Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	aaron_n	abraham_n	father_n	57	3	3.8812	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

Tabernacles was not so kept as it was then since the dayes of Josua which was more then a thousand years Nehem. 8.18 And all the time of the captivitie where was there any publick face of the Church of God with his publick worship uncorrupted in all things as the Lord commanded it As concerning the Kingdom of Israel from the time of their renting asunder by Jeroboam from the Kingdom of Juda they never had the worship of God in integritie but first worshipped God in the places where they should not have worshipped him and after another manner and by other Priests then they were commanded Next they fell to the worshipping of Idols till they were transported out of their land and scattered upon the face of the earth What shal I pursue the sayings of the Prophets how the only visible Church in the world is called an harlot Isai 1. the Temple a den of thieves Jer. 7. the Prophets all blind guides and dumb dogs that cannot bark Isai 57.10.11 Hosea 2. Now when God of his infinit mercy sent his only begotten Son in the world the light the life the salvation of the world what did the Church and the Clergie the Scribes and the Pharisies that sate in the chair of Moses Mat. 23. Surely Christ had none so great enemies as they were who were the Doctors the lights the successors of Aaron to whom the Law was concredited When Christ testified of himself that he was the light of the world they said his testimony was not true John 8.13 When others believed in him they said they were deceived John 7.47 They ordain that if any man should confess Christ he should be excōmunicat John 9.22 So that many that did believe in him durst not for them confess him John 12.42 They watched him of purpose that they might have matter of accusation against him Luke 6.7 And when he cast out Devils the Scribes and the Pharisies said that he did cast out Devils by Beelzebub the Prince of Devils Mark 3.22 Mat. 12.24 They said they found him a man perverting the nation and forbidding to pay tribut to Cesar Luke 32.2 They condemn him in a solemn Council as worthy of death Mark 14.64 Yea as Christ testifies of them they neither entred in the Kingdom of heaven themselves nor suffered others to enter in Mat. 23.13 And yet they are these that if ye look to their antiquitie they have their beginning from Abraham if to their succession they succeeded to Aaron if to their callings they were Scribes and Pharisies and sate in the chair of Moses Mat. 23 if to the place it was to the house of God if to the people whom they taught they were the only people of God if to their prerogatives to them appertained the adoption and the glorie and the covenant and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises of whom are the Fathers and of whom is Christ according to the flesh who is God over all blessed forever Amen Rom. 9.4.5 And if ye will look to their Council they were solemnlie called together where they condemned the Lord of life and crucified the Prince of glorie What can you say to these That they erred in the person of Christ but not in the exponing of the Law as some of you saith But first Moses did write of Christ John 5.46 and Christ is the end of the Law Rom. 10.4 So that if they had not erred in exponing of the Law they had not erred in the person of Christ because the Law testified of Christ he was the end of it Next the Scripture testifies that they erred in exponing of the Law that they both brake the Law and teached others so to do Mat. 5. And therefore Christ saith Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisies ye cannot enter in the Kingdom of heaven Mat. 5.20 For whereas the Law of God counts hatred murther and lust adultery and rash swearing unlawful swearing and our enemies our neighbors whom we ought to love and to do good unto They by the contrary taught that our friends was only our neighbors whom we should love and therefore they said that we should hate our enemies vers 43. That hatred was not the breaking of the sixth command and lust no breaking of the seventh command and rash swearing no breaking of the third command And therefore the Lord Jesus in that fifth chapter of Matthew doth vindicat the true meaning of the commandments from their false expositions And he testifies of them that they did abrogat the Law of God through their traditions and so in vain they worshipped God teaching for Gods Law which he calls doctrine mens precepts Mat. 15.6 which he proves there by an example of abrogating and annulling of that duty which we ow to father and mother commanded us in the fifth commandment by their tradition And therefore he gives charge to his disciples to beware of the leaven that is the doctrine of the Pharisies Mat. 15.6 Seeing then they who had their ordinary succession from Aaron erred how can the Doctors of your Church yea your Popes be priviledged from erring But it may be ye grant all this for how can ye deny it that the Church before the Law under the Law in the time of Moses in the time of the Judges in the time of the Kings in the time of the captivitie and in the time of Christ erred but yet the Christian Church hath greater priviledges and promises that it cannot err Let us examine this also whither the Christian Church be priviledged from erring or not And certainlie if any Christian Church at any time had this prerogative appearantlie the primitive Church which was in the dayes of Christ and of his Apostles should have had it But they had it not Therefore what Church since under the heaven can challenge it For in the time of Christs suffering the Apostles and Disciples who only then were the Christian Church yea after that they had been Apostles and after that they had been sent to preach the Gospel and work miracles yet in that time did they not err in the article of Christs resurrection Mat. 10 And erred they not concerning the estat of Christs kingdom after the resurrection Acts 1.6 and 11. And concerning the teaching of the Gentils after they had received the holy Ghost Acts 10. Gal. 2. And Peter himself as hath been shown And sundrie Papists as Alex. Hallensis in 3. parte quaest ult art 2. Johan de Turrecrem in lib. 1. de Eccl. cap. 30. 1. Cor. 3. in lib. 3. cap. 61. saith that true faith remained only in the heart of Marie in the time of Christs suffering Was not here then an universal erring Now to go forward did not the Church of the Corinthians err in building hay and stubble on the foundation and in the use of the Lords Supper and some of them also concerning the resurrection of the dead 1. Cor.

3. and 11. and 15. And the Church of Galatia erred in being carried away to another Gospel and in joyning the Ceremonies of the law with grace in justification Gal. 1. and 3. And what will ye say when the heresie of Arrius who denied Christ to be the Son of God equal to his Father spread its self so far that it is testified by Theodor. hist. Eccles lib. 2. Hier. dial contra Lucif cap. 7. in chron Athanas Epist de Synod Alim Seleu. that the Bishops of the whole world became Arrians that the whole world did grieve and wonder at it self that it was become an Arrian What will ye say unto all the Christian Churches of the East Grecia Asia and Africa Churches planted by the Apostles I mean not now of them that have professed Mahometism but of them that admits the Scripture acknowledges Christ their Savior who have their ordinar succession of Patriarks and Bishops as well as your Church of Rome hath who in number far exceeds these Churches which acknowledges your Pope to be the head of the Church For first yours is but in Europe except ye will claim to the New-found land and not all Europe for all the Churches in Greece which is a great part of Europe acknowledges not your supremacy Now take the Greek Churches from you next the Reformed Churches in Scotland England Germany Denmark France Zeland Holland and other places which have gone out of Babel which are all in Europe your number will not be many that acknowledges your supremacy And next take all Asia and Africa from you which is the two parts of the world your number will be smal in comparison of these that are against your supremacy Now all these detests your supremacy as tyranny and the worship of Images your transubstantiation in the Sacrament the Communion under one kind the single life of Priests Either therefore ye must grant that the greatest number of Christian Churches have erred and doth err or else that your Roman Church doth err and your supremacy yea your Religion which depends upon your supremacy is the head of heresie But it may be ye will say that all other Christian Churches may err but that it is only proper to your Church not to err First therefore let me ask at you what can be the cause of that singular priviledge which the Church of Rome hath beside all other Churches which ever have been is or shal be Yea above Adam when he was in his integrity for he erred yea above the Angels for they remained not in the truth Jude 6 Above the Patriarcks Abraham Isaac and Jacob yea above Aaron and the Church in the wilderness above the Church under the Law yea above the Apostles and Peter himself before Christs suffering in the time of his suffering after the resurrection after the receiving of the holy Ghost for they erred in all these times Yea above the Christian Churches that have been founded by the Apostles as well as yours that had the promise the covenant the service of God once in as great purity as ever yours had that have their ordinar succession their antiquity their vocation ordinar as well as yours hath unto this day Great surely must be that priviledge given unto the Church of Rome that hath exeemed her from error others having erred What is then your prerogative above all other Churches I know that ye will say because of Peters chair that was there wherein the Popes sits after him First then if Peters chair hath such a prerogative that the Pastors who sits in it and the Church that cleaves to it cannot err I think surely the Lords chair which was at Jerusalem which was called the Temple and seat of God and Moses chair wherein the Scribes and Pharisees sate should rather have that prerogative to free the Churches and Pastors sitting in these chairs from erring yea the Church which the truth it self Jesus Christ founded whom he taught with his own mouth and among whom he was crucified should with far greater right claim to that prerogative But since all their seats have erred for the Temple became a den of thieves the Scribes and Pharisees that sate in Moses chair condemned the Lord of glory and Jerusalem it self cryed out Crucifie crucifie him And the Christian Church gathered there are long since far from the way of salvation So that if neither the chair of God nor Moses freed the Church of the Jews from erring nor the chair of Christ freed the Christian Church there gathered from erring How then can Peters chair have this prerogative above them all as to exeem that Church and Pastors that sits therein from possibility of erring What is this but to prefer him before them all whose seat hath a priviledge that neither God nor his sons nor Moses seat had O high blasphemy to be detested and abhorred of all Christian hearts But let us see if it hath this prerogative which they ascribe unto it or not And first if it could have exeemed any from erring should it not have exeemed himself especially from erring But as it hath been shown he erred Acts 1.6 Gal. 2. therefore it cannot exeem neither his successors not yet the Church that acknowledges them from erring Secondly if it had exeemed any Church from erring should it not have exeemed the Church of Antiochia especially for surely Antiochia hath better right to claim to this prerogative then your Church hath For first it was Peters first seat Next the Scripture bears witness to it that he was there Gal. 2.11 But neither was Rome Peters first seat nor is there so much as a syllab in all the Scriptures to prove that ever Peter was in Rome But suppose Peter was there for we will not examine this now whither is this prerogative not to err given to your head that is to the Popes or to the body that is the people or to both If ye say to the head as ye do indeed then what will ye answer to your own Writers and Fathers to your own Councils and Popes to your own Canon Law affirming that Popes may err and be hereticks and should be deposed and are deposed when they are manifest hereticks as hath been proved before And what will ye say to your Popes that have been hereticks indeed one of them an Arrian another an Eutychian the third a Nestorian the fourth a Montanist the fifth deposed as an heretick the sixth denying that the souls of the children of God saw Gods face while after the resurrection the seventh denying life everlasting and others giving themselves over in the hands of the Devil for the Popedom others repelling and abrogating the decrees of their predecessors others such monsters and beasts so cruel to the dead and to the living that your own friends calls them monsters and affirms of one of them that the Devil shot him through while he was abusing another mans wife and so died without repentance Dare you

without further tryal because he hath so decreed it What is this but not only to make him equal to the Lord For God only hath that priviledge to be believed because he so speaks mans testimony so far only is to be credited as it may be warranted by the Scripture but also to preferr his authoritie to the voice of God in his Scripture seeing he is Judge of the same and not that onlie but to hang my salvation upon his voice and testimonie And seeing ye will have them Judges what is the cause that their Canons Laws and determinations are not as authentick as the Scripture and insert in the Canon of the Scripture But let us see your reasons First you say That the holy Ghost was given to the Church by the Father and the Son that he might teach it all truth I grant this that the holy Ghost is given to every one of the elect as wel Pastor as people to lead them in all truth in so far as may bring them to salvation And yet ye will not make every one of them Judges next every one of the elect may err notwithstanding of this promise suppose not totally and finally and therefore cannot be Judges of Religion Secondly you alledge the example of the Council of the Apostles and Elders It is true in that controversie that arose among the Christians concerning the observing of the ceremonies of the law of Moses that the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church after reasoning defined the same and writes the same to be observed by the Disciples everie where but first they were Apostles and was infallibly governed by Gods Spirit that they could not err in teaching and writing but your Pastors are not Apostles and may err Next they assemble with the Elders and the whole Church and all with one accord defines Acts 15.12.22.23 You in your Council excludes all except your Bishops to be ordinary Judges to give out judgement and your Popes neither Elder nor brethren having power of voting with you Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 1. Thirdly they define according to the Scripture saying As it is written c. Act. 15.15 This controversie to make us to understand if we will not be more then blind that this rule should be followed in all Councils to determine in controversies according to the Scripture Upon the which I reason if the Apostles who had that high measure of Gods Spirit which never man had since so that in writing and teaching they could not err if they I say did determine the controversies of Religion according to the Scripture how much more then are all Pastors since who may err both severally and jointly together in a Council bound to follow the same rule And whereas ye call their Elders Priests you stile them not as the holy Ghost hath stiled them there so there they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Elders and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is sacrificing Priests as ye suppone Your third reason is the practise and custom of the Church in deciding the controversies of Religion in Councils we grant that this is a very commodious mean to search and find out the truth by the Scripture For first the more they are that seek the truth it is the more easily found Next the consent of many in determining a truth will be of greater authority to repress hereticks then if it were agreed upon only by a few But yet they should determine nothing but that which is warranted by the Scripture and their determinations only in so far forth to be received as is agreeable to the same And this we grant hath been done in the Council of the primitive Church And therefore the Emperor Constantine speaking to the Fathers of the Council of Nice saith Sunt libri Prophetici Apostolici qui apertè quid credendum sit docent c. That is there are the Books of the Prophets and Apostles who teacheth plainly what we should believe All contention therefore laid aside let us take the soveraign decision of these things which are called in controversie out of the Scriptures which are inspired by God And this we grant and this we require But that Councils ought to determin any thing of their own authority in matters of Religion which binds the conscience without the warrant of the Word that we deny Master Gilbert Brown It is a wonder that M. John will refer any thing to the written Word seeing that he and his have no warrant that the same is the Word of God but by the authority of the Roman or Papist Church For understand there was no Church worthie of credit immediatly before Luther but that Church Master John Welsch his Reply You wonder that I refer any thing to the Scripture But what a wōder is this that ye are so far blinded of God that you think that a wonder in me which Abraham hath done which the Prophets have done which our Savior and his Apostles have done and which the Fathers have done for all these have referred the infallible testimony and decision of the will of God concerning his worship unto the Scriptures Luke 16 29. John 5 39. Acts 26.22 Rom. 12. and 16.26 2. Tim. 3.16 2. Pet. 1.10 Rev. 1 3. cap. ult yea which your self also hath done for ye make it a witness But what hath moved you to think this a wonder in me which so many and your self also have done before me Because say ye that he and his that is our Church have no warrant that it is the Word of God but by the authoritie of the Roman or Papist Church I grant indeed that you and your Church are plunged in this blindness and miserie that all the warrant that you have not only of the Scriptures themselves that they are inspired of God but also of all your doctrine and Religion is the testimony of your Roman Church that is of your Pope and Clergy for so ye interpret the Church So Bellarmin grants de Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 25. That all the certainty of all doctrine depends upon the authority of the present Church meaning the Pope and his Clergy And Stapleton saith lib. 1 contra Whitak de author script cap. 10. That it is no absurd thing not to believe God but for the testimony of the Church Pigius saith That it is not needful to believe all that Matthew and John writ in their Gospels to be true because that they might fail in memory and lie as all men may do Ecclesiast hierar lib. 1. cap. 2. And Hermannus saith That the Scripture would be of no more authority then the fables of Esop were not the testimony of the Church And so blind and miserable must you be that hangs the certaintie of all Religion and of man his salvation upon so smal a threed as the testimony of your Popes and Clergy What peace in conscience can any man have that professes your Religion which teaches that the

plainly as you thought Were you afraid that the hearts of men should have skunnered with this your doctrine if ye had been as plain in your writ as ye are in your own judgement Next I say you have the Lord in his written Word as contrary to this your doctrine as light is to darkness For as to the first the Scripture testifies plainly that we are dead in sin John 5.25 Col. 2 13. Eph 2.1 And that the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God Rom. 8.17 and therefore we have need to be born again John 3.5 that is to receive a new life ere ever we can be able to enter into the Kingdom of God and that it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do Philip. 2.13 and that of our selves we are not sufficient to think any thing as of our selves 2. Cor. 3 5. and that all the imaginations of mans heart is only evil continually Gen. 6 5. Where then is there any place left to free-will And as to the second the Scripture saith Eccles 7.20 There is not a righteous man in the earth who doth good and sinneth not therefore no perfect keeping of the Law And who may say my heart is clean and I am pure from sin Prov. 20.9 If no man may say so then no man can keep perfectly the whole Law And by the works of the Law no flesh is justified in his sight Rom. 3.20.28 therefore no flesh is able perfectly to keep the Law for if he could keep the Law he would be justified by the Law But the Apostle saith that no flesh can be justified by the Law therefore none can keep the Law And therefore the Scripture saith Rom. 8.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Law is impossible because of the weakness of the flesh For the which cause the Son of God took on him our nature to fulfill this impossibility of the Law And James calls the Law a yoke which saith he neither we nor our fathers were able to bear Acts 15.10 If they said that they could not bear it that is perfectly obey it who obtained a higher measure of grace then ever any since did what shal we then say of all other men after them And what arrogancy and presumption is this in these of the Roman Church to say and to bear others in hand that they are able to bear that yoke which the Apostles was not able to bear And JESUS CHRIST hath taught us to pray dayly Forgive us our sins Matthew 6. which needed not if we were able to keep the whole Law And beside the plain testimony of the Scripture every mans own doleful experience tells them of their manifold and continual sinning What a damnable doctrine is this then which blinds their eyes so far that neither they see nor feel the inward corruptions of their own heart within them rebelling against the Law of God nor yet the perfection which the Law of God requires Now to the testimonies of Scripture which ye quote And first that in the 19. of Matthew If you would enter into life keep the Commandments I answer The same is to be said to you who seek for life righteousness by the works of the Law Keep the Commands But that are ye unable to do or any man else except the man the Lord Jesus as hath been proved and as unable as this young man was to whom it was said at the last It is as impossible to him to go into heaven as to a camel or cable rope to go through the eye of a needle But ye will say Wherefore then would our Savior Christ have commanded him to keep the Commandments if he would have life I answer Not because he was able to do it but to bring him to a conscience of the breach of it For by the Law as the Apostle saith cometh the knowledge of sin Rom. 7.7 And to cast down that presumption that he had of himself that he had observed and kept the Law that in conscience of sin he might be brought to seek for life eternal in Christ Jesus only And lest ye say that this is my exposition therefore hear what the Apostle saith Gal. 3.10.14 As many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse for it is written Cursed is every man that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them and that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident Now this is spoken not only of the Jews but of the Gentils that believed in Christ Jesus and were under grace Upon the which I reason thus If as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse and no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God then no man is able to get life eternal by keeping of the Law and so this young man to whom Christ gave his answer neither had kept nor could keep the Law but the first is said by the Apostle therefore the second is true Next the Law requires a perfect obedience with all the heart with all the understanding and thought and strength unto all the commandments and that continually Matth. 22.37 Luke 10 17. Mark 12.31 So that James saith He that breaks one is guilty of all James 2.10 And the Law doth pronounce them accursed That continues not in the doing of all things c. Deut. 27.16 in this perfection Now who is he that is come out of the loins of Adam except only the Lord Jesus who hath continued in the perfect obedience of all things without the breach of any in thought word or deed Are you able or hath every one of your Roman Churches performed or is able to perform this obedience that the Law requires Seeing therefore that none is able and this young man neither had performed not yet was able to perform this perfect obedience to the Law therefore of necessity it must follow that our Savior gave him this command Keep the Commandments c. not because he was not able to keep them but to bring him by the Law to a conscience of the breach of them As for the rest of the Scriptures which ye bring in they are easily answered John 14.15 24. If ye love me keep my Commandments c. And he that loves me not keeps not my word c. I grant the Lord hath commanded obedience to his Commandments And I grant they that loves him keeps them and all the children of God loves him and begins also obedience to all his Commandments But yet as their love is not in that perfection which the Law requires with all their heart with all their understanding and with all their strength so their obedience is not in that perfection And nevertheless the perfection of their obedience is forgiven being covered with the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ and through him is acceptable in his presence and of him also shal be

crowned with a crown of glory suppose freely And to prove this If any had obeyed the Commandments perfectly then surely the Apostles Paul James John Peter should have done it For they loved him in as great and greater measure of love then ever any since did And our Savior testifies of them to his Father That they have kept his word John 17.6 But the Apostle Paul testifies of himself Rom. 7 That he did not the things he would but the thing that he hated that he did and to will was present with him but to perform he found it not and he saw a law in his members rebelling against the law of his mind and leading him captive unto sin And John saith of himself and of all men 1. John 1.8.9 If we say we have not sin we make him a lier and the truth is not in us And himself twise would have worshipped an Angel Rev. 29.10 and 22.8.9 contrary to the Law Deut. 6 1. And James saith That in many things we offend all James 3 2. And Peter to whom our Savior said thrise If thou love me keep my laws went not with a right foot to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2.11 12. Therefore none is able perfectly to keep them We see then there is a keeping of the Commandments and a keeping of them in perfection The first common to all the faithful suppose not in an equal measure The second only possible to Adam ere he fell and to the Saints in that Kingdom As for the 11 of Matthew Take up my yoke c for my yoke is sweet and my burden light And the 1 John 5.3 his commandments are not grievous I answer Our Savior and his Apostles calls his commandments light sweet and not heavy not because the perfection of the Law is possible to any to perform in this life but first because the Lord Jesus hath taken away the curse of it and also requires not of us that perfection which the Law requires under the pain of the curse of the Law if it be not satisfied And because he by his Spirit renews the hearts of his own and makes them able with joy to begin that obedience so that what they do they do it not upon constraint as being under the Law but willingly for the love of Christ and they delight in the same according to the law of their mind as the Apostle speaks of himself Rom. 7. But yet within they find a law in their members rebelling against the law of their mind leading them captive unto sin So in these respects are his commandments called light and sweet But Acts 15 the Apostles calls it an unsupportable yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear And Romans 8 it is called impossible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3 20. and 7.14 c. Gal 3.10 As for Philippians 4.13 where the Apostle saith He is able to do all things by him that strengthens him The Apostle speaks not here of his ability to perform the Law in that perfection which the Law requires For he hath testified the contrary both of himself and of all others as hath been said But only this that through him he is able to sustain all sorts of condition both to abound and to be in scarcity to be full and to be hungry This is not my exposition but the Apostle so expounds himself in the former verse so that I wonder upon what show ye could quote this testimony As for Philip. 2. it is true the Lord worketh in his own both to will and to do but yet it follows not that they are able perfectly to obey the Law For if that measure of grace had been wrought in any it had been wrought in the Apostles but not in them as hath been shown and that by their own testimony therefore in none else Next what can be more clear for the overthrow of your Free-will then is this place of Scripture If the Lord work in us both to will and to perform then we are not able to will of our selves that which is acceptable to God As for the examples which ye cite of Noah Abraham Job Zacharias and Elizabeth David Ezechia Josia Juda and Asa and these whom the Lord reserved to himself pure from the Idolatry of your Antichristian kingdom fore-spoken there They walked indeed in integrity and sincerity in the commandments and ways of the Lord and therefore have received a good testimony and report of Gods Spirit in the Scripture all which we grant unto you But that they answered the law in that perfection that it requires the Scripture which hath registred their walkings and their own testimonies will gain-say it Noah fell in drunkenness Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith Rom. 4. which is a most sure argument that he fulfilled not the law Job saith If I would affirm my self to be righteous my own mouth would condemn me Job 9 2 3.20 Zacharias believed not the word of the Lord spoken to him by the Angel therefore was striken dumb Luke 1.20 David fell in adulterie murther and provoked the Lords anger by numbering the people 2. Sam. 12 and 24. and he saith of himself My iniquities are more in number then the hairs of my head Psal 40.13 And in another place If thou mark iniquity O Lord who can stand Psal 130.2 And enter not in judgement with thy servant for no man living shal be righteous before thee Psal 143.2 Ezechias heart was lifted up 2. Chron. 32.25 Josias harkened not unto the words of Necho according to the word of the Lord. Asa put his trust not in the Lord his God but in the King of Syria 2 Chron 16.7 The like is to be said of these whom the Lord did reserve to himself in the midst of the kingdom of darkness that they did keep the commandments of God but not in that perfection which the law required For they were not more righteous then the Prophet Esay and the Apostles were But the Prophet saith That we are all unclean and all our righteousness is as a menstruous cloth Esai 64. And the Apostle saith In many things we sin all James 3. And Augustin saith All the commandments of God are accounted to be done when that which is not done is forgiven ad Bonif lib. 1. cap. 7. And in another place Epist 60. For the want of love it is that there is not a righteous man in the earth that doth good and sinneth not And Ambrose saith in Gal. 3. The commandments of God are so great that they are impossible to be kept And Jerome saith in Gal. 3 Because no man can fulfil the law and do all things that is commanded And Bernard saith Cant. serm 5. The commandments of God cannot nor could not be fulfilled of any man And Chrysostom saith in Gal. 2. No man hath fulfilled the Law And Thomas one of the chief pillars of your own Church writes in Gal 3. lect

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

militis Orig. contra Celsum lib. 7. 8. Lactant. de divin instit lib. 2. cap. 29. Cyprian de van idol Clemen● lib. 5. ad Jac. frat Chrysost hom 57. in Genes 31. Concil Elib Can. 36. with sundry others The sixth abuse is in the prayer that the Priest saith when he offers his hoste upon the altar Receive holy Father this immaculat sacrifice which I offer unto thee for my own sins and for the sins of all the faithful both living and dead that it may profit to me and them to salvation and everlasting life And he prays the like when he offers the calice upon the altar That it may ascend in the presence of his Majesty for the salvation of him and of all the world Wherein the Priest commits horrible blasphemy in ascribing remission of sins and redemption to the sacrifice of bread and wine for as yet the words of consecration are not pronounced and so by their own confession they are yet but bread and wine and yet the Priest saith he offers it to God for the sins of the quick and dead and for the salvation of the world Now what blasphemy is this to ascribe that to the sacrifice of bread and wine which by their own confession is not changed yet in Christs body and blood which is only proper to the blood of Jesus Christ John 1.29 Heb. 9.26 and 10.12 1 John 1.7 and 2.2 Acts 4.12 Next that he offers this sacrifice for the salvation of the dead seeing the elect departed are in heaven and so they need no sacrifice for them and the reprobat departed are in hell so no sacrifice will avail them And as for Purgatory which they dream of the Scriptures knows not such a thing I pass by the mixing of the wine with water contrary the express institution of Christ and the necessity of the silver and golden vessels or at the least tin vessels in your sacrifice The seventh abuse is their magical blessing of their incense after the manner of sorcerers without the warrant of the Word and the vertue which the Priest prays for that it may chase away the Devil make whole every disease which hath no more vertue then their exorcismes and adjurations which the Priest makes in Baptism and in their other services by their holy water by their lighted candles their oyls anointings and other like ceremonies And in this ceremony they either Judaize for the Jewes used this ceremony of incense under the Law to figure the sweet savor of the sacrifice of the Son of God to his Father and so makes the death of Christ of no effect to them or else they follow the custome of the old Romane idolaters For we read more then 700. years before Christ that they used incense in their sacrifices and other services which they did to their Idoles Alex. ab Alex. lib. 4. cap. 17. Some say that Leo the third joyned to the Mass this part concerning the incense about the year of God 800. The eight abuse is in that they make their Mass a memorial of Christ his incarnation circumcision resurrection and ascension and that they celebrat the same to the honor of others then to God to wit to the honor of the Virgin Mary and of all the Saints which is horrible blasphemy to give that which is Gods glory to his creatures And therefore they have a Mass of our Lady a Mass of S. Antony a Mass of S. Michel c. Now if the Mass be one with the Lord his Supper as they say it is then it is properly a memorial of his death and it is instituted only to the glory of God and not to the honor of any creature therefore our Savior saith Do this in remembrance of me and not of his Saints The ninth abuse passing by their monstrous Transubstantiation whereof I have spoken in another place is their round hoste taken from the use of the old Romane idolaters 700. years before Christ who had little round bread which was consecrated to the honor of their Gods which they did eat after the sacrifice Pollux in Onom lib. 6. Alex. ab Alex. lib. 4. cap. 17. So it was not the Spirit of Christ which taught you this form but the spirit of Numa Pompilius the Magician who breathed this doctrine in you for there is no word of this round bread in Christs Testament The tenth abuse is the lifting up of the sacrifice above their head and the adoring and worshipping of the same which is abominable idolatry to worship a bit of bread as the great God and Creator of all the world contrary the express commandment of God Thou shalt only worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Deut. 6.16 And how can they excuse themselves from idolatry according to their own doctrine for they hold this that if the Priest have not an intention some saith actual other some habitual that is a purpose to consecrat that the bread and the wine are not changed in the body and blood of Christ and if he had a purpose to consecrat but the one half of the bread the other half is not changed but remains common bread Summa angel Euch. cap. 26. They therefore that adore it if the Priest had not that purpose what do they worship but the creature and that according to their own doctrine And who can be certain of the Priests intention So who can worship in faith that God of theirs seeing they cannot be certain of the intention of the Priest upon the which this change depends and that which is done without faith is sin Secondly their own doctrine is that the intention of the Priest suffices not unless it be according to the institution of Christ Bonaventura in compend sacr Theolog. lib. 6. Hugo de S. Victor Gerardus Lorichius Now sundry of their own learned Doctors saith that their privat Masses where there is no publick communion is not according to the institution of Christ therefore by their own doctrine they are vile idolaters both Priest and people in worshipping a bit of bread that is made of wheat as the great God seeing by their own doctrine there is no change there in their privat Masses of the bread and wine in the body and blood of Christ Last of all seeing there are sundry cases and that very ordinary wherein the Priest by their own doctrine doth not consecrat at all as if the Priest have forgotten to put wine in the calice if the bread be made of other thing then flowr if the water surmount the wine if the wine be sowr if he left out one of the words of consecration Thom. p. 3. q. 83. Joan. de Burgo Pupilla cap. 3. Gerson contra Florent extra de celebrat Miss Now what certainty can the standers by have that the Priest hath fallen in none of these cases So with what assurance of faith can they worship their breaden God To prove this by some examples that by

sufficient to obtain salvation without works neglecting to live well and to hold the way of God by good works and being secure of salvation which is in faith had not a care to live well as he saith And in the end of that chapter he concluds the whole matter saying How far therefore are they deceived who promise to themselves everlasting life through a dead faith The which error we condemn also with you For we acknowledge the necessity of good works as the fruits of a living Faith but not as the efficient formal or instrumental cause of our justification SECTION XXII Concerning the Authority of the Fathers M. Gilbert Brown FUrther I say since the difference chiefly in Religion betwixt us and them is about the understanding of the Word of God * Not we M. Gilbert but one of the chief pillers of your own Church Cajetan a Cardinal which was sent in Germany against Luther the Popes Legat who saith in plain words That the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doth gather insufficient arguments to prove Christ to be the Son of God that the 2. and 3. Epistle of John is not Canonical Scripture that the Epistle of Jude is Apocrypha that the last chapter of Mark is not of sound authority that the history of the adulterous woman in S. John is not authentical and of S. James Epistle that the salutation of it is profane albeit they deny a great part of the same to us what is the cause that they will not abide the tryal of the ancient Fathers of the first six hundred years seeing that they were of his Religion as he affirms If he be as good as his word the matter will be soon ended And if our Religion be not sound consonant to theirs in all things wherein they differ from us we shal reform the same Master John Welsch his Reply You said a little before M. Gilbert that the chief difference wherein we differ from you is in denying abhorring or detesting c. Now you say that the difference chiefly of Religion betwixt us is about the understanding of the Word of God How well these two agree let the Reader judge It is no wonder suppose you dissent from your brethren as I have proved in sundry points before seeing ye dissent from your self It is true indeed that many of our controversies are about the right sense and understanding of the Scripture but yet if Petrus a Soto Lindanus Peresius Canisius all great and learned Papists speak truth the most part of the weightiest and chiefest points of your Religion which are in controversie between us are but unwritten traditions which have not their beginning nor author in the Scripture and cannot be defended by the same And whereas ye would have us to refer the controversies about the sense and right meaning of the Scriptures to be decided by the writings of the Fathers of the first six hundred years we receive their monuments and writings gladly but yet so that we put a difference between them and the writings of the holy Ghost in the Scripture For as I have proved sufficiently before as I hope that only the Scriptures of God have this prerogative to be the supreme Judge of all controversies in Religion and no other and the best way to learn the sense of the Scripture is by the Scripture it self for seeing all the Scripture is inspired of God therefore it ought to be exponed by God in the same For he who made the Law can best interpret the Law And the Levits practised this in the Old Testament who exponed the Scripture by the Scripture Nehem. 8.8 and the Apostles in the New Testament who taught nothing but that which the Prophets said should come to pass Acts 26.28 And if a Father yea a Saint yea if an Angel would preach beside that which the Apostles preached let him be accursed So then nothing can be a warrant to us of the truth of the sense of the Scripture but the Scripture it self And as for the Fathers expositions as they may not be Judge as hath been said because they may err and have erred as hath been proved and your selves will not deny and they dissent oftentimes one from another in the exposition of the same So let their expositions be taken in so far as they agree with the Scripture For would ye have us ascribe that unto them which they themselves have refused and have ascribed unto the Scriptures only Hear therefore what Optatus the Bishop of the Church of Milevitan a learned man who lived about the year of God 369. saith writing against the Donatists who claimed to themselves only the title of the Church of Christ as ye do They called for a Judge he brings the Testament of Christ for a Judge and speaking to them of a point of Religion that was controverted whither one should be twise baptized or not He saith You saith he affirm it is lawful we affirm it is not lawful between your say it is lawful and our say it is not lawful the peoples souls do doubt and waver Let none believe you nor us we are all contentious men Judges must be sought for If Christians they cannot be given on both sides for truth is hindred by affection A Judge without must be sought for If a Pagan he cannot know the Christian mystery If a Jew he is an enemy to Christianity No Judge therefore of this matter can be found in earth A Judge from heaven must be sought for But why knock we at heaven when here we have his Testament in the Gospel Optatus lib. 5. contra Parmenianum And he renders a reason of this in that same Book Christ saith he hath dealt with us as an earthly father is wont to do with his children who fearing left his children should fall out after his decease doth set down his will in writing under witness and if there arise debate among the brethren they go to the Testament He whose word must end our controversie is Christ Let his will be sought in his Testament saith he Augustin in Psal 21. expos 2. urgeth the same reason of Optatus against the Donatists We are brethren saith he to them why do we strive Our father died not untestate he made a Testament and so died Men do strive about the goods of the dead while their Testament be brought forth When that is brought forth they yeeld to have it opened and read The Judge doth hearken the Counsellers be silent the Cryer biddeth peace All the people is attentive that the words of the dead man may be read and heard He lyeth void of life and feeling and his words prevail Christ sitteth in heaven and is his Testament gain-said Open it let us read We are brethren why do we strive Let our minds be pacified Our Father hath not left us without a Testament He that made the Testament is living for ever he doth hear our words He doth know his own word

let us read why do we strive Ireneus saith lib. 4. contra haeres cap. 63. That the lawful exposition of the Scripture which hath no peril with it is according to the Scripture themselves What can be more plain M. Gilbert And I ask you further Would you have vs to ascribe more to the interpretation of the Fathers then the learned of your Church do As Cajetan a Cardinal in Praefat. in Comment in lib. Mosis and Doctor Andradius the first saith That God hath not tyed the exposition of the Scripture unto the exposition or sense of the Fathers If God hath not bound it as he saith why then should we bind it Wherefore there he desires the Reader Not to mislike it if sometimes in the expounding of them he fall into a sense agreeable to the text though it go against the stream of the Fathers If he speak truth then that sense that is agreeable to the text suppose it be against the stream of their expositions is to be received and preferred before them And Andradius that learned man saith That the Fathers spake not Oracles when they exponed the Scriptures but might therein be deceived Defens fid Trident lib. 2. And he saith more That the oversights of the translation which they followed must needs cause them sometimes to miss the meaning of the holy Ghost And yet you would have the sense of the Scriptures to be decided by them who sometimes have missed the meaning of the holy Ghost And he concluds in the end That the holy Ghost is the only and faithful interpreter of the Scriptures Thus the fairest flowers of your garden and chiefest pillers of your Faith have written So that if they speak true whom I know not if ye will presume to contradict the exposition of the Scripture is not tyed unto the exposition of the Fathers and it is lawful to go with the text against the stream of their expositions And whereas you say if I will be as good as my word the matter will soon be ended I am glad of it if you think as you speak My word was M. Gilbert as your self hath written it that there be very few points of controversie between us wherein I will not get some testimonies of sundry Fathers of the first six hundred years proving with us against them meaning your Church And I desired any man to set me down any weighty point of controversie one or mo and he should have the proof of it These were my words Now ye say if I will be as good as my word the matter will soon be ended Whither I have been as good as my word in this or not let the Reader judge And I appeal your conscience M. Gilbert before the Lord in the great day whither it be true or not For not only in that example of Justification which ye cast in but almost in all the heads which are debated among us I have brought in sundry testimonies of sundry Fathers with us against you Yea I have been better then my word in that For I have brought in testimonies of sundry that lived after the six hundred years and not of these only but also testimonies of sundry of your own Doctors Jesuits Cardinals Bishops Canons Councils and Popes proving with us in some points against your selves I look therefore M. Gilbert that ye shal be as good as your word and that the matter shal end here between you and me For both you have said that the matter would soon end if I were as good as my word and also ye have promised and subscribed with your hand to reform your Religion in all things wherein it is not conform to their testimonies The which if you do then must you renounce the supremacy of your Pope the sacrifice of your Mass your Transubstantiation your Justification by works your Merits of works your perfect fulfilling of the Law of God your erroneous opinions that the Church cannot err that the Scripture should not be Judge with sundry others For in all these I have brought the testimonies of sundry Fathers and in some of them the testimonies of your own Doctors Councils Canons and Popes with us against you Either therefore take shame and falshood for ever more upon you or else keep your word and your writ which ye have subscribed here and reform these points of your Religion As for that calumny wherewith ye charge us to have taken away a great part from the Scripture I know you mean the Apocrypha which bears not the mark and stamp of Gods Spirit as being neither written by Prophets nor yet the most part of them in the prophetical language the Hebrew tongue wherein all the Old Testament was written except some things of Daniel and Ezra which were written in the Chaldaick language which was known then to the Jews nor yet received as Canonical by the Church of the Jews which your (a) Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 10. Church will not deny Nor yet acknowledged Canonical by the testimonies of sundry (b) Melito lib. 4. cap. 26. Euseb Origen lib. 6. cap. 25. Euseb Athan. in synop Hilar. in prolog explan Psalm Cyrill in 4. catechis Ruffinus in expos symboli Hieron in prologo galeato Fathers (c) Synod Laodicen Canon 59. confirmed by the Council Trullan Councils and of your (d) Greg. Mag. in comment in Jobum lib. 19. cap. 16. Hugo Cardinalis in prolog Josuae Cajetan Cardinal in fine comment Hester Arias Montanus who was present at the Council of Trent in aeditione quadam Hebraicorum Bibliorum interlinearium interpretationum selves also Papists of great name some rejecting all some more some fewer containing also many things repugnant to the truth of God set down in the Canonical Scripture Last of all wanting that majesty of Gods Spirit which so evidently shines in the Canonical Scripture And therefore most justly say we that ye underly the curse of God pronounced in his Scripture Rev. 22.18 for the adding unto the holy truth of God And look to it M. Gilbert what you will say to your Cardinal Cajetan who hath denyed sundry Books and parts of the Canonical Scripture in the New Testament Master John Welsch Now if the first thing I offer me to prove be sound of verity that is that our Religion is that self-same and no other then that that Jesus Christ preached and his Apostles and theirs is not so but devised by the man of sin and that Antichrist that whore of Babylon then the plea is won But if I prove the second also then I hope they will never open their mouth to speak evil of the truth of God as though it were but a new Religion M. Gilbert Brown When M. John proves the thing that he is not able to prove we shal do the thing that we are not able to perform but it is a wonder of him to put in so many ifs and doth nothing to the matter For it is a true