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
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
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
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 and your own Popes for they shal be your Judges in this matter Bellarmin saith lib. 7. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 30. that the Pope being a manifest heretick ceaseth to be Pope and to be head of the Church Caietan
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
there Polycarpus and sundrie others Euseb lib. 5. cap. 25.26 The first that took upon him the style to be called Universal Bishop was the Bishop of Constantinople anno 581. resisted by Pelagius and after him by Gregorius Bishops of Rome lib. 4. epistola 32.38 39. And yet for all this Boniface the 3. anno 607. obtained this style of Phocas the Emperor the murtherer of his predecessor Platina Sabellicus Marianus Scotus complained of by the Church of Ravenna in Italie and resisted by sundrie as shal be proved afterwards The first that appointed laws of fasting was Montanus the heretick anno 145. Euseb lib. 5. cap. 17. accounted heresie by Apolonius and Augustine against the fasting of the Manicheans The Manicheans were the first we read of that ministred the Communion under one kind as the Papists do now so forth of many other old condemned heresies which your Church hath renewed as shal be proved afterward The first that gave the rise to Transubstantiation was Mark a notable Magician anno 115. who by his inchantment having first caused a cup of white wine to bear the color of blood made his followers believe that by his invocation over it that grace which is above all things had powred his blood into the cup refuted by Epiphanius Haeres 34. and Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 8. The first that decreed Transubstantiation in effect was Pope Nicolaus the 2. anno 1090. in causing Berengarius to recant De consecrat Distinct 2. cap. Ego Berengarius but yet it was not decreed as an universal doctrine before Pope Innocent the 3. his time in a Council of Lateran anno 1215. as Tonstal witnesses de Sacramenta The Greek Church never consented to it Bertramus Berengarius Waldensis withstood it The first that decreed the worshipping of Images was Hadrian in the 2. Council of Nice against the express Scripture after the example of Marcellina an heretick who worshipped the Image of Jesus resisted by sundry Fathers and Councils Concil Eliber Concil Constant Conc. Francof The first that imposed single life and condemned marriage in their Clergy was Pope Syricius anno 290. distinct 82. cap. Proposuisti as the Manichees did before him resisted by sundrie Sigebert H. Mutius Let these examples serve as a taste to the reader How stronglie now ye have manned and fortified your own Church and Religion by your proofs let the reader judge Now let us see how ye disprove ours The question now comes in of the truth of our Church and Religion whither it be from Jesus Christ or not You say it is not from him but from others since his time If ye had gone the straight way to have proved this and to have satisfied the consciences of men you would at the nearest have run to the Scripture and by the same have disproved it But you in stead of this go a far by-way and would father our Religion on flesh and blood dust and ashes in pointing us out Martin Luther to be the father and author of the same as though it had not an ancienter pedegre to reckon unto nor had not the beginning and foundation of it from the root of Jesse the bud of the Lord from whom it hath sprung And for to get your self the better credit you busie your self in marking the circumstances of his preaching as time place matter opposition c. Now that ye are so skilled and acquainted with that history of Martin Luther that you can assign all these circumstances it is no wonder for that was the most notable and remarkable period of the decaying of your Babel and of the erecting up again of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ which your head and Clergy had stamped under foot for so many years which suppose the beginning of it was but like a little leaven and as a grain of mustard seed which of all seeds is the least yet now since it hath so sowred almost the whole mass even the most part of the Kingdoms of Europe which once was under your spiritual bondage and hath grown up into such a high tree having fair and great branches under the which the Lords sheep may get rest and warmness and in the which his souls that mounts upwards to that Kingdom doth build their nests so that neither can all your purgations nor yet all your axes of fire and sword of buls and pardons of preachings and writings stay the spreading of the one nor cut down the branches and root of the other That M. Luther began at that time and in that place and preached against these doctrines we do not deny and that is not controverted But here lyes all the question whither if that doctrine that he preached against was Antichristian or not and whither that Religion which he neither invented nor yet first preached for sundry before him did preach that same doctrine whose names I set down in my answer to your objection but only raised it out of the grave of darkness wherein ye had buried the truth of God Here then I say is the question whither that Religion which he preached hath the warrant from Jesus Christ in his Testament or not The which if ye ever disprove by the written Word of God then shal we grant you all that ye say the which is as impossible to you to do no not suppose your King would call all your wise men and Clergy together as it was to all the wise men of Babel to tell and interpret Nebuchadnezar his dream yea suppose your King would reward you gloriously with honor and riches if ye could do it yet are ye not able to win your wages yea suppose he would tear you in pieces and make your house a jakes unless ye did it as the wise men of Babel was because they could not tell and interpret the Kings dream This is therefore the point which lyes in question betwixt us which ye should have proved if ye could But know ye for a truth that suppose he raised out of the grave the truth of God which ye had buried yet was he neither the inventer nor the first preacher of it but it hath for the beginning and Author of it Jesus Christ the Son of God and the foundation of it in the New Testament of his holy Scripture This for the Author time and place which ye assign Now to the Churches that spake against him I answer They were but such as was made drunken with the wine of your fornication and deluded by your strong delusions being deceived by the golden cup wherein you propined them to be drunken out as it was prophesied of you Rev. 17.4 But the measure of your iniquity being full and the time of the lurking of the truth of God being run out God of his infinit mercy by his ministery and the rest that followed since hath opened the eyes of a great part of these Kingdoms who first said against him to see your Church to be the whore Rev. 17.1 your Kingdom to
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
and so forth And in another place he saith Rom 7.2.3 1. Cor. 7.39 and 7.10.11 To them that be joyned in matrimony I give not command but our Lord that the wife depart not from her husband and if she depart to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband And let not the husband put away his wife Now this is our Religion of matrimony and plain repugnant to the doctrine of the Ministers of Scotland that will licence a man to put away his wife and marry another And they call the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles the Popes cruelty against the innocent divorced in their negative faith Master John Welsch his Reply As for your 8. and 9 points of doctrine concerning Marriage the first that it is undissoluble for no cause the other that it is a Sacrament As to the first I would scarcely have understood this point of your doctrine if your Council of Trent and others of your Clergy who write of it had not been more plain then ye And I think that there are few that knows not this point of your doctrine otherwise who can take it up by this your writing I wonder why ye are so dark in setting down your own doctrine But wherefore should I wonder for darkness may not bide to see the light Your doctrine then is this First you make many causes of separation and divorcement besides adultery Concil Trid sess 24. Can. 8. Bellarm lib. 1. de matrim cap. 14. express against the doctrine of Jesus Christ He that shal demit his wife except for fornication c. he makes her to commit adultery As 1. for the vow of continency to enter in a Monastery or Nunry 2. For heresie 3. And for peril of offending of God Next your doctrine is That suppose there be many causes of separation betwixt the man and the wife from bed and boord as we speak yet the bond of marriage contracted and perfected betwixt the faithful can no ways be broken as long as they both live together no not for adultery So that the party innocent divorced may not lawfully marry another during the life of the guilty party And if they marry they call it adultery and they will have the ground of this to be because it is a Sacrament Bellar. lib. 1. c. 12. So one error follows and leans upon another For if marriage be not a Sacrament then the bond may be loosed by their own doctrine But marriage is not a Sacrament as shal be proved hereafter therefore the bond is soluble Our doctrine is that the bond of marriage contracted and perfected between two Christians is broken by the adultery of either of the parties so that the innocent divorced may lawfully marry another As for our doctrine it is plain in the Scripture in the 19. and 5. of Matthew where there the Lord in plain termes excepts the cause of fornication saying Whosoever demits his wife except it be for fornication and marries another commits adultery So then by the contrary he that demits his wife for fornication which is adultery there and marries another commits not adultery And seeing the Apostle commands 1. Cor 7.2 That every man have his own wife and every wife her own husband and that for the avoiding of fornication and it is better to marry then to burn Therefore the first marriage being dissolved by divorcement justly according to Gods Word it is lawful to the party innocent at least to use the remedy of marriage for the avoiding of fornication Otherwise if he might not use it divorcement were not a benefit but rather a punishment and the innocent should be punished without a fault Now as to the Scriptures which ye quote Matth. 19.6 and 5.31 they have that exception of fornication expresly mentioned And as for the places of Mark 10.11.12 and Luke 16.18 and Romans 7.2.3 and 1. Cor. 7 39. they are all to be understood with that exception of fornication that our Savior expresly sets down in the former two places otherwise Scripture should be contrary to Scripture which is blasphemie to think and our Savior is the best exponer of himself And as for the 1. Corinth 7.10.11 the Apostle speaks not of that separation for adultery but of a separation for a season for other causes or variances in the which case the parties separated are to remain unmarried or to be reconciled together And because ye will not credit us nor the Son of God so expresly speaking in his Scripture yet I think ye will give some credit to your own Doctors Councils Canons and Popes whom if ye be a right Catholick ye think that they cannot err Cajetanus a Cardinal in comment Matth. 19. Ambrosius Catarinus lib. 5. annot in comment Cajetani Papists hold this doctrine with us against the Religion of your Church That adultery breaks the bond of marriage and that the innocent divorced may marry another Pope Zachary Decret causa 32. quaest 7. cap. Concubuisti And the Concil Triburiense ibidem cap. Si quis and another Canon saith That incestuous adultery breaks the bond of marriage so that the party innocent may marrie another Ibid. cap. quaedam And Pope Gregory the third suppose in a Canon he will not have adultery to break the bond of marriage Ibid. cap. Hi vero so that the party innocent may marry another contrary to the doctrine of Christ our Savior yet he permits a man to marrie another if his former wife being taken with some disease be not able to render due benevolence unto her husband Ibid. cap. Quid proposuisti So suppose this Pope will not admit that true cause which our Savior sets down of adultery yet he sets down causes himself which wants the warrant of the Word And Pope Celestin the third set forth a decree that when of married persons one falleth into heresie the party Catholick is free to marry again cap. laudabileÌ„ de convers infidelium confessed by Alphonsus a Papist lib. 1 c. 4. advers haeres So then either your Doctors Canons Councils three Popes err or else the bond of marriage may be broken and the innocent partie divorced may marrie another Your Religion of Matrimonie therefore is not only repugnant to ours and Jesus Christs but also to your own Canons Councils Doctors and Popes Let them therefore condemn your cruel juâ—gement against the innocent divorced And therefore Bellarmin confesses Bellarm. de mat lib. 1. cap. 15. That in this point they have many against them not only us whom he calls hereticks but also Latins Greeks and Catholicks Master Gilbert Brown Ninthly with S. Paul Eph. 5.23 we make it a Sacrament as sundrie of the learned Protestants do as Zuinglius lib. de vera falsa rel cap. de matrimonio Melancthon in locis aeditis 1552. 1558. and chiefly young Merchiston in his 22. Proposition of his discourse upon the Revelation whose words are these Thirdly bodily marriage is by S. Paul called a symbol and a
was 630. Bishops Of Constantinople 6. Canon 36. anno 681. where there was 289. Bishops Of Nicene 2. Canon 1. anno 781. where was present 350. Bishops Of Constantinople 8. Canon 27. anno where was present 383. Bishops anno 870. Of the Council of Constance Sess 4.5 where was a thousand Fathers almost anno 1418. And of Basel Sess 2.18 anno 1431. all General Councils condemning your Popes Supremacy as your Church now affirms of him some more some less And also it is condemned by Provincial Councils as of Antioch Canon 6.12.13.14.15.19.20 and of Carthage 2. Canon 12. anno 404. and 3. confirmed in the General Council of Trullan Canon 26. and 6. and by the Council of Milevis Canon 22. condemned also by the Universities of Paris Appellat Univers Paris olione 10. ad futur Concil infastic rerum expe ca. fugi and Lovane Aeneas Sylvius de gestis Basil Concil lib. 1. and Colen and Vienna Histor de Europa cap. 22. and Cracovia Comer de rebus Polonorum lib. 21. So then by the authority of Councils General and Provincial and of Universities the Monarchie and Superioritie of the Pope over all General Councils is disallowed And suppose the Churches of France and Germany did honor them and gave them some preeminence both of honor and power being blinded at that time with the smoke that came out of the bottomless pit yet it may appear by their supplication ad Ludovicum 11. pro libertate Ecclesiae Gallicanae adversus Rom. aulam defensio Parisiensis curiae Gravamina nationis Germaniae exhibita Maxim 1. that they did not allow that full Monarchie of his but misliked it and hated the same yea France made laws against it in Conventu Bituricensi Now these are such whom your selves do hold for Catholicks and yet they acknowledged not the Monarchie of your Pope The Churches of Graecia and of Asia in the East Chalcon conc de reb Turc lib. 1. 6. and of Muscovia Jovius in Muscovia in the North and of Ethiopia in the South Alvarez in descriptione Aethiopiae cap. 77. 83. and of Boheme Aeneas Sylvius hist Bohem. cap. 32. Provence Sleydan comment lib. 16. Piemont M. Fox in the acts and monuments lib. 7. And the Reformed Churches that are this day in France Flanders England Scotland and so forth throughout Europe all have condemned your Popes Supremacie So that if his Supremacie were to be put to tryal by the judgement and will of men so many thousands of Pastors Doctors Synods Councils Universities and Churches through all ages in all Countreys of all sorts and estats may suffice to put the Pope from his Supremacie So that I think you may blush M. Gilbert that hath so boldly written that he hath been alwayes acknowledged by the visible Church to be the visible Head of the Church seeing his Monarchie was never fully acknowledged until the Lateran Council under Leo the 10. 1516. years after Christ But seeing the Word of God is the only just tryal of it and seeing it is not written in the book of life therefore I conclud that his Supremacie is not a citizen of that new Jerusalem but a child of Babel and therefore they are blessed that shal dash it against the stones M. Gilbert Brown That the Church at any time may be invisible it is repugnant to the Word of God in many places and to M. John also For he gives examples afterward of sundry as he saith that was of his Religion and opponed themselves to the Pope and his Clergy and that saith he when he was come to the hight If the true Church opponed its self to the Antichristian Church then it was visible and known and if it was known when the Popes Kingdom was at the highest much more when it was low and so it was always known by M. Johns self Master John Welsch his Reply Whether oppugn ye your own imagination M. Gilbert here or that which I write If the first then you are foolish who fight against your self as ye do indeed If the second then I say that which I said was this That no man should think that the Church of God was ever open and visible in that flowrishing estat as it is now For this is our doctrine concerning the invisibility of the Church the which because you know not therefore you stumble at it and oppugns only your own invention and not our doctrine and therefore your reasons and Scriptures which ye bring here serve to no purpose for they make nothing against us We say that the Catholick Church which comprehends all the elect is always invisible both because the principal part thereof is in heaven and also because the senses of men cannot discern who are true members of the Catholick Church here their effectual calling their faith love hope and inward graces their union with Christ their Head their spiritual armor weapons and warfare and their Head Christ Jesus and their whole glorie is inward and invisible and they shal never be seen all gathered together until that great day Ephes 5.25.26.27.32 Psal 45.13 John 10.27 2. Tim. 2.19 Luke 11.28 Matth. 7. Ephes 6.12 2. Cor. 12.3.4 So that suppose they may be seen outwardlie as they are men and sometimes in respect of their outward ministerie yet in so far as they are a part of the Catholick Church that is in so far as they are chosen and sanctified c. as hath been said they cannot be discerned by the senses of men and so are invisible Next we say that the particular visible Churches are not always in one outward estat sometimes outwardlie glorious sometimes more obscure sometimes openly known and seen by all sometimes known and seen but by a few sometimes frequent and consisting in many sometimes rare and consisting in few sometimes adorned with outward ornaments of peace largeness outward glory and multitude sometimes again wanting this outward glory under persecution but yet having that inward glory of these inward graces So that when we say these particular Churches are sometimes invisible we do not mean as though they were known to none for that is not our doctrine M. Gilbert as ye imagine but that they are not so openly known that they are patent to all to be the true Church but known unto them with whom they have to do and who profess the truth with them Yea sometimes some of them are known unto the very persecuters and enemies by their constancy and perseverance in their sufferings suppose they allow not their profession And in this state was the Church of Israel in the time of Elias when he complained that he knew none left but himself of the true worshippers of God 1. Kings 19.10 And the Church of Juda in the days of Achaz and Manasseh Kings of Judah 2. Chron. 28.24 2. Kings 16.10 And such like in the time of Christ both in the time of his living among them as also in the time of his death and resurrection the Church
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
own heads as may be seen in our Psalm books Whereunto I answer If ye respect the matter contained in our thanksgiving it hath the warrant of the Scripture and so in that respect it is not our own invention If ye respect the authority we are taught and commanded by our Savior both by his example for he gave thanks and also by his commandment Do this to do the same And so in that respect it is not our own invention If you respect the end it is Gods glory which is the proper end of all thanksgiving If ye will respect the form of this thanksgiving to wit the words and order wherein it is conceived I say it is left indifferent to the Church of God to form their prayers and thanksgiving so being the matter end and authority of the using of them publickly have their warrant out of the Word of God So seeing the authority to give thanks and the matter also of our thanksgiving and end thereof is set down in the Word and seeing the Lord hath left it free to the Church of God concerning the outward form of the same the Scriptures not determining it which your self I hope will not deny For your Canon hath many forms of prayers and thanksgiving in your Mass which after that form and order is not set down in the Word of God Therefore you injury the Lords Spirit and his Church who calls our thanksgiving our own invention As to the third concerning blessing which you distinguish from thanksgiving and saith we have blotted it out of our Scots Bibles and put thanksgiving in the room thereof and so you say we want that part First then I will ask you Did not Luke and the Apostle Paul set down the whole form and the chief points of the institution of that Sacrament I suppose you will not deny it for it were too plain an impiety for you to say that either Luke the sworn pen-man of Gods Spirit or Paul who said I have received of the Lord that which also I have delivered unto you 1. Cor. 11.23 that either of these had omitted the history of the institution of this Sacrament a principal point thereof but either this blessing is one with thanksgiving or else they have omitted a principal point thereof for neither of them makes mention in these places of blessing but only of thanksgiving therefore it is one with thanksgiving Secondly I say either the whole three Evangelists and the Apostle Paul in setting down the institution of the Sacrament of the Supper omits a chief thing to wit the blessing of the cup which I suppose ye will not say or else the blessing of the cup is one with thanksgiving for the Apostles Paul Luke makes no mention at all of blessing but only of thanksgiving and the two Evangelists Matthew and Mark makes no mention of the blessing of the cup but saith that after or also he took the cup and when he had given thanks c. therefore they are one Thirdly if ye will credit one Evangelist exponing another whereas Matthew and Mark have this word and he blessed Luke and Paul have these words And he gave thanks And whereas Matthew and Mark have this word blessing after he took the bread they use the word thanksgiving after he took the cup to signifie that they are both one And therefore if ye will believe Scripture exponing Scripture they are both one Yea what will you say to Bellarmin who saith lib. 1. de sacram Euchar. cap. 10 That some Catholicks contends that both the words to bless and to give thanks in the Scripture signifies one thing and therefore they interpret thanksgiving blessing So if you will credit your own Catholicks they are both one here And whereas you say that both in the Greek and Latin they signifie diverse things I answer Indeed it is true that sometimes they signifie diverse actions as blessing Numb 6. for the petition of a blessing But yet sometimes also blessing is taken in the Scripture for thanksgiving as both I have proved in these places as also if ye will deny there is many places in the Scripture for the contrary as Luke 1.65 Eph. 1.3 1. Pet. 1.3 And whereas you say that in Mark they signifie two distinct actions I have proved before they are both one And last of all I say if by blessing you mean the words of the consecration this is my body which is broken for you c. as Bellarmin affirms lib. 4. de sacram Euch. cap. 13 that the Roman catechist so expones it and the Theologues commonly teaches the same then I say we want not that chief point for we rehearse the words of the institution So howsoever the word blessing be taken either for thanksgiving or for the sanctification of these elements to an holy use by prayer which is comprehended in the thanksgiving or for the words as ye call them of the consecration we have always this blessing in our cōmunion And as for your hovering and blowing of the words of Christ over the bread and calice with your crossing and charming them after the manner of Sorcerers with a set number and order of words and signs your hiding it your rubbing of your fingers for fear of crums your first thortering and then lifting up of your arms your joining and disjoyning of thumb and fore-finger and sundry other vain and superfluous ceremonies and curiosities which you use in blessing of the elements they have neither command nor example of Christs institution and action and the Apostles doctrine and doing in the Scriptures of God Now as to the fourth giving or offering up of the body and blood of Christ to his Father by the faithful We confess a giving to his Disciples which you call afterward a communicating But for another giving that is as you expone it an offering up of his body and blood to his Father we utterly deny it as a thing not so much as once mentioned in the whole institution but contrary to the same and Antichristian and therefore we utterly abhor it and detest it as an invention of your own as Antichristian as idolatry as abomination as that which derogates from that blessed only one sacrifice whereby he offered up himself once upon the cross never to be offered up again as the Scripture testifies Heb. 25. And Bellarmin saith plainly lib. 1. de missa cap. 12. 24. That this offering up is not expresly set down in the words of the institution and that it cannot be easily discerned And as for the fifth a communicating we have it and that not only of the bread and wine as ye here imagine but of Jesus Christ God and Man his very flesh and blood and all his blessings by faith spiritually seeing therefore we have all these points which are requisit in the institution a lawful Minister thanksgiving blessing giving and communicating therefore we have the true institution of Christ in the
exponing of the matter of the Sacrament which they handled most largely the one in six books and the other most largely and frequently and in the fore-said places they used it in a far other sense then it is taken now in the Church of Rome for by this word they neither understood a Sacrament nor a sacrifice as the Churh of Rome doth Ambrose takes it for the whole service which was proper to the faithful lib 5 epist 33. And Augustin in one place for the demission of these who were catechised In serm 237 de tempor in the other two places for the whole service as well of the Catechumeni in serm de temp 251. 91 as of the faithful So rarely was it used by the lights of that age and in a far other sense then the Church of Rome takes it now But what a strange change hath fallen in this word Mass the abuse growing by time more more First from a cōmandment to the people to depart Ite missa est and that in evil Latin For Ite missio or dimissio est it passed to signify the service of God and from thence to signify a sacrifice and from thence to signify that opus operatum that work wrought of that abominable sacrifice of the Mass for the quick and the dead so that now in end it holds that place in the Roman Church that Minervas image which as was supposed fell out of heaven in a temple in the city of Troy did hold among them so that as they thought it was their only protection and forteress and as long as they kept it they were in no danger to have been overcome by the Grecians their enemies So doth the Papistical Church think of this their Mass and this for the second point of the form of the publick worship of God in the primitive Church Thirdly after the dimission of the Catechumeni the faithful who was commanded to remain and communicat they did offer up of their goods and first fruits unto God before they did communicat which for the most part was of bread and wine or of their first fruits of corns and raisins whereof so much was taken as did serve for bread and wine to the communicants And the rest that remained was either eaten in common among the faithful whereof also some was sent unto them who were sick or absent in a testimony of their communion with them from whence sprung that abuse and idolatry in the Church of Rome in carrying of the Sacrament which they call the Lord God to the sick or else was distributed unto the poor And when the Church waxed rich as it did after the time of Constantin the oblations abounded and a part thereof was also imployed unto the maintenance of the Ministery as Jerome witnesses saying Clerici de altari vivunt altari servientes altaris oblatione sustentantur The Clergy lives of the Altar and are sustained by the oblations thereof The which begat avarice in them and their avarice brought in the sacrifice of the Mass as we shal see afterward Now these oblations which were given by the faithful for the sustentation of the Ministery for the relief of the poor and furnishing materials to the Communion was called after the custome of the Old Law sacrifices Phil. 4. Heb. 13. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. Cypr. de Eleemosyna So the Apostle Paul Ireneus Cyprian calls them And Paulinus epist de Gazophyla pag. 349. calls the place where these offerings was presented a Table And these was presented unto the Minister who by prayer did consecrat them unto God Justin Mart. apolog 2. as is manifest by the prayers set down in the Liturgies Tua ex tuis tibi offerimus that is Of thy own we offer thy own things unto thee And Has oblationes famulorum famularúmque tuarum benignus assume quas singuli obtulerunt that is Mercifully receive these oblations of thy servants which every one of them have offered up to thee And sundry other prayers of the Mass which can no ways be spoken of the sacrifice of the Son of God without blasphemy as shal be seen afterward And this was the estat of the Church three or four hundred years after Christ But the love of God decaying and the hearts of men and women waxing cold in the worship of God the people did not communicat so oft And therefore we read of the complaints of the Fathers of the rarity of the communicants and of their vehement exhortations to the people to communicat every day or at least every Sabbath Ambros lib. 5. cap. 4. de sacram Chrysost in Epist ad Ephes August Epist 129. But these exhortations did not profit and therefore there was Canons and Laws made to bind the people to communicat at the least every Sabbath otherwise to be thrust out at the Church doors de consecratione distinct 1. cap. Episcopus dist 2. cap. Peracta cap. Hi qui intrant And also Civil Laws for that same effect Carol. Magnus lib. 1. cap. 138. 182. 167. But these Laws did gain but little for whether it was the obstinacy of the people or that they were not preased unto it by their Pastors they did wax more and more negligent in communicating And therefore Laws were made that if not oftner at the least thrise in the year the people should communicat to wit at Pasch at Christs-time and at Pentecost otherwise not to be reputed as Christians Distinct 2. cap. Seculares cap. Si non cap. Scis homo lib. 2. cap. 45. ad 3.38 But for all this the people did not communicat for the most part So that in end a Law was made that at the least once in the year they should communicat to wit at Pasch Extra de poenit remiss cap. Omnis The which custome is yet kept in the Church of Rome So by these degrees the Communion was lost in the celebration of the Supper among the people First from a dayly Communion in some places to once in the week and from thence to thrise in the year and from thence to once in the year so that ordinarily there did none communicat but the Ministery and Clergy But in process of time this corruption overtook them also and therefore Laws both Civil and Ecclesiastical was made to constrain them to communicat and that at the least two or three should communicat with the Priest De consec dist 1. cap. Hoc quoque cap. Omnes fideles the foot steps whereof yet remains in the Abbacy of Clugny where the Deacon and the Sub-deacon communicats yet with the Priest And of this came the distribution of the bread of the Sacrament in three pieces according to the number of the cōmunicants which is yet used in the Church of Rome suppose they have drawn it now to signify a mystery and these three at the last was brought to one and this one to the Clark that rang the bell And at the last
the truth for no exhortation or admonition no Laws Ecclesiastical nor Civil could make them to reverence the Lords institution in receiving the sweet pledges of their salvation as the Lord had commanded therefore the Lord gave them over as it was fore-told to strong delusions that they might believe lies And beside this just judgement of God as this doctrine was most profitable to the Priests so was it most agreeable to their corruption and therefore was easily embraced and believed For what was more easie to practise then to hear and see a Mass and to bring their offering unto the Priest This required no examination of themselves before no mortification of their sin no sad and heavy hearts with fear and trembling to come to the same as the Communion did but only their eyes to see and ears to hear suppose they neither knew nor understood what was said or done in the same And yet what was so profitable as it was which was able to obtain remission of sins and redemption of souls to appease Gods wrath and to obtain all grace and to help for all necessities both for the living and dead present and absent man and beast as they affirmed So this was not the strait way to salvation for who was not able to practise this doctrine that is to see and hear a Mass And yet our Savior saith The way is strait that leads to eternal life and many shal seek to enter in and shal not be able Matth. 7.13 From this sprang the aboundance of their oblations that they spared neither silver nor gold houses lands nor heritages For what would not a man give to get salvation so easily both to himself and to others So it was no wonder suppose the Priests were earnest in beating in the ears of the people such a profitable doctrine for themselves For it was a gold mine unto them And suppose the people having forsaken the love of the truth and being given over of God to believe such strong delusions for the contempt of his ordinance embraced such a plausible doctrine which brought heaven to them and theirs so easily as they supponed and by these degrees the pretended sacrifice of the Mass was not a little promoved And yet these abuses crap not in while after Gregory the Great who lived in the 600. year after Christ suppose a great part of these abuses is ascribed to him Hitherto now hath this sacrifice been confusedly conceived and all things almost prepared for her birth From these now followeth other corruptions which did ripen this monstrous birth As first where the Priest was wont to bless and consâ—crat by prayer so much bread wine as might serve the whole people who did communicat in the primitive Church the communion of the people in this Sacrament being lost as we heard before and the Priest himself alone or at the least two or three with him only communicating the oblations of the people which was not only of bread and wine and water according to the express Canons of the Church de consecrat dist 2 cap. Non oportet cap. In sacramento But corruption growing with the riches of the Church also of gold silver of sheep and oxen as we read in the time of Gregory in Dialog These oblations I say was not brought unto the altar to be consecrated by prayers to God but only so much bread and wine as might serve the Priest only and which at last the abuse growing he began to make himself and to bring unto the Sacrament Upon the which followed other two abuses The first that the stile of offering and sacrifice in the Sacrament was taken from the peoples action of offering their oblations for the which cause especially the Sacrament was called a sacrifice therefore the prayer in the Canon was not in Gregories time pro quibus tibi offerimus for the which we offer unto thee but qui tibi offerunt who do offer to thee And their oblation was called sacrifices as is manifest by the ordinance of Pope Gelasius where it is ordained that the sacrifices which the people should offer up in the Mass should be distribut in four parts This stile I say of offering and sacrifice was taken from them and ascribed only to the Priests action and his action was called the sacrifice And this was no little step to their pretended sacrifice The next which did put even some life and breath in it was the applying of all the prayers which was used to be said and made in the sanctification of the oblations of the people to the sanctification of that smal round bread and portion of wine which was reserved for the Sacrament and appointed for the Priest and the few that was to communicat with him So that here was a manifest change wherein they passed from the oblations of the gifts which was presented to God by the people and offered to him in the Sacrament of the Supper which were called sacrifices as we have proved it before to a sacrifice of a round bread and a little cup of wine which the Priest only or at the least with other two or three eat and drink in the same and consequently from a sacrifice of the fruits of the earth offered to God by the people to a sacrifice of the eternal Son of God which the Priest supponed he offered up to God in the same So by this means it received as it were some life and breath This alteration is so manifest that the prayers in their own Canon of the Mass and Liturgies will prouve the same Precamur te saith the Canon ut accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata that is We pray thee thou wouldest accept and bless these gifts these presents these holy and unspotted sacrifices And again Remember of them pro quibus tibi offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis pro se suisque omnibus that is These for whom we offer unto thee or who doth offer unto thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves and all theirs And again Supra quae sereno propitio vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus es munera Abelis Abrahae Melchisedech c. that is That thou wouldest vouchsafe to look upon them with a favorable and merciful countenance as thou hast vouchsafed to accept of the gifts of Abel Abraham and Melchisedeck c. And again Jube haec perferri per manus angeli tui in sublime altare tuum that is Command them to be carried by the hands of thy angel unto thine hie altar in the sight of thy Majesty And again Tua de tuis that is We offer of thy own thy own to thee I would ask you M. Gilbert dare ye in your conscience say that these prayers were made of the eternal Son of God whom ye pretend to offer up in your Masses For can either
And to Bellarmin who saith the Church instituted them lib. 2. de missa cap. 13. and so referrs the institution of them not to CHRIST in his written Word but to the institution of the Church and to your own Doctors and Canon Law and Writers who ascribes the institution of them to your Popes and others of your Church as I have proved before O M. Gilbert What a preposterous love is this that ye bear to your abominable sacrifice that ye are not ashamed to write that the very ceremonies of it hath their warrant in the same holy Word and that contrary your own general Council of Trent and all your learned Doctors and Writers I think ye thought that we had never read your ceremonies or never known them that ye write so boldly of them Shal the Council of Trent say they are instituted by the Church by Apostolical traditions which your Church confesses are not written in the Scripture And yet are not you ashamed to say they have their warrant by the Scripture and so openly to contradict the doctrine of your own Council of Trent I will say no further but surely either they err in this point or else ye and if they err then the general Church may err and hath erred and so one of your main foundations is gone Choose you whither you will take this blot to your self or let it fall on them But because ye account this Mass of yours most heavenly and ye vaunt that ye only have in your Church that heavenly action and because it is the chiefest point of your service and worship which ye give to God in your Church and also because ye so impudently affirm that the ceremonies thereof hath their warrant out of the Scripture Therefore I will discover here as shortly as I can the abominations absurdities blasphemies idolatries vain idle superstitions Jewish and Ethnick ceremonies of the same that poor folks be not deceived any longer therewith For certainly for as heavenly as ye think it is I dare affirm that it is nothing else but a very sink and filthy closet of all abominations idolatries and horrible blasphemies So that as it is said in the Proverbs of the vertuous woman that many women have done vertuously but thou surmounts them all Prov. 31.23 So it may be said of the Mass Many services and worships devised by man have been idolatrous blasphemous and abominable but this sacrifice of the Mass brought in the Church of God by Antichrist in idolatrie abominations and blasphemies surmounteth them all so that the like of it hath never been before it nor never shal be after it For beside the fore said abuses that it is a will-worship instituted by man that it hath corrupted the Sacrament of the Supper which was given us to assure us of the grace of Christ and hath turned it in a sacrifice and that a propitiatory sacrifice and meritorious not to the Priest only but to the beholders also and not to the present only but to the absent and not only for the living but for the dead that it hath abolished the death of Christ and the vertue of that one sacrifice and that it hath spoiled Christ Jesus of his Priesthood and communicated it unto others beside these intolerable abuses it abounds and overflows with other intolerable abominations As first their altars in their Mass whereon they think they sacrifice the Son of God and therefore in the beginning of their Mass the Priest saith And I will go in into the altar of God whereby they renew either Judaism or Paganism for their material altars was a part of the Ceremonial law of the Jewes which was abolished by the death of Christ and Numa Pompilius 700 years before Christ ordained that the Ethnick Priest when he went about to offer sacrifice that he should draw near to the altar This entry of the Mass is said to be the ordinance of Pope Celestin the first about the year of God 426 And because the Priests take the altars for the Table whereon the Supper is celebrat which he confounds with the abominations of the Mass also because M. Gilbert said he was minded to prove the ceremonies of the Mass by the Scripture therefore I will ask him and his fellow Priests these few things concerning their altars First where read they that Christ did ever institut in the New Testament that the Table of our Lord should only be of stone and not of timber or any other mettal as their altars whereon they chant their Mass must be according to their law Dist 1. cons cap. Altaria si non Secondly where read they in the New Testament that the Table of the Lord should be consecrated with oyl and chrism with a sprinkling of water mixed of wine and salt of ciphers of holy water at the four corners of the same at the middle part and that none may do this but a Bishop if a Clark do it that he be degraded and if one of the Laicks do it that he be excommunicat Canon Non alij What folly is this that a Priest hath authority as they think to sacrifice the Son of God yet he may not powr a little oyl upon a stone That the Bishop compass the altar seven times singing the 51. Psalm Thou shalt wash me with hysop c. prophaning the truth of God And there to bury the relicks of some Saints put in a little shrine with three grains of incense that God for their cause may hear the prayers and accept of the sacrifice offered up upon that altar And then anointing the table of the altar with oyl and singing Jacob erected up a stone c. Where I say read you these in the New Testament that Christ commanded these things to be done to the table of his Supper which ye do to the altars whereon ye say your Masses And such like where read you that none should chant their Masses but on such altars as are consecrated And such like that your altars are not lawful where there is not found the bodies or relicks of some Martyrs Canon Placuit ut altaria Such like that ye dedicat your altars whereon ye chant your Mass to others then to Christ as unto the Virgin Mary Peter and other Saints departed And such like that the Priest should kiss the altar often and namely when he approaches unto it carrying the calice Hath Christ commanded this Hath the Apostles used them Hath the Scripture made mention of them What think you will you answer to God when it shal be said to you Who required all these things at your hands And wherefore also transgress ye your own law in having mo altars then is necessary seeing by it ye are commanded by express terms that superfluous altars be destroyed Canon Eccles vel altaria To conclud this then with Ambros in Epist ad Heb. cap. 8. 10. As our sacrifice saith he which is no other thing but our prayers and thanksgiving