Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	faith_n	grace_n	justification_n	2,638	5	9.1538	5	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

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

by the grace of God may keep the Commands of God and obey him which is contrary to their Confession of Faith Our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Christ saith If you will enter into life keep the commands Matth. 19.17 And again If ye love me keep my commands John 14.25 24. Matth. 11.29 30. And in another place He that loves me not keeps not my words c. Also Take up my yoke upon you c. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light Now I believe that no man can deny but this yoke and burden of Christ is his Commands and Laws This same doctrine the Apostles teached S. Paul saith Phil. 4.13 and 2.13 I can do all things in him that comforts me And before For it is God that works in you both to will and to accomplish according to his good will And S. John 1.5.3 saith This is the charity of God that we keep his Commands and his Commands are not heavy Now further then these we read that Noe Gen. 6.9 Abraham Gen. 26.5 Job 1.22 were just men and obeyed God And S. Luke 1.6 saith that Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were both just before God and walked in all the commands and justification of our Lord without blame There are many other places in the Old Testament of the same matter of the which I have noted some as 3. Kings 14.8.4 and 18.3.4 and 20.3.4 and 23.25 2. Chron. 15.15 Now hold away from these places the Ministers Commentaries and I believe that all men will confess that our doctrine in this and the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is all one M. John Welsch his Reply It appeareth that M. Gilbert is loath that the secrets of the doctrine of his Church should be known to the people because he knows in his heart they would abhor the same their own hearts and consciences witnessing to the contrary Therefore he hath hid up the poyson of it and covered it as secretly as he could But that wherein you are dark the rest of your Roman Clergy are plain For first where as ye say that a man by the grace of God may keep the Commands Bellarmin expones more clearly and sayes By the help of the grace of God Lib. de justific cap. 10. And the Monks in that form of abjuration set out anno 1585 saith That man by the new strength of grace infused in good will may keep the commands So that whereas your words would seem to import that the grace of God is the only cause of this obedience to Gods Commandments in the faithful and so I think every one almost who is not acquainted with the doctrine of your Roman Church will take it and so it may be ye teach them The rest of your brethren are more plain in halfing it betwixt free-will and the grace of God helping free-will as though the strength of nature were the more principal cause and the grace of God but a helper to it And secondly whereas ye say that a man by the grace of God may keep the Commandments of God and obey them Bellarmin saith more plainly cap. 19 pag. 364 lib. 2 de justifi cap. 3. That the Law of God is absolutely possible unto them and they may absolutly fulfil the Law and keep the whole Law and that the works of the righteous are absolutly and simpliciter righteous and proceeding of a perfect holiness without all blemish of sin and that they please God not for the imputation of Christs righteousness covering their imperfections and forgiving them but for the excellencie of the work it self So this is their doctrine Christian Reader Now as he hid his own so hath he hid ours also For our Confession of Faith saith That our sanctification and obedience to Gods Law is imperfect which word he omitted as though it had been our doctrine that the children of God in no measure nor degree keep the Commandments of God Our doctrine therefore is this That of our own nature we are dead in sin Eph. 2.1 and of our selves we are neither able to understand 1. Cor. 2.14 nor think 2. Cor. 3.7 nor will nor do those things that are pleasant to God Philip 2.13 and therefore we must be born anew again John 3 5. ere we can do any thing that is acceptable in Gods sight John 15.5 and this sanctification of ours is not perfect while we are in this life Rom. 7.14 15. but imperfect ever some darkness some rebellion some dregs of the old man yet remaining in us so that we know but in a part 1 Cor. 13.12 and our will is but renewed in part and our heart sanctified in part from the which it cometh that first we do not all the good that we are bound to do and would do as the Apostle saith Rom 7 15.16.17.18.19 20.21.22.23 24. Next that all our righteousness as the Prophet saith is but as a menstruous cloth Esai 64.6 ever smelling somewhat of the corruption of the old man within us and so that they have need to be covered with the righteousness of Jesus Christ and their imperfection to be pardoned By the only strength therefore of Gods Spirit who works both to will and to do in us we begin here obedience to the whole Law of God but yet are not able perfectly so to keep it as our works may abide to be tryed before the Lord in the ballance of his Law and therefore we place the whole hope of our salvation in the only mercy of God through Jesus Christ who is made to us of God righteousness sanctification and redemption by whose mercy we obtain the perfect remission or our sins and so we conclud with David Psal 32. Blessed is he whose sins are forgiven him and whose iniquities are covered This now is the verie simple truth both of our doctrine and theirs in this head Now to answer you Whereas ye say That a man by grace may keep the Commandments of God if you mean that the only cause of the obedience of the children of God to his Law is the renewing grace of God and that this obedience is sincere and hearty not to one but to all the Commandments not only outward but inward suppose not in that high measure of perfection that the Law of God requires then I say you contradict the doctrine of your Roman Church and forsakes their error of free-will concurring with grace and of the perfection of man his obedience here to the Law and so shakes hands with the truth of God which we profess in this point And so becoms a bad defēder of their Catholick faith as ye stile yourself And would to God your eyes were opened so to see and believe suppose ye lost that stile for ever But if ye make free-will the principal cause of this obedience as Bellarmin calls it and if ye understand a perfect obedience as your Church teaches then first tell me why did ye not speak as

it is not of that which he speaks here Secondly he speaks of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood which whosoever so doth hath eternal life to themselves so our Savior Christ promises in the 54. verse But your own doctrine is that the reprobat eats and drinks Christs body and blood in the Sacrament and yet have no life in them therefore he speaks not here of that sacramental eating Thirdly if he speak here of the sacramental eating as you say then your Church not only hath erred foully but also hath been and is the cause of the condemnation of your people these many years because you give them not his blood to drink And our Savior saith not only Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man but also except ye drink his blood ye have no life in you And this reason was so effectual that it hath moved sundry of your own Doctors as Jansenius and Tapperus with sundry others to expone this place not of the sacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ but of the spiritual eating and drinking of him by faith For they did see that it behoved them either to forsake this place as not making for them and grant that it speaks not of the Sacrament or else to confess that their Church hath erred and through this error hath been the cause of the damnation of many in ministring the Sacrament but under one kind And because you say if our expositions vere removed from the Scripture they would ferve for you whom therefore will you credit in exponing of this place If our Savior hear then how he expon s this eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in the 35. verse I am the bread of life he that cometh unto me shal not hunger and he that believes in me shal never thirst So when we believe in Christ we eat him and when we come unto him which is only by faith we drink him So Augustine also expones this place Tractat. 25. in Johan cap 6. Tract 26 de doct Christ lib. 3 cap. 16. Believe saith he and thou hast eaten Clement Alexandrinus lib. 1. Padago cap. 6. and Hieronymus in Psal 147. and Bernard supra Psal 90 vers 3 all expones the flesh and blood of Christ figuratively And if ye will credit none of these then I hope ye will not discredit your own chief Doctors who affirms That this place is not meant of the Sacrament but of the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ by faith As Biel Cusanus Cai●tanus Hesselius and Jans●nius cited by Bellarm lib 1 de Eucharist cap. 5. And if ye will reply that many others of the Fathers have exponed this place of the Sacrament then Janfenius and Tapperus two Papists will answer you That they did it only by way of application unto the readers and hearers to stir them up to the often receiving of the Sacrament So this place can serve nothing for your Transubstantiation for it speaks not of the Sacrament but of his suffering upon the Cross for the away taking of our sins and the purchasing to us of eternal life The next place ye quote is the words of the institution as Matthew Mark Luke and the Apostles rehearses them Your argument is this Christ calls the bread his flesh and so Paul and the wine his blood therefore the bread is changed in his body and the wine in his blood the outward formes of bread and wine only remaining This is the chief and principal ground of your real presence and Transubstantiation Whereunto I answer First there is not a syllable here that tells us that the substance of the bread and wine is transchanged in the body and blood of Christ unless ye will expone this word is my body for it is changed in my body which is a monstrous exposition for both it is contrary to the native signification of the word est Est Fieri sunt contraria that signifies to be alreadie for to be already and to be in a change are contrary as also it hath not the like form of speach in the whole Scripture to warrant it from the first of Genesis to the last of the Revelation Bring one instance if ye can And Augustin saith in Genes quaest 117. in Psal 105. supr Num. quaest 95. The solution of a question should be warranted by some example of the like speach in the Scripture the which you are not able to do Therefore your exposition is without warrant Next I say by what Art of reasoning can you gather this doctrine out of these places of Scripture Christ saith of the bread This is my body and of the wine This is my blood Therefore the outward formes of the bread and wine only remains but the substance of them is gone Never such an inkling in all these texts of this doctrine of yours Thirdly this interpretation and doctrine which results upon it is false and that for these reasons First because it is plainly gain-said by the Scripture Secondly because it destroys sundry articles of our Faith and many blasphemous absurdities doth follow upon it Thirdly it destroys the nature of the Sacrament And last of all is utterly repugnant to the words of the institution My argument then is this That interpretation and doctrine which is gain-said by the plain testimony of the Scripture which destroyes the articles of our faith and the fundamental points of our salvation which hath many absurdities following upon it which overthrowes the nature of the Sacrament and last of all which is contrary to the whole institution must be false blasphemous and erroneous This cannot be denyed but your interpretation of these words This is my body c. and your transubstantiation which ye gather upon it is such Therefore it must be erroneous c. My assumption I prove thus First your interpretation is gain-said by the plain testimony of the Scripture Your interpretation is that there remains no true bread nor wine in the Sacrament but the substance of it is changed But Matthew Mark Luke and the Apostles all four testifies That Christ took bread brake it and gave it to his disciples And lest ye should say that it was true bread and wine before the consecration but not after the Scripture saith plainly 1. Cor. 10.16 that it is bread which we break and bread which is eaten and the fruit of the vine which is drunken in the Sacrament The Apostle saith The bread which we break c. And as oft as ye eat this bread c. Whosoever shal eat this bread c. And let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread c. And our Savior saith that after he had given the cup and they had drunken of it From henceforth shal I not drink of the fruit of the vine with you c. Therefore true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament contrary expresly to your interpretation Secondly That your

interpretation destroyes the Articles of our Faith I prove it thus If this be true that the bread and wine be really changed in the bodie and blood of Christ in the Sacrament as ye expound the words First It will follow that either Christ ascerded not into heaven because he remaineth in the earth in the Sacrament and so one of the Articles of our Belief is falsified Or else if ye say he ascended once but yet descends continually to be present in the Sacrament then another Article of our Belief is falsified which saith That he sitteth at the right hand of God his Father And as Peter saith abides in heaven whom the heavens must contain while the time of the restoring of all things come Act. 3.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Secondly It will follow that Christs bodie is made of the bread for if the substance of the bread be changed in the bodie of Christ then it must follow that the bread is become the bodie of Christ and Christ his bodie is made of that bread as the wine was made of the water at the marriage of Cana in Galilee And so Bellarmin lib 3. de Eucharist fol. 399. and Pope John 22. lib. orat in script antidotar animae and the Master of Sentences Lombard lib. 4. distinct 11. cap. 8 grants that Christ it made of bread and the substance of bread and wine it made Christs flesh and bodie and so here another article of our faith falsified which saith That Christ his bodie was made of the seed of the woman and not of any other matter and like to us in all things except sin Thirdlie It will follow that Christ had two bodies together one under the form of a man and another under the form of bread one speaking and another dumb one giving to his disciples to eat and another the self same thing which was given to be eaten yea it shal follow if your exposition be true in saying That Christs body and blood is under the forms of bread and wine in the Sacrament not only that there are two Christs one in heaven at the right hand of his Father visible glorious and in one place and another Christ in the earth invisible circumscribed by no place but also that there are as many Chri s as there are Sacraments in the earth yea as many Christs as there are bits of bread in every Sacrament and so the foundation of our salvation is overturned Fourthly It will follow that the body and blood of Christ are separat as the bread and wine in the Sacrament which is turned in them is separated Fifthly It will follow that his body is separat from his soul and so a dead bodie because the bread and wine are not changed in his soul but only in his body Sixthly It will follow that the bread in the first Supper being changed in the body of Christ that the substance of the bread hath suffered for us died for us and risen again for us and hath a part of our redemption which is blasphemous to think Seventhly It will follow that Christ eated his own body and drank his own blood which is absurd for Chrysostom hom 83. in Mar. and your Canon Law de consecr dist 2. Canon Nec Moses testifies that he ate the same thing which he gave to his Disciples And also he saith himself From hence forth will I not drink with you more of the fruit of this vine c. So he drank of that which they drank of And last of all it will follow that the Mass-Priest is the creator of his Creator and so their Breviaries and Lombardus and Bellarmin grants In their Breviaries the Priest saith Qui creavit me sine me creatur mediante me that is He that created me without me is created by my moyen Lombardus saith distinct 12. lib. 4. cap. 5. The Priests are said to make the body and blood of Christ because by their ministry the substance of the bread is made his flesh And Bellarmin saith lib. 3. de Eucharist cap 24 Sacerdotes conficiunt corpus Christi ex pane That the Priests makes Christ his body of bread Now if there be no blasphemous absurdities I know not what is blasphemy Now choose ye whither ye will subscribe to all these absurdities which you with all the wit of the Roman Clergy is not able to eschew if ye grant this interpretation of yours to be true or will you forsake this interpretation of yours as false erroneous and contrary both to the plain Scriptures of God and the articles of our Faith and the grounds of our salvation As to the third Your interpretation destroys the nature of all Sacraments and makes the Supper of the Lord no Sacrament for every Sacrament consists of an outward and visible sign and of a spiritual thing signified by that sign the which sign hath a resemblance with the thing signified The sign is ever earthly and the thing signified is heavenly as shal appear by all the rest of the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament In Paradise Gen. 2.9 Rev. 2.7 there was a very tree for the sign and Christ the thing signified by it In circumcision there was a cutting of the skin Gen. 17.9.20 Rom 4 11. Deut. 30.6 Col. 2.11 and the cutting off of sin In the Passover there was a Lamb and Christ Exod. 12. 1. Cor. 5.7.8 John 19.36 And in the Sabath there was a day of rest and eternal rest Heb. 4.1 3.4.5 c. In the Sanctuary there was an holy Place and heaven Heb. 9 24. In the wilderness there was a Rock yeelding water and Christ yeelding his blood 1. Cor. 10 4. In the apparition there was a dove and the holy Ghost John 1.32 In the Manna there was bread and Christ 1. Cor. 10.3 In Baptism there was very water which washeth us and Christs blood washing our sins Tit. 3.5 1. Pet. 3.21 Therefore in the Sacrament of the Supper must be bread and wine feeding this natural life and resembling our communion one with another and Christs flesh blood feeding our spiritual life 1. Cor. 10.16 17. otherwise this Sacrament is against the nature of all other Sacraments which is absurd to think and should be no Sacrament at all as Augustin saith Epist. 23. If the Sacraments had not a resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments they should not be Sacraments at all But your interpretation and doctrine destroys both the sign and the resemblance which they should have with the things signified in the Supper for there is no outward sign there which is an earthly substance but only accidents of color and quantity if your doctrine be true and there is nothing there to resemble either our spiritual nowrishment by the flesh and blood of Christ or yet our spiritual fellowship one with another unless you will say that accidents feeds and nowrishes the which if you will say then to say no more to it but this If

you and your common Clergy who is so bold and strong in maintaining this monstrous Transubstantiation of yours against the truth of God were fed with no better substance then accidents then I say you would have fainted long since in the defence of it Seeing therefore your interpretation makes the Supper to be no Sacrament and makes it unlike all other Sacraments therefore it must be false and erroneous As to the fourth that it is against the whole institution and use thereof I prove it thus First I will ask you what was it which Christ took in his hand If you say his flesh then the text will say the contrary And Jesus took bread in all the three Evangelists and the Apostle Paul So it was bread which he took after he did take it he blessed it What did he bless but the bread which he had taken so it is yet bread After he blessed it he brake it What did he break If you say it was his flesh or body then the Scripture will say the contrary There was not a bone of him broken Exod. 12. John 19. And the Apostle saith It is bread which we break 1. Cor. 10. So it is bread which is broken Then yet it is bread After he brake it he gave it What gave he but the thing which he brake And what brake he but bread 1. Cor. 10.17 and 11.26 27.28 So it is bread which he gave After he had given it they received it and did eat it But what did they eat but that which he gave And therefore the Apostle saith four times It is bread which is eaten and whereof we are partakers and that after the consecration For it is broken given and received and eaten after the consecration And when they did eat it he said This is my body What did he call his body but that which they did eat and that was bread So when then should this change be seeing it is bread all the time while he took it blessed it and gave it and they did eat For I suppose ye will not say it is changed after it is broken and given and in eating Secondly I will ask you what are the words whereby this monstrous change is made as ye suppose of the substance of the bread in Christs body If this change be made by any word spoken in the institution of this Sacrament then I say it must either be by this word And he blessed it or by these words This is my body c. But not by the first for after he blessed it he called it bread And the Apostle saith it is bread which we break therefore it remains bread after the blessing Not by the other words for if they be not spoken to the bread and wine they cannot change their nature But Mark saith plainly they were spoken to the Disciples And he said unto them This is my blood Mark 14.24 Therefore they changed not their nature And Durand a Papist saith in his Rationals That this change is made by the blessing Therefore not by these words which were pronounced after the blessing And these words cannot work a change For they are not words importing an operation as these are Let light be Let the earth bring forth fruit Gen. 1. Come out Lazarus John 12. and such like but only signifying the things themselves as these are Thou art my well-beloved Son So if these words should have wrought any change they would not have been This is my body c. but let this be my body Therefore there is no such change at all here as ye imagine Thirdly it should follow that the cup should also be changed in his blood and in the New Testament because Christ calls the cup his blood and New Testament as he calls the bread his body But this you will not say Wherefore then are you so absurd as to say the other Fourthly I will ask you whither do ye receive in the Sacrament that body which is mortal or that body which is glorified For one of them you must receive either Christs body as it was mortal or his body as it is now glorified If ye say a mortal body then I say Christ hath not a mortal body to give you now in the Sacrament for it is glorified therefore ye cannot receive it If ye say an immortal and glorified body then I say ye must seek another warrant then this text of Matthew Mark and Luke For at that time his body was not glorified For the Sacrament was instituted before his death and he was not glorified until after his resurrection And if ye receive that same body which the Apostles then received then ye receive not a glorified body What a body is this then which ye receive neither mortal nor glorified Fifthly the text saith they who receives unworthily receives their own damnation But if Christs flesh and blood were there present as ye say then all who received it should receive their salvation because our Savior saith He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath life everlasting John 6 54. Now I conclud seeing your interpretation of these places of Scripture and your doctrine of Transubstantiation which ye gather thereupon first is plainly gain-said by the express testimonies of the Scripture next overthrows all the main foundations of our salvation and articles of our Faith thirdly destroys the nature of a Sacrament and maketh it no Sacrament at all and like no other Sacrament either of the Old or New Testament and last of all is contrary to the whole institution thereof as I hope I have sufficiently proved therefore of necessity it must be false and erroneous As for the 10 of the 1. Cor 16. The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion and the bread which we break is it not c. I answer This Sacrament of bread and wine because it not only represents and seals up to us our communion with Christ but also by it as by a most effectual instrument the holy Ghost increases and nowrishes this communion both with him and among our selves therefore it is called the communion of his body and blood But this most clearly proves that there is no such change here as ye suppose for the Apostle saith plainly The bread which we break and this breaking you say is after the consecration therefore after the consecration true bread remains in the Sacrament and so there is no transubstantiation in the same But because you say the substance of the bread and wine is not there I pray you tell me whither are they gone Whither are they turned to nothing or are they changed in Christs body If you say they are turned to nothing First I say this were a strange kind of reasoning This is my body therefore the substance of the bread is turned to nothing Next the Apostle should not speak truly to call it bread which is broken and bread which is eaten c if it were turned to

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.

that he had found such a manner of oath knit with so many circumstances that it could not with safety of conscience by any means be dissolved by any man But he could not see that if the Pope N. B. did dissolve that oath all the tyings of it whither of performing fidelity to the King or of admitting no dispensations would be dissolved together Yea I will say another thing that is more admirable You know that an unjust oath if it be evidently known or openly declared to be such bindeth no man but is voyd ipso acto That the Kings oath is injust hath been sufficiently declared by the Pastor of the Church himself Ye see therefore that the obligation thereof is vanished into smoke so that the bond which by so many wise men was thought to be of iron it become less then of straw So we may see that an oath upon the conscience of a Papist is like a collar upon an Apes neck that he will slip on for his Masters pleasure and slip off again for his own Hence we may see what trust and credit to give their pretences to loyalty and their taking the oath of allegiance For let Papists pretend to never so much moderation yet they acknowledge the Pope as supreme in all spirituals and Ecclesiasticks and profess obedience to him before all the world in things of this nature Now they all know that the Pope doth profess and publish both by doctrine and practise that he hath power to excommunicat the greatest Potentats if hereticks and to command all Catholicks in all things in ordine ad spiritualia That all Catholicks are bound to obey him under pain of damnation in opposing their Soveraign without disputing his commands And so soon as a Prince is excommunicat by the Pope for heresie he is forthwith deposed and deprived of his Princely dignity and soveraignity and his subjects are discharged from all allegiance and are accursed if they further obey him as is evident from the afore mentioned Bulls of Pius the 5. Gregory the 13. and Sixtus the 5. against Queen Elizabeth and the writings of Bellarmin Suarez Allen Sanders Parsons Cresuel and sundry others English Papists who have defended these Bulls and positions even to death In this case a Papist must either cast off his allegiance or incurr the Popes curse and consequently run on certain damnation From which we see that according to the principles of Papists the Pope hath power to dissolve all bonds covenants leagues and oaths as he shal find conducing to the advancement of the Catholik faith so that if he list no bonds humane or divine no oaths never so solemnly taken shal bind Papists for when occasion serveth the Pope can and will relieve them from all obligations of God or conscience of nature and Nations and they must submit to him without contradiction or limitation So that one cannot be a Papist but if he understand his own principles he must be a traitor Object But it may be said Although Papists maintain such principles in reference to them who persecute and extirpate Popery yet if a Prince be favorable to Popery and seek reconciliation with Rome there is no fear from them Ans Let Simancha a Popish Doctor determine this If Kings saith he or other Christian Princes be turned hereticks their subjects are presently fred from their dominion neither shal they receive their right again though they be afterward-reconciled to the Church And as a King loseth his Kingdom by heresie so his children lose their right of succession His words are Si Reges aut alij Principes Christiani facti sint haeretici protinùs subjecti vassalli ab eorum dominio liberantur nec jus hoc recuperabunt quamvis postea reconcilientur Ecclesiae Et propter haeresin non solum Rex regno privatur sed etiam ejus filij a regni successione pelluntur To omit other instances had not King Henry the 4. of France experience of this in his own person for he being a professed Protestant persecuted by the Leaguers that he might enjoy the Kingdom in peace was reconciled to the Fope and went to Mass But was he the more secure or safe for all this surely no for not long after he was stobbed in the mouth by a Jesuit After which for this and other of their treasonable practises and writings they were banished France and a pillar of remembrance of their villanies set up But he to gratifie the Pope caused demolish the pillar and called them in again telling the Parliament that the peril of it should be on him and so it was for it cost him his life being stobbed by Ravillac through the very heart And truly God ordinarly turns this policy to folly whereof many instances might be given I shal name but a few The Eastern Emperors Justinian Phocas the better to recover keep Italy did the Popes much honor and greatly furthered their supremacy But they in requital soon after by Gods just judgement setting themselves against their successors in the cause of Images made the greatest part of Italy revolt from the Emperors obedience After this Constantin the 7. and his mother Irene to get the Popes favor and to recover the Western Empire or at least to keep what they had from revolting with strong hand established worshipping of Images in the second Council of Nice But within twelve years the Pope crowned Charles the Great Emperor of the West and so they lost the Western Empire Likewise John Paleologus Emperor of Greece to procure the Popes favor against the Turks by the strong hand induced the Greek Church to reconcile with Rome and to acknowledge the Popes supremacy in the Council of Florence anno 1439. But this was so far from advantaging him that the Empire was lost within 14. years after Thus we see that God in his righteous judgement turneth such temporizing with the Pope to the ruine of them that do it The only way of safety is to stand at the swords point The eyes of the Lord run to and fro to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is per●ect toward him 2. Chron. 16.9 Whereas politick complyance turns to the ruine of complyers We all know what Jeroboams policy did he to preserve his own Kingdom Set up Ido●s stretched out his hand against the Prophet made Priests of the lowest of the people and ordained high places 1. Kings 12.27.28 But what was the event The text tells us This thing became sin unto the house o● Jeroboam even to cut it off and to destroy it from the face of the earth 1. Kings 13 33 34 Thus we see what treasonable rebellious and bloody principles Papists hold Let us in the next place see if their practises have been answerable thereto SECTION III. Showing that the Pope and Synagogue of Rome have been the grand Authors of warrs and combustions and confusions in the Christian world always both before and since the Reformation

at the bridge of Dee as is proved at large in a Treatise intituled A Discovery of the unnatural and trayterous conspiracy o● Scottish Papists c. printed by King James special command 1592. And as soon as he entered England Watson and Clerk instilled treasons unto sundry Nobles and Gentle-men against the King and Prince before the Coronation But that not succeeding they fall next to the Gun-powder treason designing to blow up King Parliament all at one blow they hiring the cellers of the Parliament-house in which they laid 36. barrels of gunpowder and 1000. billets and 500. fagots and if God had not discovered their wickedness by a singular providence both King Queen Prince Nobles Knights Citizens Burgesses yea the whole Parliament had all gone with at one blow I spare to speak of the continual treasons and rebellions in Ireland both in Queen Elizabeth and King James reign Or of that memorable design of the Spanish Armado anno 1588. Which however it was attempted by Spain yet all men may know that the English and Scottish Papists kept continual correspondence and were combined with the Spaniard And of the thundering Bull of Pope Sixtus the 5. then sent abroad for confirmation of the several Bulls made by his predecessors Pius the 5. and Gregory the 13. against Queen Elizabeth to the end our Papists might more cheerfully assist in that bloody enterprise Nor were the Papists less active in King Charles the first his reign as M Prin and M. Baxter have evidenced at large Prin in several treatises especially in a treatise intituled Romes Master-piece shows what great plots they had either to ruine King and Kingdom or to procure liberty for the profession of Popery M. Baxter in his Key of Catholicks chap. 45. seqq proveth at large that they plotted contryved and carried on that late change of Government in the State and that cruel and abominable parricide committed on the Royal person of King Charles the first Peter du Moulin junior Chaplain to the Kings Majesty in his vindication of the sincerity of the Protestant Religion in the point of obedience to Soveraigns chap. 2. pag. 58.59 testifieth That the year before the Kings death a select number of English Jesuits were sent from their whole party in England first to Paris to consult with the Faculty of Sorbon then altogether Jesuited to whom they put this question in writing That seeing the State of England was in a likely posture to change Government whither it was lawful for the Catholicks to work that change for the advancing and securing of the Catholicks cause in England by making away the King whom there was no hope to turn from his heresie Which was answered affirmatively After which the same persons went to Rome where the same question being propounded and debated it was concluded by the Pope and his Council that it was both lawful and expedient for the Catholicks to promote that alteration of State What followed that consultation and sentence all the world knoweth The same Author relateth That when the news of that horrible execution came to Roan a Protestant Gentle-man of good credit was present in a great number of Jesuited persons where after great expressions of joy the greatest of the company to whom all gave ear spake much after this sort The King of England at his marriage had promised us the reestablishing of the Catholick Religion in England and when he delayed to fulfil his promise we summoned him from time to time to perform it We came so far as to tell him that if he would not do it we should be forced to take these courses which would bring him to his destruction We have given him lawful warning and when no warning would serve we have kept our vow to him since he would not keep his word to us The said Author likewise relateth That in pursuance of the fore-mentioned conclusion at Rome many Jesuits came over who take several shapes to go about their work but most of them took party in the army About thirty of them were met by a Protestant Gentle-man between Roan and Deep to whom they said taking him for one of their party that they were going to England and would take arms in the Independant army and endeavor to be Agitators Much more hath he to this purpose M. Baxter likewise proveth that many Jesuits did enter in the army and swarmed through the Countrey under the name of Independants Seekers Quakers Levellers c. endeavoring to ruine the Reformed Religion by railing against the Church Ministery Ordinances c. From all which it is evident that the grand work of the Pope and Jesuits his Janisaries is to plot and carry on treasons and bloodshed in Protestant Kingdoms and Commonwealths which they have been still about since the Reformation And no wonder the Priests and Jesuits lay life and all at the stake to accomplish bloody and traiterous designs seeing they are sworn and ingaged by oath to make this their work For the Pope binds all the Jesuits and Priests by oath to inculcat their principles of treason into their proselyts and to stir them up upon all occasions to act it as will be evident to any who will but read the rules of Ignatius Loyola the father of the Jesuits Or the testimony of Pope Urban the 8. in his Bull of Canonization of Ignatius Loyola Touching that Society that beyond all other fraternity they are the chief and most strenuous propugners of the Popes authority And how far do the Jesuits extend their vow of blind obedience Even to the killing of Kings raising of treasons and rebellions whereever they can have access So that Watson in his Quodlibets and other secular Priests have proven and concluded the Jesuits traitors both for tenets and practise But not only are the Jesuits bound by oath to assassinations and rebellions but also the secular Priests themselves who are not Jesuits are bound unto the Pope himself in his Constitutions for ordering of the English Colledge at Rome by oath to propagat rebellion For thus speaks Martin Aspilcueta Doctor Novarrus lib. 3. consil resp concil 1. de regular cited by Doctor Burges At Rome in the Colledge of the English it is a Statut and Papal Constitution that whoever will be admitted into that Colledge he be tyed to swear that after so many years he will travel unto England for defence of the Catholick faith and there preach it both in publick and privat Now what Faith it is that they are bound to preach the treasons and rebellions raised by them can best evidence Now their great work is to corrupt the judgements of their followers and instruments of assassination and treason with poysonous positions touching the nature of such facts and bribe their consciences with strong baits of reward and glory to all that will undertake the acting of treasons and rebellions at their instigation which is a strong incentive to them For men that

The persons to whom the work is done must be obliged and bound by right to render and recompense the worker for the worthiness of the work so that he is not just if he do it not And last of all the work must be our own and not anothers and the power our own whereby it is done and not anothers ere we can be said properly to merit by the same But all these conditions will fail in our works therefore they cannot be meritorious of eternal life For as to the first the Prophet saith That all our righteousness is as a menstrous cloth And James saith We all offend in many things and none there is that have contained in doing all things written in the Law in that perfection which it craves of us as hath been proved before therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life And as to the second all that we can do or is able to do we are bound to do it already by the vertue of our creation and redemption and his other blessings already bestowed yea they oblige us to more then we are ever able to pay according to that saying of our Savior Luke 17.10 Even so ye when ye have done all that is commanded you say We are unprofitable servants because we have done that which was our duty to do Since therefore it is duty it cannot be meritorious of eternal life And as to the third there is no proportion between eternal life and our works the reward by infinit degrees surpassing the work and therefore the Apostle saith The afflictions of this life are not worthy of the glory which shal be revealed Rom. 8 18. Everlasting life being only the just reward of the sufferings of the Son of God Bernard saith What are all our merits to so great a glory serm 1. de annum And Athanasius saith in vita Antonij Not suppose we would renounce the whole world yet are we not able to do any thing worthy of these heavenly habitations As to the fourth the Lord is debtor to no creature For as the Apostle saith Who hath given him first and he shal be recompensed Rom. 11.35 The Lord is all-sufficient in himself and so needs none of your labors and so our works cannot oblige him And therefore Augustin saith serm 16. de verbis Apostoli God is made a debter unto us not by receiving any thing from our hands but because it pleased him to promise And to the last the Apostle saith What hast thou that thou didst not receive now if thou didst receive it why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it 1. Cor. 4.7 Seeing therefore all our works are imperfect and seeing we are not able to fulfill the Law and seeing all that we can do is but our duty and there is no proportion betwixt eternal life and our works and that the Lord is debtor to no man and all our ability of doing is from the Lord only therefore our works cannot be meritorious of eternal life Hear further what the Fathers say in this point Augustin saith in manuali c. 22. All my hope is in the death of my Lord his death is my merit my refuge salvation life and resurrection my merit is the compassion of the Lord I shal not be void of a merit so long as the Lord of mercies shal not want Origen who lived two hundred years before him saith in Epist ad Rom. cap. 4. lib. 4. I scarcely believe that there can be any work which may of due demand the reward of God forsomuch as even the same that we can do think or speak we do it by his gift or bounty Then how can he ow us any thing whose grace did preveen us And he saith afterward That the Apostle assigns eternal life to grace only Ambrose saith de bono mor. cap. 1. Everlasting life is forgiveness of sins so then it is not merit Jerome saith adversus Pelag. That before God no man is just therefore no man can merit And again he saith The only perfection of man is if they know themselves to be imperfect and our justice consisteth not of our own merit but of Gods mercy I omit the rest for ●●ortness Now to your testimonies and reason to prove your merit of works which you shamefuly abuse bringing forth Scripture to cloke your damnable doctrine unto the which I answer shortly That there is a reward laid up with God for the works of every one be they good be they evil and according to their works shal they be tryed and every man shal be judged and recompensed accordingly as the Scripture plainly testifieth But that this reward of eternal life promised is of debt and not of grace and that our works are the meritorious cause of the same that the Scripture never affirms For the Lord freely and of his meer grace crowneth his own works in us and that not for the excellency of the work it self but of mercy freely for his Christs sake as both I have proved and the Fathers have testified So these Scriptures serve you to no purpose For the controversie betwixt us is not whither there is a reward promised and whither it shal be rendred accordingly to the same for that we grant but whither this reward is of merit or of grace The Apostle saith plainly in the 6 of the Romans The wages of sin is death but everlasting life is the free gift of God And in the 8 of the Romans it is called an inheritance Now if it be heritage to them that are in Christ and they heirs of it through him then it is not their merit As for the 16. of Ecclesiasticus it is Apocrypha and the text hath not that word merit as the old Interpreter whom ye follow translates it but according to his work As for the 118. Psalm and the 16 of Matthew ye are over seen in the quoting of them for they have no such thing As for your reason that a reward hath ever a relation to a merit that is false For the Apostle in the 4. of the Romans speaks of a reward that is imputed freely not to him who worketh but to him that believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly vers 5. And in this sense the reward of eternal life promised and fulfilled in his Saints is taken in the Scriptures And whereas you say that there is no reward promised but to doing and working that is false also for there is a reward of eternal life promised to the believer vers 5. And as for the promises of reward made to good works it is true it is made to them but not as though our works were meritorious causes of that reward but only that they are effects to testifie of our faith in the merit of Jesus Christ in whom only the promises are made to us and our works and for whose sake only they are fulfilled in his Saints For these causes therefore is the promise of reward made unto works first

because all men by nature are hypocrits and boasts of a vain pretence of faith unto whom James saith Show me thy faith by thy works James 2.18 to take away therefore this vail of hypocrisie from hypocrits the promises are made to works 2. The promise is made to works to stir us up to the doing of them for we would be faint in doing good if we knew not that the Lord would reward them It is true he hath promised no reward to them who work not because they in whom Christ dwels they are not only justified but also sanctified and bring forth the fruit of their sanctification And this for the ninth point of your doctrine which is so damnable that both it derogats from the merit of Christ and makes men to take away their confidence from Gods only mercy and free grace and swells them up with a vain confidence of themselves and binds as it were their hearts and mouthes that they cannot with all their heart render the whole praise of their salvation to Gods only free grace SECTION XVIII Concerning Works of Supererogation M. Gilbert Brown TWelftly we have other works that are called works of Supererogation which are works of greater perfection and are not set down to us as the commands of God without the which we cannot be saved but as divine counsels adjoyned thereto they augment our glory and reward in heaven which is also the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Christ said to the young man If thou wilt be perfect go sell the things thou hast and give unto the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven and come follow me Matth. 19.21 Mark 10.21 So we find that wilful poverty is a work of supererogation Such like S. Paul 1. Cor. 7.34.38 saith And the woman unmarried and the virgin thinks on the things that pertains to our Lord that she may be both holy in body and spirit And afterwards Therefore both he that joyns his virgin in matrimony doth well and he that joyns not doth better Therefore virginity is a work of supererogation for albeit matrimony be good yet the other is better and this was a counsel that S. Paul gave and no command Such like Paul wrought a work of supererogation when he preached the Evangel gratis where he might have taken justly for his labors 1. Cor. 7.40 and 9.14.15.23.17.18.19 Christ our Savior speaks of the same works in the parable of the Samaritan Luke 10.35 where he promised to the hostler to recompense him what ever he did supererogat upon the wounded man more then the two pennies And David the Prophet did supererogat when he did rise in the night to give God praise and seven times in the day and so forth Psal 118.62.164 Master John Welsch his Reply As though your former doctrine had not injuried the merits of the Son of God and his free grace enough with the which if the Apostle be true your merits of works cannot stand For the Apostle saith speaking of our salvation If it be of grace then it is no more by works otherwise grace were no more grace and if it were of works then were it no more of grace otherwise works were no more works Rom. 11.6 You yet add this damnable and blasphemous doctrine to all the rest And certainly suppose ye will not let it fall to the ground that your doctrine is the doctrine of the dragon and that your Church is that mystical Babylon that mother of whoredoms full of names of blasphemie yet this your blasphemous doctrine sufficiently declares what you are For I appeal your conscience if ye have any unblotted out yet with the smoke of the bottomless pit and the conscience of all men who ever felt the power of sin in them and the free grace of God renewing them whither this doctrine of yours be blasphemous or not That not only you may fulfil the Law and do all the duty which God hath commanded you and thereby merit eternal life but also you may do more then God hath commanded which ye call works of greater perfection then the Law of God requires of us by the doing of the which you say you merit a greater degree of glory in the kingdom of heaven and as Bellarmin saith in his preface before de monachis lib. 2. That your religious Monks lives a straiter and more high kind of life then either the Law of God or man hath prescribed And that a man may love God with a greater and more perfect love then is commanded him in the Law lib. 2. cap. 13. 6. yea that a man may love God with a greater love then he is bound to love him and that these works are not only meritorious of eternal life and of a singular glory in heaven but also are profitable to satisfie for our sins and that men may communicat of the abundance of these their merits unto others And therefore they have in their service books according to the order of sarum this form of prayer often That by the merits of the Saints they may obtain grace and by the blood of Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury they may ascend to heaven All which whither they be not words of blasphemy and the doctrine of the dragon I appeal your conscience before God in the great day and the consciences of all men as though it were not blasphemy enough to say that men may merit eternal life and a greater degree of glory in that life to themselves by their works but also to communicat unto others of the abundance of their works and so not only to be saviors of themselves but of others also And here Reader I am compelled to speak this to thee suppose thou believe not that they have written and will maintain so horrible blasphemies I wonder not for I speak the truth to thee in my conscience I lie not I could not have been induced my self to have believed that ever they durst have professed such damnable and devilish doctrine if I had not read it my self in their own books yea I durst not have been so confident as to have set it down here upon the report of any except I had read it my self But if the blind lead the blind both will fall into the pit together The Lord deliver his own from such damnable doctrine which of necessity must bring damnation upon the believers and professors of it To answer you then first if we be not able to perform all the duties which God requires of us in his law then we are not able to do works of supererogation which is more then our duty commanded in the law as ye say But the first I have proved before therefore the second is true Secondly if the Law of God be perfect and prescrives more then we are able to do then there is no works of supererogation this you will not deny But David saith The Law of God is perfect Psal 19. and our inability to perform it I have