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
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
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
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
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
institution of the Supper Take ye eat ye and drink ye all of this And contrary also to the doctrine of the ancient Doctors of the primitive Church Hieron in 1. Cor. cap. 11. Chrysost in 1. Cor. hom 18. and of some Councils Concil 2. Antioc cap. 2. Conc. 4. de Tolet. cap. 17. and some of your own Popes also Alex 5. Epist 1. de myst corp sang Calixtus de consecrat dist 2. Can. Peracta The twelfth abuse is in the prayer contained in the Canon of the Mass in these words Look mercifully upon these things to wit Jesus Christ his body and his blood which the Priest thinks he offers up to God and so Biel a exponer of the Mass interprets the same and accept of them as thou accepted of the sacrifice of Abel of Abraham and of Melchisedeck And in another place the Priest prays unto God to receive that sacrifice to wit of Christ and to sanctifie it with the blessing wherewith he sanctified the oblation of Abel Now if any thing can be said to be blasphemy certainly this must be blasphemy to a Mass-Priest a sinful creature to interceed between God the Father and Christ his Son to pray the Father that he may sanctify his Son and accept of him as though he were not fully sanctified in himself and were not the fountain of all holiness to others and as though the Father were not well pleased in him already And because the Mass-Priest vaunts that in his sacrifice of the Mass he offers up the eternal Son of God in a sacrifice to his Father for the sins of the quick and the dead I will ask him this Doth not he blaspheme horribly who vaunts that in something that he doth he is more acceptable to God then Jesus Christ is This cannot be denyed But I assume that the Priest vaunts that in his Mass he is more acceptable to God then Jesus Christ is Therefore the Priest is a horrible blasphemer And I prove the assumption thus The Priest vaunts that in his Mass he offers up Jesus Christ to God his Father the Priest also in the Mass prays the Father that he would sanctifie and accept of his Son which he offers up Therefore the Priest vaunts that he is more acceptable to God in the Mass then Jesus Christ is for God regards more the person that offers up then the thing that is offered up This is Ireneus language lib. 4. contra haeres Valent cap. 34. and for this purpose he brings forth the examples of Abel and Cain and their sacrifices For he saith They two offered up to the Lord but they were not both accepted of him for Abel his sacrifice pleased God because his person pleased him and that because of his faith but the sacrifice of Cain pleased not God because his person pleased him not and that because of his incredulity Seeing therefore that the Mass-Priest vaunts that he offers up Jesus Christ in his Mass to the Father and seeing the Priest must be more acceptable then your sacrifice Therefore it must follow that the Priest in the Mass vaunts that he is more acceptable to God then Jesus Christ is and so is a horrible blasphemer in his Mass The thirteenth abuse is that he compares the sacrifice of the Son of God with the sacrifice of Abel Abraham and Melchisedeck which by infinit degrees surpasseth them all The fourteenth what horrible blasphemy commits the Priest when he prays that that oblation which he thinks to be Jesus Christ may be carried to heaven by the hands of an Angel as though Christ were not as powerful now to ascend to heaven as he was after his resurrection and therefore hath now need of the help of an Angel to carry him to heaven What blasphemy is this But let me ask you M. Gilbert wherefore pray ye that he may be carried to heaven seeing ye eat him and makes him to descend in your belly as ye think and to ascend and descend are things contrary And if ye will say that first it mounts to heaven and then descends again then I say first the accidents of the bread and wine are left there alone for they are not carried to heaven but remains in your hand and Christs body and blood are not under them seeing he is carried to heaven by the hands of an Angel and so your real presence is gone Secondly seeing ye eat his body and drink his blood it must follow that ye must make a new transubstantiation to cause Christ come down again from heaven and to make the bread and wine to be transchanged again in his body and blood that ye may eat him and drink him And so these are many voyages which ye cause Christ to make First to descend from heaven by the means of your Transubstantiation then to make him to ascend to heavē by the means of your prayer and then last of all to make him again descend from heaven that ye may eat him and drink him These are the blasphemies which follows on your blasphemous Mass The fifteenth abuse is in their prayer for the dead wherein they pray for a place of refreshment light and peace for them who have died in faith sleeps in peace and rests in the Lord and yet in the Masses that are said for them they will not give the Pax to be kissed which is a sign of peace let them advise how they will reconcile this But first I say their prayer for the dead is without all warrant of the Word next I would know who these are for whom the Priest prays not for them that are in hell for they have not died in faith nor sleeps in peace nor rests in the Lord and prayers for them are needless for out of hell is no redemption not for them that are in heaven for what greater light or peace or joy can they have then that which they have already Not for them that are in Purgatory for beside that it is but the devise of man according to their own doctrine they that are in Purgatory sleeps not in peace but are tormented in fire if their doctrine of the fire of Purgatory be true and so this prayer cannot be for them neither The sixteenth is your horrible cruelty against the Son of God in breaking the body of Christ in three pieces in your Mass as ye think which is greater cruelty then the men of war did to him upon the cross for they brake not a bone of him and yet ye Mass-Priests makes no scruple to part his body in three pieces The seventeenth is your dipping a part of the hoste into the cup which is without all warrant or example of the Scripture and is against the doctrine of one of your Popes Pope Julius de consecrat dist 2. Can. Cum omne crimen The eighteenth is in the prayer wherein the Priest prays that the receiving of Christ his body be not to his condemnation seeing he means not here by 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
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
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
the undoubted Antichrist This for the fourth mark The fifth mark of the Antichrist as he is described by the Apostle is in these words Ye know saith the Apostle what withholdeth namely that he might be revealed in his own time This Tertullian de resurrect cap. 24. Jerome ad Gelasium and Chrysostom upon this same place and so also Ambrose upon this place and August de civit Dei lib. 20. cap. 29. expone it of the Roman Empire the which as long as it flowrished and was in full strength the Antichrist could not climb up to this his full hight and preeminence So that it behoved that Empire first to be translated and piece and piece diminished before the Antichrist could come up to his hight for that stayed him Now it is manifest out of the 17. chap. of the Revelation that Rome should be the seat of the Antichrist and Bellarmin and the Rhemists do not deny it and Rome was the seat of the Roman Empire before So then it behoved the Empire to translate his seat from Rome that Rome which was first the seat of the Empire might be the seat of the Antichrist Now the issue and event is a sure and clear interpretation of this Prophesie For Constantin the Emperor of Rome translated his seat from Rome to Byzantium called Constantinople in Greece And piece and piece that Empire of the Greek Emperor began to decay and was translated from the Greeks to the French-men by the Popes and then from them to the Germans by the Popes also So that both Rome and a great part of Italy and at the last a great part of the Empire is fallen in the Popes hand So that now he vaunts himself to be Monarch of the whole world and all Kings and Princes gave him their oath of alleageance and the Emperors and Kings held their Empires and Kingdoms of him and are but his vassals as their Canon Law saith So that by the taking away of the Roman Empire the Popes did then climb up to their supremacy and make themselves manifest that they were the Antichrist And so this doth also agree to the Pope of Rome and to none other He is the Antichrist whose climbing up was letted by the Roman Empire and who is built up upon the ruines of the same But the Papacy is such Therefore the Papacy is that Antichristian Kingdom It is said sixthly that this mystery began to work in the dayes of the Apostles that is the foundations of that apostasie was begun to be laid in these dayes and that he shal continue to the Lords coming for he shal not be abolished but by the brightness of his coming suppose he shal be first consumed with the sword of his mouth that is discovered and sore beaten by the Lords Word All which agrees unto Papistrie For that Kingdom is that Apostasie and Antichristian Monarchy whose foundation was beginning to be laid in the Apostles dayes which should be first consumed by the Word of God and utterly abolished by the brightness of his coming But the Papacy is such therefore it is that Antichristian Kingdom Matth. 18.1.2.3.4 and 20.25.26.27 Mark 10.41 Luke 22.25 2 Cor. 1 24. 1 Pet. 3.2.3 For the foundations of it was soon laid both of that Hierarchie and supremacy of the Pope and also of his damnable and erroneous doctrine For that superiority of the Ministery one over another of Bishops over Pastors forbidden by Jesus Christ soon crept in which was the foundation or rather staires by the which the Pope clamb up to his Popedom and supremacy the old condemned heresies which sprang up in the primitive Church many of them were the foundation of these damnable doctrines which the Popes brought in afterward as is proved in the end of the first part And as to his consuming by the Lord his mouth the Lord hath accomplished that already in some measure and shal assuredly fulfil it dayly more and more For since the time of the burning of John Hus and Jerome of Prague about the year of God 1415. and since the time the Lord stirred up Martin Luther and sundry others his faithful servants to preach the Gospel of Christ which was as it were buried in the darkness of Papistry the supremacy of the Pope hath taken such a dayly consumption that many of the Kingdoms of Europe now have forsaken her and the Lord hath put in their hearts to hate her But yet we know the dreggs of it shal not be abolished utterly while the bright coming of the Son of God It followes seventhly the manner how his Kingdom and tyranny shal be promoved upholden and established To wit By the effectual working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders and with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness among them that perish Which the Apostle calles strong delusions And with this that of the Rev. 13.13.14 in the description of the second beast whereby it is meaned the Antichristian Kingdom doth agree that he did great wonders and deceived them that dwelt upon the earth by the signs which was permitted him to do Now certainly nothing can be spoken more aptly of the Popes Kingdom then this For unless the Pope had had an effectual power strong and devilish also by signs and lying wonders and unless his unrighteousness that is his false doctrine had been exceeding deceiveable that is covered with a fair color of godliness and unless his delusions had been strong his Kingdom had never been so far enlarged and so firmly established as we see it hath been and his damnable doctrine and errors would never have deâ—eived so many Nations as they have done For what is more common and usual in their mouthes then miracles What is it they vaunt so much of as of their miracles So that they make it an infallible mark of the Church And how I pray you have a great part of their errors and superstitions as the praying to Saints and worshipping of Images and pilgrimages and other of their superstitions and idolatries as Purgatory the real presence their monstrous Transubstantiation c. how I say have they been so confirmed and so rooted in the hearts of ignorant people but by their lying wonders and miracles which they fain was done Whereof their golden Legends are full and sundry yet live who have been eye-witnesses of the falshood of their miracles I will only set down for example some of the false miracles of two Nuns here the one of Magdalena de la Cruz Abbess of the Monastery of the Franciscan Nuns who was condemned by the Inquisitors of Cordoua for her enormous offences and covenant which she made with the Devil as they say in their sentence against her She by the aid of the Devil with whom she made a covenant when she was nine years old became a singular hypocrit and by his help wrought many miracles as that she appeared unto Mariners in a storm being invocated and so the storm calmed that she
of Rome he saith They only desire to reign They cannot abide peace They will not cease till they have stamped all under their feet that they may sit in the Temple of God and be lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped He who is the servant of servants is the Lord of Lords and desires to be thought of as if he were God And he saith That man whom they use to call Antichrist he speaketh great things as though he were God in whose fore-head that name of blasphemie is written I am God I cannot err Franciscus Petrarcha a light of that age for his manifold learning calls the Court of Rome Babylon and that harlot of Babel that sitteth upon many waters the mother of Idolatry and whoredom the refuge of heresies and errors And Petrus Joannes pronounced the Pope to be the Antichrist and the synagogue of Rome to be that great Babylon And Matthias Parisiensis saith That Antichrist hath seduced all the Universities and Colledges of the learned so that they teach nothing soundly now And the Edict of the Empire under Lodowick the fourth speaking of Pope John the 22. saith Christians cannot keep the peace which is given them of God for this Antichrist meaning the Pope And in another Edict it is written As he is a disaguised Pastor so is he a mystical Antichrist and we declars him being the author of that Antichristian Empire to be damned of heresie and deposed by our right by the Council sentence and common consent of the Princes and Prelats of Germanie the Priests of Italie and people of Rome so desiring And Aventinus in the history of Hildebrand writes That almost all the plain just simple and upright have written that then to wit when he was Pope the Empire of the Antichrist began because they saw that come to pass at that time which our Savior fore-told so many years before And to conclud this Hadrian the 6. Pope in his instructions of his Legats to the Convention at Norimberg he saith Thou shalt say that we grant freely that God hath suffered this persecution to come upon the Church for the sins of men and especially of the Priests and Prelats of the Church And again he saith We know that in this seat speaking of that Pontifical seat in Rome many abominable things have been for some years as abuse in spiritual things excess in commandments and last of all all things changed in worse And the Popes Cardinals speaking to Paul the third say From this fountain holy Father as from the Trojan horse so many abuses have rushed into the Church and so heavy diseases wherewith as we may see she is brought into a disperat estat I omit the rest Ye may see the truth is strong that hath made their own mouthes to fyle themselves To conclud this then He must be the undoubted Antichrist and his Kingdom Antichristian unto whom the whole markes of the Antichrist as he is described in the Scripture by the Apostle Paul and John in the Revelation doth agree But they all agree unto the Popes of Rome and his Kingdom as hath been proved Therefore they must be that undoubted Antichrist who was to come Secondly he must be that undoubted Antichrist whom his own Friers Bishops Cardinals and some of themselves do call Antichrist and ascribe these things unto him that belongs properly to the Antichrist But his own Friers Bishops Cardinals and some of themselves have so testified as hath been proved also Therefore out of their own mouthes they are condemned to be that Antichrist and their Kingdom Antichristian Now to put an end to this my reply That Religion is false which hath neither unity succession nor antiquitie this you cannot deny because you make them the marks of your Church But your Religion hath neither unity for that is broken by your manifold contradictions and dissentions among your selves whereof I have marked some and the diligent Reader of your works may gather many mo Chrachtovius in his book called Bellum Jesuiticum hath gathered of two heads to wit the Mass and Antichrist 205. contradictions let the Christian Reader judge then what may be gathered of the rest no succession neither personal broken by their Popes who was Atheists Schismaticks Hereticks and by a woman Pope neither in doctrine being direct contrary to the doctrine of Christ no antiquitie for the authors and origine of sundry main points of your Religion is set down here and all your Roman Clergy have not satisfied M. Jewels challenge these thirty years ago concerning the novelty of twenty and seven of your opinions Therefore since it hath neither unity succession nor antiquity it is a false Religion by your own doctrine Secondly that Religion which is contrary the Scripture contrary the practise of the primitive Church which opens a door to all licentiousness which can bring no true peace and consolation unto the consciences of men which blusheth to be known and made manifest which maintaineth many great absurdities horrible blasphemies abominable idolatry that is the doctrine of Antichrist and the doctrine of Devils which by their own mouthes is condemned must be erroneous and false But the Religion of the Church of Rome is such as hath been evidently proved before therefore it must be false Wo therefore belongeth to their souls that profess it openly or secretly REVEL 14.8 And there followed another Angel saying Babylon is fallen is fallen that great City because she made all Nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication Vers 9. And the third Angel followed them saying with a loud voyce If any man worship the beast and his image and receive his mark in his fore-head or in his hand Vers 10. The same shal drink of the wine of the wrath of God which is powred out without mixture into the cup of his indignation and he shal be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy Angels and in the presence of the Lamb Vers 11. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever And they have no rest day nor night who worship the beast and his image and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name FINIS A BRIEF DISCOVERY OF THE BLOODY REBELLIOUS AND TREASONABLE Principles and Practises of Papists Wherein is evidently demonstrated That they teach and commit Treasons and Rebellions against the lives of Princes and peace of Nations and dissolve the obligation of all Oaths and Bonds and making Perjury and Rebellion duties and meritorious works they have been the Authors of Warrs Commotions and Combustions both before and ever since the Reformation in Kingdoms and Common-wealths and have used unparalleled cruelty and unheard-of inhumanity towards Protestants where ever they had the upper-hand And the excuses of H.T. the Author of the Manual of Controversies are evidenced to be false and frivolous 2. Tim. 3.1 In the last dayes perillous times shal come For men shal be lovers of their
Babel and therefore one day she shal be recompensed for all her iniquity Rev. 17.6 and 18.24 Go out of her therefore and save thy soul that thou be not tormented in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone with her for evermore Rev 18.45 Otherwise I call heaven and earth to witness against thee that thou shalt die in her sin and the smoke of thy torment shal ascend for evermore Rev. 14.1 What now will you say to these things that your Church is not the Catholick Church but a part of it only and is only Catholick because of the Catholick doctrine that she professes But if this be true wherefore then did your general Council condemn it in John Hus and burn him for that doctrine which both your self must confess to be true and is agreeable to Scripture Fathers and your own Popes Next I say suppose when ye are brought to this strait ye must say so yet for all this not only call ye your Church Catholick because of the soundness of doctrine which ye suppose she professes but also and speciallie to make the simple believe that there is no salvation out of her As appeareth by the Epistle of Cardinal Cusanus writing to the Bohemians Cochlaeus histor Hussitar lib. 21. Therefore ye call it the only true Church and the Catholick Church for out of the particular Church there is salvation but out of the Catholick Church there is no salvation Thirdlie I say as the Epistles of Peter John James and Jude are intituled Catholick not because of the soundness of their doctrine which is common to the Epistles of Paul also and all the rest of the Scripture which in that respect may also be called Catholick but because they are written generallie to all So the Church is called Catholick properly not because of the soundness of doctrine for that is common to all the particular Churches that have the puritie of Religion but because it comprehends all the particular Churches and all the elect And also to put a difference between the Church of the Jewes which did comprehend but one certain people and the Christian Church since the coming of Christ which is not bound to any certain place or nation or people but indifferently receives all both Jew and Gentil that believes and therefore is it called Catholick and therefore in our Belief we say not I believe the Catholick doctrine but the Catholick Church So by this she is properlie distinguished from particular Churches as the mother from the daughters and the whole body from the particular members So then if you would speak properlie of your Church and not make your styles snares to catch the souls of the simple call her but a particular Church and a member of the Catholick Church but yet dead and rotten as shal be shown afterward by the grace of God Otherwise if you will but call her the Catholick Church you first rob the mother for she is properly Catholick and also injures the rest of the daughters For in respect of the soundness of faith they may also challenge the same to them And thirdly ye deceive the souls of the simple thereby by making them believe there is not one other Church but yours And last of all you are sacrilegious in decking an adulteress with the styles of the spouse of Christ As to the third point wherein ye calumniate the truth of God which we profess in calling it a new Evangel and old renewed and new invented heresies of our own These are indeed heavie words wherewith ye blaspheme the word of the Lord Acts 18.6 and 19.9 and speak evil of it to the people of this Countrey And therefore as the Apostle saith of them that blasphemed his doctrine Your damnation is just Rom. 3.8 For a wo by Gods own mouth is pronounced against them that call good evil and evil good truth falshood and falshood truth and darkness light and light darkness Isai 5.20 But as the Archangel when he strave with Satan about the body of Moses did not blame him with cursed speaking but said The Lord rebuke thee Jude 9. so we will not blame you with cursed speaking but the Lord rebuke you For ye speak here the vision of your own heart and not from the mouth of the Lord And ye are not the first that hath blasphemed the truth of God for so did the Jewes before you call the doctrine of the Gospel a sect a heresie and the Gentiles called it strange Gods and a new doctrine and the preachers thereof a setter forth of strange Gods and of new doctrine and a babler Acts 28. and 14. and 17. The Jews said that Christ had a Devil and yet as our Lord testifies it was they that were the children of the Devil John 8.44 Ye say that we preach a new Evangel and old new heresies but this is the sin the doctrine of your Church For to let that pass of that new everlasting Gospel which your Friers invented devised as testifieth Guliel de sancto Amore in his book de pericul noviss temp anno 1192. wherein was contained such blasphemies as the heaven and earth abhorrs to hear them That God the Father reigned under the law God the Son under grace And the holy Ghost was then that year to begin his kingdom and to continue to the end of the world And that Jesus Christ was not God his Sacrament nothing and his Evangel not a true Evangel O horrible blasphemie the which if God had not raised up some men in those days to have resisted it as the Waldenses and others which ye call hereticks and infamous men the Gospel of Christ had been lost and in stead of it we would have gotten a new Gospel the dreggs whereof yet remains in your Church But I will let this pass because the wise men of Babel I mean your Clergy of Rome saw that that was too plain an iniquitie therefore they caused it quietlie to be removed and buried and yet they not condemned as hereticks that preached it But by the contrary the Waldenses and others that withstood it was condemned as hereticks and their books burnt To let this pass I say which testifieth what the world might have looked for at your hands if the Lord had not provided better for his poor Church Your whole doctrine is Antichristian as shal be proved hereafter your Church Babel Rev. 17. your Kingdom that second beast Rev. 13.11 that hath two horns like the Lamb and yet speaks like the dragon and your head the man of sin 2. Thess 2. and son of perdition And ye are they that have renewed old condemned heresies and have invented new of your own as shal be proved afterward by Gods grace SECTION III. Concerning the Churches infallibility and immunity from error M. John Welsch SAy they our Religion is so ancient that it hath continued ever by a lineal succession of Pastors and Bishops from the dayes of Christ and his
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
certainty and warrant of all the doctrine in the Scripture and the Scripture it self that they are of God but the testimony of your Popes and Clergy What is it to expone the certainty of the Lords Scripture and of all Religion comprehended in the same to the mocking and derision of the wicked if this be not Yea is not this to prefer the voice and authoritie of your Popes and Clergie to the voice of God himself For what is the testimonie of your Church but the testimonie of men And is not the Scripture the testimonie and voice of God himself Do ye not therefore lift up the authoritie of your Church that is your Popes and Clergie above the authoritie of God in his Word which as you say that there is no other warrant of the Divinitie of the Scripture but only the testimonie of your Church But God be thanked in Christ Jesus who hath delivered us from this blindness for we have other warrants whereupon the certaintie of our salvation and the Divinitie of the Scripture depends then by the testimonie of the true Church much less the testimonie of your Church which is Antichristian and given over of God to believe lies and so worthy of no credit But how prove ye it Ye say there was no other Church immediatly before Luther but that of yours which was worthy of credit Whereunto I answer first that is false for there was a true Church immediatly before him which ye persecuted as I have proved else where Next I say your argument will not follow there was no other Church immediatly before him c. Ergo we have no other warrant that the Scripture is the written Word of God For we have also the testimony of the Church of the Jews concerning the Old Testament and of the primitive Church in all ages concerning both the Old and New Testament which are not only other warrants then the testimonies of your Roman Church but also worthie of more credit Next I say we have many more principal and more effectual warrants that the Scripture is of God then the testimony of the Church either past or present As first the testimonie of the holy Ghost crying testifying and sealing up in all consciences of the godly not only the truth of the doctrine contained in them but also the Divinitie of the Scripture which Stapleton lib. 1. de authorit script cap. 1.6.7 denyes not and therefore the Scripture saith That the Spirit that is the holy Ghost hears witness that the Spirit that it is the doctrine is truth 1. John 5 6. Secondly the testimony of the Scripture it self warranting and testifying of it self the whole Scripture is inspired of God 2. Tim. 3.16 The Old Testament warranted both by the testimony of its self the histories and prophesies testifying of the books of Moses and also by the testimony of the New Testament both in general 2. Pet. 1.19 Luke 24.44 and 16 29 John 5.39 and also in particular as the books of Moses Matth. 1.5 and 19.7 and 22. John 3.14 and the historical books as the history of the Queen of Saba Matth. 12. and of the widow of Sarepta Luke 4. and of the Psalms in sundry places Acts 2. and 13. and of sundrie of the books of the Old Testament Heb. 11. and Ruth also Matth. 1. and out of Isaiah Ezechiel and Jeremy many testimonies are cited and out of the Books of the smal Prophets Acts 7.42 And such like the New Testament hath the confirmation of it out of the Old Testament For whatsoever thing were prophesied in the Old Testament concerning the Messias are fulfilled in the New Testament so if the Old Testament hath authority the New Testament also hath authority And such like Peter by his testimonie confirmes the Epistles of Paul to be the written Word of God Thirdly the majestie of the doctrine which shines in it the simplicitie puritie and heavenliness of the speach therein which is not to be found in any other writings whatsoever the ancientness and antiquitie of them as the Books of Moses far ancienter then any other writing The accomplishment of the Prophesies and Oracles in them as they were fore-told their miracles and wonders whereof they testifie the testimonies of the holy Martyrs that shed their blood in the defense of the truth of them their wonderful preservation notwithstanding of the rage and cruelty of sundry tyrants who sought them out most diligently to have destroyed them all testifying of the Divinity of the holy Scripture So then to conclud this seeing we have the testimony of Gods Spirit sealing up the truth of them in our hearts and the testimony of the Scripture it self testifying of its self so many manner of wayes and sundry other arguments out of the Scripture it self and the testimony of the Church in all ages all warranting to us the Divinity of the holy Scripture I cannot but wonder at the unsearchable judgement of God in blinding you so far that ye have set it down in writ that we have no other warrant of the holy Scripture but the authority of your Church SECTION VI. Concerning the necessity of Baptism to Infants Master Gilbert Brown ANd albeit here it were not necessary to me to prove any heads of our Religion by the Word of God because M. John hath promised to improve the same by the Word which he is no ways able to perform yet to satisfie the Christian Reader and that he may know that the Word of God is only on our side and with us so that their exposition and notes be taken from the same I will set down God willing some heads for examples cause that that same doctrine which we teach and practise is the same that our Savior and his Apostles preached before and is written in the same that he calls the touchstone Master John Welsch his Reply Howsoever ye say this M. Gilbert that that doctrine which ye teach and practise in your Church is that same which our Savior and his Apostles teached before and is written in the Scripture yet in very truth there is nothing less in your conscience For if you and your Roman Church were so perswaded wherefore then should ye have declined to have it tryed by the same And wherefore have some of your own chief pillars and defenders of your Roman Religion who knows the certaintie of the same wherefore I say would they have proclaimed it by writ unto the world that the most part and the principal heads of their Religion are unwritten traditions which have neither their original beginning nor authoritie in the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same And wherefore would your Roman Church have heapt up so many false accusations and blasphemies against the same And wherefore last of all would ye have set up your Pope and his Bishops to be supream and soveraign Judge over the same as you do But this you do because you know that if ye rejected the Scripture
by the grace of God may keep the Commands of God and obey him which is contrary to their Confession of Faith Our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Christ saith If you will enter into life keep the commands Matth. 19.17 And again If ye love me keep my commands John 14.25 24. Matth. 11.29 30. And in another place He that loves me not keeps not my words c. Also Take up my yoke upon you c. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light Now I believe that no man can deny but this yoke and burden of Christ is his Commands and Laws This same doctrine the Apostles teached S. Paul saith Phil. 4.13 and 2.13 I can do all things in him that comforts me And before For it is God that works in you both to will and to accomplish according to his good will And S. John 1.5.3 saith This is the charity of God that we keep his Commands and his Commands are not heavy Now further then these we read that Noe Gen. 6.9 Abraham Gen. 26.5 Job 1.22 were just men and obeyed God And S. Luke 1.6 saith that Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both just before God and walked in all the commands and justification of our Lord without blame There are many other places in the Old Testament of the same matter of the which I have noted some as 3. Kings 14.8.4 and 18.3.4 and 20.3.4 and 23.25 2. Chron. 15.15 Now hold away from these places the Ministers Commentaries and I believe that all men will confess that our doctrine in this and the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is all one M. John Welsch his Reply It appeareth that M. Gilbert is loath that the secrets of the doctrine of his Church should be known to the people because he knows in his heart they would abhor the same their own hearts and consciences witnessing to the contrary Therefore he hath hid up the poyson of it and covered it as secretly as he could But that wherein you are dark the rest of your Roman Clergy are plain For first where as ye say that a man by the grace of God may keep the Commands Bellarmin expones more clearly and sayes By the help of the grace of God Lib. de justific cap. 10. And the Monks in that form of abjuration set out anno 1585 saith That man by the new strength of grace infused in good will may keep the commands So that whereas your words would seem to import that the grace of God is the only cause of this obedience to Gods Commandments in the faithful and so I think every one almost who is not acquainted with the doctrine of your Roman Church will take it and so it may be ye teach them The rest of your brethren are more plain in halfing it betwixt free-will and the grace of God helping free-will as though the strength of nature were the more principal cause and the grace of God but a helper to it And secondly whereas ye say that a man by the grace of God may keep the Commandments of God and obey them Bellarmin saith more plainly cap. 19 pag. 364 lib. 2 de justifi cap. 3. That the Law of God is absolutely possible unto them and they may absolutly fulfil the Law and keep the whole Law and that the works of the righteous are absolutly and simpliciter righteous and proceeding of a perfect holiness without all blemish of sin and that they please God not for the imputation of Christs righteousness covering their imperfections and forgiving them but for the excellencie of the work it self So this is their doctrine Christian Reader Now as he hid his own so hath he hid ours also For our Confession of Faith saith That our sanctification and obedience to Gods Law is imperfect which word he omitted as though it had been our doctrine that the children of God in no measure nor degree keep the Commandments of God Our doctrine therefore is this That of our own nature we are dead in sin Eph. 2.1 and of our selves we are neither able to understand 1. Cor. 2.14 nor think 2. Cor. 3.7 nor will nor do those things that are pleasant to God Philip 2.13 and therefore we must be born anew again John 3 5. ere we can do any thing that is acceptable in Gods sight John 15.5 and this sanctification of ours is not perfect while we are in this life Rom. 7.14 15. but imperfect ever some darkness some rebellion some dregs of the old man yet remaining in us so that we know but in a part 1 Cor. 13.12 and our will is but renewed in part and our heart sanctified in part from the which it cometh that first we do not all the good that we are bound to do and would do as the Apostle saith Rom 7 15.16.17.18.19 20.21.22.23 24. Next that all our righteousness as the Prophet saith is but as a menstruous cloth Esai 64.6 ever smelling somewhat of the corruption of the old man within us and so that they have need to be covered with the righteousness of Jesus Christ and their imperfection to be pardoned By the only strength therefore of Gods Spirit who works both to will and to do in us we begin here obedience to the whole Law of God but yet are not able perfectly so to keep it as our works may abide to be tryed before the Lord in the ballance of his Law and therefore we place the whole hope of our salvation in the only mercy of God through Jesus Christ who is made to us of God righteousness sanctification and redemption by whose mercy we obtain the perfect remission or our sins and so we conclud with David Psal 32. Blessed is he whose sins are forgiven him and whose iniquities are covered This now is the verie simple truth both of our doctrine and theirs in this head Now to answer you Whereas ye say That a man by grace may keep the Commandments of God if you mean that the only cause of the obedience of the children of God to his Law is the renewing grace of God and that this obedience is sincere and hearty not to one but to all the Commandments not only outward but inward suppose not in that high measure of perfection that the Law of God requires then I say you contradict the doctrine of your Roman Church and forsakes their error of free-will concurring with grace and of the perfection of man his obedience here to the Law and so shakes hands with the truth of God which we profess in this point And so becoms a bad defēder of their Catholick faith as ye stile yourself And would to God your eyes were opened so to see and believe suppose ye lost that stile for ever But if ye make free-will the principal cause of this obedience as Bellarmin calls it and if ye understand a perfect obedience as your Church teaches then first tell me why did ye not speak as
breadth and not to have his own length and breadth at once in the Sacrament is a manifest contradiction is yea and nay in Christ therefore both by the Scripture and your own doctrine the omnipotency of Christ cannot be alledged or pretended for this your doctrine which is yea and nay and implyes a manifest contradiction So this in very truth is the invention of your own brain which is alledged for your Transubstantiation and wants the warrant yea is gain-said both by the written Word and your own School-men Next ye would have us to hold away our figurs symbols and similituds I answer our own figurs we shal hold away but these figurs symbols and signs wherein our Savior hath delivered his truth to us we must and will acknowledge So then obeying rather God who hath set them down in his Scripture then you who forbids us to acknowledge them and what a monstrous exposition would you make of infinit places of Scripture if you would admit no figures in them but all to be understood plainly and literally as they were spoken The Scripture ascribes to God eyes ears foot hands and a face and the Scripture calls Christ a door a vine Now if you will admit no figurs here but will have all these places exponed literally as you will have us to do in the Sacrament then you would be reckoned in the number of the old hereticks called Anthropomorphitae who because they saw the Scripture speak so of God they taking it literally and exponing it without figurs as you would have us to expone the Sacrament they thought that God was bodilie yea you must make another monstrous Transubstantiation of Christ in a door and vine-tree for so he calls himself And to come to the Sacraments themselves how many transubstantiations will you make in all the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament if you will remove figurs and signs from them and expone them literally as you would have us to do in this Sacrament Circumcision is called the covenant Gen. 27. and yet it was but the sign of the covenant the Lamb in the Passover is called the Passover of the Lord Exod. 12. and yet it was but the sign of the Passover the Rock in the wilderness is called Christ 2. Cor. 20. and yet it was but a sign of Christ the Ark is called the Lord Psal 24. and yet it was but a sign of the Lord the land of Canaan is called the rest of the Lord. Heb. 4. and yet it was but a sign of that rest and Baptism is called the washing of regeneration Tit. 3. and yet it is but the sign of our regeneration Do you think that the forms of speaches in all other Sacraments are figuratively taken and the form of speach in this Sacrament only to be literally understood What reason can there be of this diversity But it may be you think that the form of speaches in all other Sacraments should be taken figuratively but the phrase of speach in this Sacrament is to be taken literally But first what then will you say to this speach This is my body which is broken for you and this The cup is the New Testament in my blood and the cup is my blood and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 11. Luke 22. Mark 14. 1. Cor. 13. all figurative speaches and to be understood figuratively otherwise Christ should have been broken in the Sacrament which is both contrary to the Scripture and also absurd For then he should have suffered twise once in the Sacrament and once upon the cross and not only should there be one transubstantiation in the Sacrament but many as of the cup in the blood of Christ and of the bread and cup in the participation of the body and blood of Christ and so you should not only have one transubstantiation but many And how I pray you can Sacraments which are but figurs signs and symbols be understood but figuratively And how can duo diversa individua alterum de altero praedicari in praedicatione and be spoken of another without a figure as it is here This bread is my body c. Can you or any at all of your Roman Clergy understand such propositions otherwise then figurativelie What an unreasonable thing is it then to you to forbid us to acknowledge figurs in this Sacrament which is but a figure and sign seeing they are so frequentlie used in the Scriptures of God and especiallie in Sacraments as also in this Sacrament So nil ye will ye signs and symbols tropes and figurs ye must admit in the exposition of this Sacrament Last of all ye think a natural bodie cannot be spirituallie eaten Would you be so absurd and blasphemous as to have Christs bodie naturallie eaten For then his bodie must be naturallie chawed digested turned over in our substance and casten out in the draught and so be mortal and suffer again Apage hanc blasphemiam Let me ask you whither is Christs bodie the food of the soul or the food of the bodie If you say it is the food of the bodie to fill the bellie then I say it must be naturally eaten but you are blaspemous in so thinking But if you say it is the food of the soul as it is indeed and as our Savior saith John 6.35 then it cannot be eaten naturally For as the food of the body cannot be eaten spiritually so the food of the soul cannot be eaten naturally but spiritually by faith And if you understood this true eating of Christ by faith all your contention would take an end But this is the stone which ye stumble at and therefore ye forbid us to come in with a spiritual eating of Christs natural body as though it could be eaten otherwise then spiritually by faith Will you neither understand the Scriptures John 6 35. nor the ancient Fathers August tract 26. in Joh. 6 lib 3. de doct Christ cap. 16 Clemens Alex Hierom. S Basilius Bernardus supra citat nor your own Church Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 7. and your Canon Law de consecrat dist 1. cap. 5. who all acknowledge a spiritual eating of Christ by faith What gross darkness is this wherewith the Lord hath blinded you above all that ye cannot understand it As Christ dwells in us and we in him so do we eat him and drink him But the Apostle saith he dwells in us by faith Ephes 3. therefore we eat him and drink him by faith And seeing your Church grants that the eating of Christ corporally doth no good and the eating of him by faith only will bring eternal life as our Savior saith John 6. what needs then this corporal and real eating of Christ And why are ye like the gross and carnal Capernaits who can understand no eating but a corporal eating of him
And what is the cause that ye cannot understand the doctrine of your own Church which acknowledges a spiritual eating of Christ by faith both by the Word and by the Sacrament also de consecr dist 2. cap. Ut quid I had never have thought that ye had been so far blinded of the Lord. But I leave you to the Lord. Let the Christian Reader now judge whether our doctrine or yours be the invention of mans brain and which of them have their warrant out of the written Word of God M. Gilbert Brown And further I say of these words This is my body which shal be delivered for you 1. Cor. 11.24 which is a true proposition and therefore this must follow But there was no body delivered for us but the natural body of Christ therefore it was his natural body that he gave to his Disciples to be eaten Then if it were his natural body it was not natural bread As Saint Ambrose expounds the same Let us prove saith he this not to be that that nature formed but that thing which the blessing hath consecrate and greater strength to be in blessing then in nature for nature it self is changed by blessing He hath the same more amplie in the fourth book in the 4 chap. de Sacramentis Maister John Welsch his Reply First I answer the words of the Apostle is not as ye cite them here which shal be delivered but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is broken and in the present time and so in Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is given so you are not faithful in translating this place of Scripture both contrary to the Greek and Syriak copies Upon the which I reason thus this proposition is true This is my body which is broken for you so the Apostle saith but Christs body was not broken then really for not a bone of him was broken at all as the Scripture testifies Exod 12. and the Scripture saith John 19. and all men confesses that he suffered but once so only his sufferings are signified then by the breaking of the bread in the Sacrament here so as Christs body was not broken then really that is suffered but his suffering only signified by the breaking of the bread so his body was not given really and corporally to be eaten but only signified Secondly I say it is true that Christs natural body was delivered to the death for us but yet it will not follow upon this that it was his natural body which he gave to them to be eaten corporally for his natural body was really delivered to death for us and it was but given to them spiritually to be eaten You must coyn a new Logick M. Gilbert ere you can make these two stick together and the one necessarilie to follow upon the other For by that same reason you may as well conclud that Christ gave his natural body to be eaten corporally in the word for he gives himself to be eaten in his word as well as in his Sacrament 2. John 6.35 Bellarmin grants this also lib. 1. de Eucharist cap. 7. and also he gives that same body to them in the word which was delivered to death for the self same Christ is offered and received as well in the word as in the Sacrament So from his bodilie death to a corporal eating of him it will not follow And further by that same reason you may as well say that the Fathers before Christ under the Law did eat Christs body corporally for they ate that same spiritual food and drank that same spiritual drink in their Sacraments which we do now in ours So the Apostle testifies even that self same Christ his body and blood which was delivered to the death and yet it will not follow that they did eat his natural body c. As for Ambrose it is true he so speaks but he expones himself in that same chapter while as he saith Before the blessing another form or thing is named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified If the bread then signifie the body of Christ it is not changed in his body And because of this holy use to signifie the body of Christ Ambrose saith That the nature is changed by blessing and that this is his meaning his words following will declare it where he saith Shal not the words of Christ be of force to change the form of the elements In that same sense Ambrose saith the nature of the elements is changed in the which he saith the form of them is changed for he affirmeth both there But ye will not say I suppose unless you will overthrow your transubstantiation that Ambrose means that the form of the elements is changed in substance but only in use and signification for you say the forms remains therefore you must also grant that Ambrose means not by the change of nature the change of the substance of them but only the change in the use of them from a common use to a holy use And because it may be you will delay to subscribe to the truth of our doctrine until you hear the sentence and judgement of the Fathers Therefore I will set them down here Tertullian saith contra Marc. lib. 4. This is my body that is a figure of my body Chrysostome saith in 1. Cor. cap. 10. What is that which the bread signifies the body of Christ Theodoret saith dialog 1. and 2. The bread and wine is signs and figures of the body and blood of Christ And he saith Our Savior in the institution of the Sacrament enterchanged the names and gave to the sign or symbol the name of his body and these mystical signs of these holy things whereof are the signs Unto the which he answers Are they not signs of the body and blood of Christ Hieronymus saith in Mat. 2.6 That Christ by taking of the bread which comforts the heart of man representeth the truth of his bodie Cyrillus saith ad Euop Matth. 11. Bas Liturgia Nazian in orat 2. de Pas funere Gorg. Our Sacrament avoweth not the eating of a man Basilius and Nazianzen calls the bread and wine in the Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figurs or signs of the body of Christ Cyprian saith lib. 1. ep 6. ejus contra Adima cap. 12. Psal 3. The Lord called bread made of many grains his body and wine made of many grapes his blood Augustin saith Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body while as he gave but the sign of his body And he calls it the figure of his body and blood And their Canon Law saith de conseer dist 2. cap. Hoc est The heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is called after a manner the body of Christ while as it is but the Sacrament of his body And the Gloss there saith The heavenly bread that is the heavenly Sacrament which represents truly the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly I omit
the rest which is exceeding many and because if you be a right defender of the Catholick Faith you will say with the rest of your Clergie that the Pope cannot err Therefore a Pope Gelasius by name saith de duabus natura in Christo Neither the substance of the bread nor nature of the wine ceaseth to be any more then they were before but remain in their own substance And he calls them there An image and resemblance of the body and blood of Christ Now tell me Master Gilbert do not these speak as plain as we Will you avow your transubstantiation which they so flatly deny And as our Savior saith A Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand so the manifold divisions among your selves concerning this transubstantiation is a very sure argument of the falling both of you and your doctrine Some of you expounds this word hoc this (1) Bonaventure Gerson contra Florentiū lib. 4. of the bread (2) As Thomas lib. 4 seu dist 8. Occam in 4 sent d. 13. q. 16.17 Some of Christs body (3) Innocent 3 de offic miss pag. 3 object 14 Scotus in l. 46. d. 8. q. 3. and some calls it an individuum vagum (4) Durandus rational 4 some saith it signifieth nothing (5) Holcot in 4. sent quaest 1 and some saith it signifieth a thing which is common both to terminus à quo and terminus ad quem Secondly in the exposition of the word est is some for it is some for it is changed Thirdly some (a) Thomas saith the substance of the bread and wine returns to nothing some saith (b) The gloss of Gratian and the extravag de cōsecr dist 2 cap. Species c firmit extr de summa Trinitate it passes in the body of Christ Fourthly some saith (c) C. non oportet ibi gloss de consecrat dist 2. c. Cum Martha para verum eleemos the water in the Sacrament returns to nothing some saith it is changed in the blood with the wine some saith it is (d) Thomas 3974 art 8. turned in Christs vital humors some saith it is turned in the wine and after in the blood some saith (e) Durand lib. 4. cap. 42. they dare not define it Fifthly some saith (f) Thomas Epist 59. 3. quaest 79. the worms that are bred of the Sacrament comes of the quantitie other some saith (g) Durand lib. 3. cap. 41. they are bred of the substance Sixthly some saith Christ (h) Idem lib. 4. cap. 41. consecrated by the word he blessed some by the (i) M. Gilbert words This is my body and the blessing together some (k) Gloss in cap. Utrum in verbis perferri de cons dist 2. will have the consecration to be made in heaven and some frankly (l) Scotus in repor dist 8. qu. 2. confesses That they neither know the words nor the number of them whereby this consecration is made And to omit six hundred the like I will only touch these few (m) Gloss in l. tribus some saith The body of Christ is taken bodily with the mouth (n) Cajetan tom 2. cap. 2. 3. 5. some saith That it feeds (o) Gloss ibidem some saith As soon as it is pressed with the teeth the body of Christ is caught up to heaven (p) Durand rational lib. 4. But other some faith It passeth from the teeth to the heart and then the bodily presence ceases (q) Bonavent 4. dist 13. art 2. qu. 2. and other some will have him go to the stomack c. but not to the mind And yet he saith He doubts whither he goes to the belly or not for the variety of opinions and in so great variety he saith what to hold is hard to judge And suppose he holds it That the body of Christ goes not into the belly of a mouse or is casten out into the draught because saith he the ears of well disposed persons would abhor it and infidels and hereticks would jest at it and laugh us to scorn Yet sundry others holds as Alexander de Hales part quaest 45. Thomas Aquin parte 3. qu. 80. art 3. Antonius Archiepisc part 3. tit 13. cap. 6. That not only it goes into the belly but also Christs body may be vomited up or purged out in the draught and that brute beasts may eat Christs body it may go into the belly of dogs and swine O filthy mouthes unclean spirits what heretick what Capernait was ever so gross and carnal yea so barbarous and brutish as ye are So not only are ye more gross then the Capernaits who thought that saying hard but also like the barbarous Canibals who eat the flesh of man O blind leaders of the blind shal myce dogs and swine eat and drink the precious body and blood of Christ Shal they then have eternal life I think the ears of all Christians will abhor this your doctrine and their hearts will tremble at it These absurdities together with Scriptures and Fathers against the same hath made some of your great pillars to say as Fisher against the captivity of Babylon That no man can prove by the words of the Gospel that any Priest in these days doth consecrat the very body and blood of Christ And others as Lindanus Panop lib. 4. Canisius and Petrus a Soto supra citati That transubstantiation it but a tradition which hath not the author of it in the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same And others as Tonstal de Sacramentis That it had been better to have left every man to his own conjecture as they were before the Council of Lateran then to bring in such a question I have been longsome in this but yet it so behoved me because it is the foundation of their sacrifice of the Mass and their other idolatries and abominations So then to conclud this seeing your doctrine of Transubstantiation is agreeable neither to the doctrine of Christ nor his Apostles nor ancient Fathers nor your own Canon Law and Popes as they have been cited And seeing ye are at such variance among your selves concerning the same therefore it is to be rejected as heretical damnable and blasphemous by all Christians And this for the fourth point of your doctrine SECTION X. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass Master Gilbert Brown WE have only in our Church that heavenly action and sacrifice which we call the blessed Mass that our Savior did at his latter Supper and was (a) Levit. 2. per totum 6.20 prefigured by the Law of Moses and fore-spoken by the (b) Mal. 1.10 11. Isai 19.19.21 and 56.7 Prophets For Christ being the chief Priest of all Priests according to the order of (c) Genes 14.18 Psal 109.4 Heb. 7.3.17 Melchisedec in this action according to the order of (d) Heb. 9.12.13.14 Aaron upon the Cross took (e) Matth.
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
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
that Christ cannot be offered up often because then he must die often then this doctrine of yours is against the Scripture that saith Christ may be offered up often and yet not die often But if you will say this is spoken of that bloody sacrifice I grant that and I say the Apostle knew not nor never spake of another sacrifice and therefore your doctrine is vain that would have another sacrifice then ever the Apostles in the whole Scripture have made mention of And I say thirdly this distinction of yours cannot stand with your own doctrine for if there be a true sacrifice of Christ properly in your Mass as ye say then his blood must be truly shed and he must truly die for this is the nature of all such sacrifices for sin as Bellarmin grants it lib. 1. de missa fol. 725 saying If there be not a true and real slaughter of Christ in the Mass then is not the Mass a true and real sacrifice And also In all true real external sacrifices the sacrifice must be a thing sensible and must be made holy of a prophane thing as Bellarmin confesses and these conditions he requires in the definition of the same but this I hope ye will not say of Christ for he is holy always and is insensible in your sacrifice and cannot be slain again therefore properly there can be no true sacrifice of Christ in your Mass by your own doctrine To conclud this then For these causes we reject this abomination of your Mass First because Christ cannot be offered up in a sacrifice but he must die also as hath been proved and the Scripture testifies that he hath once died and all Christians confesses it Secondly because the death of Christ is a sufficient satisfaction for our sins and so we need not that he should be offered up again to satisfie for the same Thirdly because the Spirit of Christ and faith by the outward means of the Word and Sacraments and censures is a sufficient mean to apply him to us and so we need not the sacrifice of the Mass for that end Fourthly because Christ only is the Priest of the New Testament who hath no successors and whose Priesthood cannot pass from one to another because he lives for evermore and he only can be sacrificed by himself and therefore he only can offer up himself which he hath once done upon the cross Fifthly because the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is perfect and the vertue of it indures for ever and it cannot nor should not be reiterat Sixthly because the Scripture propones Christ now sitting in glory at the right hand of his Majesty and not under the forms of bread and wine in your sacrifice And seventhly because it is but the devise of man wanting God to bear witness to it in the Scripture repugnant to that only one sacrifice of his upon the cross abolishing the fruits of his death and passion turning the Sacrament of the Supper in abominable idolatry causing men to worship a bit of bread as the Son of God And last because it spoils men of the fruit of the Sacrament Therefore in all these respects it is abominable to be detested and in no sort to be communicated with Unto this I will adjoin some testimonies of some of the ancient Fathers whereby it is manifest what their doctrine and judgement was concerning this point Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 1. Paedagog cap. 2. in strom who was near the Apostles days saith We sacrifice not at all unto God meaning with a real and external sacrifice but we glorifie him who was sacrificed for us And then he subjoins what kind of sacrifices they offered up to God to wit a sacrifice spiritual of themselves of prayer and of righteousness And upon what altar to wit upon the altar of our souls with the parfume of their prayers Justinus Martyr saith in Tryphon in expos fidei I dare saith he affirm that there is no other sacrifice perfect and acceptable to God but supplications and thanksgiving And he saith That Christians have learned to offer up these sacrifices only Tertullian saith advers Judaeos That it behoves us to sacrifice unto God not earthly but spiritual things so we read as it is written A contrit heart is a sacrifice to God Origen saith in Epist. ad Rom. in homil 2. in Cant. lib. 8. contra Celsum The blood of Christ is only sufficient for the redemption of all men what need then hath the Church of any other propiciatory sacrifice And as for the sacrifice of Christians he saith They are their prayers and supplications It was a common reproach wherewith the Christians were charged by the Pagans three hundred years after Christ that they had no altars unto the which their common answer was That their altars were a holy soul not corruptible altars but immortal altars If then the Christians had no material altars the first three hundred years after Christ as Clemens Alexandrius lib. 7. Strom. Origen ibid. contra Celsum Minutius Foelix lib. 2. 4. and Arnobius do testifie therefore it must follow they had no external sacrifices nor Masses all that time so there was no Masses the first three hundred years after Christ seeing there was no altars Epiphanius saith contra Marc. haeres 42. 55. That God by the coming of Christ hath taken away all the use of sacrifice by that one sacrifice of Christ Athanasius saith in orat 3. contra Arrianumâ— That the sacrifice of Christ once offered up hath accomplished all things and remains for ever and that he is a Priest without succession The same saith Basile in Isaiae cap. 1. And he saith further There is no more question of a continual sacrifice for there is but one sacrifice which is Christ and the mortification of his Saints Because it were over longsome to set down the sentences of the rest therefore I will only quote them Irenaeus lib. 4. cap 34. Cyprianus de baptismo Christi Athenag in Apolog. pro Christianis Lactant. lib. 6. cap. 26. Euseb de demonst lib. 1. cap. 6. lib. 3. cap. 4. Greg. Nazianz. in Pasch orat 2. Euseb Nissen de coena Domini Chrysost advers Judaeos orat 4. in Joh. homil 17. ad Heb. homil 13. homil de cruce spirit 3. in Matth. hom 83. ad Heb. hom 26 hom 17 hom 7. Cyrillus lib. 1. contra Julianum ad Hebraeos homil 11. Ambrosius ad Hebâ— cap. 10. ad Theod. Epist 28. in Epist ad Rom. cap. 12. Hieronymus in Isaiam cap. 1. in Psal 26 49 50. Augustinus de fide ad Petrum Diacon cap. 2. de Trinitate lib. 4 cap. 1. 14. in Psal 49. de civitate Dei lib. 10. cap. 4. 6 Idem de tempore I would desire M. Gilbert to read the same And if he will believe them I am sure he will leave off to be a
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
Acts 2. and Thomas of Aquin 3. part quaest 52. art 1. 3. two great Papists and yet Bonaventure in 3. distinct 22. quaest 4. and Bellarmin lib. 4. de Christo cap. 16. affirms the contrary That his soul was in the place of pain and yet suffered no pain Next Thomas of Aquin affirms 3. part qu. 52. That Christ descended only into that place of hell called Limbus Patrum but Bellarmin saith It is more probable that he went to all the parts of hell And this is the consent which you Papists have among your selves not only in this point but almost in all the points of your doctrine Now as to the places of Scripture which ye quote they serve nothing to this purpose For the 2. of the Acts it speaks of that bondage of the grave which kept him under until he rose again and therefore the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth death and not hell as ye translate it here and Peter saith whom God raised up The Apostle speaks then of that part of Christ which had fallen and was raised up but it was the body only and not the soul which fell down and was raised up therefore he speaks of the sorrows of death whereby his body was kept in bondage and not of any local descension of Christs soul As for the places of the Psalms which ye quote here Peter brings them not in to prove this local descension as ye say whereof he makes no mention but to prove his resurrection as he saith in the 31. verse most plainly He knowing this before speaking of David spake of the resurrection of Christ that his soul should not remain in grave neither his flesh should see corruption So if ye will believe the Spirit of God in the Apostle interpreting these places they speak of the resurrection of Christ and not of the delivering of the soul out of hell for he was in Paradise as he saith himself and it is the body that was raised and not the soul And the Hebrew word is NEPHESCH which not only signifieth the soul but also the life as Gen. 37.21 Let us smite his soul that is take away his life And it signifieth also the body of the dead wherein there was life as Levit. 21.1.11 And this word Hell is SCHEOL in Hebrew which most usually is taken in the Scripture for the grave So then the meaning is this The Lord will not leave his Nephesch that is the body wherein his life was in Scheol that is in the grave which speech is usual in the Scripture Now as to the other Psalm 29.3 it is spoken properly of David where he thanketh God who had saved his life from the hands of his enemies which by a borrowed speech frequented in the Scripture is called the delivery of his soul from the grave As for the 4. of the Ephesians these lower parts of the earth is not Hell as ye expone it but the earth it self which in respect of the world is the lowest part and so it is taken in the Psalm 139 15. where David saith Thou hast fashioned me beneath in the lower parts of the earth where here it is not taken for Hell as you take it in that place of the Ephesians otherwise ye must say that David was born in Hell which I suppose ye will not say So hereby is meant then the lowest and basest degree of his humiliation So now to conclud this neither in these points M. Gilbert nor in any point of doctrine wherein ye differ from us is your doctrine agreeable to Christs doctrine and his Apostles as hath been I hope proved sufficiently You must therefore provide you for better weapons and armor and stronger defences for the overthrow of our doctrine and uphold of yours then ye have done otherwise your shots will be but as shots of paper and your bulwarks but of intempered morter which suddenly will rush down at the light of the truth of God The Lord open your eyes to see the truth and suffer you not to continue any longer to cause the blind go out of the way as you have done Amen SECTION XX. Concerning the difference betwixt Popery and the Reformed Religion Master John Welsch ANd our Religion which we profess and all the particular heads of it was instituted by Jesus Christ and his Apostles which I offer me also to prove either by word or writ against whosoever will plead the contrary The which if I fail in I will be content to lose my life therefore by his grace Master Gilbert Brown There is much promised here but nothing done and it is a thing impossible to him to do For why the difference chiefly that the Protestants differ from us is in denying abhorring or detesting as may be seen in their Confession of Faith which they compel all men to swear and subscribe As we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God upon the Church the civil Magistrat c. except such things were expresly contained in the Word of God M. John Welsch his Reply As for my promise and performance I answere◠〈◊〉 that before and whither that be a thing unpossible 〈◊〉 or not let this my answer be a tryal thereof You are bold enough indeed in affirming it to be impossible but what have ye for you You say because the difference chiefly that we differ from you is in denying and abhorring What a raison is this Can we not prove our Religion out of the Scripture because we deny yours which is contrary to the same Is it impossible to prove the truth because falshood is denyed and abhorred What new Logick or Divinity is this I would never have believed that ye had been such an unskilful reasoner if your self had not bewrayed the same And certainly your Church is not beholden to you For if your reason hold forth it will follow that it is impossible to you or any man else to prove the heads of your Religion by the Scripture For in your Confession of Faith and form of abjuration set down by the Monks of Burdeaux anno 1585. there they deny and abhor the Protestants and their doctrine and compel all men who desire the fellowship of the Roman Church and their absolution to abjure renounce and subscribe the same But I suppose your Church will not allow this manner of reasoning of yours And whereas you say that the chief difference wherein we differ from you is in denying and abhorring c. of your Religion I ask you Doth not our Religion differ as far from yours as yours doth from us This you cannot deny For are not two contraries equally different one from another Doth not light differ as far from darkness white from black Christ from Antichrist as darkness from light black from white and Antichrist from Christ And are not yours and our Religions contrary one to another But your self will not deny and Bellarmin confesseth in
old heresie in the very time of the Apostles Maister John Welsch his Reply As for this calumny of yours the tryal of it will come in afterward therefore I refer the answer of it to that place And whereas you say that you know not whom I call Fathers either your malice makes you to dissemble your knowledge in this or else palpable must your ignorance be And where you say that Ireneus Cyprian c. and the rest of the holy Fathers are no ways with us against you and that I will not be able to prove it I have not only proved that already in sundry heads of our Religion but also that sundry of your own Popes Cardinals Doctors Bishops Councils and Canon Law have been with us in sundry points of our Religion which we profess against that which ye profess And as for that example of justification by faith only which ye cast in which is one of the chief grounds of our Religion This I will prove both by the Scripture and by the testimonies of the Fathers of the first six hundred years Our doctrine then concerning Justification is this That as our sins was not inherent in Christ but imputed to him 2. Cor. 5 21. which was the cause of his death so his righteousness whereby we are accounted righteous before God is not inherent in us but imputed to us and therefore the Scripture saith that he is made of God unto us righteousness 1. Cor. 1.30 Next the only instrument that apprehends and as it were takes hold of this righteousness of Christ is a lively Faith which works by love and brings forth good fruits so that neither is Faith an efficient or meritorious cause of our salvation for only Christs death and righteousness is that but only an instrument to apprehend the same Neither is every Faith this instrument but only that living Faith which I have spoken of so that true Faith is never without the fruits of good works no more then fire is without heat and yet neither are our works nor the work of Faith it self the meritorious cause of our salvation but only Christs death and righteousness Neither are the fruits of this lively Faith the instrument to apprehend and take hold of Christs righteousness but only Faith it self This then is our doctrine which is so plainly confirmed by the Scripture that he must be exceeding blind that seeth it not The places to confirm the same are these Rom. 3.28 We conclud that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were justified by works then hath he wherein to rejoyce but not with God Ephes 2.9 By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of your selves for it is the gift of God not by works that none should boast And Phil. 3.9 I have counted all things loss that I might win Christ and might be found in him not having my own righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God through faith And again Tit. 3.5 Not by the works of righteousness which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Seeing the Scripture so expresly removes all works both of nature and of grace both going before Faith and following after it and therefore the Apostle saith We are not saved by the works of righteousness which we had done and of all men even of those who were justified already and sanctified as Abraham Paul and the Ephesians were from our justification and salvation as the causes thereof therefore we are only justified and saved by a lively Faith apprehending the righteousness of Christ Secondly the Scripture not only removes works as we have said from the cause of our Justification and salvation but also ascribes it to Faith as in these places John 3.16 Whosoever believeth in him shal have eternal life And Luke 8.48 Thy faith hath saved thee c. And again Ephes 2.9 We are saved through faith And Rom. 4.3.4.5 Man is justified by faith And Rom. 3.26.28.30 God shal justifie circumcision of faith and incircumcision through faith And Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness And lest ye should say the Scripture hath not by Faith only read the 8. of Luke and 50. verse where our Savior saith to Jairus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only believe and she shal be saved Therefore Faith is the only instrument to lay hold on the promise of God And lest ye should say this was not a justifying Faith I answer This Faith which Jairus had was that same Faith which the woman with the bloody issue had but her Faith not only healed her body but her soul also Luke 8.48 which Bellarmin grants lib. 1. de justif cap. 17. pag. 84. our Savior testifieth saying Thy faith hath saved thee c. therefore this is a justifying Faith also Secondly seeing the Faith of miracles justifying Faith is both one in substance with your Church as Bellarmin c. 5. l. de justif the Rhemists annot in 2. Cor. 12. say if it be a greater work to work miracles as they say then to be justified therefore if only Faith suffice to obtain miracles as Bellarmin grants lib. 1. cap. 20. pag. 97. why should not Faith only be also sufficient to justifie For if it suffice for the greater work much more for the less Thirdly the Scripture ascribes our Justification to grace and not to works and so oppones them that the one cannot stand with the other in the matter of our Justification We are justified saith he freely by grace and not by works Rom. 3.24 And to him that worketh the reward is imputed not according to grace but to debt but to him who worketh not but believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly his faith is imputed to him for righteousness Rom. 4.4 And in another place If it be of grace it is no more of works or else were grace no more grace but if it be of works it is no more grace or else work were no more work Rom. 11.6 Seeing therefore our Justification is only of free grace and grace if the Apostle be true cannot stand with works therefore our Justification is not by works or else it were not of grace and so not at all and so the foundation of our salvation were overturned I hope therefore this our doctrine of Justification is plainly warranted by the Scripture Now to the Fathers because ye say it cannot be proved by them they speak as plainly as we do Origen hath these words in epist ad Rom. cap. 3 And the Apostle saith that the justification of faith only sufficeth solius fidei so that he that believeth only is justified suppose no work be fulfilled of him Hilarius Canon 8. in Matth. saith For only faith justifieth fides enim sola justificat Basilius in homil de humil saith This is a perfect rejoicing in God when a man vaunts
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
For if appears that either ye are not acquainted with the Histories of that age or else ye dissemble it of purpose for John Wicleff he left so many behind him in England who professed our Religion that though your Prelats did molest them what they could yet they and their favorers in short time grew to such strength and multitude that by the year 1422. which was an hundred years immediatly before Luther Henry Chichesley the Archbishop of Canterbury wrot to the Pope that they all could not be suppressed they were so many but by force of war The professors of our Religion began to gather so great force in Bohemia after the burning of John Hus and Jerome of Prague at the Council of Constance which was about the year 1417. which was just an hundred years immediatly before Luther that they were able not only to defend themselves by force of armes against the tyrannie of your Popes but also obtained many notable victories against the strongest power that the Pope did raise against them In England William Taylor was burnt anno 1422. and two years after that William White was burnt And betwixt that time and 1430. Father Abraham of Colchester John Wadden and Richard Hovington were burnt And after that Richard Wiche and John Goose one Braban and one Jerome and others with him were burnt Hieronymus Savanarola a Monk in Italie with two others named Dominick and Sylvester were condemned to death at Florence in the year 1500. with sundry others whom for shortness I omit here Now surely I cannot but wonder M. Gilbert that ye should have been so impudent as to have set it down in writ that I could get none that professed our Religion an hundred years immediatly before Martin Luther But the Reader may gather what credit he may give to your notes and yet with such impudent lies ye blind the poor people Upon the which I gather that both these conclusions of yours is false For the Church of Christ in all ages even from the Apostles days to this day hath ever had her own teachers and professors unto whom Martin Luther hath succeeded in his Religion suppose not in the like frequencie and puritie and that by reason partly of the smoke of that bottemless pit that is of your doctrine which darkned both the Sun and the air Rev. 9.2 that is both teachers and people and partly by your extream persecution whereby ye made war with the Saints of God and overcame them Rev 13 7. But your smoke will evanish away at the last and the clear light of the Lord shal shine more and more maugre all your hearts SECTION XXV That the Reformed Churches have not renewed old condemned Heresies Master Gilbert Brown BUt that M. John shal not think that we slander him and his â—iâ—h old condemned heresies let him read S. Augustin Epiphanius and others noted here as of these and many the like 1. Novatus forsook the Pope of Rome Cornelius and caused others do the like as Eusebius hist lib. 6. cap. 33. and Nicephorus report lib. 6. cap. 30. 2. Aërus the heretick denyed that offering or prayers should be done for the dead and that fasting should be free as S. Augustine and Epiphane declare haeres 75. 3. Eunomius and Aërius held that only faith justifieth as Augustin haeres 55. lib. de fide operibus and Epiphanius haeres 76. write Master John Welsch his Reply Now are we by Gods grace come unto your last calumnie in affirming that we renew old condemned heresies This is indeed M. Gilbert a heavie challenge if it were true but it is but like the rest of your calumnies yea it hath less appearance of truth then any thing which ye have spoken against us A liar M. Gilbert shal not enter in that heavenly city but his portion shal be in that lake that burne with fire and brimstone Rev. 19.20 22.15 And he that slandereth his neighbor much more then he who slandereth the truth of God shal not rest in the Lords holy mountain Psal 15 3. But to come to the first Novatus intruded himself in another mans charge and caused set up himself against Cornelius the lawful Pastor of the Church in Rome then and that craftily and withdrew many of his flock from him which is as contrary to our doctrine as black to white For we teach that every Pastor should have his own particular flock as Cornelius had then in Rome and no man should intrude himself in another mans charge as he did So this is a calumny M. Gilbert But your Popes are like Novatus who not only have disturbed all the Christian Congregations in Europe almost by setting up and thrusting down such Pastors as they would but also all the Kingdoms in Europe As for this doctrine of Aerius I answer you as ye did me I contend not whether he taught this doctrine or not for the Scriptures have taught the same But our contention is whether they be heresie or not which you have not proved nor ever will be able to prove by the Scripture It is true Epiphanius and Augustin following him reckon him among hereticks but Theodoretus in his Book de fabulis Judaeorum and the Ecclesiastical History reckon him not among hereticks and he was not condemned for an heretick in any Council that therefore which he taught according to the Scripture we imbrace But as for the errors of the Aërians which are errors indeed and which are ascribed unto them as the damning of marriage urging of continency requiring them whom they receive to their fellowship to forsake their own proper things These heresies I say your Church hath renewed who damns marriage and urges continency in your Clergy and receives none to your religious Orders but such as refuse their own proper things As to the third the Aërian and Eunomian heresies they secluded holiness of life from that faith of theirs and taught such a faith that might stand with whatsoever sins and with perseverance in them Will you stand to this M. Gilbert before the Lord that we teach such doctrine Is not this our doctrine that only living faith which works by love and brings forth good fruits doth justifie But you are like to them that know no other justifying faith but such a faith as both the reprobats and the Devils may have So this is your third calumnie M. Gilbert Brown 4. Simon Magus Marcion and Manichaeus denyed that man had free-will as Augustin haeres 46. Jerome and Epiphanius haeres 42. make mention 5. Jovinianus affirmed that Priests marriage was lawful after the lawful vow of chastity He moved sundry Nuns to marry in the city of Rome He made fasting and abstinence from meat superfluous as Augustin writes of him haeres 82. item lib. 1. cap. 7 de peccat merit remiss 6. Vigilantius denyed the prayer to Saints as S. Jerome contra Vigilantium writes He despised the burning of lights and candles in the Churches in the day
upon this rock But your Popes of Rome are not one singular person but many Therefore your Popes of Rome are not this rock upon the which Christ promised to build his Church What difference is there between your argument for the Pope and this argument against the Pope seeing both are grounded upon the like phrase Choose you then M. Gilbert whether will you have the Antichrist not to be one singular person but a succession of many Or will you have the Popes not to be the rock whereupon the Church is built For the one ye must Thirdly I say the Apostle Paul saith speaking of the Antichrist That the mystery of iniquity is begun even now to work 2. Thess 2.7 And John saith This is the spirit of that Antichrist which ye heard was to come and is even now present in the world 1. John 4.3 And the Apostle saith The Lord shal destroy him with his presence 2. Thess 2.8 And your doctrine is that he shal not come while the end of the world Now what a monstrous man will you make him whose spirit was in the dayes of the Apostles and who must continue till the end of the world if the Scripture be true a man of fifteen hundred years of age already Is this credible Or are you able to perswade men that have but the least drop of reason left in them and believe the Scripture that the Antichrist should be but one singular man since the Scripture saith that his spirit was present in the world and his iniquity even then began to work in the Apostles dayes that is ◠1500. years since and he shal continue to the end of the world Fourthly is it possible that one singular person can perform all these things which either the Scripture or your own doctrine tell he shal do For the Scripture saith He shal resemble the Lamb with horns He shal speak like the Dragon He shal do all the power of the former Beast He shal make all men to worship the beasts image He shal make all both rich and smal c. to receive his mark c. so that no man shal buy or sell but he that hath his mark c. so that all Nations shal be drunken with the wine of her fornication Rev. 13 and 14. and 17. and 18. And your doctrine is that he shal build the Temple of Jerusalem which the Turks have now in possession that he shal destroy Rome that he shal abolish all Religion and all the outward ceremonies thereof that he shal conquer and overcome the strongest Empires in the earth and be Monarch of the whole world Bellarm. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. and Rhemists annot upon 2. Thess 2. and Sanderus in his demonstrations Now is it likely or can it be that any one mortal man is able to perform so great and so wonderful things Was there ever yet any King Emperor or any other creature under heaven that ever performed so great and wonderful things and specially in so short a time as ye assign to your imaginary Antichrist as of three years and an half That one city of Troy kept all the Grecians for the space of ten years almost besieging it before they could overcome it The Temple of Jerusalem was seven years in building by Solomon who had riches and wealth above all the Kings in the earth who had an hundred fifty three thousand and six hundred workmen for the same 2. Chron. 2. That great Conqueror Alexander with whom no Monarch is comparable neither in power nor happy success was not able to conquer all Asia the space of ten years which was the fourth part of the world And shal we think that a miserable Jew by the help of their scattered people being an enemy to God and all good men shal be able to overcome that great Monarchy of the Turks against whom all the power of Christendom hath not prevailed not only to overcome them but also to overcome all the Empires and Kingdoms in the earth and to restore the city of Jerusalem and build the Temple again from the foundation and abolish all Religion both true and false except his own For this is the doctrine of your Church concerning the Antichrist and that in so short a time as three years and an half as you ascribe unto him Who will believe you M. Gilbert Will any Turk Christian or Jew himself believe that any one man suppose his age were never so long and his person never so strong can be able to accomplish and perform so many and so wonderful things as your own doctrine affirms shal be done by the Antichrist So this doctrine of yours that the Antichrist shal be but one singular person can neither stand with the Scripture nor yet with your own doctrine concerning the Antichrist Fifthly as partly hath been proved this is the common phrase of the Scripture in the person of one to understand a multitude And therefore Daniel in the describing of the Monarchies he compares them to sundry beasts in the singular number to a Lyon a Bear a Leopard c. and yet by them was not signified one certain person but a succession of Kings in the self-same Kingdom and therefore the Antichrist is likened to a beast to signifie a Kingdom and succession of persons in that Kingdom Rev. 13. Tertullian calls the Antichrist A City which prostituts its self to fornication to wit spiritual de resurrectione carnis Ambrose in Apoc. 17 calls the woman clad with purple who is Antichrist the city of the Devil Augustin calls that beast which is the Antichrist the ungodly and body of the wicked who fights against the Lamb a people contrary the people of God which joyntly with their head is called the Antichrist an heretical Church which is called Babylon Nonnulli non ipsum Principem sed universum quodammodo corpus ejus id est ad eum pertinentem hominùm multitudinem simul cum suo Principe hoc loco Antichristum intelligi volunt Homil. 10. in Apoc. homil 13. de civitate Dei lib. 18. cap. 2. lib. 20. cap. 19. Gregory a Pope saith in moralibus lib. 33. cap. 26 The beast is a multitude of them who preach the Antichrist And Thomas a Papist saith The beast which is the Antichrist is a body and so not a singular person And the ordinar Gloss saith The head and the body together make the Antichrist And Hugo a Cardinal calls him an university or commonality So not only the Scripture and reason but also the testimonies of these Fathers and some of your selves concurr all in this that the Antichrist is not a singular person but a body an estat a succession So I hope the Reader hath seen nothing either by Scripture or by reason alledged by M. Gilbert wherefore the Pope may not be the Antichrist Master Gilbert Brown Thirdly S. Paul saith He shal be an adversary and is extolled above all that is called God or that
Antichrist is called an adversary that is opposed and contrary to God and that not in life only but in doctrine Religion and government and that not in one point only but almost in all the substantial points thereof The which mark the Popes of Rome bear and that not only in their lives but also in the whole substantial points of Religion And to make this clear besides that which hath been spoken we shal compare the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the government of his Kingdom set down in the Scripture with the doctrine of the Popes and the manner of their government that the contrariety of them may be known so that it shal be seen that cold is no more contrary to heat and black to white then Papism to Christianity and the Religion of the Church of Rome to the Religion of Christ Jesus The doctrine of Christ stands especially in these two things in the knowledge of his person and in the knowledge of his offices And therefore the Apostle saith I desire to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified 1. Cor. 2.2 And Christ himself saith It is life eternal to know thee to be the only true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ John 17 3. The doctrine of the Popes of Rome overthrows both And first to prove this concerning his person the Scripture testifies that Jesus Christ is conceived of the substance of the Virgin Mary and that he hath but one true body made of the seed of David and of the seed of the woman Rom. 1.3 Gal. 4. 4 and not many and that he is like unto us in all things except sin Heb. 2.17 The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that Christ Jesus his body is made of the bread and wine in the Sacrament their doctrine makes him to have as many bodies as there is bits of bread in the Sacrament and not to be like his brethren in all things except sin Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharistia fol. 399. Pope John 22. lib. orat in scr antidotarius animae for his brethren can be but in one place at once with their own due proportion visibly But their doctrine of Transubstantiation makes him to be both in heaven and earth at once in heaven visibly in earth invisibly in heaven with his own quantity and proportion in earth without his natural proportion and not in one place of the earth only but in innumerable places thereof at once so that this main foundation of mans salvation without the which there is no eternal life concerning the truth of Christs manhood made of the woman is utterly defaced and overthrown by the doctrine of the Popes of Rome in making him to have infinit bodies not made of the feed of the woman but of bread and wine or at the least made of two diverse substances And as they overthrow the doctrine of his person so they overthrow the doctrine of his offices His offices are three a Prophet a Priest and a King which are all overthrown by them As he is a Prophet he hath revealed his Fathers whole will unto his servants John 1.18 and hath left it in register in his latter Testament and hath forbidden to add empair or to alter the same Deut. 4.2 and hath pronounced a wo a curse unto them that adds empairs or alters the same Rev. 22.18 Gal. 1.8 and that because it is sufficient to make a man wise unto salvation and to make the man of God perfect unto every good work 2. Tim. 3.15.16 and because it is pure and perfect and easie to all them that will understand it Prov. 8.9 Psal 19.8.9 13. 119. But they have many wayes corrupted this Testament of Christ by mingling and adulterating the same First in that they give divine authority to the Books called Apocrypha which are humain Concil Trident. Sess 4. Next in receiving and commanding others to receive traditions with equal reverence and affection with the Scripture Thirdly in their corrupt Latin translation which they have made authentical which some of themselves confess have missed sometimes the meaning of the holy Ghost Bud. annot prior in Pandect Andrad lib. 4. Arias Montanus Tom. 8. Bibl. Reg. in praefat Fourthly in joyning with the Commandments of God their own commandments and that not as things indifferent but as necessary to salvation Concil Trident. Sess 6 cap. 10. Fifthly in condemning all sense and meaning of the holy Scripture but that which they hold themselves Sess 4. Last of all in quarrelling the Scripture of imperfection obscurity and ambiguity calling it dead and dumb like a nose of wax They therefore who have altered added and corrupted the Testament of Jesus Christ confirmed by his death which he hath left in writ for to instruct his Church in all things and to make her wise to salvation and perfect to every good work doth spoil the Lord Jesus of his Prophetical office But the doctrine of the Church of Rome hath done so Ergo they spoyl Jesus Christ of his Prophetical office Thirdly they are no less sacrilegious and injurious to his Priesthood His Priesthood stands in two things First in purchasing unto us by the vertue of that one sacrifice once offered up upon the Cross an everlasting redemption Next in making continual intercession for us with his Father Heb. 9.11.12 15.24.25.26.27.28 the which both are overthrown by the doctrine of the Church of Rome As to the first it is overthrown many wayes as first our Savior saith That his soul was sorrowful unto the death and that he swat drops of blood Matth. 26.37.38 and he sent up strong cryes and supplications with tears in the dayes of his flesh Heb. 5.7 Luke 22.44 and therefore he thrise upon his knees prays That if it had been possible that cup might be removed from him Matth. 27.39 And upon the Cross through the sense and feeling of that wrath he breaks forth in that complaint My God my God why hast thou forsaken me All which do testifie that he suffered more then a common death to wit the terrors of the wrath of God which was due to the sins of all the elect But the doctrine of the Church of Rome ranverseth this doctrine of our salvation and teacheth that Christ suffered not the wrath of God upon his soul which if it be true then Christ hath not payed our debt sufficiently for our debt was not only the natural death of the body but the wrath of God upon the soul and therefore the Scripture saith The soul that sinneth shal die the death Ezech. 18.20 Secondly the Scripture testifieth that Christs death and blood is a sufficient ransom for our sins and a sufficient satisfaction unto the justice of God Heb. 10.10.14 John 19.28 1. Tim. 2.6 1. Pet. 2.24 1. John 1.7 They by the contrary joyn to his satisfaction the satisfactions of men both in this life and in the life to come in Purgatory and that not only for their own sins but for
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
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
That which is offered is ordained to a true real and voluntar destruction But Christ now being glorified cannot be changed and utterly destroyed therefore he cannot be sacrificed if your selves speak true or else as oft as he is sacrificed in your Mass he is utterly destroyed which is blasphemy Seventhly the Scripture saith Where there is remission of sins there is no more offering Heb. 10.18 That is all external propiciatory sacrifice ceases but remission of sins is already obtained by the death of Christ as the Scripture testifieth Heb. 1.3 and your selves will not deny Therefore there needs no more oblation of Christ in your Mass for the same Eightly the Scripture saith That without shedding of blood there is no remission Heb. 9 22 But in your sacrifice of the Mass there is no shedding of blood as your selves grants For ye call it an unbloody sacrifice therefore by your sacrifice of the Mass there is no remission of sin Further the Scripture acknowledges no other Priest of the New Testament but Christ only These Priests saith the Apostle to the Hebrews 5. and 7. speaking of the Priests of the Old Testament were many because death hindered them to indure but he speaking of Christ because he abides for ever hath an everlasting Priesthood which cannot pass from one to another So Christ is the only Priest of the New Testament Now if it be true which you say that Christ is offered up in your Mass and that by your Mass-Priests then are there mo Priests of the New Testament then Christ which is plain against the Scriptures What will you say to this That Christ is the principal Priest of the New Testament and yours are secondary Priests and under him by whose ministery he offereth up himself to God But first was not the Priests of the Old Testameâ—t only secondary Priests This you will not deny seeing their sacrifices were figurs of his and their Priesthood figurs of his Priesthood But the Apostle oppones the Priesthood of Christ not to another principal Priesthood but to the Priesthood of men which was but secondary and saith it cannot stand with that secondary Priesthood in the Old Testament therefore it cannot stand with your Priesthood of the New Testament And the reason which the Apostle alledges will not only serve to exclud the Priests of the Old Testament that was but secundary Priests also but also all other sacrificing Priests whatsoever of the propiciatory sacrifice of the New Testament For the reason is because he bides for ever and hath a Priesthood which cannot pass from one to another which will serve as well against your Mass-Priests as against them For they are mortal as the Priests of the Old Testament were and his Priesthood cannot pass from one to another as it might have done among the Priests of the Old Testament and also doth among your Priests For to what purpose should your Priesthood and sacrifice serve seeing Christ his sacrifice hath fulfilled all the types of all the sacrifices of the Old Testament If you say to signifie Christ his sacrifice to come as theirs did then that is false for he is sacrificed already But if you say to signifie and represent his sacrifice already done then I say what needs him to be sacrificed again for that purpose For the Word and Sacraments doth represent him sufficiently and so your Mass needs not to represent his sacrifice And if you say it represents his sacrifice then I say it is not one with that sacrifice of his upon the cross which you will be loath to grant For your Church saith that it is one with that in substance And I say further if your will say with Bellarmin lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. That this place of the Apostle only excluds absolutly the multiplication of Priests in the same dignity and power with Christ that then they exclud yours also For if you offer up the same sacrifice which he offered up then you have the same power and dignity which he had But this you say you do For it is no matter of the difference of the manner since the sacrifice is one Seeing therefore Christ God and Man which ye say ye offer up in your Mass is of that same dignity which he was of when he was offered up upon the cross and seeing the equal dignity of the sacrifice makes the equal dignity of the Priest that offers it up therefore sacrilegious are your Mass-Priests and excluded here by the Apostle And thirdly I say this is a vain distinction of yours of principal and chief Priest and secondary Priests For this is the nature of this sacrifice of Christ that it cannot be offered up by none but by himself And fourthly if your Mass-Priests be but Ministers in this sacrifice and Christ the principal as you say who offers up himself by you then I say as ye offer up Christ as instruments for your sins and the sins of the people it should follow that Christ offers up himself in your Mass by you for his own sins and the sins of the people But this is blasphemy and expresly gain-said by the Scripture Heb. 7.27 And last of all I say seeing as your Church saith Christ his sacrifice in the Mass is one with that sacrifice upon the cross therefore as Christ offered himself upon the cross without the ministery of secondary Priests so should he be offered up in your Mass without the ministery of the same or else it is not one with that So your Mass-Priests are no wayes to be called secondary Priests to Christ except in that respect that Judas with the band of men of war and hie-Priests were the instruments and ministers of Christ his taking death and crucifying even so you are the instruments and ministers of the crucifying of Christ dayly in your Mass so far as in you lyes and in this respect keep ye your style of Mass-Priests And because they have a common distinction in their mouthes of a bloody and an unbloody sacrifice For they affirm that sacrifice of Christ upon the cross to be bloody and that sacrifice of him in the Mass to be unbloody Therefore I will take away this refuge and vain starting-hole from them And first I say this distinction of theirs of a bloody and unbloody sacrifice of the self same thing that is sacrificed wants all warrant in the Word of God For there is not so much in the whole New Testament as a syllable that tells us that there is a proper sacrifice of Christ which is unbloody and you are never able to bring one instance to the contrary Secondly I say it is repugnant to the Scripture Heb. 10.10 11.12.14 for the Scripture only acknowledges such a sacrifice of Christ as is joined with his death as hath been proved before See Heb. 9.24.25 Not that he should offer himself often for then should he have suffered often since the beginning of the world Now if the Apostle his argument be true