. Hier. on Esa 51.7.8 read S. Hier. on Esa 54.8.9 read Hier. on Esa 55.3.13 Esa 59.21 read Hier. on Jer. 31.3.36 read Hier. on Ezec. 37.25.26 Dan. 2.44 Dan. 7.14.27 Mich. 4.7 Out of the New Testament Luc. 1.33 read S. August upon the 109. Psal Matth. 10.18 read here Saint Hierome upon this place Luke 22.32 John 14.16.17 John 17.18.19.20 Matth. 28.20 1. Tim. 3.15 Acts 5.39 Some of the ancient Fathers Hilar. de Trinitat lib. 7. August de utili credent cap. 87. Ambros lib. 9. cap. 20. Chrysost in serm de pente Clem. Alex. lib. 6. strom in the end And because the Scriptures and the ancient Fathers of the primitive Church concurrs and agrees in one unitie I would wish M. John to consider the same that the Church of Christ by all mens judgements shal never fail nor be interrupted nor broken M. John Welsch his Reply I will follow your footsteps and first answer to that part which ye say is true and then unto that which ye say is false And as to the first the ground which ye laid down whereupon ye go about to build the truth of your Religion is the Church of Christ shal never fail nor be interrupted c. It is recorded in Histories Athenaeus dipnosophist lib. 12. of one Thrasilaus a frantick man among the Greeks whensoever he saw any ships arrive at the haven of Athens he thought them all his own and took an inventarie of their wares and met them with great joy Even so it is with you wheresoever you see the name of the Church in the holy Scripture the promises of God made unto the same ye take all to be yours and books the treasures of it and boasts thereof as though they were your own crying The gates of hell shal never prevail against it It shal never fail It hath always the holy Ghost to lead it in all truth To remove you therefore out of the haven and to give every merchant his own ware and his own ship and to set the Church it self in possession of the Church we must distinguish the name of the Church The Church therefore is taken sometimes for the companie of the elect and chosen whereof a part is in heaven triumphing with Christ their Lord a part here in the earth fighting her battels lying in her camp and awaiting for the victorie And these are termed the invisible Church because Gods election cannot be discerned by the judgement of mans senses or eyes and we cannot know who are his chosen And unto this Church that is to the chosen appertains all the promises set down in the Scripture and in them only are they fulfilled And sometimes it is taken for the company of them who professes the true Religion wherein both the chaff and the wheat the popple and the good seed Matth. 3.12 and 13.24.25 the dregs and the wine the good and the evil are mixed together the which suppose they be in the Church yet they are not of the Church no more then the superfluous humors of the bodie are true and livelie members thereof So then if ye mean by the Church The Church of the elect and if ye mean by this That it shal never fail nor be interrupted c. only this that it shal never be utterly abolished but shal have alwayes the presence of the holy Ghost to lead her in all truth yea and in all holiness also in so far as shal serve for her salvation We grant that with you as Bellarmin confesseth of us and therefore he saith Lib. 3. de Eccles milit cap. 13. That many of their number spend but time while as they go about to prove that the Church here beneath absolutelie cannot perish or make absolute defection for Calvin saith he and the rest of the hereticks grant that but they speak and mean saith he of the invisible Church So if ye mean no further but this then Bellarmin telleth you that all the testimonies of Scripture and Fathers that ye have heaped up here to prove the same is but to spend the time so are fetched as needless witnesses in a matter â—â—at is not doubt some or called in question And if ye had understood his language ye needed not to have cumbred your self in fetching of this mortar and stone to build up your Babel For this was not required at your hands But because it is Babel which ye are bigging a tower of confusion therefore the Lord hath sent such a confusion of language among you that few of you understands what another sayes when some cryes for mortar others brings stone Bellarmin the great maister-builder cryes for proofs to prove that the visible Church here beneath cannot err neither in the matters which are needful to salvation neither in the matters which are not needful which she propones to be believed or to be done whither they be doctrine contained in the Scripture or extra scripturam that is not contained in the Scripture He cryes to prove that and ye cumber your self in bringing in a number of Scriptures to prove that the Church shal alwayes remain till the end of the world whereas in the examination of your proofs it will be found that they will go no further with you But if ye mean of the visible Church that it shal never fail c. that is it shal never fail in doctrine nor be interrupted in the same not only in the matters needful to salvation but in all truth as ye affirm of your
Tabernacles was not so kept as it was then since the dayes of Josua which was more then a thousand years Nehem. 8.18 And all the time of the captivitie where was there any publick face of the Church of God with his publick worship uncorrupted in all things as the Lord commanded it As concerning the Kingdom of Israel from the time of their renting asunder by Jeroboam from the Kingdom of Juda they never had the worship of God in integritie but first worshipped God in the places where they should not have worshipped him and after another manner and by other Priests then they were commanded Next they fell to the worshipping of Idols till they were transported out of their land and scattered upon the face of the earth What shal I pursue the sayings of the Prophets how the only visible Church in the world is called an harlot Isai 1. the Temple a den of thieves Jer. 7. the Prophets all blind guides and dumb dogs that cannot bark Isai 57.10.11 Hosea 2. Now when God of his infinit mercy sent his only begotten Son in the world the light the life the salvation of the world what did the Church and the Clergie the Scribes and the Pharisies that sate in the chair of Moses Mat. 23. Surely Christ had none so great enemies as they were who were the Doctors the lights the successors of Aaron to whom the Law was concredited When Christ testified of himself that he was the light of the world they said his testimony was not true John 8.13 When others believed in him they said they were deceived John 7.47 They ordain that if any man should confess Christ he should be excōmunicat John 9.22 So that many that did believe in him durst not for them confess him John 12.42 They watched him of purpose that they might have matter of accusation against him Luke 6.7 And when he cast out Devils the Scribes and the Pharisies said that he did cast out Devils by Beelzebub the Prince of Devils Mark 3.22 Mat. 12.24 They said they found him a man perverting the nation and forbidding to pay tribut to Cesar Luke 32.2 They condemn him in a solemn Council as worthy of death Mark 14.64 Yea as Christ testifies of them they neither entred in the Kingdom of heaven themselves nor suffered others to enter in Mat. 23.13 And yet they are these that if ye look to their antiquitie they have their beginning from Abraham if to their succession they succeeded to Aaron if to their callings they were Scribes and Pharisies and sate in the chair of Moses Mat. 23 if to the place it was to the house of God if to the people whom they taught they were the only people of God if to their prerogatives to them appertained the adoption and the glorie and the covenant and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises of whom are the Fathers and of whom is Christ according to the flesh who is God over all blessed forever Amen Rom. 9.4.5 And if ye will look to their Council they were solemnlie called together where they condemned the Lord of life and crucified the Prince of glorie What can you say to these That they erred in the person of Christ but not in the exponing of the Law as some of you saith But first Moses did write of Christ John 5.46 and Christ is the end of the Law Rom. 10.4 So that if they had not erred in exponing of the Law they had not erred in the person of Christ because the Law testified of Christ he was the end of it Next the Scripture testifies that they erred in exponing of the Law that they both brake the Law and teached others so to do Mat. 5. And therefore Christ saith Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisies ye cannot enter in the Kingdom of heaven Mat. 5.20 For whereas the Law of God counts hatred murther and lust adultery and rash swearing unlawful swearing and our enemies our neighbors whom we ought to love and to do good unto They by the contrary taught that our friends was only our neighbors whom we should love and therefore they said that we should hate our enemies vers 43. That hatred was not the breaking of the sixth command and lust no breaking of the seventh command and rash swearing no breaking of the third command And therefore the Lord Jesus in that fifth chapter of Matthew doth vindicat the true meaning of the commandments from their false expositions And he testifies of them that they did abrogat the Law of God through their traditions and so in vain they worshipped God teaching for Gods Law which he calls doctrine mens precepts Mat. 15.6 which he proves there by an example of abrogating and annulling of that duty which we ow to father and mother commanded us in the fifth commandment by their tradition And therefore he gives charge to his disciples to beware of the leaven that is the doctrine of the Pharisies Mat. 15.6 Seeing then they who had their ordinary succession from Aaron erred how can the Doctors of your Church yea your Popes be priviledged from erring But it may be ye grant all this for how can ye deny it that the Church before the Law under the Law in the time of Moses in the time of the Judges in the time of the Kings in the time of the captivitie and in the time of Christ erred but yet the Christian Church hath greater priviledges and promises that it cannot err Let us examine this also whither the Christian Church be priviledged from erring or not And certainlie if any Christian Church at any time had this prerogative appearantlie the primitive Church which was in the dayes of Christ and of his Apostles should have had it But they had it not Therefore what Church since under the heaven can challenge it For in the time of Christs suffering the Apostles and Disciples who only then were the Christian Church yea after that they had been Apostles and after that they had been sent to preach the Gospel and work miracles yet in that time did they not err in the article of Christs resurrection Mat. 10 And erred they not concerning the estat of Christs kingdom after the resurrection Acts 1.6 and 11. And concerning the teaching of the Gentils after they had received the holy Ghost Acts 10. Gal. 2. And Peter himself as hath been shown And sundrie Papists as Alex. Hallensis in 3. parte quaest ult art 2. Johan de Turrecrem in lib. 1. de Eccl. cap. 30. 1. Cor. 3. in lib. 3. cap. 61. saith that true faith remained only in the heart of Marie in the time of Christs suffering Was not here then an universal erring Now to go forward did not the Church of the Corinthians err in building hay and stubble on the foundation and in the use of the Lords Supper and some of them also concerning the resurrection of the dead 1. Cor.
3. and 11. and 15. And the Church of Galatia erred in being carried away to another Gospel and in joyning the Ceremonies of the law with grace in justification Gal. 1. and 3. And what will ye say when the heresie of Arrius who denied Christ to be the Son of God equal to his Father spread its self so far that it is testified by Theodor. hist. Eccles lib. 2. Hier. dial contra Lucif cap. 7. in chron Athanas Epist de Synod Alim Seleu. that the Bishops of the whole world became Arrians that the whole world did grieve and wonder at it self that it was become an Arrian What will ye say unto all the Christian Churches of the East Grecia Asia and Africa Churches planted by the Apostles I mean not now of them that have professed Mahometism but of them that admits the Scripture acknowledges Christ their Savior who have their ordinar succession of Patriarks and Bishops as well as your Church of Rome hath who in number far exceeds these Churches which acknowledges your Pope to be the head of the Church For first yours is but in Europe except ye will claim to the New-found land and not all Europe for all the Churches in Greece which is a great part of Europe acknowledges not your supremacy Now take the Greek Churches from you next the Reformed Churches in Scotland England Germany Denmark France Zeland Holland and other places which have gone out of Babel which are all in Europe your number will not be many that acknowledges your supremacy And next take all Asia and Africa from you which is the two parts of the world your number will be smal in comparison of these that are against your supremacy Now all these detests your supremacy as tyranny and the worship of Images your transubstantiation in the Sacrament the Communion under one kind the single life of Priests Either therefore ye must grant that the greatest number of Christian Churches have erred and doth err or else that your Roman Church doth err and your supremacy yea your Religion which depends upon your supremacy is the head of heresie But it may be ye will say that all other Christian Churches may err but that it is only proper to your Church not to err First therefore let me ask at you what can be the cause of that singular priviledge which the Church of Rome hath beside all other Churches which ever have been is or shal be Yea above Adam when he was in his integrity for he erred yea above the Angels for they remained not in the truth Jude 6 Above the Patriarcks Abraham Isaac and Jacob yea above Aaron and the Church in the wilderness above the Church under the Law yea above the Apostles and Peter himself before Christs suffering in the time of his suffering after the resurrection after the receiving of the holy Ghost for they erred in all these times Yea above the Christian Churches that have been founded by the Apostles as well as yours that had the promise the covenant the service of God once in as great purity as ever yours had that have their ordinar succession their antiquity their vocation ordinar as well as yours hath unto this day Great surely must be that priviledge given unto the Church of Rome that hath exeemed her from error others having erred What is then your prerogative above all other Churches I know that ye will say because of Peters chair that was there wherein the Popes sits after him First then if Peters chair hath such a prerogative that the Pastors who sits in it and the Church that cleaves to it cannot err I think surely the Lords chair which was at Jerusalem which was called the Temple and seat of God and Moses chair wherein the Scribes and Pharisees sate should rather have that prerogative to free the Churches and Pastors sitting in these chairs from erring yea the Church which the truth it self Jesus Christ founded whom he taught with his own mouth and among whom he was crucified should with far greater right claim to that prerogative But since all their seats have erred for the Temple became a den of thieves the Scribes and Pharisees that sate in Moses chair condemned the Lord of glory and Jerusalem it self cryed out Crucifie crucifie him And the Christian Church gathered there are long since far from the way of salvation So that if neither the chair of God nor Moses freed the Church of the Jews from erring nor the chair of Christ freed the Christian Church there gathered from erring How then can Peters chair have this prerogative above them all as to exeem that Church and Pastors that sits therein from possibility of erring What is this but to prefer him before them all whose seat hath a priviledge that neither God nor his sons nor Moses seat had O high blasphemy to be detested and abhorred of all Christian hearts But let us see if it hath this prerogative which they ascribe unto it or not And first if it could have exeemed any from erring should it not have exeemed himself especially from erring But as it hath been shown he erred Acts 1.6 Gal. 2. therefore it cannot exeem neither his successors not yet the Church that acknowledges them from erring Secondly if it had exeemed any Church from erring should it not have exeemed the Church of Antiochia especially for surely Antiochia hath better right to claim to this prerogative then your Church hath For first it was Peters first seat Next the Scripture bears witness to it that he was there Gal. 2.11 But neither was Rome Peters first seat nor is there so much as a syllab in all the Scriptures to prove that ever Peter was in Rome But suppose Peter was there for we will not examine this now whither is this prerogative not to err given to your head that is to the Popes or to the body that is the people or to both If ye say to the head as ye do indeed then what will ye answer to your own Writers and Fathers to your own Councils and Popes to your own Canon Law affirming that Popes may err and be hereticks and should be deposed and are deposed when they are manifest hereticks as hath been proved before And what will ye say to your Popes that have been hereticks indeed one of them an Arrian another an Eutychian the third a Nestorian the fourth a Montanist the fifth deposed as an heretick the sixth denying that the souls of the children of God saw Gods face while after the resurrection the seventh denying life everlasting and others giving themselves over in the hands of the Devil for the Popedom others repelling and abrogating the decrees of their predecessors others such monsters and beasts so cruel to the dead and to the living that your own friends calls them monsters and affirms of one of them that the Devil shot him through while he was abusing another mans wife and so died without repentance Dare you
say and would ye have the salvation of mens souls to lean to this point of doctrine that they caÌ„not err which is the rock foundation of your Church which above all others have erred most grievously O malicious and cruel man that would deceive the poor flock of Jesus Christ for whom he shed his blood with such heresie and abomination Then this prerogative is not granted to your Popes the head and foundation of your Church And surely if the foundation may be turned up-side-down and the head may become sensless and dead I see not how the house can stand and the body can be whole and one of your greatest Papists Bâ—llarmin plainly confesseth lib. 4 de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. that if the Pope err of necessity tota Ecclesia errabit that is the whole Church shal err Upon the which I reason If the Pope may err and hath erred then the whole Church may err and hath erred so Bellarmin one of the learnedest Papists that ever was writ But the first hath been proved by your own Doctors Cardinals Popes Councils Canon Law Ergo by your own doctrine the whole Church may err Here we might stay now and go no further for this sufficiently overthrows this point of your doctrine that the Church caÌ„not err that by the confession of the learnedest of your side But yet I will pursue the rest If you say it is granted to the body then it is either graÌ„ted to the people or to the Clergy To the people I suppose ye will not for if your Popes may err much more may your people err And if the Apostles other famous Churches may err much more may your people err yea if not it should follow that your people were above their head the Pope which I suppose ye wil not say If ye say the Clergy then either it must be your Doctors severally by themselves or as they are gathered together in a Council But as they are several ye will not say For your Bellarmin controversies would convince you to the face for almost there are few controversies which he handles and he handles more then 300 but he brings in some of your own Writers dissenting from him and whom in many places he confutes And I think if Popes have not this priviledge surely the Doctors of your Church severally have not this priviledge But because as Bellarmin confesseth Lib. 2. de author Concil c. 11. If a general Council err then the whole Church may err for it represents the whole Church And therefore he brings this in as a reason to prove That general Councils cannot err because the whole Church cannot err For saith he the general Council represents the whole Church therefore it cannot err Let us examine this for if it be found that general Councils may err surely your cause is gone First then what will ye say to thirteen general Councils whereof seven is utterly rejected the other six are in part allowed and in part rejected which all have erred as Bellarmin de Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 6. 7. confesseth But it may be you answer that these were not approved by the Popes of Rome and therefore they might err and have erred but these Councils that are altogether allowed of him cannot err nor have not erred Indeed it is true that this is your doctrine That neither general nor provincial Councils can err that is allowed by the Pope Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 2. 5. and that general Councils lawfully conveaned may err unless they follow the instructions of the Pope And therefore Bellarmin saith cap. 11. that they may err three manner of wayes 1. If in defining of any thing the Fathers of the Council dissent from the Popes Legats 2. If it be against the Popes instruction suppose both the Fathers and the Legats of the Council agree together 3. They may err before they have received the Popes confirmation and judgement suppose all both Fathers and Legats consent together because saith he the Popes judgement is the last from the which no man may appeal and he may approve and disprove the General Council notwithstanding of their consent with his own Legats And therefore he saith in another place Lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. That the whole strength or certainty of lawful Councils depends only of the Pope So then this is your last refuge All depends on his instruction and confirmation he hath a priviledge that he cannot err and the General Councils receives the same through his approbation and confirmation But I answer The Pope can give no greater prerogative to others then he hath himself But as hath been proved before the Popes may err and have been hereticks therefore they cannot give this prerogative to others And if ye will say as some of you do that the Pope suppose he may err privatly as he is a privat man and as a privat teacher yet he cannot err as he is Pope in his office judicially Whereunto I answer first That some of your own Church as Gerson and Almane de potestate Ecclesiae Alphonsus de Castro lib. 1. cap. 2. contra haeres Canus loci Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 1. and Pope Adrian the sixth all these teaches That the Popes may err and teach heresie as they are Popes Either therefore the Popes may err as they are Popes judicially and teach heresie or else not only these Doctors of your own Church but also the Pope himself hath erred and that in a point of doctrine and so however it be the Popes as they are Popes judicially may err in points of doctrine Secondly I say besides nine Popes which have been hereticks and that when they were Popes sundrie of them have made decrees not only contrary to Gods Word but also contrary one to another and that in matters of doctrine As for example Pope Celestin the third made a decree cap. laudabilem de conversione infidelium that when of married persons the one falls in heresie the marriage is dissolved and the Catholick partie is free to marry again contrary to the truth of God Matth. 6. and 19.9 and also contrary to the decreet of Pope Innocentius the third lib 4. decretal cap. Quanto Thirdly either your Canon Law errs or else Clements decrees that all things should be common and that wives also should be common causa 12 quaest 1. Dilectissimis Gelasius Pope affirms de consecrat cap. Comperimus That the mistery of the body and blood in the Sacrament cannot be divided and that the Sacrament cannot be taken in one kind only without great sacriledge and yet the Council of Trent hath decreed the contrary and the whole Romane Church practises the contrary Pope Martin decreed dist 50. cap. Qui semel that the Priests who are deposed for any fault may never be admitted to any degree of the Priesthood again Pope Syricus distinct 82. cap. Quia and Pope Calixtus distinct 82. cap. Presbyter have decreed the contrary Pope Gregory the
third he permits one to have two wives if the first be sickly decret causa 32. quaest 7. cap. Quod proposuisti contrary both to the Gospel Matth. 19. and to another decreet of the Canon Law Decretal lib. 4. tit 9. cap. Quoniam Pope Nicolas saith Dist 40. cap. A quodam Judaeo that that Baptism which is ministred without express mention of the three persons of the Trinity is firm and sure enough But Pope Zacharie Dist eadem de consecrat cap. In Synodo hath decreed the contrary All these decreets are set down in their Canon Law and hath the strength of a law in the Roman Church not as privat mens but as Popes decreets And yet some of them are directly repugnant to the Word of God that themselves cannot deny but they are heresies and some of them so directly repugnant to the decreets of other Popes that either the one or the other must be heresie But it may be ye will answer that suppose the Pope may err as he is Pope and that in matters of doctrine yet he cannot err with his Council either Provincial or General as Bellarmin saith Whereunto I answer first if General Councils lawfully conveaned together may err in matters of doctrine unless they be confirmed by the Pope as Bellarmin grants and if the Popes may err themselves alone and that judicially in matters of doctrine as hath been proved why may they not err also being joyned together seeing Councils have this priviledge only by his confirmation and allowance As Bellarmin saith lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. Secondly I say either Pope Steven the 6. with his Council erred in condemning of Formosus and his acts which he made as Pope and in decreeing his ordinations to be void and null because the man was wicked by whom they were ordained Sigebert in Chron. which is an error of the Donatists or else Pope John the 9. with his Council of 72. Bishops erred in justifying Formosus and his decreets and condemning the acts of Pope Steven with his Council Last of all since General Councils that have been confirmed by their Popes have erred the sixth General Council confirmed by Pope Hadrian in epist. ad Thracium quae est in 2. actione 7. Syn. Canon 2. hath sundry errors which they themselves will not defend as the rebaptizing of hereticks For the counsel of Cyprian is confirmed there wherein this is decreeted And also it is ordained Canon 13. that Elders Deacons Subdeacons should not separat from their wives contrary to the Canon of the Roman Church as is said there And the marriage of Catholicks and Hereticks is judged null and voyd Canon 67. which your self cannot deny to be an error contrary to the express truth of God 1. Cor. 7.13 And the forbidding of Ministers to remain with their wives Canon 12. contrary to the sixth Canon of the Apostles Either therefore a General Council confirmed by a Pope hath erred or else the Apostles have erred in this Canon for they judge them to be the Canons of the Apostles The first General Council of Constantinople and the General Council of Chalcedon which are both by their own confession approved by the Popes Bellarm lib. 1. de Concilijs cap. 5. And yet both these have decreeed that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal priviledges of authority honor and dignity in Ecclesiastical affaires with the Bishop of Rome except only the first place or seat the which by their own confession is an error Therefore either lawful General Councils confirmed by the Pope have erred or else the Pope is not the head of the Church and hath not a preeminence of authority over the rest for they have made the Bishop of Constantinople equal with him or else there are two heads of thier Church the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople I omit the rest Augustin saith de baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 2. cap. 3. That Provincial Councils may be corrected by General Councils and of General Councils the former may be amended by the latter If they may be mended then they may err And here he speaks not of a matter of fact but of a matter of faith For he speaks of the baptism of hereticks Now to conclud seeing the Churches in all ages before the Law in the time of the Law and in the time of grace yea and the Apostles and Peter himself have erred and seeing the Church of Rome that claims this priviledge of not erring above all other Churches hath erred also and that not only her people which they call Laicks but also her Clergy severally and together in Councils as well Provincial as General And seeing the head which as they say is the Rock and foundation of the Church hath erred in life in Office in matters of Faith and Religion not as privat men only but as Popes both by themselves alone as also with their Councils as well Provincial as General Seeing I hope I have proved all these things sufficiently then may I not with the judgement of all men safely conclud that that main pillar whereupon the whole weight and pillar of your Religion depends that the Church cannot err that it is an error and such a dangerous and damnable error whereupon all the errors of your Religion is built that whosoever will believe it they hazard the endless salvation of their souls Ground then Christian Reader thy salvation not upon this that the Church cannot err for that is false but upon this that as long as she sticks to the Word of God written in the Old and New Testament she errs not and when she swerves and it were but an inch broad from the Scripture then she errs And therefore two learned Papists Gerson de examinat part 1. consid 5. and Panorm affirms the one saith Simplici non authorizato sed excellenter in sacris literis erudito c. that is that more credit is to be given to one unlearned and simple but yet excellently beseen in the holy Writ in a point of doctrine then to the Pope And such a learned man saith he ought to oppone himself to a General Council if he perceive the greater part to decline to the contrary of the Gospel either of malice or of ignorance The other saith extra de elect cap. Significasti That more credit is to be given to an unlearned and simple man that brings for him the Scripture then to a whole General Council And this for answer to the testimonies of Scripture which ye cited Now as concerning the Fathers testimonies which ye bring in they will serve you no further then the Scripture hath done For they will go no further with you then this that the Church of Christ and his covenant with her shal endure for ever the which we grant and they that will read them will find them so And if ye prove any further out of them it shal be answered by Gods grace For it were too fashous to the
Reader to set down here the particular sayings of every one of them And if ye had formed your arguments out of them I should have formed my answer by the grace of God to every one of them And thus much concerning your ground and the proofs of it Now I come to that which ye gather of it SECTION IV. Whither the Church of Rome be the only true Church and the Reformed not true Churches OF this we collect that our Church must be the only true Church and not theirs because ours hath never been interrupted nor hath failed in any substantial point of faith and Religion since Christ and his Apostles dayes and theirs hath done To confirm this I say that M. John nor no Minister in Scotland can be able to assign to us the circumstances of all mutations and changes in Religion That is to say 1. The author who first began our Religion 2. The time when it was begun 3. The place where it began 4. The true Church who said against the same 5. The matter it self which was changed or begun 6. Nor the faithful number from whom they departed All these things we shal assign to their Religion and that since Christ and his Apostles 1. The first auâ—hor of their Religion albeit not in all things was Martin Luther an Augustine Frier 2. He began his Religion in the year of God 1517. 3. He began the same in Saxony in the countrey of Almanie 4. The Church of Rome Italie France Spain Scotland England Denmark Sweden Pole a great part of Almanie with the east and west Indies which were the true Church said against him 5. The heads of Religion which he first said against were Pardons He affirmed that man was only justified by Faith He denied the Supper of our Lord to be a sacrifice c. 6. He departed himself from all the Christian Churches in Europe in the Indies and other places and therefore he had no predecessors of his own Religion as we read in the Apologie of the English Protestants that he and Zuinglius were the first that came to the knowledge of the Evangel and therefore none immediatly before them Then seeing that there was none of his profession in the earth before him immediatly neither visible nor invisible he and his could not be the Church of Christ for it hath ever stood and never failed no not the space of one day universally because our Savior saith I shal be with you every day to the consummation of the world M. John Welsch his Reply As to your collection the form of it must be this That Church only must be the true Church that hath never been interrupted nor failed in any substantial head of faith and Religion since Christ and his Apostles But say ye yours is such and ours not Therefore your Church is the true Church and ours not The proposition I grant But all the controversie lyes in the probation of your assumption Yea in stead of proving ye say it is not possible to me nor to no Minister in Scotland to assign to you the circumstances of all mutations and changes in your Religion as the person time place c. And then ye attempt to assign all these circumstances of our Religion upon the which ye conclud the falsehood of it So we will first see how ye prove your own and then see how ye disprove ours Indeed this argument of yours is of such account with you that there are not many of your Writers but they have set it as it were in the vant-guard of their host and among the greatest of their strengths and bulwarks for to uphold their ruinous Babel So Hammilton and Hay in their demands to the Ministers of Scotland so Campion so Duraeus Scotus against Whitaker in his defence so your Rhemists upon the 28. of the Acts and on 1. John 2. and so Bellarmin lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 5. Whereby it may be seen of what account this argument of yours is in the judgement of your Church But to answer to your argument first I say If there be no mutations or changes in your Religion since Christ and his Apostles then your Religion and doctrine will be one with that which is set down in the Scripture of God For you will not deny I hope but the Scripture doth sufficiently testifie what doctrine and Religion was in Christs and his Apostles dayes And so let it once be put in the ballance of the Scripture and tryed thereby and then I hope it will soon be made manifest how far it is changed So and you dare M. Gilbert let once your Religion be set upon the pannel and let it once have an assise of the Scripture and then the plea will end I hope Next I say it will not follow We cannot assign all the circumstances of changes in your Religion Therefore your Religion is uncorrupted For it suffiseth if we can prove the first only that is the matter or doctrine it self which is changed and that by comparing it with the Scriptures of God suppose we could not assign all the rest of the circumstances of the mutation as the time place author c. for the changes of many things are most notorious and yet all the circumstances of the change thereof not known We say then it is not needful to seek the beginnings and circumstances of the decays and corruptions in your Church when the corruption and change it self is so manifest by comparing your doctrine with the written Word of God that it cannot be denyed For will you say that he who is deadly diseased is whole and sound because I cannot tell you the first article of time the place and first occasion of the disease When it is manifest that a city is full of misorder and confusion will ye say that ye will not believe it to be so unless you know the first beginnings and progress of these misorders If you saw a ruinous house would ye say Prove me and tell me all the circumstances of the change of it otherwise I will not believe it Will ye deny that a ship could be drowned unless it were told you all the circumstances of the change of the leck where through it drowned If any found a man fallen in a pit shal he not believe that he is fallen whom nevertheless he sees to be there unless it were told him when and by whom he was cast into the same Even so will ye not believe or will ye hinder all others to believe that your Church and Religion is ruinous consumed rotten dead drowned and full of misorder heresie and confusion unless the first beginnings of these changes can be told you We say therefore it is sufficient to prove the ruine and consumption of your Church and Religion if by comparing your doctrine with the truth of God in the Scripture we make evident the direct opposition betwixt them suppose we could not assign all the circumstances of the change of
it out of the histories leaving it free to Historiographers to write what they please and omit what they please Thirdly it is manifest that the Church of the Jewes in the time of Christ was changed both in doctrine and manners from that estat that it was in the time of Aaron Eleazar and sundry others and also the Churches of Galatia and Corinth that they were changed from the estat wherein they were And yet I suppose that neither ye nor any Papist in the earth is able to assign to me all the circumstances of the mutations and changes in the same as the first authors time place c. and yet there was a great change in doctrine and Religion in all these Churches as hath been proved before And we read that our Savior and the Apostles convicted them of a change and yet they designed not the first authors time and place c. The like I say of the Church of Greece Asia and Africa which in number exceeds yours That there is a wonderful change in their Church and Religion ye will not deny or else your Religion is heresie For as said is they acknowledge not your Popes supremacy transubstantiation c. And yet I suppose ye nor no Papist in the earth is able to assign all the circumstances of changes in their Church and Religion which they have presently yea more unable to do this then we are able to do the same in yours I mean not the heresies of Arrius Samosatenus Nestorius Eutyches Sergius and the rest which long ago were damned by the Councils of the Greek Churches For I suppose ye shal not be able to prove that they now maintain these heresies which they condemned and refuted long ago But I mean of the present errors and corruptions in their worship and Religion which now they maintain and profess If then ye judge the Churches of the East heretical because they are not agreeable to your doctrine and Religion of Rome and yet not be able to assign the circumstances of the changes and mutations of the same will ye not grant the same liberty to us to account and judge your Church and Religion failed because it is not agreeable to the doctrine of Jesus Christ set down in the Scripture suppose we could not assign to you the circumstances of the changes of the same Fourthly I say if you have read Epiphanius there ye shal find many heresies which I omit for shortness which he accounts heresies whose beginnings and authors are unknown Fifthly there is such an universal complaint of the monstrous abominations decays in your Religion discipline and manners and that by your own Councils Concil Constant sess 4. 5. Trident. sess 6. Basil sess 2. 3. Fathers Bernard in Cant. 33. Popes Cardinals and Friers that I would have thought it uncredible unless I had read them that either your own mouthes should have so condemned your selves or else that the posterity afterward should have been so shameless as to have boasted of the purity of their Church and Religion Therefore the Council of Trent hath proclaimed it to the world in writ that the Church hath need to be reformed in the head and members Now I ask that of you concerning these abuses in discipline and manners which ye ask of us concerning your doctrine Show me all the circumstances of mutation and change distinctly if ye can what time what place by what author c. such monstrous abominations first brake in in your Church and Religion Now seeing there is no man who hath a spark of judgement that will doubt of that incredible change of manners and discipline in your Church and yet the circumstances of the changes unknown think ye then that ye shal assure men that no changes could fall in your doctrine unless we knew the circumstances of the changes of the same Sixthly the Scripture testifies Matth. 13.27.28 that even the tares which is the evil seed doth not appear so soon as they are sown and that neither the times nor the first author of them was known no not to the most diligent laborers of the Lords ground at the first and yet it was enough to know them to be evil seed by the difference that was seen betwixt them and the good seed suppose the time place and author was unknown at the first So it is proof enough against your doctrine that it is but tares if the difference be made manifest between it and the Lords truth in the Scripture suppose the circumstances of the changes of it cannot be assigned Seventhly error is likened to leaven and a canker which doth not all at once infect the whole mass and fester the whole body but piece and piece so your corruption came not in all at once but piece and piece infected your Church and festered your Religion And therefore it is no wonder suppose the beginnings of infection and circumstances of it hath not been marked For if they had broken in all at once and suddenly overthrown the whole Church it had been no difficulty to have assigned the circumstances of the overthrow of it For if any having a whole constitution with a stroke were slain if a ship with a wave were drowned it were no difficulty to assign the circumstances of the sudden changes But in a consumption and in a leck that hath come in piece and piece in the body and in the ship the beginnings thereof cannot be so easily perceived For a little leck in process of time will sink a great ship And if it be so hard to discern the beginnings of these things which our senses may grope how much more hard is it to perceive the beginnings of these spiritual corruptions which cannot be perceived by the natural man but only by the light of Gods Spirit by the spiritual man Eightly if now it be so in other heresies as the Scripture testifies of them that their beginnings are ofttimes unknown even unto the most diligent laborers of the Lords husbandrie and that they come in by little and little and doth not infect all at once how much more is this true in your Antichristian Religion which as it was fore-told should deceive all Nations and make them drunken with the wine of her fornication And therefore your doctrine is termed in the Scripture an iniquitie but a secret iniquitie an unrighteousness but yet a deceivable unrighteousness a delusion but yet a strong delusion 2. Thess an abomination and spiritual fornication Rev. 17. but yet put in a golden cup that is having the show of godliness and Religion and your Church is called a harlot but yet finely decked in purple c. not like a harlot but a Queen Your Kingdō is called a beast that speaks like the dragon but yet like the lamb in his horns resembling the power and authority of the Lord Jesus Seeing then your Church Kingdom and Doctrine is such a mystery of iniquity hath such a show of godliness hath such a
resemblance with the lamb hath such clokes of styles is so deceivable and is such a strong delusion as the Scripture testifies of it Is it any wonder suppose the beginnings of this mystery and of the whoredoms of this Queen be not distinctly marked and set down Ninthly it is likely enough that the great credit wherein the first Bishops of Rome was for their piety and godliness and the lofty estat of their successors after them together with their cruelty and tyranny did so dazel on the one side the eyes of the godly that they were not inquisitive in marking the changes and beginnings of their corruptions and so bridled the mouthes of other some that they durst not write the things they saw and if they writ any thing they writ it but barely and corruptly for the tyranny of your Church was such that none durst mutter against your Church and Religion but he was taken without further as an heretick and condemned and executed where ever your tyranny reached Last of all suppose they had been written by the Histories of every age and that distinctly yet considering the universal power craft and policy of your Church and Kingdom is it any wonder suppose they be not now extant at all but either burnt or else so falsified and corrupted that the beginnings thereof should not have been perceived For seeing in the purer times when the power and dominion of your Church was not yet come to the hight such was the ambition and falshood of your Popes that in the presence of a Council of 217. Bishops in Carthage anno 430. where Augustin was present they did alledge a false Canon of the Council of Nice for to have established their supremacy and under one of their hands sent it to the Council by their Legats the which was espyed and found out by the whole Council that not only it was decreed and ordained in that Council he should have no prerogative over the Churches of Africk and that none should appeal to him under the pain of deposition and excommunication but alâ—o he was rebuked by the Fathers of that Council in their letters to him If he was so bold then what marvel suppose since he hath falsified and corrupted every History and Writing that he saw might bear any wayes witness of the corruptions tyrannies and abominations of that Church and Religion of his And hence it is I am sure that we find so little written of the beginnings of their corruptions and of them that resisted it And your Index expurgatorius devised in the Council of Trent for blotting out every thing in the writings of men that might testifie of your corruptions doth also sufficiently witness unto the world what ye did in the former times So to conclud this suppose we could not assign to you the circumstances of the changes of your Religion yet it follows not but your Religion and Church may be corrupted and decayed But to satisfie your demand suppose I hope the things already said will satisfie the consciences of the godly What crave you that all the circumstances of changes in your Religion may be assigned to you First then I say there is nothing that may serve either to make the man of God wâ—se unto salvation or yet that may make him perfect in every good work but the Scripture testifies For it is able to do both these If these circumstances then serve either for salvation or perfection I say they are set down in the Scripture so that we need not to go to Histories to search the same The first then ye crave is the time when the change began The Scripture tells you That the mystery of iniquity began to work even then in the Apostles days and that it doth already work and so grew on from degree to degree till he that withheld it was removed that is till the Empire of Rome began to decay and the seat of it removed from thence as the Fathers expounded it Augustin Chrysostome Jerome and so the city left to the Pope the man of sin for him to set his throne there for Rome that seven hilled City Rev. 17 9 behoved to be the seat of the Antichrist as it was fore told by the Scripture So if you will believe the Scripture you have the time What crave you next The place I say the Scripture testifieth of the same that that mystical Babylon which Bellarmin lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap 2. Rev. 17. your chief champion grants to be Rome that sits upon sâ—ven hills that had the dominion over the Kings of the earth that is the place where first your Church and Religion began to decay So there the place if you will believe the Scripture What crave you next The author The Scripture also hath fore told That the beast that came out of the bottomless pit and slew the witnesses of God and made war with the Saints and overcame them and made all to worship the image of the beast and the harlot Babel the city of Rome the mother of whoredoms who made all Nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication Rev. 12 7. and 14.8 That is your head and Church they are the authors and mothers of this decay and corruption What is the fourth thing ye require The Church that said against the same The Scripture will tell you that too The two witnesses of God whom she killed the woman that fled in the wilderness the Saints with whom she made war and who would not worship the beast nor receive his image the hundred forty and four thousand that John saw standing with the Lamb on mount Sion who was not defiled with your idolatry but followed the Lamb whithâ—rsoever he went Rev. 11. and 12 and 13. and 14. These then are the true Church which spake against your corruptions who are like unto Eliahs seven thousand that had not bowed their knees to Baal What crave you more The matter it self they said against The Scripture and ye will believe will satisfie you in this point also The doctrine then that was said against Was the mystery of iniquity that deceivableness of unrighteousness that strong delusion 1. Thess 2 Rev. 13. That doctrine of the dragon that spiritual idolatrie and abomination Rev. 17.18 That doctrine of Devils in forbidding marriage and commanding abstinence of meat c. 1. Tim. 4. What crave you last The number from whom they departed The Scripture will also bear witness of this seeing your Religion is a departure from the faith 1. Thess 2. then all these that ever professed the faith of Jesus set down in his written Word even the Lord Jesus the head the Apostles the layers of the foundation the primitive Churh the woman that fled in the wilderness the Saints with whom ye made war and all the elect and chosen of God that abhorred your idolatrie These are the true Churches from whom you departed What now crave you more Will not the
abundance of the rivers of the Scriptures of God quench and satisfie this your desire but that you must go unto the unpure fountains of mens writings as though the Scriptures were not sufficient not only to make a man wise unto salvation but to make him perfect in every thing These things I am sure will satisfie the souls of them that love the truth But because you give no credit to the Scriptures but counts them as a nose of wax and as one of your Popes speaking to Bembus a Cardinal called them a fable of Christ and yet such a fable as hath inriched your treasures And Sylvester Prierias writing against Luther saith That the Roman Church and Pope is of greater authority then the Scriptures O horrible blasphemies of the holy truth of God Therefore we will go to the Histories and see what they have testified of these circumstances And although all things here be not expressed to the full yet there is so much left uncorrupted and unscraped out by the gracious providence of God that would not want his witness in all ages out of the Fathers and your own Writers that I hope will satisfie the consciences of all the modest and godly Clemens Alexandrinus saith lib. 1. strom that the Apostles successors received the doctrine from them as the sons from their fathers But he subjoyns That there was very few children that was like their fathers Aegesippus as Nicephorus reports saith lib. 3. cap. 16. That the Church remained a pure virgin as long as the Apostles lived unto Trajans time but they being dead he writes that it was speedily corrupted So if ye credit the testimonies of these men ye see the Church remaineth not long in her integrity And if you would hear any thing of your Roman Church Socrates lib. 7. cap. 11. saith That Celestin your Pope past the bounds of his Priesthood Read Basilius de Spiritu sancto cap. ult and there ye may see what change of Religion was in his time Augustin testifies epist 119. c. 19. That the multitude of ceremonies grew so in his time that the condition of the Jews seemed to be more tollerable then the condition of the Church Now did not this sickness suppose ye grow by time And to come to your own Writers Bernard saith in Cant. 33. That the Ministers of Christ meaning of the Roman Church serves Antichrist And to the Pope himself Eugenius the 3. he saith lib. 4. And thou the shepherd goeth forth being clothed with a glorious attyr if I durst say it these are the feeding places of Devils rather then of sheep Thy court is accustomed rather to receive good men then to make them good not the evil profits but the good decays there And in another place he saith From the sole of the foot speaking of the Church of Rome to the crown of the head there is no health nor soundness And de conv Pauli Psal 91. ser 6. he saith What remains now speaking of the corruption of that Church of Rome but that the man of sin be revealed the man of perdition Daemonium non modò diurnum sed meridianum that is a devilry not only in the day-tyde but in the very noon-tyde And lib. 4. to Eugenius the Pope he saith In these secular attyrs and powers thou hast not succeeded to Peter but to Constantine The day would sooner fail me then the writing of his complaints against the Church of Rome Pope Adrian the 6. in his instructions to his Legats who were sent to the Council of Noremberg he grants and bids them say to the Council That we know that in this chair meaning Peters Sea in Rome for certain years many abominable things have been in it the abuse in spiritual things the excess in commandments and in a word all things are changed in a worse And the Council of the Cardinals to Paul the third they say Out of this fountain holy Father as from the Troyan horse hath broken so many abuses in the Church of God such heavy diseases whereby we see now that she is despaired almost of health Aeneas Sylvius a Cardinal who also was Pope afterward saith of your Church That all faith hath perished in her and love is grown yce-cold And Cornelius Bitontinus Bishop who was present at the Council of Trent saith Would to God speaking of your Church that unanimes velut prorsus c. all with one heart all utterly they had not declined from Religion to superstition from Faith to infidelity from Christ to Antichrist What would ye have more Will ye yet be so shameless as to boast of the purity of your Church and from God to Epicurism ex Epistola 54 ad Caspar Schlick Oratio Cornelii Epis Bitonti 3. Dom. advent I leave the rest as Platin Genebrard Frier Mantuan Nicolaus Clemangis Franciscus Petrarcha Aventinus and a number of others who are full of complaints of the abominations of your Church of Rome that certainly I cānot but wonder at your shamelesness in opening of your mouth and saying That your Church had the truth in all things and never failed nor was interrupted against such a cloud of witnesses whose testimonies ye dare not refuse But I leave you to the Lord. The lips of a liar is abomination to the Lord Prov. 20 So your own mouthes shal rise up in the day of the Lord and condemn you that saith Your Church hath not failed in any substantial point of Religion But you require more distinctly the time place and persons c. that hath brought in this mutation and change If these are to be accounted authors of your erroneous doctrines who were the chief defenders thereof then I say the Popes of Rome for the most part are the authors of the same for they were the chief defenders thereof suppose they had not been the first teachers thereof For otherwise Luther cannot be said to be the author of our Religion as ye say because he was not the first that taught the same and that by your own confession For ye say that sundry other hereticks before Luther taught the same heads of doctrine which he taught and which we profess now as that fasting should be free that only faith justifieth that man hath not free will c. Next because it were too longsome to go through the whole heads of your Religion therefore I will only bring a few examples and that in some of the substantial points thereof As for the sacrifice of the Mass and the ceremonies thereof I have shown the authors thereof in another place therefore I omit that now The first that ever took upon him to exercise jurisdiction over the Churches of the East was Pope Victor anno 200. or 198. who took upon him to excommunicat the Bishops of the East because they would not follow his fashion in the celebration of Easter There the person time and place resisted by Irenaeus Bishop of Lions in France and the Bishops of the East and the brethren
be the beast Rev. 13.11 and your head to be the Antichrist your doctrine to be delusions 2. Thess 2.3.4.11 and your Rome to be that mystical Babylon Rev. 18 4. And so the Lord hath made them believe and give obedience to that commandment of his Go out of her my people c. That ye call these the true Church that spake against him that lyes in the weights and ballance yet betwixt us For ere ye prove them to be the true Church ye must first prove your doctrine which they then professed to have the warrant out of the Word of God So let them have the name of a Church but of an impure and corrupted Church of a Church infected by the pest of your doctrine oppressed by the tyranny of your Pope and Clergy and consumed by the rotten humors of your Idolatry So then it was not the true Church that is the called ones by the light of the Gospel for they are the true Church that spake against him but only these that were infected and poysoned with your abominations the which I grant did over-spread these Nations as it was fore-told of her Rev. 17.2 and 18.3 and 13.14 And as for these first heads of Religion which he oppugned Of your pardons justification by works and the sacrifice of the Mass their condemnation is set down in the great Register and Testament of Jesus Christ the Lord of life as shal be proved hereafter So that he was not the first that oppugned them Now as to the last the Churches from whom he departed he departed not from their body but from the consumption of your heresie that consumed the body Not from the Church but from the corruptions of your Idolatry and abominations in the Church Not from the Commonwealth of Israel but from your tyranny and oppression of the Commonwealth Not from the city of God but from the pest of your doctrine that infected the city And last of all not from the spiritual communion and society of the Saints of God in these parts but from the communion with Babel with Antichrist with the beast and with the dragon and that at the commandment of the Lord Flie from idolatry Go out of Babel my people 1. Tim. 6.3.4.5 Matth. 7.15 Acts 19. and 8.9 1. Cor. 10.14 2. Cor. 5.14.15.16.17.18 Hosea 4.15 Rev. 18.4 Now after you have assigned the mutations of our Religion since Christ and his Apostles as you think you gather the whole force of it together and makes the stream of your argument to run as strongly as it can upon our Church and Religion that the face and form of it might be so washen away that it be not known to be a true Church Your reason then is this The true Church of Christ hath never failed universally for the space of one day because our Savior hath promised to be with it to the end of the world But our Church was never before Martin Luthers dayes therefore it is not the true Church of Christ As to your proposition if ye take failing for erring in matters of doctrine then I deny your proposition for I hope I have proved sufficiently before that the Church both may err and hath erred in all ages But if you take failing to be utterly abolished and rooted out of the face of the earth then I grant your proposition that God hath ever a Church the Church of his elect with whom he will be to the end of the world And as to your assumption that our Church was never before Martin Luthers dayes I deny it Let us see how ye prove it There was none say ye before his dayes neither visible nor invisible that professed his Religion But how do ye prove that for that is still denied to you For if your Religion hath the Old and New Testament to bear witness to it and Jesus Christ to be the author of it in every point as shal be made manifest by the grace of God then I say whosoever they were from the beginning of the world to this day visible or invisible that professed the true Jesus the true Savior his true doctrine and Sacraments wherein Religion stands they are our predecessors and are of our profession and Religion so then ye should first if ye had gone squarely to work have disproved the heads of our Religion not to have their warrant from the tables of Christs Testament ere ye had concluded that we had none of our profession and Religion before Martin Luther And this is the point you should have begun at for it is not the Church that makes the Religion but the Religion that makes the Church Have we a warrant out of the Word of God for our Religion then are we the true Church and the successors of all them who ever from the beginning of the world have professed the same Have we not this warrant then I grant you we have no true Church So there is the point of our controversie whither our doctrine be from God out of his Word or not But how prove ye that Martin Luther had none of his profession before him First you gathered upon the former things that all the true Churches said against him and that he departed from them unto the which I answered before that these was not the true Church but only so many of every Nation who was deceived by your doctrine and whereof the Lord did cure a great many by his ministery and by the ministery of others whom the Lord did stir up since so that neither did the true Church who saw the truth speak against nor yet did he depart from their societie Next as the Lord had a true Church in Israel in the time of Elias even these who did not bow their knee to Baal 1. Kings 19 10.18 who was neither known to Elias the Prophet nor yet to the persecuters so did the Lord in the midst of your darkness and Idolatry reserve to himself a true Church even these hundred forty and four thousand which John saw standing with the Lamb on mount Sion Rev. 14 1. who did not defile themselves with your Idolatry and did not worship the beast and receive his mark which suppose neither ye nor we had known yet the Lord did reserve them as he promised Thirdly I say Martin Luther had sundry who professed his Religion immediatly before him who was even known to the world as I shal prove afterward Your next proof is taken from a testimony of one of our own Writers where ye alledge that it is written of Martin Luther and Zuinglius that they were the first that came to the knowledge of the Gospel I say ye are not faithful in citing of this testimony for it saith not that they were the first that came to the knowledge of the Gospel but these are the words That it was an easie thing to them meaning of your Church to devise against us meaning the English Protestants as ye call them these cursed speaches
when Martin Luther and Zuinglius first came to the Gospel The Latin words are cum Martinus Luther Zuinglius primum accessissent ad Evangelium So it saith not that they were the first that came to the Gospel but that it was easie to you to spew out cursed speaches when they came first to the Gospel So that this word primum that is first is not in comparison with them that knew the Gospel before but in comparison with that time in the which they themselves knew not the Gospel It is an adverb of time and you take it for an adjective noun But there is a vail over your eyes that ye can neither see what we or your selves writes So then to conclud seeing the Religion which Martin Luther taught hath the warrant from Christs Testament and seeing all that ever professed the true Religion that hath Christ to be the author of it in his Scripture visible or invisible are his predecessors Therefore the Religion which Martin Luther taught was the true Religion And seeing your Religion hath not Christ to be the author of it in his latter Testament but is that apostasie and defection that Antichristian Kingdom that was fore-spoken of in the Scripture Therefore I conclud that your Church and Religion which he oppugned is not the true Church and Religion but that Antichristian Kingdom And this for the first part of your objection Now we come to the second M. Gilbert Brown As for the other part of the objection which he alledges to be ours that is that our Religion was never said against we say not so for why all hereticks and others infected with false doctrine have ever said against the same almost at all times For how soon that Christ our Savior planted the truth the Devil immediatly sew popple in the same according to the parable set down in S. Matthew M. John Welsch his Reply I come now to that part which ye say is untruly alledged of you which moved you to say that either I knew not your proofs or if I knew them that I altered the same that I might the better oppugn my own invention Of my knowledge of your proofs I will speak nothing But let us see whither this be my invention or not or rather your own proof You for the confirmation of the truth of your Church and Religion brought in this as a proof that I nor no Minister in Scotland was able to assign the true Church that spake against it Either then ye prove nothing or else this must be one of your proofs because it was never spoken against by a true Church Now compare these words with mine and see whither I speak ignorantly or untruly of your proofs I said that ye affirmed your Religion to be true because it was never spoken against Here our words are one except this that ye add be a true Church I understand the same and therefore I gave the instances first of Christ and his Apostles next of the primitive Church thirdly of these that lived in Popery which spake against your Religion all which I appeal your conscience whither think ye that I judge them a true Church or not Now in that ye expound it otherwise of hereticks this is neither my words nor meaning but your own invention So that by this it may appear that either ye have not understood my words alledging your objection or else ye have altered the meaning of the same that ye might the more easily answer to your own inventions and gain-say my words M. John Welsch his Answer to the objection Your Religion of the Roman Church was never instistituted nor preached neither by Christ nor by his Apostles as I offer me to prove by their writings which is the only touchstone whereby all Religion should be and must be tryed M. Gilbert Brown I think in this M. John takes upon him an impossibility for it is said that it is impossible to prove a negative proposition except it be set down in the Word of God which is of authority and that I am sure he cannot find because Papistry by him is not so old as the Word of God is But in the mean time M. John proves nothing He offers very fair and when ever he proves any thing contrary to us with Gods grace he shal get an answer And note here that M. John can say nothing to our argument for to it he gives no answer M. John Welsch his Reply In your answer to this Section First ye think it impossible because of the form of it Next ye say it is but an offer and I prove nothing Thirdly that I answer nothing to your argument nor can answer nothing Now of all these in order And first to the form ye think it impossible to prove because it is a negative proposition Is not this a negative proposition that the Popes of Rome are not the Antichrist You cannot deny it Again I ask is this sentence to be found in the whole Scripture I suppose ye will never be able to find it Then I say if it be true that ye say then ye your self in your book and this your answer and Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. and Sanderus 40. demonstrations and all the rest of you that takes in hand to prove the Pope not to be the Antichrist takes in hand in your judgement an impossibility and so do you indeed not because it is a negative proposition but because he is the Antichrist in very truth What would the Pope your head think of you if he heard you say so Certainly I think he would not inrol your name among the defenders of his Catholick faith whereof this is the foundation Secondly is there not many formal syllogisms that have the proposition or assumption negatives and will you say they cannot be proved if the matter be true because they are negatives What is this but to raise the foundation of Logick and Raison Logick is not Rhetorick and Physick is not Logick both these are negative propositions and I suppose neither of them are so found in the Scripture and will you say that it is impossible to prove them because they are negatives What you mean by this I understand not unless you do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strive about words prove and improve forbidden by the Apostle 2. Tim. 2.14 Thirdly ye except these negative propositions which are set down in the Word of God which hath authority as ye say I assume But your Religion in substance is condemned in the Word of God therefore by your own confession it may be proved suppose it be negative For Nazianzen saith lib. 5. de Theologia That these sentences that are collected out of the Scripture by a necessary consequence are of the same truth and authority with these sentences that are expresly set down in the Scripture And whereas ye say Papistrie by me is not so old as the Scripture I grant that What then Therefore it is not
condemned in the Scripture I deny that For Antichrist and his Kingdom are not so old as the Scripture and yet the Scripture condemned it For not only condemns it present heresies but also the heresies that was to come And seeing Papistrie is that Antichristian Religion as shal be made manifest by Gods grace therefore it hath the express condemnation of it in the Word of God The form therefore of it no wayes will make it impossible to be proved As for the next thing that I prove nothing bu offers very fair I answer it was not my purpose then but I hope ye shal have a proof now of that which I offered then As to the third then that I can say nothing to your argument which ye would hâ—ve the Reader to mark When I read this I marked this that ye would earnestly have the Reader perswaded of the invincibleness of your argument and my inability to answer But what bring ye with you to perswade him of the same Your reason is because I have not answered it Will this follow I have not suppose it were so as ye say therefore I cannot It will not follow I have not answered I cannot answer to it But as you have a new Theology so have you a new Logick But said I nothing to your argument What is not answered sufficiently in the same Your argument was the antiquity of your Religion and continuance of it from Christ by a lineal succession never interrupted c. and the novelty of ours My answer was Yours was not institut by Christ nor his Apostles in his Scripture as ours was and yours was gain-said in the chief points by the testimonies of the Fathers the first six hundred years and the principal points of our Religion confirmed by sundry of their testimonies Thirdly yours was that Antichristian apostasie that the Scripture fore told should come and in the hight of your tyranny and Idolatry was gain-said by many before Martin Luther and ours was professed by sundry before him whose names I set down all which I offered to prove and now shal do by Gods grace Now you say this is no answer But is that no answer that cuts the very throat of your Religion if it be verified and invalidities your argument that it do never stand up to under-prop your Religion again For that Religion which is not instituted by Christ in the Scripture whose main foundations is gain-said by the testimonies of sundry of the Fathers of the first 600. year which is Antichristian and which was gain-said by the Saints that they persecuted and slew hath not the continuance from Christ by a lineal succession never interrupted nor spoken against by a true Church till Martin Luthers days This I am sure ye will not deny But your Religion is such as I offered then to prove and now have in some points and shal in other some points by Gods grace The which if it be verified then I hope ye will not deny but that your Religion hath neither antiquity continuance nor succession from Christ till Martin Luthers dayes And that Religion cannot be newly forged and invented since Martin Luthers dayes which hath the warrant and institution of it in the Scripture c. This you cannot deny But our Religion is such as then I offered to prove and now have done in some points and shal do in other some points by Gods grace Therefore our Religion cannot be newly forged and invented c. but is the only true Religion So that this answer if it be proved doth sufficiently vindicat our Religion from novelty Now if this be no answer to your argument then I say no more but ye will answer it the sooner And because ye formed your own argument your self in your answer to me and I have answered to it else therefore I will now insist no further upon it And as for your lineal succession of Bishops it will come in question afterward therefore I omit it now SECTION V. Concerning the Judge of Controversies namely whither GOD speaking in the Scripture be Judge of Controversies Maister Gilbert Brown AS for the written Word it is true that it is a most faithful witness and it be not corrupted to Christ and his Church as our Savior testifies himself John 5.39 of the which opinion there is sundry Protestants chiefly young Merchiston in his discourse upon the Revelation in the 21. proposition and other places 2. Cor. 3.6 John 6.63 But that it ought to be Judge to decide all controversies in Religion M. John hath no Scripture for the same It is the holy Ghost that must be Judge and the holy Writ must bear witness thereto For this cause the holy Ghost was given to the Church by the Father and the Son that he might teach it all truth John 14.25.26 This holy Ghost gives judgement by the Pastors of the true Church as he did by the Apostles and Priests at the Council of Jerusalem It hath pleased the holy Ghost and us saith the Apostle Acts 15.19.28 and so he hath ever done since the beginning of the Church when it was troubled with heresies and false doctrine as the Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon M. John Welsch his Reply You first here decline the Scripture as Judge to decide all controversies in Religion And you are not the first that have done this but all your Roman Clergy with you And suppose there were not another thing to make the consciences of men suspect your Religion that it is not found in the book of God yet this is a great presumption that ye give out of it your selves For what may all men think of the same but that if ye were perswaded in your conscience to justify your Religion to be from Jesus Christ in his written Word ye would never decline the judicatorie of it and the declining of the same is an evident demonstration that ye are privy to your selves in your own consciences that it is not from God in his written Word But wherefore say I that ye are privy to your selves of this Ye have made it known to the world by your confession in your own books that many of the chief points of your Religion controverted between you and us which ye maintain have not their original beginning nor authors in the Scriptures but in your unwritten traditions So Petrus a Soto a Papist of great name confessed He calls all these observations Apostolick traditions whose beginning principium origo author cannot be found in the whole Scriptures in his book against Brentius And then he reckons out a number of the chief and principal heads of their Religion saying Of the which sort are the oblation of the sacrifice of the altar the invocation or prayers to Saints the prayer for the dead the supremacie of the Pope of Rome the consecration of the water in baptism the whole sacraments of orders matrimonie pennance confirmation and extream unction the merits of works
only means and instrument whereby the holy Ghost works faith in our hearts Thus I reason therefore He only can be Judge in controversies of Religion whose authority is such that none may appeal from the same whose judgement is infallible true who will not be partial nor favor parties and who is able to convict and perswade the conscience of the truth and make the party to rest in the same But only the holy Ghost in by the Scripture hath these proprieties no other Therefore the holy Ghost in and by the Scripture is only Judge And whereas you say that the holy Writ must bear witn ss to it What will you say then to all the chief points of your Religion almost which the learned and great defenders of your faith before cited have confessed are unwritten traditions which have not their beginning nor authority from the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same Upon the which I reason thus That doctrine is not the holie Ghosts which the Scripture bears not witness to this ye say your self for ye say The Scripture must bear witness to it But all the chief points almost of your Religion as the supremacy of the Pope the sacrifice of the Mass invocation of Saints the five bastard Sacraments the worshipping of Images Transubstantiation Communion under one kind Satisfactions Pardons Purgatory Merits of works c. have not their authoritie from the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same as your own Catholicks as ye call them testifies Therefore your Doctrine and Religion is not the holie Ghosts and that by your own testimonie Now trulie M. Gilbert I fear ye lose your style if you defend your Religion no better then this And whereas you say That the holy Ghost gives out his judgement by the Pastors of the true Church I grant indeed that the Pastors gives out publick sentence in controversies of Religion because they are the Lords witnesses messengers and mouthes to testifie proclaim interpret and discern his truth from falshood But first the rule of this their judgement should be the Word of God unto the which they are bound in all their testimonies and judgements from the which if their judgements swerve but an inch-broad they are not the judgements of the holie Ghost so that all their decreets and determinations in the worship of God and man his salvation should onlie be received accordinglie as they agree or dissent from the same For the Apostle pronounces him accursed suppose he were an Angel that would preach another Gospel then that which he preached Gal. 1 8. And he preached nothing but out of the Scripture Acts 26.22 But your Roman Church by the contrary saith That their decreets and sentences should be taken without all tryal and examination because whatsoever they decree say they in manners or doctrine whither they be comprehended in the Scripture or not they cannot err Bellar. de Eccles lib. 1. de Consil cap. 18. lib. 3. c. 14. Next if it be asked of you whom ye judge to be the Pastors of the true Church You will answer as ye do that your Church is the only true Church and your Bishops and Popes the only true Pastors so that they only must be the Judge to end all controversies And Bellarmin is plain in this for he saith lib 3. de verbi interpret cap. 5. 9. lib. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 2. The Pope is chief Judge in all controversies in Religion either he himself alone or with his Council and that in his judgement and sentence all men should rest and he should be obediently heard of all the faithful in all matters of controversie whether he can err or not And their Canon Law hath decreeted That no man should rebuke him suppose he should carry with him innumerable souls to hell And they teach that their decreets should not be examined of any whither they be agreeable to the Scripture or not but that they should be received as the express Word of God and the Gospel Dist 40. cap. Si Papa Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 18. Rhemist annotat in 2. Thess 2. v. 12. Joannes Maria verractus editus anno 1561. Hosius lib. de express verb. Dei pag. 97. But first judge thou Reader in what suspicion they have their Religion in their own hearts They have declined the holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture and that not only as Judge but in the authentick Greek and Hebrew as witness So their Religion cannot stand if the Lord be either as Judge in his Scripture to give out sentence of it or as witness in the authentick copies to hold his hand at the bar and depone against it Now whom would they have as Judges Their own Pastors and the Pope and all their determinations to be received without a tryal as the Gospel and express Word of God as though their Religion could not be justified unless the Fathers and forgers thereof the Popes and Bishops of Rome were set on the bench to be Judges thereof Now what an unrighteous thing is this both to be partie and Judge For the chief controversie is of themselves whither he be the Antichrist or not And his Ministers and Church Antichristian or not But what show of reason can you have for this The Prince of life the Son of God who is the righteous Judge of the whole world in that great controversie wherein it is called in question whether he was the Messias or not desired not to be the Judge For he said If I testifie of my self much more if I judge of my self my testimony is not true John 3.31 but referred this controversie to the Scripture saying Search the Scriptures c. John 5.32 And yet you that are but flesh and blood dust and ashes yea monsters and incarnat Devils as your own Writers and Councils have testified of some of your Popes who may err and have been hereticks as some of your Popes have been and that by your own testimonies you will not only bear witness of your selves but also be Judges in the controversies of your selves rejecting the judgement of the holy Ghost in the Scripture All men saith the Apostle are liars How then shal I certainlie know but they may lie How shal my conscience rest in their judgement Shal I have no better warrant for my salvation then the testimonies of your Bishops and Popes who are but men and so may lie who are partie and so never will condemn themselves who of all men have most foully erred What is this but to make the voice of your Bishops and Popes of greater authoritie then the voice of God in his Scripture For seeing it is the sense of the Scripture that is called in controversie and the sense of the Scripture is the Scripture it self And your doctrine is that I must embrace such and such interpretations of the Scripture that are called in controversie and my conscience must rest in the same
without further tryal because he hath so decreed it What is this but not only to make him equal to the Lord For God only hath that priviledge to be believed because he so speaks mans testimony so far only is to be credited as it may be warranted by the Scripture but also to preferr his authoritie to the voice of God in his Scripture seeing he is Judge of the same and not that onlie but to hang my salvation upon his voice and testimonie And seeing ye will have them Judges what is the cause that their Canons Laws and determinations are not as authentick as the Scripture and insert in the Canon of the Scripture But let us see your reasons First you say That the holy Ghost was given to the Church by the Father and the Son that he might teach it all truth I grant this that the holy Ghost is given to every one of the elect as wel Pastor as people to lead them in all truth in so far as may bring them to salvation And yet ye will not make every one of them Judges next every one of the elect may err notwithstanding of this promise suppose not totally and finally and therefore cannot be Judges of Religion Secondly you alledge the example of the Council of the Apostles and Elders It is true in that controversie that arose among the Christians concerning the observing of the ceremonies of the law of Moses that the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church after reasoning defined the same and writes the same to be observed by the Disciples everie where but first they were Apostles and was infallibly governed by Gods Spirit that they could not err in teaching and writing but your Pastors are not Apostles and may err Next they assemble with the Elders and the whole Church and all with one accord defines Acts 15.12.22.23 You in your Council excludes all except your Bishops to be ordinary Judges to give out judgement and your Popes neither Elder nor brethren having power of voting with you Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 1. Thirdly they define according to the Scripture saying As it is written c. Act. 15.15 This controversie to make us to understand if we will not be more then blind that this rule should be followed in all Councils to determine in controversies according to the Scripture Upon the which I reason if the Apostles who had that high measure of Gods Spirit which never man had since so that in writing and teaching they could not err if they I say did determine the controversies of Religion according to the Scripture how much more then are all Pastors since who may err both severally and jointly together in a Council bound to follow the same rule And whereas ye call their Elders Priests you stile them not as the holy Ghost hath stiled them there so there they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Elders and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is sacrificing Priests as ye suppone Your third reason is the practise and custom of the Church in deciding the controversies of Religion in Councils we grant that this is a very commodious mean to search and find out the truth by the Scripture For first the more they are that seek the truth it is the more easily found Next the consent of many in determining a truth will be of greater authority to repress hereticks then if it were agreed upon only by a few But yet they should determine nothing but that which is warranted by the Scripture and their determinations only in so far forth to be received as is agreeable to the same And this we grant hath been done in the Council of the primitive Church And therefore the Emperor Constantine speaking to the Fathers of the Council of Nice saith Sunt libri Prophetici Apostolici qui apertè quid credendum sit docent c. That is there are the Books of the Prophets and Apostles who teacheth plainly what we should believe All contention therefore laid aside let us take the soveraign decision of these things which are called in controversie out of the Scriptures which are inspired by God And this we grant and this we require But that Councils ought to determin any thing of their own authority in matters of Religion which binds the conscience without the warrant of the Word that we deny Master Gilbert Brown It is a wonder that M. John will refer any thing to the written Word seeing that he and his have no warrant that the same is the Word of God but by the authority of the Roman or Papist Church For understand there was no Church worthie of credit immediatly before Luther but that Church Master John Welsch his Reply You wonder that I refer any thing to the Scripture But what a wōder is this that ye are so far blinded of God that you think that a wonder in me which Abraham hath done which the Prophets have done which our Savior and his Apostles have done and which the Fathers have done for all these have referred the infallible testimony and decision of the will of God concerning his worship unto the Scriptures Luke 16 29. John 5 39. Acts 26.22 Rom. 12. and 16.26 2. Tim. 3.16 2. Pet. 1.10 Rev. 1 3. cap. ult yea which your self also hath done for ye make it a witness But what hath moved you to think this a wonder in me which so many and your self also have done before me Because say ye that he and his that is our Church have no warrant that it is the Word of God but by the authoritie of the Roman or Papist Church I grant indeed that you and your Church are plunged in this blindness and miserie that all the warrant that you have not only of the Scriptures themselves that they are inspired of God but also of all your doctrine and Religion is the testimony of your Roman Church that is of your Pope and Clergy for so ye interpret the Church So Bellarmin grants de Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 25. That all the certainty of all doctrine depends upon the authority of the present Church meaning the Pope and his Clergy And Stapleton saith lib. 1 contra Whitak de author script cap. 10. That it is no absurd thing not to believe God but for the testimony of the Church Pigius saith That it is not needful to believe all that Matthew and John writ in their Gospels to be true because that they might fail in memory and lie as all men may do Ecclesiast hierar lib. 1. cap. 2. And Hermannus saith That the Scripture would be of no more authority then the fables of Esop were not the testimony of the Church And so blind and miserable must you be that hangs the certaintie of all Religion and of man his salvation upon so smal a threed as the testimony of your Popes and Clergy What peace in conscience can any man have that professes your Religion which teaches that the
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
4. That it is impossible to fulfil the whole Law and Vega a Papist saith lib 11. in consil cap 20 That venial sins are properly against the Law Upon the which I reason He that daylie transgresses the law fulfills not nor is not able to fulfil the law for to fulfill the law and transgress the law are contrarie but your own doctrine is that no man can keep himself at least from venial sins and Vega as hath been said saith that venial sins are against the law Therefore if your selves speak true no man is able to fulfil the law I conclud therefore that this doctrine of yours is contrarie to the doctrine of Jesus Christ and his Apostles set down in the Scripture and also contrarie to the doctrine of the Fathers and contrarie to the doctrine of the most learned and chief Doctors of your Roman Church And this for the second point of your doctrine SECTION VIII Whither a man by his Free-will may resist the will of GOD. Master Gilbert Brown THirdly Our doctrine is that man of his Free-will may resist the will of God which is contrary to their doctrine ratified by Act of Parliament in the year 1560. And also against their Psalm book of Geneva Yet our doctrine is the doctrine of Christ For Christ said to them of Jerusalem How oft would I have gathered together thy children but you would not Matth. 23.37 And S. Steven Ye stiff-necked and of uncircumcised hearts and ears ye alwayes resist the holy Ghost as your fathers your selves also Acts 7 51. The same was the faith and belief of the Apostle S. Peter saith Our Lord is not willing that any perish but that all return to pennance 2. Pet. 3.9 And S. Paul hath Our Savior God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth 1. Tim. 2.4 This was the doctrine of the Prophets before Psal 5.5 Ezec. 18.23 and 33.11 Now then if God wills that all men should return and yet all men doth not the same whereof proceeds it but of their Free-will which will not work with the will of God Therefore our Savior saith in sundrie places If thou wilt enter into life keep my commands If thou wilt be perfect go and sell all that thou hast Matth. 19.17 He that will follow me let him deny himself Luke 9.23 Master John Welsch his Reply As for this third point of doctrine I cannot wonder enough what ye mean by it For have you sold your self so far to untruth and lying that for to bring the truth of God which we profess in hatred you will father on us that doctrine which never so much as once entred into our thoughts let be to teach it or write it Did you think when you writ this that the truth of it would never come to light Or thought you that ye regarded not to be controlled of lying at the last so being that for a season ye might make our Religion to be more abhorred through your calumnie But frost and falshood as they say will never have a fair hinder end If you mean then by resisting the will of God a voluntary disobedience and repining against the Spirit of God and his revealed will in his Word as the testimonies which ye quote here imports Then I say there was never man of our Religion that professed taught or writ the contrary and ye will not find a syllable neither in the Confession of our Faith confirmed by the Act of Parliament neither in our Psalm book to the contrary For our doctrine is flat contrary to this to wit that man of his Free-will resists that that is good and chooses the contrary So ye fight here with your own shadow And if ye mean any other thing set it down in plain termes and I hope by his grace it shal be answered So I cannot wonder enough what ye mean to write and subscribe so manifest an untruth Now surelie M. Gilbert I think it had been greater wisdom to you to have saved your own credit and not for a little hatred to our Religion to have blotted your self with lying and untruth for ever I would pray thee Christian Reader if thou wilt not credit me read our Confession thy self and I hope thou shalt wonder with me what the man meant in subscribing so manifest a calumnie This for the third point SECTION IX Concerning Transubstantiation and Christs real and substantial Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Master Gilbert Brown Fourthly Our doctrine is that our Savior gave his true flesh and very body and blood under the forms of bread and wine to be eaten of his Disciples at his last Supper and that to be received by their very mouth And this I say by the written Word is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Christ saith John 6.51 And the bread which I will give you is my flesh for the life of the world And at the latter Supper Take ye and eat ye this is my body And Drink ye all of this For this is my blood of the New Testament which shal be shed for many unto remission of sins Matth 26.27.28 And in S. Mark This is my body and this is my blood of the New Testament which shal be shed for many Mark 14.22.24 And S Luke saith This is my body which is given for you and this is the calice of the New Testament in my blood which shal be shed for you Luke 22.19.20 This same is the doctrine of the Apostles For S. Paul saith This is my body which shal be delivered for you and this calice is the New Testament in my blood and whosoever shal eat this bread and drink the calice of our Lord unworthily he shal be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. And after For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgement to himself not decerning the body of our Lord 1. Cor. 11.24.25 27.29 And in the chapter befo e The calice of benediction which we do bless is it not the communication of the blood of Christ And the bread which we break is it not the participation of the body of the Lord 1. Cor. 10.10 M. John Welsch his Reply I come now to the fourth point of your doctrine your Transubstantiation and real presence The first ye quote is the 6. of John And the bread which I will give is my flesh c. This makes nothing for your real presence For first our Savior speaks not here of that sacramental eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in this sermon which was not instituted a year after that For he speaks here of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood without the which there is no life So our Savior testifies in the 53. verse Except ye eat saith he the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you But your selves grants that men may be saved without that sacramental eating therefore
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
Sacrament And because in this your abominable sacrifice of the Mass as hath been said there is no communion For the Priest takes all And because you affirm the personal and corporal presence of Christs flesh and blood in your sacrifice and the corporal eating and drinking of it which is Capernaitical and more then carnal contrary to the Scripture contrary the nature of a Sacrament contrary the truth of Christ his humanity and contrary the Articles of our Faith of his ascension sitting at his right hand and there remaining till his returning in the last day all which your sacrifice of the Mass and transubstantiation in your communion overthroweth Therefore you have not the true institution of Jesus Christ according to the Scripture I might end here but because ye account the sacrifice of your Mass most heavenly and the principal part of the worship of God and we account it a most abominable idolatry therefore I will set down some arguments against the same whereby if you will you may perceive the abomination of it First I say all lawful sacrifices have the express testimonies of the Scripture to warrant the institution of them to be of God But your sacrifice of the Mass hath no express testimony of the Scripture whereby it may be made manifest that it is instituted of God therefore it is not lawful What now will you say to this The proposition you cannot deny for our Savior saith In vain worship ye me teaching for doctrine mens commandments Matth. 15.9 And Jeremie reproves the Jewes that they would not walk according as the Lord commanded them but according to their own will Jer. 7 24. And the Apostle condemns all voluntary Religion Col. 2.23 Therefore this is most certain that that Religion or sacrifice which hath not express Scripture whereby it may be made plain that it is instituted of God is not lawful For all that is done without faith is sin Rom. 14.23 and faith hath only the Word of God to lean to Rom. 10.17 And dare the creature be so bold as to appoint a mean to worship God without the warrant of his will in his Word Now to the assumption what can you say to it Bring me an express testimony out of the Scripture that God hath instituted your Mass and take it to you Yea if it be instituted in any place of the Scripture it is instituted in the last Supper for this you grant your selves But there is not a syllable in the whole institution that Christ offered up himself in a sacrifice in the same as hath been proved and Bellarmin the learnedest of your Church confesses plainly that the Evangelists have not said expresly that Christ offered up himself in the Supper in a sacrifice Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa cap. 24. And therefore others of your own Religion Petrus a Soto in his book against Brentius Lindanus lib. 4. Panopliae Papists of great name have reckoned the sacrifice of the Mass among the traditions which have not their beginning nor author in the Scriptures So then by your own confession the sacrifice of the Mass hath not express Scripture to warrant it yea it is a tradition which hath neither the beginning nor author of it in the Scriptures of God And I would ask this question of you What can be the cause wherefore the typical sacrifices and all the rites and ceremonies thereof is so expresly set down in the Scripture of the Old Testament which you will not deny and this sacrifice of yours which ye account more excellent then all these not to have been expresly set down in the New Testament neither the sacrifice nor the rites and ceremonies thereof yea not so much as the very name of it Is the New Testament think ye more obscure then the Old Testament which is absurd to say Shal the Old Testament be clear in setting down the sacrifices and all the rites thereof which is but the shadow And should not the New Testament have been at the least as clear in setting down the sacrifice of the New Testament which ye affirm to be the Mass if it were such What an absurd thing is this Christian Reader assure thy self the Lord Jesus would have dealt as lovingly and plainly with thee in setting down the sacrifice of the Mass in the New Testament if ever he had instituted such a sacrifice as he was in setting down the sacrifices of the Old Testament But thou may assure thy self and thy conscience may lean unto it since he hath not so much as once expressed it in all the New Testament therefore he hath never appointed it Secondly I say in all the places of Scripture wheresoever the Apostles speaks of the sacrifices which Christians should offer up they ever speak of spiritual sacrifices and never speak of this external sacrifice of the Mass They never remember of this their sacrifice of the offering up of Christ in the Mass Look throughout the whole New Testament and thou shalt not find this as namely in these places Rom. 12. Heb. 1â— Phil. 4. Rom. 15.1 Pet. 2. Rev. 5. Are you and your Mass Priests more wise then the Apostles are Whither should we then think and speak as they spake and thought or as ye would have us They never spake of your sacrifice of the Mass and bring one instance if ye can therefore neither should we We will believe them rather then you Thirdly that doctrine which is expresly gain-said by the Scripture must be false This you cannot deny But this your doctrine concerning the often and dayly offering up of Jesus Christ his body and blood in sacrifice in your Mass is expresly gain-said by the Scripture For the Scripture saith in sundry places That he hath once offered up himself never to offer up himself again Heb. 10.10 By the which will we are sanctified even by the offering up of Jesus Christ once made 11. And every Priest standeth dayly ministring and oft times offereth one manner of offering which cannot take away sin 12. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sin sitteth for ever at the right hand of God 10. For with one offering hath he consecrated for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 9.24 Christ hath entred into the very heaven to appear now in the sight of God for us not that he should offer himself often c. 28. So Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many Heb. 7.27 Christ died once when he offered up himself Seeing the Scripture therefore affirms so plainly that Christ once offered up himself and you affirm that in your abominable sacrifice he offers up himself often since the Scripture saith the offering up of Christ is once only ye say it is often in your Mass therefore this doctrine of yours is plain against the express sayings of the Scripture For suppose ye will have an unbloody offering up of Christ yet the Scripture only acknowledges this bloody offering up of himself
he may of right dispense against right that he may make righteousness of unrighteousness and that he may deliver as many souls out of Hell and Purgatory and place them in heaven as pleaseth him Extra de translat Epist Canon Quanto in textu glossa Clement 6. in Bulla he needs no Masses to be said for him Either therefore these sentences that are spoken of him are false or else all Masses said for him are superfluous Eightly if the Mass be one with the Supper then as the Supper was only instituted for the living and not for the dead and therefore our Savior in the Supper commands To take eat drink and to do it in remembrance of him which the dead cannot do so these Masses should not be for the dead And for what dead are these that these Masses are said If they say for them that are in Heaven or Hell I answer the one needs them not and they are unprofitable for the other If they say for them that are in Purgatory I answer this Purgatory is but their own invention to draw water to their own mill and to enrich the Popes treasures for the Scripture makes no mention of it Ninthly their Masses that are said for them that are absent as for the prisoners for them that sail and are in their voyage c. makes it manifest also that the Mass is not one with the Lords Supper for it was instituted not to them that were absent but to them that were present For in the Supper they are commanded to take eat and to drink in remembrance of him which the absent cannot do Indeed it is true that these that are present at the Mass do eat and drink as little as they that are absent the only vantage they have is to be beholders of the Priest eating and drinking all himself alone and of these vain and juglers tricks of the Priest in saying of his Mass which the absent cannot see Tenthly how can their Priests please God in saying Mass for him of whose soul it is doubted seeing it cannot be said with faith and whatsoever is done without faith the Apostle saith is sin Rom. 4.23 And this doubting as James saith cannot stand with faith James 2 6. therefore this Mass of theirs for his soul of whom there is doubt cannot please God But what is all their Religion but conjectures and opinions and doubtings Eleventhly is their Masses for the pest tempest fury fire and all afflictions and maladies as well of man as of beast which containeth intolerable and vile idolatry for every Mass hath his own Saint to be a Patron according to the subject thereof and every Saint hath his own office Against the pest the Priest saith the Mass of S. Sebastian and S. Roch for they are the Patrons and defenders against it after the custom of the Pagans who honored Apollo and Esculapius by feasts and sacrifices for to be saved from the contagion of the same Against the tempest they say the Mass of S. Bernard S. Graith S. Barbe and others in stead of Jupiter which the Pagans worshipped Against the rage or fury they say the Mass of S. Hubert who is the Patron of hunters and dogs as the Goddess Diana was the Patron among the Pagans Against the fire they say the Mass of S. Antony for they make him the Patron of it and they say it is a greater oath to swear upon the arm of S. Antony then when one swears by the Name of God For a woman with child they say the Mass of S. Margaret in stead of Diana and Juno which the Pagans worshipped for women with child For a horse they say the Mass of S. Eloy or S. Antony yea for a poor wifes hen if it be sick or lost And for their pigs they have the Mass of S. Antony Alanus de sacrific Euch. cap. 32. But first what blasphemy is this to have their recourse to Saints hee or shee to obtain of them or by their merit or intercession health in sickness c. and such like things which are only in Gods hands to bestow For it is he only that sends health and sickness fair weather and foul weather and so forth Next the Lords Supper was not instituted to be a charm for such diseases of man or beast or for the fire pest tempest c. but for the remembrance of Christs death So that if there were no more abuse in the Mass but these two things it is sufficient to make all men to abhor such abominable idolatry The twenty and one abuse is their mixing of parcels of the Scripture with their abomination and idolatries in their Mass after the manner of those who go about to impoyson any who mix their poyson with some good food that it may be the less suspected Or rather as the Magiciens and Charmers doth who mixes with their devilish practises parcels of the Scriptures of God and makes those to serve for their devilish purposes which was appointed to Gods honor So are all the places of Scripture which are read and sung in their Mass they are brought forth not for the truth but against the truth for their idolatry and abomination and this they have done that their idolatrie may be less suspected by the simple Next what warrant have they to prefer the Gospel as they call it to the Epistles in standing up at the reading of the Gospel and sitting at the reading of the Epistles seeing they are both inspired of God and they both contain the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the Apostle testifies Rom. 1.1 and 2.16 1. Cor. 4.15 Thirdly the Gospel and Epistles were appointed not to be sung and chanted in the Church as they do but to be read and interpreted for the Psalms and other Hymns in the Scripture are ordained for that use Fourthly seeing the Scripture which is read and sung in your Mass is read and sung in an unknown language as all the rest of your Mass is done to what purpose doth it serve And what is it but a mocking of God and abusing of the poor people The twenty and two abuse is their wax candles which they have burning in the time of their Masses in the fair day light mocking as it were thereby both God the Author of all light and the light of the Sun And to what purpose can they serve to burn in the day light when the Sun is shining but to bear witness against them in the great Day that in the midst of the noon-day they groped in darkness and that they have put out the light of the Gospel that should have shined in their hearts What shal I speak of the rest of your ceremonies which are superstitious idle carnal and Jewish In attire like them for as their Priests were clad in an Ephod a Myter a broidered coat a girdle a breast-plate and a robe Exode 28.4 So with you your Priests must have an Amice an Albe a girdle a fannel whereof some
him as by another But to what purpose do ye quote the 9. of Matthew That the Son of man hath power to forgive sins For will you say that the Ministers of the Church have that absolut authority that he had The which if ye do then are ye blasphemous As for the word Priest wherewith ye style the Ministers of the Church I know that you and your Church takes more pleasure in this style then in all the styles which the holy Ghost hath given to the Ministers of the Church in the New Testament For among the manifold styles which are given to his Ministers yet hath he never given this style of a sacrificing Priest as proper to them throughout the whole New Testament But as your office of Priesthood is not written in Christ his latter Testament so neither is your style of sacrificing Priests contained in the same But new offices must have new styles SECTION XIV Of Extreme Vnction and whither it be a Sacrament Master Gilbert Brown SIxthly our doctrine is to make the Priests of the Church to anoint the sick with oyl in the Name of our Lord and to pray over him because it is the doctrine of the Apostles as we have in S. James in these words Is any sick among you let him bring in the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the Name of our Lord and the prayer of faith shal save the sick and our Lord shal lift him up and if he be in sins they shal be remitted him * James 4.15 August tom 4. super Levit. quaest 84. And because we find here an external form which is the anointing with oyl of an internal grace which is remission of sins therefore we say it is a Sacrament Now take from these places the vain subterfuges of our new men that will have him a Mediciner for the body in this and not for the soul the matter will be plain of it self M. John Welsch his Reply As to your doctrine of anointing of the sick with oyl and that not by every man but by a Priest not in all sicknesses but in the extremity of death not with every oyl but with oyl consecrated by the Bishop which Bellarmin makes essential to this Sacrament cap. 7. de extr unctione and that not all the parts and members of the body but the five organs of the senses and the reins and feet and that by this form of words Let God forgive thee whatsoever thou hast sinned by the sight hearing smelling c. by this holy unction and his most godly mercy The which you will have to have two effects The one the health of the body if it be expedient for the soul the other remission of the relicks of sins that remains and this ye make to be one of your Sacraments And for this purpose ye only bring one testimony of Scripture So that all the show of warrant you can pick out of the Scripture is this only place of James For I suppose with Bellarmin and sundry others you have seen that that place of Mark 6.13 which is also alledged by the Council of Trent for the confirmation of this doctrine would carry no show to make any thing for you and therefore it may be you have omitted it But this place serves nothing for your purpose For first I say this was a ceremonie annexed to the miraculous gift of healing as is plain both by the text using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Lord will lift him up which is properly spoken of the health of the bodie and also by that place of Mark 6.13 where it is written that the Apostles anointed many sick with oyl and they healed them The which gift was not only given to the Apostles but also to the very Churches as is plain of the 1. Corinth 12. Unto another is given the gift of healing c. Now seeing this extraordinary gift is ceased in the Church of God wherefore will you superstitiously use the ceremonie So either avow M. Gilbert that your Priests have this miraculous gift of healing which I suppose ye will not or else leave off the ceremonie Secondly by this argument ye may as wel make all the rest of the ceremonies which our Savior and his Apostles Peter and Paul and the believers in the primitive Church used toward the sick blind lame and dead Sacraments As the laying on of hands Mark 16.18 which had both a command and a promise joyned with it anointing of the eyes of the blind with clay John 9.6 washing in the pool of Siloam c. John 5. Mat. 9.29 Acts 3.6 20.10 For why should not their examples be as well followed as the example of the Elders of the primitive Church And seeing you use not these ceremonies because ye want the miraculous gift which was joyned with them why do ye use this ceremonie superstitiously seeing ye want this gift also Thirdly I say this place can make nothing for your doctrine for this place saith Call the Elders of the Church and let them c. but you call for a sacrificing Priest This text saith in the plural number Call for the Elders your doctrine saith one Priest is sufficient This place speaks of oyl not mentioning a syllable of consecration blessing of it by the Bishop and that nine-fold salutation that ye give unto it Hail O holy oyl with the bowing of the knee and other ceremonies There is not a syllable in this nor in any other Scripture that speaks of these things and yet your doctrine will have all these ceremonies This place saith And the prayer of faith shal save the sick and you attribut it to the ointment This place puts no difference of sickness but your doctrine is that none be anointed but he who is lying in the bed and at the point of death This place only specifieth the anointing of the sick some of you reckons as the Council of Florentine seven parts some the five senses as necessary And therefore this moved Thomas of Aquin lib. 4. sent 4. dist 23. quaest to say That the form of this Sacrament is not extant in the Scripture Now if it be not extant in the Scripture what to do have we with it seeing the Scripture is able to make a man wise unto salvation and to make the man of God perfect in every good work Fourthly Beda Ecumenius and Theophylactus in their Commentaries upon these places and Thomas Waldensis lib. 2. de sacr Alphonsus de Castro de haeresibus two archpapists affirms that in the 6. of Mark 5. of James the self-same unction and anointing is meaned But Bellarmin de extr unct Jansenius in Marc. 6. two other Papists affirms and proves by firm reasons that that anointing in Mark is no Sacrament therefore neither is this anointing in James a Sacrament seeing as said is in both the places the self-same unction is meaned Fifthly I say all the
Sacraments the Lord hath instituted are publick and not privat but this Sacrament of yours is privatly ministred therefore not a true Sacrament Sixthly all the Sacraments of the New Testament should be ministred by them who have the preaching of the Gospel concredited unto them and not by privat Christians But Innocentius the first a Pope saith in his Epist 1. cap. 8 Private men may minister this in their own and others necessities as also Thomas Waldensis a Papist And yet the Council of Trent accurses them that so say Therefore it is not a Sacrament Seventhly Pope Innocent in that same Epistle cited before calls it but genus Sacramenti a kind of Sacrament therefore it is not properly a Sacrament But you are more bold to call it a Sacrament Eightly all the Sacraments of Christ have their warrant from the written word But Petrus a Soto in his book against Brentius calls this a tradition which hath not the warrant in the written word therefore it is not a lawful Sacrament of Christ And as to your argument That it hath an external form of anointing with oyl of an internal grace which is remission of sins I answer this form or ceremony was extraordinary as I proved before annexed to a miraculous gift of healing The which seeing it is now ceased the ceremonie also should cease And this promise is not made to the anointing if ye will believe the Apostle but to the prayer of faith The prayer of faith saith the Apostle shal save the sick And whereas ye say that we make him a Mediciner only for the bodie in this and not for the soul we answer That this ceremonie as sundrie others was only annexed to the extraordinary gift of healing of the bodie and was not seals of grace And yet with the health of the bodie the healing of the soul was oftentimes joyned as our Savior saith to the paralytick man Thy sins are forgiven thee take up thy bed and walk Matth 9 28. Now whither these be our vain subterfuges or clear grounds out of the Scripture let the Reader judge And whereas ye call us new men let them be new and most recent whose doctrine is most new But as hath and shal be proved by Gods grace our doctrine is not new but Jesus Christs in his Old and New Testament and yours devised since Therefore this title of noveltie most justly belongs unto you This for the sixth point of your doctrine SECTION XV. Concerning Imposition of hands and whither it be a Sacrament Master Gilbert Brown SEventhly our doctrine is that when our Priests which are the only lawful Ministers now adayes are called to that function receives the imposition of hands with the grace or gift of the holy Ghost because it is the doctrine of S. Paul in these words Neglect not the gift or grace that is within thee which is given thee by prophesy with the imposition of priesthood And therefore must be a Sacrament because it hath an external form which is the imposition of hands of an external grace which is the gift given by the same And for this cause a John Calvin himself admits it to be a Sacrament albeit in their Confession they call it a bastard Sacrament of the Popes and detests the same although b Melancthon hath the contrary a Institut lib. 4. cap. 14. sect 20. item lib. 4. cap. 19. sect 28. b In locis com edit 1543. de num sacrament M. John Welsch his Reply As for the seventh point of your doctrine concerning the imposition of hands in the ordination of the lawful Ministers of the Church of Christ because it is a ceremony which hath the foundation of it in the word of God and was practised in the primitive Church as in the ordination of Timothie here and others and is profitable both to put the Pastors in mind of his calling that he is separated of God for the discharge of the same and also the people that they embrace him as one sent of God to them therefore we both acknowledge it and practise it But that either the gift of the holy Ghost is inseparably joyned with it or that it is a Sacrament of the New Testament properly as you affirm that we deny As to the first the gift of the holy Ghost is not inseparably joyned with it First because that is injurious to the Lords free grace which is not bound to any instrument let be to a ceremony And also he speaks against experience for how many I pray you do receive imposition of hands who receive not a new grace and gift of the holy Ghost among you Miserable experience these many ages both doth testifie it and also one hath testified the same saying Our Priests do lay the word of blessing upon many but in few followeth the effect of that blessing Ex veteri Testam quaest 109. inter opera Augustini And certainly if any gift of the holy Ghost is joyned with this ceremony it should be an ability to preach the Word For that is the principal part of the office of the Minister of the Gospel But how many thousands are they among you in your Church who have received this imposition of hands and yet as unable to preach the Gospel as asses are And last of all what needed that tryal and examination so straitly commanded in the Scripture which ought to be had of them that are to be ordained if the holy Ghost were ever inseparably given with the ceremony For wherefore is this tryal and examination And wherefore is Timothy so straitly charged to lay his hands suddenly on no man but because it is only the holy Ghost who enables The which also should be well known unto his Church ere they presume to testifie the calling of God to them For if it were true that ye say that the gift of the holy Ghost were joyned with the imposition of hands inseparably then the Apostle should rather have commanded Timothy 2 Tim. 5.22 to lay his hands upon many in respect of the need that the Church stood in of all men rather then to have discharged him And as for the place of Paul which ye cite here Despise not the gift c. this serves nothing for your doctrine For if first the gift given to Timothy which the Apostle speaks of was extraordinary and so ordinarily doth not ever follow the ceremony 2. It is not ascribed here to the ceremony of imposition of hands but unto prophesie which is given thee by prophesie whereby it was revealed to the Church of the ability of this man And so if there be any prophesies that go of you in your Clergy that the holy Ghost is given to you then ye may claim unto the same but I think ye will not say that such like prophesies go of you therefore ye cannot claim to this testimony 3. Timothy is exhorted to keep that worthy thing concredited unto him through the holy Ghost 2 Tim. 1.14 It was the
bound to lay down our life one for another much more to ware out for him such things as may serve for the comfort of this life in such an extremity And the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. John 3.16 is not to supererogat as ye take it but to ware out further expenses So your blindness is gross in this And as for that of David in praising God night and day so often he was so far from thinking of himself that he had done more then the Law required of him that he never thought of himself that he had fully obeyed the Law And therefore how often prays he in that Psalm that the Lord would open his eyes to understand the Law and give him grace to perform the same Psal 119.12.17.18.27 And in other Psalms he saith My sins are mo then the hairs of my head Psal 40.12 And if thou mark iniquity who can stand Psal 130.3 And therefore this was no work of supererogation And if you knew M. Gilbert but the Lord hath blinded you either the perfection of the Law of God or our inability to perform it or the unsearchable love and kindness of God which hath obliged us to mo duties then ever we are able to do For when we have done all which is commanded us yet we are but unprofitable servants you would be so far from defending these your works of supererogation that ye would abhor and detest this doctrine SECTION XIX Concerning Christs descending into Hell Master Gilbert Brown THirteenthly our doctrine is that Christ our Savior according to the soul descended to the Hells as we have in our Belief And this was the doctrine of the Apostles for S. Peter saith That God hath raised him up loosing the sorrows of Hell according as it was impossible that he should be held of it Acts 2.24 And this he proves by the Psalms of David Behold thou wilt not leave my soul in hell saith David nor give thy holy One to see corruption Psal 16.10 This same is the doctrine of S Paul also And that he ascended what is it but because he descended also first into the inferior parts of the earth He that descended the same is he also which is ascended above all the heavens that he might fill all things Eph. 4.9.10 Ye see in these and all the rest of our doctrine wherein they differ from us that the touch-stone beares witness to us and proves ours only to be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and not their denying thereof Master John Welsch his Reply Bellarmin grants that we all agree that Christ after a certain manner descended into hell but the whole controversie is of the sense and meaning of it We say that he suffered the pains of hell in his soul upon the cross and lay under the bondage of death and was held captive in the grave which in the Hebrew is called SCHEOL which signifieth sometime hell in the Scripture and sometime the grave for the space of three days and in this sense we grant he descended into hell and in this sense it is taken in our Belief But your doctrine is That he descended locally into hell according to his soul first to give to the souls of the Fathers essential blessedness and to deliver them out of that prison and bring them to heaven Bellarm. lib. 4. de Christo cap. 16. And this we say is neither the meaning of that article of your Belief neither yet hath it so much as a syllable in the whole Scripture to warrant it And as for the article it self Bellarmin confesses that this article was not in the Creed with all Churches as he proves there by the testimonies of Ireneus Origen Tertullian and Augustin who all exponed the Creed And Augustin exponed it five times and yet never mentions this article And Ruffinus an ancient writer testifies That this article was neither in the Creed of the Roman Church nor of the East Churches And also it is not in the Nicene Creed which is more then 300. years after Christ And Perkins a learned man in his exposition of the Creed affirms that threescore Creeds of the most ancient Councils and Fathers wants this clause Whereby it is most clear that this article was not put in at that time when the rest of the articles were gathered together but hath crept in since and that more then 300. years after the days of the Apostles For Augustin lived in the 400. years and the Nicene Creed was more then 300. years after Christ And yet because it hath continued a long time and hath been received by the consent of the Churches of God and doth also carry with it a fit understanding and sense as hath been spoken therefore it is to be retained but not in that sense as ye expone it For first if this local descension of Christ according to his soul into hell were true and that it were an article of our Faith as ye say then the four Evangelists which are the sworn pen-men of the history of his death and resurrection and especially Luke who as he saith himself Luke 1 3. intended to make an exact narration of the same who also did amply set down the same with all the circumstances thereof they would not have omitted it being a special article of our Faith if your doctrine be true seeing the end of their writing as John saith was that we might believe and by believing have eternal life John 10.31 But they never mention it as your selves cannot deny Therefore it cannot be that he locally descended into hell Secondly the Scripture makes it plain that Christs soul was in Paradise at that time with the thief For he saith unto him This night shalt thou be with me in Paradise Luke 23.43 For this cannot be meant of his God-head for it is every where neither of his body for it was in the grave Seeing therefore his soul was at that time in Paradise it could not be in hell except you will say that Paradise and hell are both one which I suppose ye will not say Thirdly if the souls of the Fathers were not in hell then Christ descended not thither For ye say That he descended thither for that effect to deliver them Bellar. lib. 4. de Christo cap. 16. but they were not in hell but in heaven which our Savior calls Abrahams bosome where Lazarus was betwixt the which and hell the Scripture testifies there is a great gulf Luke 16.23 therefore he descended not locally into hell Fourthly some of your own learned Doctors have seen this error of yours and have gone from it as Durandus by name who affirms in 3. distinct 22. quaest 3. That Christs soul descended not to hell in substance but in vertue and proves it by reasons And last of all you are at such variance among your selves concerning this point that some of you affirms That Christs soul suffered pain in hell when it was there as Cajetan in
ye say if they prophesie at any time it is of evil and not of good so said Achab of the Prophet of the Lord 1. Kings 22.8 and therefore he hated him so you speak with the same spirit against us that Achab spake with against the Lords Prophet And what good can be spoken of your Babel since the Lord hath fore-told the ruine of it in part hath been accomplished And some of your own number as Hildegardis Briget Catherine de Sens have fore-told of the destruction of your Church the reformation of the Church of Christ As for the time it was spoken of before and I suppose ye have thought it too long and yet be in patience M. Gilbert for it must continue and your Babel must down As for the clothing of sackcloth it was the apparel of such as was in dolor and in mourning whereby is signified the sorrow and dolor that should arise to the true Ministers of Christ through the persecution of the Antichrist his members their idolatrie and abominations The which hath been so clearly fulfilled in the Preachers of the Gospel since John Hus his dayes and before also even to this day that he must be blinded of the Lord who sees it not And whereas ye cast up the clothing of the Ministry in this land ye have forgotten your self and your Clergy and your Head the Pope with his triple Crown with all the rable of his Prelats Abbots Bishops Cardinals c. as full of riotous pride and pomp as ever were the Persian Kings See Bernard de confid ad Eugen. lib. 4. Platin. de vita Pontif. in Paulo 2. His clothes be made of precious stones his gorgeous Miter dight With jewels rare with glistering gold and with 1 A precious stone called a Carbuncle of the which kind one that fell out of the Popes Miter by a mischance at his coronation was worth 6000. crowns Platin. in vita Clementis 5. Pyropus bright O very Troyan trulls no Troyans The pomp and glory of whose Court doth surmount all the pomp and glory of all the Princes in Europe as some that have seen it reports How then can ye justly quarrel our attire Can you say that we pass the bounds of that modesty and comeliness which the Apostle requires in the over-seers of the Church of Christ seeing you will have all the outward pomp and glory of your Popes and Prelats according as it was prophesied of you Rev. 17. to be comprehended within the definition of comeliness and modestie But you are like the Lamians of whom it is reported that they had but one eye and when they went forth they took it with them to look upon others and when they came in their own houses they laid it beside them You look to your neighbors but ye over-see your self So for all the differences which ye have yet assigned it remains sure that by these two Witnesses here are signified the Ministers of the Gospel Master Gilbert Brown But note here I pray you how well these new Evangelists agree in the exposition of this Revelation of S. John for all their grounds proofs is upon prophesies and dark speakings Young Merchiston in his book upon the Revelation chap. 11. vers 3. expones these Witnesses to be the Old and New Testament as he proves in the 21. Proposition and M. John will have them the Ministers Merchiston saith that to be clad in sackcloth is to preach the Word of God with the obscurity of mens traditions and colored glosses M. John saith here that the sackcloth signifies persecution for the preaching of the Word The notes on their Geneva Bibles printed at London expones the sackcloth to signifie poor and simple apparel And Bale upon the same place writes that this sackcloth signifies sober conversation God knows if this and the like be wholsome doctrine to preach to the poor people some one way and some another according to the invention of their own brains without any proofs Maister John Welsch his Reply As for these diverse expositions which ye mark in us that have so stirred up your affections that ye cry out God knows whether this be wholsome doctrine to teach the poor people or not I answer That these diverse expositions of ours are all agreeable to the analogie of faith as your self will not deny and therefore cannot be called unwholsome doctrine Otherwise not only the Fathers but also your own Doctors and Bishops and Popes have delivered unwholsome doctrine by your reason for they have exponed innumerable places of Scripture diversly which is so manifest that I need not prove it and your self also hath delivered unwholsome doctrine here for ye expone blessing and thanksgiving for two contrary things and yet Bellarmin saith that some Catholicks take them both for one And what shal I say of your diverse expositions which were tolerable so being they were according to the proportion of faith your contradictions one to another and that not only in exponing the Scripture but in the main points of your Religion some holding one thing and some another as partly hath and partly shal be marked are manifold And if diverse expositions of a place of Scripture be unwholsome doctrine as ye say then surely this point of your Catholick doctrine which teaches that the Scripture hath a five-fold sense and that it may be five diverse ways exponed must be unwholsome doctrine and then ye lose more then you can win by this Beware M. Gilbert that by this dealing ye bring not your self in suspicion that ye are forsaking your Catholick Faith For this is a point of it as Bellarmin reports lib. 3. de interpret verb. cap. 3. As for your calumnies first in calling us new Evangelists I answered to that before next in saying that all our proofs and grounds are upon prophesies and dark sayings First you injure the holy Ghost in calling his prophesies dark for the cause of this is not in them but in our blindness Secondly ye speak too plain an untruth for it is more then manifest that not only prophesies but also the plain and simple doctrine of the whole Scripture is the grounds and proofs of our Religion as is manifest by the points of doctrine which we have handled here Master Gilbert Brown And it follows in M. John And at the last saith he they shal be put to death c. Here is two things to be noted First that the Church shal not be invisible in the time of Antichrist for if the Pastors of the Church be invisible how shal they be taken and put to death If the Antichrist and his members shal slay them how can they do the same except they know and may see them To be invisible is not to be known or seen but they will see and know them or else they cannot discern them from their own whereby they may put them to death and save their own The second thing to be noted that
raising up of Elias in his own person again but in the sending of John Baptist in the vertue and spirit of Elias So this Prophesie concerning the reviving of these two Witnesses whereby was figured the faithful Ministers of Christ who was murdered in the time of Popery as John Wicleff John Hus Jerome of Prague M. George Wishart and many others is fulfilled not by raising up of their persons again but of others his faithful servants who in their vertue and spirit have defended and maintained that same doctrine and cause against the Antichrist as Martin Luther Calvin Bucer Peter Martyr M. Knox and sundry others whom the Lord hath and dayly raises up in all Countreys for the overthrow of your Babel As for your trust what will come to pass we pass not for so much hath been fulfilled of these prophesies which testifies your Head to be the Antichrist and the Ministers of the Reformed Church to be the faithful servants of Christ And the rest concerning your dayly consumption and final abolition 2. Thess 2.8 Rev. 18.2.21 and 19.20 we know assuredly shal come to pass because the Lord hath so thought it and said it And as for any further proof of the clemency and meekness of your Popes if so the Lord will we desire it not For as it is said of the wicked man Your compassions are cruel and your by past cruelty testifies of what spirit ye are And suppose you say you trust that this among the rest shal not come to pass yet I fear you long to see that day upon the Ministers of Scotland which your brethren rejoyced to see fulfilled in that cruel persecution of Queen Mary in England and in that bloody massacre of Paris of the Saints of God there For we cannot think but that ye are of the same spirit and mind which your brethren were of otherwise ye are not a right Catholick As for the Laird of Merchistons conjecture concerning the day of Judgement he hath his own probable reasons and if you be as good as your word as your favorers have reported of you we will see the refutation of his book by you And suppose I know the time to be uncertain to man or Angel as our Savior saith Matth. 24.36 yet his conjecture thereof is in greater modesty and sobriety then your determination thereof Whereby if the doctrine of your Church be true concerning the Antichrist whom ye imagine is yet to come and the time of his reign which ye say is to be but three years and an half then not only the year but the very day thereof may be known of them that live in those days For the Scripture saith He shal be abolished by the brightness of his coming 2. Thess 2.8 Yea that which is greater arrogancy and presumption the learnedest of your Church Bellarmin lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 17. pag. 418. hath taken upon him to determine the very day of the coming of Christ to Judgement to wit 45. days after the perishing of the Antichrist It is manifest saith he that after the death of the Antichrist there shal be but 45. days to the end of the world Master John Welsch Now if all this be true both concerning the Antichrist the largeness of his dominion the estat of the Church of God and his true Pastors all that time which I offer me to prove by the Scripture And also that the Pope of Rome is that only Antichrist that was to come and is now disclosed then I say no man should think that the Church of God was ever open and visible in that flowrishing estat as it is now Master Gilbert Brown But what if all these sayings of his be false what shal follow then but that M. John and the rest of the Ministers are deceived and deceive others with such vain and untrue expositions upon the Word of God For take away M. Johns own invention and the Word shal never have such a meaning And although M. John offer never so oft to prove the same I say he is never able to do it nor all the Ministers in Scotland Master John Welsch his Reply If all these sayings of mine concerning the largeness of the dominion of Antichrist the estat of the Church of God and his true Pastors all that time be false then not only have I been deceived but also Bellarmin the Rhemists and Sanderus the chief defenders of your Church have been deceived and deceive others For they have spoken and written as much and further in these points then ever I did as I have proved before by their own testimonies And yet I suppose your Head and Clergy will judge them to be as far from error as you are So either you or they must be deceived in this And as for the fulfilling of these prophesies in your Popes of Rome I hope it hath been proved sufficiently which ye nor all the Clergy of Rome is never able to improve As for the rest of your answer wherein ye prove that the Pope is not the Antichrist I have answered to it in the other part of my Treatise concerning the Antichrist therefore I omit it now Master Gilbert Brown What he means that the Pope is now disclosed I know not for I understand that he hath not been like their Church that sometimes is visible and sometimes not for he hath always been known by the visible Church to be the visible head thereof in place of Christ Master John Welsch his Reply My meaning is this That suppose in the darkness of Papistry he was taken to have been the Vicare of Christ yet now the Lord hath smitten him and consumed him by the sword of his mouth 2. Thess 2.8 that is the Word of God and hath discovered him to the full to all these whose eyes the Lord hath opened that he is that Antichrist which the Scripture hath fore-told was to come And where you say that he hath been always known by the visible Church to be the visible Head thereof in place of Christ I see you regard not what you say for the maintenance of that Head and Kingdom of yours For certainly either hath the Lord wonderfully blinded you or else ye speak against the light of your own conscience For are you ever able to produce one syllable in the whole Scripture to prove this Yea hath not his Monarchie and Supremacie been condemned First by the Son of God Matth. 18.1 and 20.25.26 Mark 10.42 Luke 22.25 Next by the Apostles themselves 2. Cor. 1.24 1. Pet. 5 3. Thirdly by the Fathers of the primitive Church in their Synods and Councils Provincial and General as by the Bishops of Africk Cyprian Epist 55. ad Cornel. about the year 255. By the General Councils of Nice 1. Canon 5.6.17 wherein was 318 Bishops anno 327. Of Constantinople Canon 2.3 5. wherein was 150. Bishops anno 381. Of Ephesine Canon 8. where was 200. Bishops anno 436. Of Chalcedonense Actio 16. anno 454. where there
was brought to a smal handful The Princes Priests and Scribes who only was in dignity and authority being persecuters of Christ condemned him and crucified him And such like in the time of the persecution of Dioclesian the Emperor and in the time of the Arrian heresie which over-spred as it were the whole world The which also our Savior fore-told should come to pass When the Son of man saith he shal come shal he find faith in the world Matth. 18.8 and 24 11.12 And by the Apostle also 2. Thess 2. 1. Tim. 4. And John in the Revelation in the time of the Antichrist Rev. 9 1.2.3.4 and 12.6 and 13 14.15.16.17 and 14 8. and 17.2 and 18.3 Confessed also by the learned of your own Church as Bellarmin and the Rhemists as they have been quoted before and by your self also who confessed that the Church of Christ should be redacted to a smal number as it were in a wilderness in the time of the Antichrist This now is our doctrine concerning the invisibility of the Church which is neither repugnant to the Word of God nor yet to the examples which I brought in afterward against your Religion For both these M. Gilbert are true and neither of them repugning one another that the particular Churches in the time of the Antichrist are not so openly known and so outwardly glorious and flowrishing as they were before but redacted to a smal number more obscure and more latent partly through that universal defection and partly through that extream persecution of your Church and Head and that there was some that opponed themselves to the Pope and his Clergy and that even when he was come to the hight If you will make these repugnant which are not adversa but only diversa secundum magis minus then I say ye are repugnant to all rules of reasoning and to the light of nature it self Master Gilbert Brown Of this I may justly make an argument against M. John that the Pope is not the Antichrist The woman that fled to the wilderness is the true Church and to flie to the wilderness is to be invisible as M. John saith Now young Merchiston hath that this invisibility indured from the year of God 316. till our days the space of 1260. years which was by him all the time of the Antichrist But by M. John Welsch there was many in that time that opponed themselves to the Pope and said against him and his Religion and Clergy and therefore was known Of the which the Popes did slay many as he saith Therefore it must follow that either the Pope is not the Antichrist because he did persecute but visible things or else the Church was not invisible all the time fore-said Master John Welsch his Reply Let us see the force of this argument that ye make for your Pope that he is not the Antichrist The woman ye say that fled to the wilderness is the true Church That I grant and to flie into the wilderness is to be invisible by me I answer By me it is to be latent and to lurk to eschew the rage of her persecuters and not to be openlie conversant as that all the world may know her and yet not to be so latent but that some of them are known both among themselves as also to their enemies And this is our meaning as I have said before when we affirm that the particular Churches sometimes become invisible But you take it as though our meaning were that the Church is so invisible that it is known to none which is your invention M. Gilbert and not our doctrine and therefore you fight without an adversarie in this point But to go forward to the rest of your argument you say that by me there was sundrie that oppugned the Pope and his Clergie and was put to death by them This is true and therefore the blood of the Saints is found in your Church Now what will you gather of all this Therefore say you the Pope is not the Antichrist because he persecutes but visible things or else the Church is not invisible I deny that either the one or the other will follow And because you made an argument against your Pope I should have said with him that he is not the Antichrist which is grounded upon your own invention mistaking our doctrine and therefore hath no feet I will make another for him that he is the Antichrist the which you nor all your Clergy will not be able to disprove He is that undoubted Antichrist which hath redacted the Church of Christ as it were in a wilderness to a smal handful partly through the pest of his damnable doctrine partly through his extream persecution so that they were compelled to lurk and hide themselves from the cruelty of his power This you cannot deny because the Scripture affirms this of the Antichrist But I assume that the Popes of Rome have done this these many hundred years as I have proved before and in the other part of my answer therefore of necessity it must follow that the Popes of Rome are the Antichrist that the Scripture fore told should come Answer this if you can And as for the time of this invisibilitie it hath relation to the beginning and grouth and hight of your Antichristian Kingdom For as it grew the Church was more and more obscured and when it was at the hight the Church was in her eclipse and as it hath decayed now since she hath accordingly spred her self abroad If the Apostle be true that Mystery of Iniquity began to work in his days 2. Thess 2.7 1. John 4 3. For first the manifold heresies which were sown in the primitive Church whereof the Popes of Rome have renewed a great many as shal be proved hereafter was the first step to that Antichristian Kingdom Next the loving of preeminence in the Ministery over their brethren as the Scripture testifies of Dictrephes who loved preeminence 3. of John 9. and specially the aspiring of the Bishops of Rome to a Domination and Lordship over their brethren forbidden by Christ which was manifestly kythed in Pope Victor who did take upon him to excommunicat the Bishops of Asia for a light dissention of the celebration of Easter anno 198. And in others as Cornelius Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestin Popes who did receive to their Communion those who were excommunicat in Africa was the second step Thirdly if it be true that these impious and superstitious Decreets which your Church ascribes to the Popes of Rome before Constantine be theirs as is not likely that such superstitions did creep into the Church of Christ it being under persecution then I say the Popes of Rome even before Sylvester by their superstitious Decreets made a further entry to that Antichristian Kingdom And because the Roman Empire was the let that hindered Antichrist to step up to his throne 2. Thess 2.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the City of Rome behoved
to be his seat Rev. 18. therefore Constantin the Great leaving the City of Rome to Sylvester the Bishop of R me made yet the way more easie till at the last they first got the primacy of honor next of authority and jurisdiction over their brethren and then last of all did subdue the necks of Kings and Emperors unto them The which they did not attain unto at the first but piece and piece and that not without long and great resistance both of the Church as I have proved before condemning his Monarchy in all ages and of the Emperors as we shal see hereafter And as they ever grew in their superiority so did the purity of the Church of Christ decay and as a pest infects not a Kingdom all at once but piece and piece so did your Antichristian heresie it infected not all at once but piece and piece till at the last it went over all While as then Merchiston makes the beginning of his reign to be in the 316 year of God and the Church from thence to become invisible His meaning is that then that let which the Apostle speaks of was begun to be removed that his seat and throne might be in Rome and from thence as they grew in hight so was the Church ay more and more continually obscured till at the last the Lord did scatter that darkness by the light of his Gospel which came to pass in our days Master Gilbert Brown The Church that is set down to us in the Word of God can no way be invisible for when the holy Writ speaks of the Church of Christ it speaks of a visible number of men and women and no wise of Angels or spirits as may be seen in these examples Numb 20.4.3 Kings 8.14 Matth. 16.18 and 18.17 Acts 15.3.4 and 18.22 and 22.28 1. Tim. 3.15 Master John Welsch his Reply I come now to your arguments First you say that the Church that is set down to us in the Word of God can no ways be invisible because say ye when it speaks of the Church it speaks of a visible number of men and women and no ways of Angels or spirits I answer This is most false For the Scripture sets down to us that Church which is the body of Christ Eph. 1.22.23 and whereof he is the head and Savior Eph. 5.23 and which is built upon the rock Col. 1.18 which is called the congregation of the first born whose names are written in heaven Heb. 12.23 and that Jerusalem which is the mother of us all Gal. 4.26 Matth. 16.28 And this is the Catholick Church which comprehends all the elect as well triumphant as militant which is invisible for the respects before said as I have proved And suppose the elect that are here militant may be seen as they are men and ofttimes also in respect of their outward profession yet it follows not but that they are invisible in so far as they are a part of the Catholick Church And also that sometimes through the extremity of persecution they may be latent and lurk so that they are not openly visible and known to all as I have said before As for these places of Scripture to wit Num. 20 4. 3. Kings 8.14 Acts 15.3.4 and 20.28 and 18.22 and 1. Tim 3 15 they speak all of particular Churches which we grant unto you are visible suppose not ay alike as hath been proved As for the 16. of Matthew it speaks of the Church of the chosen for they only are built upon this rock and against whom the gates of hell prevail not and they are invisible in respect before said as hath been proved As for the 18 of Matthew it is quoted afterward therefore I refer the answer of it unto that place Master Gilbert Brown The Scripture also in many places compares the Church to visible things that cannot be unseen as He hath placed his tabernacle in the Sun A city cannot be hid set on a mountain It is also compared to a light set on a candlestick to lighten the whole house and not to be put under a bed or a bushel with many the like which I have omitted for brevities cause saving some here at the end Moreover our Savior commands us to complain to the Church if our brother offend us and also we ought to joyn our selves to the true Church or else we cannot have remission of our sins But how can a man complain to it if it cannot be seen Or joyn himself to it if it be invisible The Church of Christ may never want the true preaching of the Word and right administration of the Sacraments but these things are always visible because by the Ministers they are the signs and marks of the Church therefore the true Church may be always known by them To be short not only the Word of God affirms the Church to be alwayes visible as I have noted before but also the ancient Fathers in all their works as partly I have marked also Psal 18.6 read S. Aug. on this Mat. 5.15 Isai 69.9 Dan 2.35 Mich. 4.1.2 Read Hieron on these places Aug 1. tract in Epist Joan. item de bapt lib. 4. cap. 1. Matth. 18.17 Cyprian de simpli praelat Jer. 1. Epist ad Damas Aug. lib. 19. contra Faust cap. 11. Origen homil 30. in Matth. Cyp. lib de unitat Eccles Chrysost hom 4. in cap. 6. Isai August lib. 3. contra Epist. Parmeni cap. 3. item tract 1. in Epist Joan. tract 2. item Epist 166. ad Donatistas M. John Welsch his Reply As for the 18. Psalm it speaks not of the visibility of the Church there but of the Lords wonderful and glorious works and specially in disponing such a glorious place or tabernacle or throne to the Sun to shine in the which demonstrates the glory of the Lord. As for Augustine exposition it results of the corrupted old Translation which was not taken from the Hebrew fountain but from the version of the Septuagints therefore Pagninus Vatabius and Arias Montanus a Papist and Tremellius expone it not so but after the Hebrew Secondly he means not here of the Catholick Church but of particular Churches which were exceeding far enlarged in his days but yet this hinders not but that they should be obscured in the time of the Antichrist as it was fore-told and your Church acknowledges As for the 5. of Matthew 15.16 there not the Catholick Church but the Pastors of particular Churches are compared to this light which is set up in the candlestick and to the city set up upon the hill top which cannot be hid that is the eyes of all is on them and therefore they should be so much the more wake-rife and careful because their doings cannot be hid As for Isai 2.3 and 60.20 and 61.9 and Dan. 2.35 and Mich. 4.12 they prophesie of the greatness and clearness of the Church of Christ in the time of the Messias and of the propagation of the Gospel throughout the
blasphemous reason of yours Martin Luther is the author of our Religion For now your are inforced to grant the contrary that infinit numbers have taught the same doctrine before him The truth is too strong for you M Gilbert that compells you to grant the thing that ye would wish with all your heart the people never knew it But comfort your self M. Gilbert for the truth will be victorious at the last and your darkness dayly more and more will be discovered Indeed the least stroke that ye can give for the defence of your Pope is to call them all hereticks who have spoken against him For I grant the Pope and his Clergy is not such fools as being their own Judges to condemn themselves and to justifie them who not only have taught it but also sufficiently did prove it and many thousands sealed with their blood that he was the Antichrist and his Church Babel But with them they have the Son of God and the Apostles Paul and John hereticks for they also did condemn his idolatry and tyranny and errors But whereabout now will ye contend M. Gilbert Ye say whether their doctrine be heresie or not I would you and your Church would stand upon this and give over all your other contentions while this were first proved Whether their doctrine in so far as they agree with ours and ours in so far as it dissents from yours be heresie or not that is be against the Scripture or not the which if you would do then I hope our contention would soon be ended But for as fast as you run to this now you will flee from it as fast again when we desire to have yours and our doctrine tryed by the Scriptures which of them is heresie and consequently whether ye or we be hereticks And therefore you ever refuse to let your doctrine be tryed by the Scripture but run to your pretended antiquity and successions Councils and lying miracles and many other vain starting-holes like a wild Fox when he is hunted out of one hole he flies to another and dares never abide the fair fields And mark their craft Reader when we affirm that our Religion hath Jesus Christ to be the Author of it in the Scriptures as we offer to prove the same ye refuse this tryal by the Scriptures and say That Martin Luther invented our Religion and we had none that professed it and taught it before him When we again reply That we had sundry of all sorts many hundred years before him even when your Kingdom was at the hight and produces their names they not being able to deny it they slip from that again and say They contend not whether there was such that taught such doctrine or not but they contend whether that was truth or heresie so they run from one starting hole to another But I will ask you M. Gilbert if it be proved that this their doctrine was not heresie will you contend any more then Shal the plea cease then Will you ever slander our Religion of novelty in saying Martin Luther was the first that began it and we had none who professed before him But you will say This you have not proved It is true I had not proved it then but now I hope I have proved it sufficiently that your Popes are the Antichrist and your Rome Babel which was one of the principal heads of the doctrine which ye taught and sundry others also Disprove you it if you can M. Gilbert Master Gilbert Brown But he saith They preached the same Religion that he preaches c. Let M. John name any of these his Doctors that he will abide at in Religion and I shal let him see that he was not of his Religion in all things For that is the thing that we say That albeit M. John and his brethren have renewed many old condemned heresies of hereticks yet they were not of their Religion in all things And therefore this that M. John calls the only truth was never professed in all heads as it is now in Scotland before in no Countrey no not by any one man let be by a number which thing M. Robert Bruce grants himself in his Sermons in these words And God hath chosen a few hearts in this Countrey where he hath begun his dwelling place for God dwells now in the hearts and consciences of his own by his holy Spirit And surely so hath he dwelt with 〈◊〉 these thirty years in such purity that he hath not done the like with any Nation in the earth he hath not remained with any Nation without error and heresie so long as he hath done with us c. So God dwelt in no place without error and heresie the space of thirty years while now in Scotland Master John Welsch his Reply But you say they dissent from us in some things and is not of our Religion in all things Whereunto I answer That suppose this were true yet it will not follow but that they are of our Religion seeing they and we do agree in the main foundations thereof For we have learned to call them brethren which do hold the foundation as the Apostle saith suppose they have built hay straw or timber upon the same Otherwise if ye will be content to be measured with that same measure wherewith ye measure us if you will have none to be accounted of your Religion but these only that profess with you in all things as your Church doth now then not only by your reason shal ye want the Lord Jesus his Apostles the primitive Church as ye do indeed and that not only in the first six hundred years but long after till the thousand year and long after that also to be of your profession because not only the weightiest points of your doctrine have not their original in the Scripture and are unwritten traditions by the testimony of some of your selves but also sundry points of your Religion have been brought in after these dayes being unknown in the former ages as your selves will not deny and I have proved in some heads in the other part concerning the Mass Yea you shal want all the Fathers by this reason of yours For there is not one of them but they have their own errors which ye your selves will not defend and the most part of them are with us against you in many things which you cannot deny and that which is more ye shal want almost all the general Councils except three or four and many of your own Popes Doctors Bishops Cardinals and Jesuits for not only have some of them had errors and some of them been hereticks by your whole confessions but also some of them have been with us in some points against you as I have proved before so that I need not repeat them now As for example Pope Gregory affirms That the books of the Macchabees are Apocrypha Lib. 19. cap. 16. in morali And so have sundry others of your Clergy as
Sixtus Senesis in lib. Operis Biblioth Cajetanus in fine comment Veter Test Arias Montanus in editione quadam Hebr. Bibli cum interlineari Hugo Cardinalis are against you and with us in the books of Apocrypha Gelasius de duabus naturis in Christo is against your Transubstantiation also against your Communion under one kind And Pope Adrian the 6. against this that the Pope cannot err and teach heresies Panormitan against this that it is not lawful to Ministers to marry after their ordination Bellarm. lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 19. Idem lib. 2. de purg cap. 4. Michael Bai Gerson and Roffensis all Papists against your venial sins Bellarm. lib. de imaginibus cap. 8. Abulensis and Durandus and Peresius Papists against your making of the Images of the Trinity A great many of you as Alexander Thomas Cajetan Bonaventure Marsilius Almain Carthusianus and Capreolus teach That that same worship should be given to the Image which is given to that which the Image represents And yet Durandus and Alphonsus a Castro and others is against this Therefore either the one or the other is not of your Religion And ye your self if ye be measured by this measure is not a right Papist because you dissent from many of them in many things as hath been proved before And certainly M. Gilbert if this reason of yours hold forth you shal cut off from your profession such a number of Popes Councils Jesuits Cardinals and Doctors from your Religion that it is to be feared that they cut you off from being a right defender of their Catholick Faith yea from being a member of their Synagogue that for the defence thereof is compelled to cut off so many from the same And secondly I say your reports concerning their doctrine is not to be credited but their own Apologies and Writings whereby it appears that it hath been always your fashion the more to discredit them to charge them with a number of absurd opinions which they never held As for example you charge here Waldus and his followers to have had their wives and all other things common which is your calumny of them and not their practise or doctrine For Gulielmus Parvus writeth that their life was commendable And Reynerus in his Book of Inquisitions one of your own Religion a Writer of 300. years ago who was often at the examination of them as he himself saith confesseth That they had great show of holy life and that they believed all things well of God and all the articles contained in the Creed and lived justly before men and chargeth them that they hated and blasphemed solam Romanam Ecclesiam the Romish Church only So then if his report be true as I hope ye will not gainsay they were both far from that error for that were neither to believe all things well of God nor yet to have a show of holy life and to live justly before men and also they were of our Religion in all things And where you say that we renew many old condemned heresies I answer That neither the doctrine which I affirmed they taught here was heresies nor yet themselves hereticks But you and your Church who have condemned them for the truth of God and have renewed old condemned heresies as shal be proved afterward And we have renewed no heresie at all but only the truth of God which your Church hath obscured and buried Therefore your conclusion is false that our Religion was never professed in all points as it is now in Scotland before in no Countrey no not say you by any one man For it was taught and professed by Christ and his Apostles and also by all the primitive Churches in their dayes in all points throughout all the parts of the world where they preached the Gospel as it is now in Scotland as we offer to prove by their writings and I have proved the same in sundry heads here Next the substance thereof was continued many hundred years in the Churches of Christ while partly by the heresies that sprang up for the popple was soon sown among the good seed and the Mystery of Iniquity began to work in the Apostles dayes and partly by the Mahomet and partly by the darkness of Popery it was corrupted piece and piece And what difference can you find between the Religion that the Waldenses professed and us if ye will give credit to their Apologies and Reynerus testimonies of them As for M. Robert Bruces testimony which ye produce it serves no wise to confirm your purpose but seeing ye abuse the testimonies of Scripture it is no wonder suppose ye abuse the testimonies of men For it is most true which he affirms that the truth of God hath continued for that space in this Kingdom without heresie or schism as we never read it did in any Nation in the earth in such purity without heresie and schism for such a long space And yet it follows not but it hath dwelt in sundry Churches in such purity before suppose not so long together which you omit in your conclusion Doth it follow by his testimonie but that our Religion hath been preached and professed in all true Churches in all points suppose not so long in such purity as it is in Scotland Neither doth it follow but that the substantial and main points of our Religion have been professed in all Christian Churches longer then that space suppose mixed either with some heresies or schismes So you must coin a new Logick M Gilbert before ye can confirm your proposition by his testimonie Master Gilbert Brown But here it is to be noted also that M. John can find none before the year of Christ 1158. that said against the Pope and his Religion and none immediatly before Luther the space of an hundred years and more So the Church was without his Doctors eleven hundred years and fifty or thereabout And such like Martin Luther had no predecessors to whom he succeeded in his Religion Master John Welsch his Reply You not two things here which are both false The one that I can find none that said against the Pope and his Religion before the year of Christ 1158. For our Savior and his Apostles and sundry learned Fathers in all ages and Councils both General and Provincial and some of your own Doctors and Popes have spoken against the Monarchie of your Pope and your Doctrine and Religion as I have proved before And Reynerus a man of your own Religion testifies that some said The Waldenses who had the same Religion which we profess was continued from Sylvesters dayes who lived about the 320. year of God And some said that it continued even from the Apostles days Therefore the first is false The second thing is that I can find none before Luther immediatly the space of an hundred years and more I see you are not ashamed to speak any thing for the defence of your Kingdom were it never so manifestly false
in their own name because they were not truly sent of God And this is that saih he which is said now meaning in this place if any shal come in his own name that he is not truly sent of God neither hath Gods power So then a false Prophet is said both to come in the Name of God and in his own name In the Name of God falsly vaunting so in his own name because God sends him not but he intrudes himself without a lawfull calling Now to answer you then I say the Pope comes in the Name of Christ as his Vicare I grant he and his Clergy so vaunt but falsly For the truth is he hath come and he comes in his own name and that truly because the Lord never sent him but he hath intruded himself without God his calling therefore this cannot free him but he may be the Antichrist But how prove ye that he comes in Christ his Name and not in his own name Because say ye he calls himself the Vicar of Christ and the servant of the servants of God A pretty argument He so calls himself Ergo he is so Who will credit either you or him in your own cause Is this all ye can do for your Pope He is called so Ergo he is so Augustin saith Non attendamus ad linguam sed ad facta Tract 3 in Epist Joan. Let us not take heed to the tongue but to the deeds For if all be asked all with one mouth confess Christ let the tongue cease a little ask the life Interroga vitam and again whosoever denyes Christ factis by his deeds is Antichrist The idolaters of Ephesus might have reasoned so for their great Goddess Diana Acts 19.27 She is called a great Goddess Ergo she is so indeed And what false Prophet yet ever came but they said they came in the Name of God they called themselves and were called by these whom they deceived the servāts Prophets of the Lord Jer. 23.25 Ezec. 13.6.7 and yet will you frame this argument for them as you do for your Pope All the false Prophets said they came in the Name of God were called by these whom they deceived the servants of God therefore they came not in their own name but in the Name of God Did not the false Apostles in Ephesus say they were the Apostles of Christ yet they were found liars Rev. 2.2 And did not the Synagogue of Satan call themselves Jews and yet they blasphemed in so speaking Rev. 2.9 Doth not the Harlot with whom the Nations of the earth have committed fornication say in her heart she is a Queen Rev. 18.7 and yet she is that great Harlot Rev. 17 4. And is not her cup of gold and yet the drink therein is abomination And should not the Antichrist sit in the temple of God and yet he is the son of perdition and an adversary to God and to Jesus Christ 2. Thess 2.4 And said not the Devil of himself that all the Kingdoms of the world were given to him and he would give them to whom he would Matth. 4.8 9 and yet he was a liar So if this argument of yours will follow The Pope is called the Vicar of Christ and the servant of the servants of God therefore he came never in his own name and so he is not the Antichrist you may with as good reason conclud that the false Prophets and false Apostles came not in their own name but in the Name of God because they are called the servants of God both by themselves and also by these who were deceived by them Yea you may with as good reason conclud that the Antichrist is not the son of perdition and adversary to God 2. Thess 2.3.4 that all the Kingdoms of the world are given to the Devil and that he hath the power in his hand of giving them to whom he will because the Scripture fore-told of the one that he should have horns like the Lamb Rev. 17. and the other ascribes this right and power to himself Matth. 4.9 It is good therefore that you cannot defend your Pope from being the Antichrist unless with him also you defend all the false Prophets false Apostles false Churches the Antichrist and the Devil himself from being the thing which they are indeed But who will venter the salvation of their soul upon this so silly and foolish a reason But I pray you M. Gilbert let me ask you this Is your Pope the servant of the servants of God and the Vicar of Christ as he calls himself Dare you avow this in the presence of him who shal judge the quick and the dead that he is so as he calls himself Did ever Christ Jesus either tread upon the necks of Kings and Emperors with his feet Or was he ever lifted up and carried upon the shoulders of noble-men Or did he ever give his feet to Emperors to kiss as your Popes have done as your own Histories do witness And have ye ever read what one of his own Archbishops of Colen one of his own Religion writes to Pope Nicolaus the first five hundred years ago Speaking to him he saith Thou pretends the person of the Pope but thou playes the tyrant we feel under the habit of a Pastor a wolf the stile belyes the parent Thou vaunts thy self to be God by thy deeds while as thou art the servant of servants thou contends to be Lord of Lords according to the discipline of Christ our Savior thou art the least of all ministers of the Temple of God but thou by the ambition of ruling goes to ruine whatsoever likes thee is lawful Aventinus lib. 4. annalium This was evil in those dayes but there are worse since And what now Reader shal we say of the Pope since his own Archbishop hath so written of him You say he is the Vicar of Christ but Christ Jesus in his latter Testament did never leave him to be in his stead For in the 4. Ephes 11. He gave Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors for the work of the ministery and the building of the body of Christ But that he ever left a Pope to be head of the Church in his stead to be a Monarch in this earth to reign in Rome and to be Lord over the servants of God there is not a syllable in the whole Book of God to prove it And because you say he is the servant of servants what service I pray you doth he whereby he makes it manifest that he is a servant indeed For the principal service of the Ministery of the Church stands in preaching the Word which he neither doth neither thinks that it appertains to him to do Yea what is it that appertains to any Lord King or Monarch in the earth that he ascribes not to himself and doth not also practise Yea as though that were too little what either stile or properties or works which are peculiar only to
God his majesty that he ascribes not to himself as God willing shal be proved afterward in the third mark of the Antichrist So that Aventinus saith of the Pope He who is the servant of servants is the Lord of Lords and he desires to beas though he were God He speaks great things as if he were God He changeth the laws establisheth his own He reaves he spoils he deceives he slayes that man of perdition whom men use to call Antichrist speaking of the Pope in whose fore-head the name of blasphemy is written I am God I cannot err So what is this else but a horrible mocking both of God and man to stile him the servant of servants seeing he hath lifted up himself so far above both God and man So then to conclud this as Goliah his own sword slew himself so the reason which ye bring to defend your Pope from being the Antichrist doth most evidently convict him to be the Antichrist He may justly be called the Antichrist who under pretence of the Vicar of Christ and the servant of servants is Monarch and Lord over all this you cannot deny Because the Scripture describes the Antichrist to have two horns like the Lamb to sit in the Temple of God to have a golden cup and yet to speak like the Dragon to be adversary to God and to lift himself above all that is called God Rev. 13. and 17. 2. Thess 2. But so have the Popes of Rome done as it hath and shal be proved by their own doctrine and practise and which you cannot deny Therefore he is in very deed that Antichrist which was to come And this for your first reason Master Gilbert Brown Secondly S. Paul in describing of the Antichrist tells that he shal be but one the son of perdition 2. Thess 2.3 Now then if there shal be but one chief Antichrist whether is this present Pope he or some other before him For every man knows that there have been mo then 230. Popes as all the Writers of their lives restifie They cannot all be Antichrists for that repugns to S. Paul who hath put him in the singular number And if M. John will follow the Word as he saith he doth where will he find that there shal be many chief Antichrists and not one only For that place of S. John where he saith That now are there many Antichrists 1. John 2.18 can no wayes be understood but of the fore-runners of the great Antichrist For at that time M. John will grant himself that the great Antichrist the son of perdition was not begun Master John Welsch his Reply Your second reason is the Antichrist is but one singular person The Popes have been many therefore they are not the Antichrist I deny your proposition for there lyes all the controversie We say the Antichrist is not this Pope or that Pope a certain person but we ascribe this name to the whole seat and the succession of your Popes We say the body the Kingdom of your Roman Church whereof your Popes are the heads is that Antichrist which was to come So if you prove that the Antichrist should be but a particular person and not a body a Kingdom a seat and succession of men that are adversaries to God and to Jesus Christ I will grant you have sufficiently cleared your Pope from being Antichrist But content your self M. Gilbert this ye will never prove by the Scripture and therefore ye must let your Popes be accounted the Antichrist still And if this reason of yours be good the Antichrist is one certain person therefore the Popes because they are many are not the Antichrist wherefore I pray you shal not this also be good The Vicar of Christ is one certain man but the Popes are many therefore they are not Christ his Vicar What difference I pray you is there between the one and the other And if ye will say the Vicar of Christ is not one singular man but a succession of many in one office why will ye not also grant that the Antichrist is not a singular man but the succession of many in the self-same impiety So either choose you whether will ye grant that the Antichrist is not one singular man but a succession of many or else that the Popes are not Christ his Vicar For the one ye must do if this reason of yours hold forth But how do ye prove that the Antichrist is but one singular person You say that S. Paul tells that he shal be but one How would ye have cryed out if I had fathered such a falshood upon the Spirit of God as you do here But let such be far from me You say S. Paul calls him the son of perdition and puts him in the singular number therefore ye say the Antichrist shal be but one singular person I fear ye take pleasure to deceive the simple with such silly reasons Our Savior saith That a good man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the treasure of his heart brings forth good things Matth. 12.35 And he saith The Sabbath was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for man and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man for the Sabbath Mark 2.27 And also he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man shal not live of bread only Luke 4 4. Also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man of God may be made perfect 2. Tim. 3.17 And For it behoves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop or over-seer c. Here are the same phrases of speach they speak all of a man in the singular number with that same Greek article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaks here in describing the Antichrist and yet I suppose ye will not be so ignorant or impudent as to say that our Savior and the Apostle speak of one singular person in these places So what warrant have you to gather that here which you dare not gather out of the like phrases of the Scripture If then in these places there is not a singular man understood suppose they speak of a man in the singular number it will not follow that the Antichrist must be one singular person because the Apostle speaks of him as of one man in the singular number for the phrases are all one But the first ye must grant therefore the next will follow Secondly in the 16. of Matthew 18. our Savior saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon this rock I will build my Church he speaks here in the singular number with the same article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Apostle speaks of in describing the Antichrist Now let me use this same argument against your Popes that they are not this rock upon the which the Church is built as you say as you have used here to prove that he is not the Antichrist This rock upon the which Christ promised to build his Church is but one singular person because our Savior puts him in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
say That he may ex injustitia facere justitiam Of wrong make right De translat cap Quanto in Glossa de concess Praebend cap. Proposuit 16. quaest Quicunque in Glossa 15. quaest 6 authorit in Glossa dist 32. Lecto His Canonists also say That the Pope may dispense supra jus de jure above right And that he may dispense against the law of nature against the law of God against the Old Testament against the Apostles and that he may dispense against all the precepts of the Old and New Testament Ut citatur à Juello pag. 59. defens Apolog. They say He may dispense against the degrees forbidden in the Law of God And that he may according to his absolut power Dissolve the bond of marriage upon the consent of both the parties without any lawful cause And that he may dispense with oaths and promises made either to God or men Fox pag. 785. And some say That he may dispense that one may have me wives then one at once in some cases Now what is this else but to exalt himself above the Lord And in a Sermon in the Council of Lateran it is there spoken of him by one of his own Bishops That all power in heaven and earth is given to the Pope Concil Later sub Leone sess 10. And that which is more That in him is omnis potestas supra omnes potestates coeli terrae All power above all powers both of heaven and earth And Aventinus saith That they desire to be feared more then God To conclud this then He that hath exalted himself above all powers in heaven earth and hell he that hath equalled himself with the Son of God the Prince of glory and with the majesty of God in styles authority office and power And he who hath lifted up himself above the Lord Jesus and above the majesty of God he must be that undoubted Antichrist which the Apostle Paul hath described But the Popes of Rome have done so both by their practise and by their doctrine as hath been proved by their own testimonies Therefore they are that undoubted Antichrist who was to come This for the third mark The fourth mark of the Antichrist set down by the Apostle is That he fits in the Temple of God as God That is in an eminent high place in the Church of God So Jerome to Gelasius and Chrysostom upon that place and Theodoret Thomas of Aquin a Papist expones this place and August de civit Dei lib. 20. cap. 19 expones this Temple to be the Church of God wherein the Antichrist shal sit For lest men should think that the Antichrist should be an open enemy to God the Apostle saith He shal sit in the Temple of God that is in the Church of God as it is taken 1. Cor. 6.19 where the Saints in Corinth are called the Temple of God So the Antichrist is fore-told to be an houshold enemy and not a forrain so and he shal withstand Christ not openly but covertly And though he be a deadly enemy to Christ yet shal he pretend that he is in the Temple of God that is a member of the Church and that he hath a throne that is a high dominion within Gods Church And therefore in the Revelation he is called A beast which hath two horns like the Lamb Rev. 13.11 that is who in outward show is like the Lamb pretending his power and authority And as Primasius saith exponing that same place Those whom he seduceth he seduceth them by hypocrifie of a dissimulat truth for he saith he were not like the Lamb if he spake openly as the Dragon And Augustin saith Tract 3 in Epist Joannis Let us not take heed to the tongue but to the deeds let the tongue rest and ask the life Whereby it appears that they also are Antichrists who deny Jesus Christ in their life And therefore alluding to Judas he is called the son of perdition who not by open warfare should oppugn Christ but by a kiss as it were should betray him And therefore he is described also under the form of a woman an harlot Revel 17.2 Thess 2 whereby is signified that he shal not be an open enemy in profession but secret and dissimulat And therefore the cup wherein she reacheth out her abomination is described to be of gold that is having a show of godliness And his unrighteousness that is his doctrine is called deceiveable because of the show of truth that it hath And his iniquity is called a mystery that is not a plain and open impiety but secret so colored with shows of truth and godliness that every one cannot perceive it And yet for all this hypocrisie of his for all this dissimulation and show of godliness He shal speak like the Dragon Rev. 13.19 that is his doctrine shal be the doctrine of Devils His drink shal be abomination and fornication that is abominable idolatry Now to whom can this agree And in whom hath this been fulfilled except only in the Popes and Bishops of Rome For doth he not call himself The Vicar of Christ the head of the Church and those that obey him only the true Church and true Catholicks Who hath horns like the Lamb and yet speaks like the Dragon but he That is who styles themselves the servant of servants the Vicar of Christ the head of the Church c. but they And yet for all this who have ever lived taught or spoken so blasphemously as they Oraclo vocis mundi moderaris habenas Et meritò in terris crederis esse Deus That is By the oracle of thy voyce thou rules the world and worthily is thou believed in the earth to be God This inscription was written in Rome to Pope Sixtus the fourth In show of holiness most vaunting and yet for all this of all the creatures under heaven the most monstrous Of all idolaters under the show and pretence of Religion the vilest and most abominable and of all creatures in the earth they have lifted up themselves farthest above God and that under the pretence of humility And therefore the Scripture saith that the Antichrist shal sit in the Temple of God not as a Minister teaching and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom in season and out of season but as God that is claiming to himself these things that are proper and peculiar to God The which the Popes of Rome have done as hath been proved before So to conclud this He must be the undoubted Antichrist who suppose he hath lifted up himself above all that is called God yet he sits in the Temple of God as God who hath two horns like the Lamb and yet speaks like the Dragon whose abominations are drunken out of a golden cup whose doctrine is deceiveable and a mystery that is who under the pretence of Christ overthrows Christ But so it is the Popes of Rome are such as hath been proved Therefore the Popes of Rome are