in the Old Testament was and is fulfilled in the New Testament But the New Testament hath not so much as one syllable of your sacrifice of the Mass therefore it could not be prefigured in the Old Testament For if it were prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Testament it behoved either to be one with the spiritual sacrifice of all Christians or else one with the bloody sacrifice of Christ upon the cross for only these two sorts of sacrifices are prefigured in the Old Testament recorded to be fulfilled in the New Testament but your sacrifice of the Mass is one with neither of them for it is not one with the first sort for they are spiritual you will have it external neither is it one with the other of Christs sacrifice upon the cross for there he died there he shed his blood and there he suffered the torments of Gods wrath and indignation for our sins and there he satisfied the justice of God and merited an everlasting redemption to us But in your sacrifice of the Mass your selves grants that neither is he crucified nor is his blood shed nor suffers he the wrath of God for our sins nor satisfies properly the justice of God for the same nor properly merits remission of our sins in the Mass Bellarm. lib. 2. de missa cap. 4. therefore it is not one with that sacrifice of Christ upon the cross For two several actions which have two different forms and are done in divers times and places for divers ends cannot be one only and the self same sacrifice for it is the form that gives a thing to be and distinguishes it from all other things But Christ his offering up of himself upon the cross and your sacrifice of the Mass have different forms are done in divers places and times and for diverse ends therefore they cannot be both one Further if they were both one then it should follow that as the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of an infinit valor so the sacrifice of the Mass should be of the same valor But Bellarmin saith lib. 2. de missa cap. 4 fol. 740. That the sacrifice of the Mass is but of a finit valor and the sacrifice of the cross of an infinit valor Therefore they cannot be both one and the self same sacrifice Therefore this sacrifice of your Mass seeing it is not one with neither of these two sorts of sacrifices is not prefigured in the Old Testament As for the second that it was fore-told by the Prophets It is as true as the former for all the sacrifices which were fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New Testament But the New Testament as hath been said makes only mention of these two sorts of sacrifices Christs on the cross and our spiritual sacrifices and not a syllable or the sacrifice of the Mass Therefore it is not fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Testament As for these Scriptures which ye quote Malac. 1.10.11.12 Isai 19.19.21 and 56.7 they speak of the spiritual worship of God and of the spiritual sacrifices which the Gentils being called should offer up unto God under the Gospel whereof mention is made in these places Heb. 13.15.16 1. Pet. 2.5 Rom. 12.1 and 15.16 For either they speak properly and literally or else figuratively But if you say they speak properly of external sacrifices then they speak here of that legal and ceremonial worship of the Jewes and so these places doth not appertain to the New Testament Or if you will say they speak figuratively then I say they make nothing for your external sacrifice in the Mass which you will have to be a sacrifice not figuratively but properly So howsoever ye expone them they can no wayes make for your external sacrifice in the Mass Either therefore must ye prove this sacrifice of your Mass in the New Testament first which ye will never be able to do or else the figures and prophesies in the Old Testament will never prove it seeing there is nothing either prefigured or fore-told in the Old Testament but that which in the New Testament is fulfilled Let us see therefore what you can alledge for this your sacrifice in the New Testament You say that Christ the chief Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action and according to the order of Aaron upon the cross instituted it Matth. 26.26 Luke 22.19 Mark 14 22. and commanded to be observed to the end of the world Before I come to the institution there are two things to be examined which you have written here The first that you say that Christ according to the order of Aaron did offer up himself upon the cross Unto the which I answer first that you gain-say here two great Papists Alanus and Bellarmin whereof the one saith that Christ never sacrificed Aaronicè that is according to the order of Aaron Alanus de Eucharist lib 2. cap. 9. The other saith that Christ his sacrifice upon the cross was neither according to the order of Melchisedeck nor yet according to the order of Aaron Bellarm. de Missa lib. 1. cap. 6 fol. 626. And not only he affirmes it that it is not according to the order of Aaron but also he affirmes that this should be certain to all the faithful So if you be of the faithful and his doctrine be true which the Pope your head hath priviledged to be printed this should also have been certain to you and so you should not have gain-said it You had need to beware of this M. Gilbert to contradict so openly the learned Fathers and Maisters of your Catholick faith for by this doing ye will both bewray your selves that you have no unity and concord one with another and also ye will bring your self in suspicion with your head that ye are not a defender of the Catholick faith seeing you so openly contradict the maisters and defenders thereof Mark this Reader what concord these men have among themselves some saying one thing some another Next I say if you refer this also to his person that as this action was according to Aaron so himself was a Priest according to his order in his sacrifice Then I say you both gain-say the plain Scriptures of God Heb. 5.6.10 and 7.11 and also the learnedst of your Church Bellar. lib. 1. de missa cap. 6. For suppose it be true that this sacrifice of his upon the cross did accomplish all the sacrifices of Aaron and put an end unto them according as he said It is finished Yet he offered up this sacrifice not as he was a Priest according to Aaron for he was not a Priest according to his order at all but as he was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck and therefore the Scripture joyns both together Heb. 5.6.7.10 to assure us that he offered up himself upon the cross as he was Priest not according to Aaron but according to Melchisedeck
The second thing is that you say Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action which you mean the Mass did offer up his body and blood under the formes of bread and wine It is true indeed that Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck is an high-Priest and not according to the order of Aaron but yet neither is it certain out of the Scripture that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine in an external sacrifice For the Scripture saith only he brought it forth For this is the proper signification of the Hebrew word Hotzsi as in sundry places of Scripture Ezech. 22. Psal 135. Exod. 8. Num. 30. and so the Chaldaick Paraphrast Amena which is to bring forth and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Cyprian Epist ad Caecil Chrysost hom 35. in cap. 14. Genes Joseph lib. 1. cap. 19. Ambros upon the 7. cap. Epist ad Heb. he brought forth for to refresh Abraham c. And Cardinal Cajetan saith the same upon the 14 of Gen. There is nothing written there of a sacrifice or oblation but a bringing forth of bread and wine to refresh the victors saith he which is not to sacrifice And it is certain that he gave it to Abraham and his company to refresh them with after the slaughter of these Kings And the Apostle Heb 7 whereas he sets down these things wherein Melchisedeck was a type of Christ he doth not so much as give any inkling of this For there he compares Melchisedeck with Christ First that as Melchisedeck was both King and Priest so was Christ Next as Melchisedeck was without father and mother beginning and ending the Scripture not mentioning of it so was Christ Thirdly as Melchisedeck was greater then Aaron and had a more excellent Priesthood then the Levitical Priesthood so was Christs But never a word here of a sacrifice of bread and wine wherein Melchisedeck should have resembled the sacrifice of your Mass as ye suppose So you find out here that which the Spirit of God found not out and so ye make your self wiser then the holy Ghost in his Epistle But we will learn not to be wise above that which is written and to search no further then the Spirit of God hath found out already And suppose it were granted to you which ye are never able to prove that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine yet what to do hath this with your devilish abomination of your Mass wherein ye say the substance of bread and wine is gone away only the formes remaining For if your sacrifice in the Mass be like the sacrifice of Melchisedeck then the substance of bread and wine should remain as it did in the sacrifice of Melchisedeck and the bread and wine should be offered up and not Christs body and blood as bread and wine only were offered up in Melchisedeck his sacrifice So then either Melchisedeck his sacrifice is not a type of your sacrifice in the Mass or else true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament and not Christ his body and blood which is offered up Choose you then whither you will deny your sacrifice to be according to the order of Melchisedeck or else will you let go your real presence your transubstantiation and your personal offering up of Christ Jesus in your abominable Mass for one you must do Thirdly if Christ offered up such a sacrifice at his Supper as was prefigured by Melchisedeck which you affirm here then must it follow that Christ fulfilled that figure perfectly and so the same sacrifice needs no more to be offered up again and so here will follow the desolation of your Mass-Priests whose work is chiefly in repeating of this sacrifice again Fourthly I would ask you whither is this sacrifice which ye say he offered up according to the order of Melchisedeck in his last Supper one with that sacrifice which he offered up upon the cross or not If it be one then I say as he died and shed his blood on the cross and purchased an everlasting redemption by the same so this sacrifice of your Mass must be joyned with his death and shedding of his blood and must have the like vertue and effect to redeem us and so two absurdities will follow The one that Christ not only should twise have died once in the Supper and afterward upon the cross but also dies and is crucified continually in your Mass and yet the Scripture saith he died but once The other that that sacrifice of his upon the cross is superfluous for what needed him to die again to redeem mankind since the first offering of himself in the Supper was a sufficient redemption For if his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption which you cannot deny and if the sacrifice of him in the Supper be one with that of necessity it must follow that as his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption even so his sacrifice in the Supper must be a sufficient redemption for mankind And therefore Alanus a great defender of your Catholick faith saith according to the judgement of the Council of Trent That the new Covenant is founded on the blood of Christ offered up in the Supper before he was crucified and that Christ was truly our passover the day before he suffered and he saith This is the foundation of all Christian doctrine according to the judgement of the Council Alanus de Euchar. lib. 2 cap. 28. Now if this be true that he was our Passover before he died and the covenant was founded in his blood which he offered up in the Supper then certainly Christ died in vain which is more then blasphemous and so blasphemous must that doctrine of your Mass be which carries with it such a blasphemie And if you will say it is not the same with that sacrifice upon the cross then I say First you are contrary to your own Church in this who saith it is one with that sacrifice of the cross Next Christ his body and blood is not offered then in the Supper for his body and blood was offered up upon the cross and so your Mass is gone or else make two Christs one in the Supper under the forms of bread and wine which the Disciples saw not and another who was offered up upon the cross which was seen of all So whither will ye go and unto what side will ye turn you M. Gilbert for the uphold of your Mass For there are rocks and sand-beds on every side So neither did Christ offer up himself in a sacrifice at all in his last Supper neither did he it according to the order of Melchisedeck But now let us see how ye prove this sacrifice out of the institution And seeing this point of doctrine is such a weighty point as whereupon the salvation and damnation of souls doth hing therefore I pray thee Christian Reader deceive not thine own soul to thy everlasting perdition but take
Apostles till now never interrupted never spoken against but of late since Martin Luthers dayes But yours say they is newlie forged and invented never heard tell of but since Luther and Calvins dayes Therefore yours cannot be the true Religion and ours must be the only true Religion M. Gilbert Brown This objection consists partly of a truth and partly of an untruth It appears by this that either M. John knows not our proofs or if he doth he alters the same that he may the better oppugn his own invention Our objection or rather one of our proofs whereby we prove that we Catholicks is the only true Church of Christ and have the only truth in all things is this We have aboundantly set down to us by the Prophets and Apostles in the holy writ that the kingdom and Church of Christ shal never fail in this earth and that the gates of hell shal not prevail against it But shal be permanent for ever and shal have alwayes the presence and assistance of the Father Son and holy Ghost who shal teach it all truth and remain with it for ever as may be perceived by these places noted here which were over longsome to be set down at length To the which I adjoyn some of the ancient Fathers exponing the same Out of the Old Testament Psal 60.5 read August upon this Psal 88. v. 1.2.3.4.5.19.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38 read Aug. on these places Psal 104. ver 8. read Aug. Psal 110.9 Esa 9.7 read S. Hier. on Esa 51.7.8 read S. Hier. on Esa 54.8.9 read Hier. on Esa 55.3.13 Esa 59.21 read Hier. on Jer. 31.3.36 read Hier. on Ezec. 37.25.26 Dan. 2.44 Dan. 7.14.27 Mich. 4.7 Out of the New Testament Luc. 1.33 read S. August upon the 109. Psal Matth. 10.18 read here Saint Hierome upon this place Luke 22.32 John 14.16.17 John 17.18.19.20 Matth. 28.20 1. Tim. 3.15 Acts 5.39 Some of the ancient Fathers Hilar. de Trinitat lib. 7. August de utili credent cap. 87. Ambros lib. 9. cap. 20. Chrysost in serm de pente Clem. Alex. lib. 6. strom in the end And because the Scriptures and the ancient Fathers of the primitive Church concurrs and agrees in one unitie I would wish M. John to consider the same that the Church of Christ by all mens judgements shal never fail nor be interrupted nor broken M. John Welsch his Reply I will follow your footsteps and first answer to that part which ye say is true and then unto that which ye say is false And as to the first the ground which ye laid down whereupon ye go about to build the truth of your Religion is the Church of Christ shal never fail nor be interrupted c. It is recorded in Histories Athenaeus dipnosophist lib. 12. of one Thrasilaus a frantick man among the Greeks whensoever he saw any ships arrive at the haven of Athens he thought them all his own and took an inventarie of their wares and met them with great joy Even so it is with you wheresoever you see the name of the Church in the holy Scripture the promises of God made unto the same ye take all to be yours and books the treasures of it and boasts thereof as though they were your own crying The gates of hell shal never prevail against it It shal never fail It hath always the holy Ghost to lead it in all truth To remove you therefore out of the haven and to give every merchant his own ware and his own ship and to set the Church it self in possession of the Church we must distinguish the name of the Church The Church therefore is taken sometimes for the companie of the elect and chosen whereof a part is in heaven triumphing with Christ their Lord a part here in the earth fighting her battels lying in her camp and awaiting for the victorie And these are termed the invisible Church because Gods election cannot be discerned by the judgement of mans senses or eyes and we cannot know who are his chosen And unto this Church that is to the chosen appertains all the promises set down in the Scripture and in them only are they fulfilled And sometimes it is taken for the company of them who professes the true Religion wherein both the chaff and the wheat the popple and the good seed Matth. 3.12 and 13.24.25 the dregs and the wine the good and the evil are mixed together the which suppose they be in the Church yet they are not of the Church no more then the superfluous humors of the bodie are true and livelie members thereof So then if ye mean by the Church The Church of the elect and if ye mean by this That it shal never fail nor be interrupted c. only this that it shal never be utterly abolished but shal have alwayes the presence of the holy Ghost to lead her in all truth yea and in all holiness also in so far as shal serve for her salvation We grant that with you as Bellarmin confesseth of us and therefore he saith Lib. 3. de Eccles milit cap. 13. That many of their number spend but time while as they go about to prove that the Church here beneath absolutelie cannot perish or make absolute defection for Calvin saith he and the rest of the hereticks grant that but they speak and mean saith he of the invisible Church So if ye mean no further but this then Bellarmin telleth you that all the testimonies of Scripture and Fathers that ye have heaped up here to prove the same is but to spend the time so are fetched as needless witnesses in a matter â—â—at is not doubt some or called in question And if ye had understood his language ye needed not to have cumbred your self in fetching of this mortar and stone to build up your Babel For this was not required at your hands But because it is Babel which ye are bigging a tower of confusion therefore the Lord hath sent such a confusion of language among you that few of you understands what another sayes when some cryes for mortar others brings stone Bellarmin the great maister-builder cryes for proofs to prove that the visible Church here beneath cannot err neither in the matters which are needful to salvation neither in the matters which are not needful which she propones to be believed or to be done whither they be doctrine contained in the Scripture or extra scripturam that is not contained in the Scripture He cryes to prove that and ye cumber your self in bringing in a number of Scriptures to prove that the Church shal alwayes remain till the end of the world whereas in the examination of your proofs it will be found that they will go no further with you But if ye mean of the visible Church that it shal never fail c. that is it shal never fail in doctrine nor be interrupted in the same not only in the matters needful to salvation but in all truth as ye affirm of your
promised to the Apostles to dwel with them and to remain with them for ever And in the 16. chap. vers 13. that he shal lead them in all truth I answer first that was the Apostles prerogative the Maister-builders of the Church of Christ that in writing and teaching the doctrine of salvation they should be led in all truth and in none ever since promised nor performed in that high measure Secondly this promise of the Spirit of truth to dwel and remain in them for ever and to lead them in all truth is made and performed in all believers in so far as may sanctifie them and save them and yet ye will not deny but that every one of the believers may err Therefore this promise will not reach so far as to keep the Church from impossibility of erring As to that place in the 17. of John I answered to it before As to the 28. of Matthew I will be with you to the end of the world I answer the same thing to it which I answered to the former that this promise is made not to any visible and ordinar succession for that is to ty the promises of God to persons and places but to the Pastors of the Church whom he sends forth and to all the faithful and is performed in them in so far forth as may save them and inable them for his work But yet this will not exeem them from all possibility of erring As to that in the 1. Tim. 3. vers 15. the Church is called the pillar and ground of truth therefore ye gather It cannot err First I will ask you to whom the Apostle speaks so and upon what occasion he speaks it Ye must say To Timothie that he might know how to behave himself in the house of God which is the Church 2. Tim. 3.14 for so the Apostle writes Then I ask Is not that Church wherein Timothy should have behaved himself called the ground and pillar of truth So the Scripture calls it and ye cannot deny it Now this Church was the Church of Ephesus then the Church of Ephesus is called the ground and pillar of truth But first the Church of Ephesus fell from her first love and the candlestick is threatned to be removed from her unless she repent Rev. 2.5 She did not repent but in time became worse and worse and so heaped fault upon fault till Christ hath now removed his candlestick from her and delivered her over to darkness and death by taking his own elect to himself and giving over the reprobat that hated the truth to the blindness of their own mind so that city is left desolat to the impiety of Mahomet and she that was once called by Gods Spirit the pillar and ground of truth hath now lost the truth Now I say that which may befall one Church may befall any other Church Then that which is befallen to the Church of Ephesus may befall any other But the Church of Ephesus was first craised and then by little and little utterly overthrown and being bereft of the light of Christ is now a Church no longer Therefore I say that there is no Church on the face of the earth howsoever they flatter themselves with glorious styles of Catholick pillars and ground of the truth whose body that is the elect and chosen in it may not be overshadowed with darkness and overtaken with faintness whose chaff that is the hypocrits in it may not be wholly consumed with rottenness and destruction and whose whole frame and outward government may not loose both their strength and beauty Thirdly I say if the Church cannot err as ye say because it is the ground and pillar of truth and if the Church of Ephesus be called the pillar and ground of truth as the Scripture saith and seeing the Church of Ephesus with all the Churches of the East as ye cannot deny hath condemned the Popes supremacy as heresie Therefore one of these two must follow either that the Church that is the pillar and ground of the truth not only may err but hath erred or else it is an heresie condemned many hūdred years ago That the Pope is the head of the Church so Popery is heresie Judge ye which of these ye will choose Last of all I say the Church is called the pillar and ground of truth because it is her office and duty to hold out the word of truth as lanterns and light Philip. 2.16 by preaching it and practising it as the Priest is called the Messenger of the Lord of hosts because his lips should preserve knowledge and declare the message of God Malach. 2.7 But as there were Priests which shew not forth the message of God but caused many to err in the Law and corrupted the covenant of Levi so there may be Churches and have been which have not upheld and maintained the truth but have fallen therefrom Now I come to your last testimony of Scripture Acts 5.39 In that counsel of Gamaliel to the Council of the Scribes and Pharisies That if the doctrine of the Apostles be of God that it cannot be destroyed What do you gather here That the truth doth remain for ever Bellarmin telleth you that ye spend but time in proving that for we grant it unto you It cannot I grant be destroyed but yet it can be persecuted and removed out of places where it was before and obscured and corrupted by mens glosses and traditions as it hath been these 1500. years by the Jews to whom this was spoken That if the doctrine of the Apostles was of God they could not destroy it and yet as was said they banished it and made the Lord to deprive them thereof and to give them over to the blindness and hardness of their hearts because they would not embrace the truth when it was offered Seeing then there is not a syllab in Gods Word that will uphold this main foundation of your Church that the Church cannot err take heed to your self M. Gilbert in time and build not the damnation of your own soul and the damnation of the souls of many others upon a point of doctrine that hath not God to bear witness to it in the whole Scripture I might end here but because this point as I said before is the main pillar that upholds the whole weight of their Church and Religion therefore I will utterly overthrow the same and I will prove out of the Word of God That the Church in all ages both may err and hath erred And first the Scripture testifieth that it is only proper to God alone by nature to be perfectly holy and true and free from all errors Mark 10.18 And contrariwise man by nature is unholy a liar prone to deceive and to be deceived Rom. 3.4 9.10.11.17 and 19. vers so that by nature he is nothing else but a mass of blindness and corruption so that the light he hath he hath it by free grace by Gods Spirit to make
abundance of the rivers of the Scriptures of God quench and satisfie this your desire but that you must go unto the unpure fountains of mens writings as though the Scriptures were not sufficient not only to make a man wise unto salvation but to make him perfect in every thing These things I am sure will satisfie the souls of them that love the truth But because you give no credit to the Scriptures but counts them as a nose of wax and as one of your Popes speaking to Bembus a Cardinal called them a fable of Christ and yet such a fable as hath inriched your treasures And Sylvester Prierias writing against Luther saith That the Roman Church and Pope is of greater authority then the Scriptures O horrible blasphemies of the holy truth of God Therefore we will go to the Histories and see what they have testified of these circumstances And although all things here be not expressed to the full yet there is so much left uncorrupted and unscraped out by the gracious providence of God that would not want his witness in all ages out of the Fathers and your own Writers that I hope will satisfie the consciences of all the modest and godly Clemens Alexandrinus saith lib. 1. strom that the Apostles successors received the doctrine from them as the sons from their fathers But he subjoyns That there was very few children that was like their fathers Aegesippus as Nicephorus reports saith lib. 3. cap. 16. That the Church remained a pure virgin as long as the Apostles lived unto Trajans time but they being dead he writes that it was speedily corrupted So if ye credit the testimonies of these men ye see the Church remaineth not long in her integrity And if you would hear any thing of your Roman Church Socrates lib. 7. cap. 11. saith That Celestin your Pope past the bounds of his Priesthood Read Basilius de Spiritu sancto cap. ult and there ye may see what change of Religion was in his time Augustin testifies epist 119. c. 19. That the multitude of ceremonies grew so in his time that the condition of the Jews seemed to be more tollerable then the condition of the Church Now did not this sickness suppose ye grow by time And to come to your own Writers Bernard saith in Cant. 33. That the Ministers of Christ meaning of the Roman Church serves Antichrist And to the Pope himself Eugenius the 3. he saith lib. 4. And thou the shepherd goeth forth being clothed with a glorious attyr if I durst say it these are the feeding places of Devils rather then of sheep Thy court is accustomed rather to receive good men then to make them good not the evil profits but the good decays there And in another place he saith From the sole of the foot speaking of the Church of Rome to the crown of the head there is no health nor soundness And de conv Pauli Psal 91. ser 6. he saith What remains now speaking of the corruption of that Church of Rome but that the man of sin be revealed the man of perdition Daemonium non modò diurnum sed meridianum that is a devilry not only in the day-tyde but in the very noon-tyde And lib. 4. to Eugenius the Pope he saith In these secular attyrs and powers thou hast not succeeded to Peter but to Constantine The day would sooner fail me then the writing of his complaints against the Church of Rome Pope Adrian the 6. in his instructions to his Legats who were sent to the Council of Noremberg he grants and bids them say to the Council That we know that in this chair meaning Peters Sea in Rome for certain years many abominable things have been in it the abuse in spiritual things the excess in commandments and in a word all things are changed in a worse And the Council of the Cardinals to Paul the third they say Out of this fountain holy Father as from the Troyan horse hath broken so many abuses in the Church of God such heavy diseases whereby we see now that she is despaired almost of health Aeneas Sylvius a Cardinal who also was Pope afterward saith of your Church That all faith hath perished in her and love is grown yce-cold And Cornelius Bitontinus Bishop who was present at the Council of Trent saith Would to God speaking of your Church that unanimes velut prorsus c. all with one heart all utterly they had not declined from Religion to superstition from Faith to infidelity from Christ to Antichrist What would ye have more Will ye yet be so shameless as to boast of the purity of your Church and from God to Epicurism ex Epistola 54 ad Caspar Schlick Oratio Cornelii Epis Bitonti 3. Dom. advent I leave the rest as Platin Genebrard Frier Mantuan Nicolaus Clemangis Franciscus Petrarcha Aventinus and a number of others who are full of complaints of the abominations of your Church of Rome that certainly I cānot but wonder at your shamelesness in opening of your mouth and saying That your Church had the truth in all things and never failed nor was interrupted against such a cloud of witnesses whose testimonies ye dare not refuse But I leave you to the Lord. The lips of a liar is abomination to the Lord Prov. 20 So your own mouthes shal rise up in the day of the Lord and condemn you that saith Your Church hath not failed in any substantial point of Religion But you require more distinctly the time place and persons c. that hath brought in this mutation and change If these are to be accounted authors of your erroneous doctrines who were the chief defenders thereof then I say the Popes of Rome for the most part are the authors of the same for they were the chief defenders thereof suppose they had not been the first teachers thereof For otherwise Luther cannot be said to be the author of our Religion as ye say because he was not the first that taught the same and that by your own confession For ye say that sundry other hereticks before Luther taught the same heads of doctrine which he taught and which we profess now as that fasting should be free that only faith justifieth that man hath not free will c. Next because it were too longsome to go through the whole heads of your Religion therefore I will only bring a few examples and that in some of the substantial points thereof As for the sacrifice of the Mass and the ceremonies thereof I have shown the authors thereof in another place therefore I omit that now The first that ever took upon him to exercise jurisdiction over the Churches of the East was Pope Victor anno 200. or 198. who took upon him to excommunicat the Bishops of the East because they would not follow his fashion in the celebration of Easter There the person time and place resisted by Irenaeus Bishop of Lions in France and the Bishops of the East and the brethren
condemned in the Scripture I deny that For Antichrist and his Kingdom are not so old as the Scripture and yet the Scripture condemned it For not only condemns it present heresies but also the heresies that was to come And seeing Papistrie is that Antichristian Religion as shal be made manifest by Gods grace therefore it hath the express condemnation of it in the Word of God The form therefore of it no wayes will make it impossible to be proved As for the next thing that I prove nothing bu offers very fair I answer it was not my purpose then but I hope ye shal have a proof now of that which I offered then As to the third then that I can say nothing to your argument which ye would hâ—ve the Reader to mark When I read this I marked this that ye would earnestly have the Reader perswaded of the invincibleness of your argument and my inability to answer But what bring ye with you to perswade him of the same Your reason is because I have not answered it Will this follow I have not suppose it were so as ye say therefore I cannot It will not follow I have not answered I cannot answer to it But as you have a new Theology so have you a new Logick But said I nothing to your argument What is not answered sufficiently in the same Your argument was the antiquity of your Religion and continuance of it from Christ by a lineal succession never interrupted c. and the novelty of ours My answer was Yours was not institut by Christ nor his Apostles in his Scripture as ours was and yours was gain-said in the chief points by the testimonies of the Fathers the first six hundred years and the principal points of our Religion confirmed by sundry of their testimonies Thirdly yours was that Antichristian apostasie that the Scripture fore told should come and in the hight of your tyranny and Idolatry was gain-said by many before Martin Luther and ours was professed by sundry before him whose names I set down all which I offered to prove and now shal do by Gods grace Now you say this is no answer But is that no answer that cuts the very throat of your Religion if it be verified and invalidities your argument that it do never stand up to under-prop your Religion again For that Religion which is not instituted by Christ in the Scripture whose main foundations is gain-said by the testimonies of sundry of the Fathers of the first 600. year which is Antichristian and which was gain-said by the Saints that they persecuted and slew hath not the continuance from Christ by a lineal succession never interrupted nor spoken against by a true Church till Martin Luthers days This I am sure ye will not deny But your Religion is such as I offered then to prove and now have in some points and shal in other some points by Gods grace The which if it be verified then I hope ye will not deny but that your Religion hath neither antiquity continuance nor succession from Christ till Martin Luthers dayes And that Religion cannot be newly forged and invented since Martin Luthers dayes which hath the warrant and institution of it in the Scripture c. This you cannot deny But our Religion is such as then I offered to prove and now have done in some points and shal do in other some points by Gods grace Therefore our Religion cannot be newly forged and invented c. but is the only true Religion So that this answer if it be proved doth sufficiently vindicat our Religion from novelty Now if this be no answer to your argument then I say no more but ye will answer it the sooner And because ye formed your own argument your self in your answer to me and I have answered to it else therefore I will now insist no further upon it And as for your lineal succession of Bishops it will come in question afterward therefore I omit it now SECTION V. Concerning the Judge of Controversies namely whither GOD speaking in the Scripture be Judge of Controversies Maister Gilbert Brown AS for the written Word it is true that it is a most faithful witness and it be not corrupted to Christ and his Church as our Savior testifies himself John 5.39 of the which opinion there is sundry Protestants chiefly young Merchiston in his discourse upon the Revelation in the 21. proposition and other places 2. Cor. 3.6 John 6.63 But that it ought to be Judge to decide all controversies in Religion M. John hath no Scripture for the same It is the holy Ghost that must be Judge and the holy Writ must bear witness thereto For this cause the holy Ghost was given to the Church by the Father and the Son that he might teach it all truth John 14.25.26 This holy Ghost gives judgement by the Pastors of the true Church as he did by the Apostles and Priests at the Council of Jerusalem It hath pleased the holy Ghost and us saith the Apostle Acts 15.19.28 and so he hath ever done since the beginning of the Church when it was troubled with heresies and false doctrine as the Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon M. John Welsch his Reply You first here decline the Scripture as Judge to decide all controversies in Religion And you are not the first that have done this but all your Roman Clergy with you And suppose there were not another thing to make the consciences of men suspect your Religion that it is not found in the book of God yet this is a great presumption that ye give out of it your selves For what may all men think of the same but that if ye were perswaded in your conscience to justify your Religion to be from Jesus Christ in his written Word ye would never decline the judicatorie of it and the declining of the same is an evident demonstration that ye are privy to your selves in your own consciences that it is not from God in his written Word But wherefore say I that ye are privy to your selves of this Ye have made it known to the world by your confession in your own books that many of the chief points of your Religion controverted between you and us which ye maintain have not their original beginning nor authors in the Scriptures but in your unwritten traditions So Petrus a Soto a Papist of great name confessed He calls all these observations Apostolick traditions whose beginning principium origo author cannot be found in the whole Scriptures in his book against Brentius And then he reckons out a number of the chief and principal heads of their Religion saying Of the which sort are the oblation of the sacrifice of the altar the invocation or prayers to Saints the prayer for the dead the supremacie of the Pope of Rome the consecration of the water in baptism the whole sacraments of orders matrimonie pennance confirmation and extream unction the merits of works
the necessitie of satisfaction the numbering over the sins to the Priest Canisius a great Papist in his Catechism cap. 5. de praeceptis Ecclesiae saith That the worshipping of images the set fastes and the forty dayes of Lent and all that are done in the sacrifice of the Mass prayers and oblations for the dead alia and others he saith all these are traditions because they are such that they cannot be defended by the Scripture And Lindanus another great defender of your Romish faith and Religion he reckons out for Traditions lib 4. Panopliae cap. 100. in fine illius libri tab 6. that there are seven Sacraments the consecration of the water and oyl in Baptism the real presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Sacrament Communion under one kind that the Lords Supper is a sacrifice that it should be kept and adored privat Masses Confession of sins to the Priests satisfactions pardons Purgatorie and that Peter was in Rome Martinus Peresius another Papist numbers the single life of Priests among the unwritten traditions The truth is strong that hath so far glanced in the consciences of some of you and hath opened your mouthes to confess and to set it down in writ to the world that the principal heads of your Religion yea the very foundation and ground of it as the supremacie of your Popes and the sacrifice of your Mass and the rest are unwritten traditions which have not the beginning nor original nor authoritie in the Lords written Word and which cannot be defended by the same as some of your selves have confessed So it is no wonder suppose ye refuse to have the controversies of Religion decided by the same Let the Reader now judge what he may think of your Religion that hath not God in his Scripture in the principal and main foundations thereof as some of your selves have confessed to be the author and beginner thereof So what needs any further proof against their Religion Out of their own mouthes the falshood of their Religion is convicted This therefore was the true cause wherefore ye refused to have the coÌ„troversies of Religion decided by the Scripture And for this cause also hath your Church heaped up so many false calumnies accusations and blasphemies against the same calling it obscure a Hosius lib. 3. de authorit contra script Andradius lib. 2. orthod explic Lindanus in Panoplia sua lib. 3. cap. 6. darksome doubtsome b Bellarm. de verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 4. not necessary but only profitable imperfect c Juel pag. 521. defens Apolog. Lodovicus a canon a dead ink a dumb and dead thing d Pigius controv 3. de Ecclesia dumb Judges e Eckius a black Gospel an inky Divinity f Pigius hierarch lib. 3. cap. 3. a nose of wax that may be drawn every way g Fox pag. 804. containing in them diverse erroneous and damnable opinions h Hermannus a Papist which wâ—re of no greater authority then the fables of Asop without the approbation of the Church and by the i Pope Leo the 10. ex Juel defen Apolog. pag. 273. Pope himself a fable of Christ And for this cause also did they hide it up in an unknown language forbidding the translating of it in the vulgar language and the reading of it by the people in their mother tongue lest they should have perceived the falshood of their Religion and so it should have lost the credit at their hands So ye have been wise in your generation Sed veritas tandem vincet but the truth shal overcome at the last You grant it to be a witness but yet you deal subtilly while as ye put in an exception if it be not corrupted For if you be of that mind with your Church and especially with Canus lib. 3. cap. 13. de locis Theologicis Lindanus lib. 1. cap. 11. de Optimo Genere interpret and the Colledge of Rhemes you think the Hebrew and Greek fountains of the Scripture to be corrupted And therefore it is decreed in the Council of Trent the old Latin vulgar translation to be authentick which notwithstanding by the confession of some Papists as Andradius Pagnin and Arias Montanus it hath missed the sense and meaning of the holy Ghost sometimes So you not only put the Lord in his Scripture out of the bench that he should not judge and give out the sentence of doom against your doctrine but by this exception also ye remove him from the bar that his testimony in the Hebrew and Greek fountains against you should have no credit Let all men judge now what prejudice ye give against your own Religion when as ye will not admit the Lord in his Word in the Hebrew and Greek fountains neither Judge nor witness But you say I have no Scripture for me that the Scripture ought to be Judge What will ye say then to Jesus Christ in John 12.48 speaking to such as ye are He that refuseth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him the word that I have spoken it shal judge him in the last day Unless now ye be a man of perdition ye must confess that the Word of Jesus Christ whereof so much is written as may make a man believe and by believing to get eternal life is Judge and judgeth presently and shal judge also in the latter day Therefore the Apostle saith That God shal judge the secrets of mens hearts by Jesus Christ according to his Gospel So the Gospel shal be the rule of that great judgement in that great day and so is it the rule of his worship while we are in the way to that judgement Suppose you now decline the judicatorie of the same here because in your conscience ye know and your own mouthes have confessed it that ye are not able to justifie your Religion thereby yet nill ye will ye ye shal be judged by the same Word in the last day But whom will ye have to be your Judge Ye say the holy Ghost Bellarmin saith that we and your Church agrees in that that the holy Ghost should be supream Judge of all controversies lib. 3. de verbi interpret cap. 3. But is not the Scripture the holy Ghosts own infallible voice and breath So then when the Scripture is Judge the holy Ghost is Judge because the Scripture is the immediat voice of the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost hath given out and gives out his judgement in all controversies of Religion in and by the Scripture and the holy Ghost illuminats the eyes of those that are fore-ordained to life to see the truth in the Scripture 2. Tim. 3.16 Rom. 10.17 and works in their heart faith to apprehend it and believe it and formes a spiritual judgement in their hearts to try and judge for the spiritual man judgeth all things 1. Cor. 2.15 And all this he works by the means of the Scripture for it is the
only means and instrument whereby the holy Ghost works faith in our hearts Thus I reason therefore He only can be Judge in controversies of Religion whose authority is such that none may appeal from the same whose judgement is infallible true who will not be partial nor favor parties and who is able to convict and perswade the conscience of the truth and make the party to rest in the same But only the holy Ghost in by the Scripture hath these proprieties no other Therefore the holy Ghost in and by the Scripture is only Judge And whereas you say that the holy Writ must bear witn ss to it What will you say then to all the chief points of your Religion almost which the learned and great defenders of your faith before cited have confessed are unwritten traditions which have not their beginning nor authority from the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same Upon the which I reason thus That doctrine is not the holie Ghosts which the Scripture bears not witness to this ye say your self for ye say The Scripture must bear witness to it But all the chief points almost of your Religion as the supremacy of the Pope the sacrifice of the Mass invocation of Saints the five bastard Sacraments the worshipping of Images Transubstantiation Communion under one kind Satisfactions Pardons Purgatory Merits of works c. have not their authoritie from the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same as your own Catholicks as ye call them testifies Therefore your Doctrine and Religion is not the holie Ghosts and that by your own testimonie Now trulie M. Gilbert I fear ye lose your style if you defend your Religion no better then this And whereas you say That the holy Ghost gives out his judgement by the Pastors of the true Church I grant indeed that the Pastors gives out publick sentence in controversies of Religion because they are the Lords witnesses messengers and mouthes to testifie proclaim interpret and discern his truth from falshood But first the rule of this their judgement should be the Word of God unto the which they are bound in all their testimonies and judgements from the which if their judgements swerve but an inch-broad they are not the judgements of the holie Ghost so that all their decreets and determinations in the worship of God and man his salvation should onlie be received accordinglie as they agree or dissent from the same For the Apostle pronounces him accursed suppose he were an Angel that would preach another Gospel then that which he preached Gal. 1 8. And he preached nothing but out of the Scripture Acts 26.22 But your Roman Church by the contrary saith That their decreets and sentences should be taken without all tryal and examination because whatsoever they decree say they in manners or doctrine whither they be comprehended in the Scripture or not they cannot err Bellar. de Eccles lib. 1. de Consil cap. 18. lib. 3. c. 14. Next if it be asked of you whom ye judge to be the Pastors of the true Church You will answer as ye do that your Church is the only true Church and your Bishops and Popes the only true Pastors so that they only must be the Judge to end all controversies And Bellarmin is plain in this for he saith lib 3. de verbi interpret cap. 5. 9. lib. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 2. The Pope is chief Judge in all controversies in Religion either he himself alone or with his Council and that in his judgement and sentence all men should rest and he should be obediently heard of all the faithful in all matters of controversie whether he can err or not And their Canon Law hath decreeted That no man should rebuke him suppose he should carry with him innumerable souls to hell And they teach that their decreets should not be examined of any whither they be agreeable to the Scripture or not but that they should be received as the express Word of God and the Gospel Dist 40. cap. Si Papa Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 18. Rhemist annotat in 2. Thess 2. v. 12. Joannes Maria verractus editus anno 1561. Hosius lib. de express verb. Dei pag. 97. But first judge thou Reader in what suspicion they have their Religion in their own hearts They have declined the holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture and that not only as Judge but in the authentick Greek and Hebrew as witness So their Religion cannot stand if the Lord be either as Judge in his Scripture to give out sentence of it or as witness in the authentick copies to hold his hand at the bar and depone against it Now whom would they have as Judges Their own Pastors and the Pope and all their determinations to be received without a tryal as the Gospel and express Word of God as though their Religion could not be justified unless the Fathers and forgers thereof the Popes and Bishops of Rome were set on the bench to be Judges thereof Now what an unrighteous thing is this both to be partie and Judge For the chief controversie is of themselves whither he be the Antichrist or not And his Ministers and Church Antichristian or not But what show of reason can you have for this The Prince of life the Son of God who is the righteous Judge of the whole world in that great controversie wherein it is called in question whether he was the Messias or not desired not to be the Judge For he said If I testifie of my self much more if I judge of my self my testimony is not true John 3.31 but referred this controversie to the Scripture saying Search the Scriptures c. John 5.32 And yet you that are but flesh and blood dust and ashes yea monsters and incarnat Devils as your own Writers and Councils have testified of some of your Popes who may err and have been hereticks as some of your Popes have been and that by your own testimonies you will not only bear witness of your selves but also be Judges in the controversies of your selves rejecting the judgement of the holy Ghost in the Scripture All men saith the Apostle are liars How then shal I certainlie know but they may lie How shal my conscience rest in their judgement Shal I have no better warrant for my salvation then the testimonies of your Bishops and Popes who are but men and so may lie who are partie and so never will condemn themselves who of all men have most foully erred What is this but to make the voice of your Bishops and Popes of greater authoritie then the voice of God in his Scripture For seeing it is the sense of the Scripture that is called in controversie and the sense of the Scripture is the Scripture it self And your doctrine is that I must embrace such and such interpretations of the Scripture that are called in controversie and my conscience must rest in the same
without further tryal because he hath so decreed it What is this but not only to make him equal to the Lord For God only hath that priviledge to be believed because he so speaks mans testimony so far only is to be credited as it may be warranted by the Scripture but also to preferr his authoritie to the voice of God in his Scripture seeing he is Judge of the same and not that onlie but to hang my salvation upon his voice and testimonie And seeing ye will have them Judges what is the cause that their Canons Laws and determinations are not as authentick as the Scripture and insert in the Canon of the Scripture But let us see your reasons First you say That the holy Ghost was given to the Church by the Father and the Son that he might teach it all truth I grant this that the holy Ghost is given to every one of the elect as wel Pastor as people to lead them in all truth in so far as may bring them to salvation And yet ye will not make every one of them Judges next every one of the elect may err notwithstanding of this promise suppose not totally and finally and therefore cannot be Judges of Religion Secondly you alledge the example of the Council of the Apostles and Elders It is true in that controversie that arose among the Christians concerning the observing of the ceremonies of the law of Moses that the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church after reasoning defined the same and writes the same to be observed by the Disciples everie where but first they were Apostles and was infallibly governed by Gods Spirit that they could not err in teaching and writing but your Pastors are not Apostles and may err Next they assemble with the Elders and the whole Church and all with one accord defines Acts 15.12.22.23 You in your Council excludes all except your Bishops to be ordinary Judges to give out judgement and your Popes neither Elder nor brethren having power of voting with you Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 1. Thirdly they define according to the Scripture saying As it is written c. Act. 15.15 This controversie to make us to understand if we will not be more then blind that this rule should be followed in all Councils to determine in controversies according to the Scripture Upon the which I reason if the Apostles who had that high measure of Gods Spirit which never man had since so that in writing and teaching they could not err if they I say did determine the controversies of Religion according to the Scripture how much more then are all Pastors since who may err both severally and jointly together in a Council bound to follow the same rule And whereas ye call their Elders Priests you stile them not as the holy Ghost hath stiled them there so there they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Elders and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is sacrificing Priests as ye suppone Your third reason is the practise and custom of the Church in deciding the controversies of Religion in Councils we grant that this is a very commodious mean to search and find out the truth by the Scripture For first the more they are that seek the truth it is the more easily found Next the consent of many in determining a truth will be of greater authority to repress hereticks then if it were agreed upon only by a few But yet they should determine nothing but that which is warranted by the Scripture and their determinations only in so far forth to be received as is agreeable to the same And this we grant hath been done in the Council of the primitive Church And therefore the Emperor Constantine speaking to the Fathers of the Council of Nice saith Sunt libri Prophetici Apostolici qui apertè quid credendum sit docent c. That is there are the Books of the Prophets and Apostles who teacheth plainly what we should believe All contention therefore laid aside let us take the soveraign decision of these things which are called in controversie out of the Scriptures which are inspired by God And this we grant and this we require But that Councils ought to determin any thing of their own authority in matters of Religion which binds the conscience without the warrant of the Word that we deny Master Gilbert Brown It is a wonder that M. John will refer any thing to the written Word seeing that he and his have no warrant that the same is the Word of God but by the authority of the Roman or Papist Church For understand there was no Church worthie of credit immediatly before Luther but that Church Master John Welsch his Reply You wonder that I refer any thing to the Scripture But what a wōder is this that ye are so far blinded of God that you think that a wonder in me which Abraham hath done which the Prophets have done which our Savior and his Apostles have done and which the Fathers have done for all these have referred the infallible testimony and decision of the will of God concerning his worship unto the Scriptures Luke 16 29. John 5 39. Acts 26.22 Rom. 12. and 16.26 2. Tim. 3.16 2. Pet. 1.10 Rev. 1 3. cap. ult yea which your self also hath done for ye make it a witness But what hath moved you to think this a wonder in me which so many and your self also have done before me Because say ye that he and his that is our Church have no warrant that it is the Word of God but by the authoritie of the Roman or Papist Church I grant indeed that you and your Church are plunged in this blindness and miserie that all the warrant that you have not only of the Scriptures themselves that they are inspired of God but also of all your doctrine and Religion is the testimony of your Roman Church that is of your Pope and Clergy for so ye interpret the Church So Bellarmin grants de Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 25. That all the certainty of all doctrine depends upon the authority of the present Church meaning the Pope and his Clergy And Stapleton saith lib. 1 contra Whitak de author script cap. 10. That it is no absurd thing not to believe God but for the testimony of the Church Pigius saith That it is not needful to believe all that Matthew and John writ in their Gospels to be true because that they might fail in memory and lie as all men may do Ecclesiast hierar lib. 1. cap. 2. And Hermannus saith That the Scripture would be of no more authority then the fables of Esop were not the testimony of the Church And so blind and miserable must you be that hangs the certaintie of all Religion and of man his salvation upon so smal a threed as the testimony of your Popes and Clergy What peace in conscience can any man have that professes your Religion which teaches that the
certainty and warrant of all the doctrine in the Scripture and the Scripture it self that they are of God but the testimony of your Popes and Clergy What is it to expone the certainty of the Lords Scripture and of all Religion comprehended in the same to the mocking and derision of the wicked if this be not Yea is not this to prefer the voice and authoritie of your Popes and Clergie to the voice of God himself For what is the testimonie of your Church but the testimonie of men And is not the Scripture the testimonie and voice of God himself Do ye not therefore lift up the authoritie of your Church that is your Popes and Clergie above the authoritie of God in his Word which as you say that there is no other warrant of the Divinitie of the Scripture but only the testimonie of your Church But God be thanked in Christ Jesus who hath delivered us from this blindness for we have other warrants whereupon the certaintie of our salvation and the Divinitie of the Scripture depends then by the testimonie of the true Church much less the testimonie of your Church which is Antichristian and given over of God to believe lies and so worthy of no credit But how prove ye it Ye say there was no other Church immediatly before Luther but that of yours which was worthy of credit Whereunto I answer first that is false for there was a true Church immediatly before him which ye persecuted as I have proved else where Next I say your argument will not follow there was no other Church immediatly before him c. Ergo we have no other warrant that the Scripture is the written Word of God For we have also the testimony of the Church of the Jews concerning the Old Testament and of the primitive Church in all ages concerning both the Old and New Testament which are not only other warrants then the testimonies of your Roman Church but also worthie of more credit Next I say we have many more principal and more effectual warrants that the Scripture is of God then the testimony of the Church either past or present As first the testimonie of the holy Ghost crying testifying and sealing up in all consciences of the godly not only the truth of the doctrine contained in them but also the Divinitie of the Scripture which Stapleton lib. 1. de authorit script cap. 1.6.7 denyes not and therefore the Scripture saith That the Spirit that is the holy Ghost hears witness that the Spirit that it is the doctrine is truth 1. John 5 6. Secondly the testimony of the Scripture it self warranting and testifying of it self the whole Scripture is inspired of God 2. Tim. 3.16 The Old Testament warranted both by the testimony of its self the histories and prophesies testifying of the books of Moses and also by the testimony of the New Testament both in general 2. Pet. 1.19 Luke 24.44 and 16 29 John 5.39 and also in particular as the books of Moses Matth. 1.5 and 19.7 and 22. John 3.14 and the historical books as the history of the Queen of Saba Matth. 12. and of the widow of Sarepta Luke 4. and of the Psalms in sundry places Acts 2. and 13. and of sundrie of the books of the Old Testament Heb. 11. and Ruth also Matth. 1. and out of Isaiah Ezechiel and Jeremy many testimonies are cited and out of the Books of the smal Prophets Acts 7.42 And such like the New Testament hath the confirmation of it out of the Old Testament For whatsoever thing were prophesied in the Old Testament concerning the Messias are fulfilled in the New Testament so if the Old Testament hath authority the New Testament also hath authority And such like Peter by his testimonie confirmes the Epistles of Paul to be the written Word of God Thirdly the majestie of the doctrine which shines in it the simplicitie puritie and heavenliness of the speach therein which is not to be found in any other writings whatsoever the ancientness and antiquitie of them as the Books of Moses far ancienter then any other writing The accomplishment of the Prophesies and Oracles in them as they were fore-told their miracles and wonders whereof they testifie the testimonies of the holy Martyrs that shed their blood in the defense of the truth of them their wonderful preservation notwithstanding of the rage and cruelty of sundry tyrants who sought them out most diligently to have destroyed them all testifying of the Divinity of the holy Scripture So then to conclud this seeing we have the testimony of Gods Spirit sealing up the truth of them in our hearts and the testimony of the Scripture it self testifying of its self so many manner of wayes and sundry other arguments out of the Scripture it self and the testimony of the Church in all ages all warranting to us the Divinity of the holy Scripture I cannot but wonder at the unsearchable judgement of God in blinding you so far that ye have set it down in writ that we have no other warrant of the holy Scripture but the authority of your Church SECTION VI. Concerning the necessity of Baptism to Infants Master Gilbert Brown ANd albeit here it were not necessary to me to prove any heads of our Religion by the Word of God because M. John hath promised to improve the same by the Word which he is no ways able to perform yet to satisfie the Christian Reader and that he may know that the Word of God is only on our side and with us so that their exposition and notes be taken from the same I will set down God willing some heads for examples cause that that same doctrine which we teach and practise is the same that our Savior and his Apostles preached before and is written in the same that he calls the touchstone Master John Welsch his Reply Howsoever ye say this M. Gilbert that that doctrine which ye teach and practise in your Church is that same which our Savior and his Apostles teached before and is written in the Scripture yet in very truth there is nothing less in your conscience For if you and your Roman Church were so perswaded wherefore then should ye have declined to have it tryed by the same And wherefore have some of your own chief pillars and defenders of your Roman Religion who knows the certaintie of the same wherefore I say would they have proclaimed it by writ unto the world that the most part and the principal heads of their Religion are unwritten traditions which have neither their original beginning nor authoritie in the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same And wherefore would your Roman Church have heapt up so many false accusations and blasphemies against the same And wherefore last of all would ye have set up your Pope and his Bishops to be supream and soveraign Judge over the same as you do But this you do because you know that if ye rejected the Scripture
of purpose in repeating the sentence omit to say He that is not baptized but he that believeth not shal be damned for he saw that faith only might suffise to salvation and without faith nothing can suffise Justly then might your Popes sentence and your own be said to be cruel in our confession But how prove ye this doctrine of yours to be Christs Ye cite John 3.2 where our Savior saith Except a man be born again c. which say ye is properly meant of the Sacrament of Baptism Upon the which ye infer the necessity of the same Whereunto I answer that interpretation of yours is false for our Savior speaks not here of the Sacrament of Baptism and that for these reasons First our Savior speaks here generally of all men and not of infants only and therefore he saith Except a man be born c. speaking to Nicodemus who was a man and not an infant so that if your exposition were true all men that died without baptism and not infants only are excluded from heaven But that is false for first the good thief was not baptized with water and yet our Savior said to him This night thou shall be with me in paradise And therefore our Savior speaks not here of the Sacrament of Baptism for he speaks of that new birth by water and the spirit without the which none can be saved but this thief and others were saved without the Baptism of water therefore he speaks not here of it Next our Savior in that place speaks of that new birth by the spirit and water which is so absolutly necessary to the salvation of all men that it admits no exception This cannot be denyed But Bellarmin makes two exceptions against the absolut necessity of Baptism one of the martyrdom the other of true conversion and pennance whereof saith he either of them supplies the want of Baptism lib. 1. de Baptis cap. 6 Therefore our Savior speaks not here of the Sacrament of Baptism Thirdly if we will believe Christ Jesus expounding himself and Scripture expounding Scripture I say by water is not alwayes meant the Sacrament of Baptism but the purifying grace of Christ which is called the water of life so our Savior speaks in John 4.11 and 7.38 And in that same sense water is here added to the spirit to expound the more sensibly the efficacy of the Spirit in washing and cleansing us as fire is added to the Spirit in the third of Matthew 11. verse He will baptize you with the Spirit and with fire which is not properly understood of any natural fire but taken figuratively to expound more sensibly the force and efficacy of the Spirit in burning up our corruption Fourthly what an absurd thing were this which should follow if your exposition were true that for the want of the sprinkling of a little water the infants should perish that are in the covenant seeing they were not the cause of the want of it Further I say that suppose Baptism were here meant yet there is no such necessitie as ye suppose for if martyrdom and pennance may supplie the want of this water as Bellarmin confesseth how much more may the holy Ghost supply the want of the same in infants and if any thing may supply the want of it then it is not so absolutly necessary that all these infants are damned that wants it 2. Our Savior speaks as generallie and absolutlie Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you John 6.53 which ye interpret of the other Sacrament so that if your interpretation were true the Eucharist should be as absolutly necessary to the salvation of infants as you say Baptism is But the first you will not grant Therefore the other must also be falfe 3. If here ye would infer a necessity of Baptism then I say at that same time it began to be necessary for he saith not He that shal not be born again c. but he that is not born c. But Bellarmin saith lib. de bapt cap. 5. It was not necessary while Christs death yet not while the Pentecost fifty days after his death therefore it is not like that any necessity of Baptism is here understood for it had been good reason that Christs Baptism which was ministred while he lived in the flesh should have been as necessary as the Apostles Baptism which was ministred afterward But the first was not absolutly necessary as Bellarmin testifies therefore neither is the second And last of all lest ye should say all this is our exposition the Master of the Sentences expounding this place sent lib. 4. distinct 4. cap. His autem who suppose he be of this judgement with you concerning infants departed yet he saith that this place is to be understood of them who might have been baptized but contemned the same therefore this place imputes no absolut necessity of it As for the rest of the places of Scripture which ye quote they serve nothing to prove such an absolut necessitie of Baptism as ye suppose but only sets down the effects of the same which are sealed up in the hearts of the believers by the holy Ghost as the inward worker and Baptism as the outward instrument as our salvation through the death of Christ 1. Pet. 3.20.21 Tit. 3.5 Mark 16.16 our union with Christ Gal. 3.27 and with his death Rom. 6 3.4 and remission of sins regeneration mortification of the old man Acts 22.17 and 2.38 1. Cor. 6.11 And therefore Circumcision in whose room Baptism is succeeded it is called the seal of righteousness which is by faith Rom. 4. Take away therefore your exposition from these places and there will no such absolut necessitie of Baptism follow here as ye suppose And therefore Bellarmin the learnedst of your writers lib. 1. de sacr bapt cap. 4. because he knew that these places which ye quote here could not prove such an absolut necessitie of Baptism nor have no appearance to prove the same doth not cite one of them for the proof of the necessity except only the third of John leaving all the rest And as for that of Augustin we grant he was of that mind that Baptism was necessary to infants but he was also of that judgement that the Eucharist was necessary unto them and yet your Roman Church nor you neither I hope will subscribe to this error of his Seeing therefore you dissent from him in the necessity of the one and that upon good ground of the Scripture why may not we also dissent from him in the other having so many grounds and reasons out of the Word of God to the contrary as hath been said And this for the first point Now let the Christian Reader judge upon whose side the Word of God is SECTION VII Whither a man by the help of the grace of GOD may perfectly keep the Commandments Master Gilbert Brown SEcondly our doctrine is that a man
good heed what ground is in the institution for this their sacrifice for if they prove it not here it will never be proved by the Scripture You say therefore that Christ took bread and wine we grant that yet here is no sacrifice What then He gave thanks yet here is no sacrifice What next He blessed it Yet here is no sacrifice And whereas ye say that by this blessing and his heavenly words the bread and wine is changed in the body and blood of Christ that I have sufficiently as I hope overthrown already But to return to the words of the institution after the blessing of the bread which Luke expones by giving of thanks the text saith He gave What gave he but that which he took and had blessed And what took he and blessed he but the bread And therefore the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we bless c. So then it was bread which he gave and not his own body and blood corporally And unto whom gave he it The text saith unto his disciples both in Matthew Mark and Luke all with one consent Now that which was given to his Disciples was not properly offered up in a sacrifice for a sacrifice is an offering to God And the text saith here He gave it to his Disciples So there is not a syllable in the institution that can make for your pretended sacrifice You here corrupt the word of Jesus Christ wonderfully For first you expone by giving offering up in a sacrifice Next whereas the Scripture in Matthew Mark and Luke have but giving once refers this giving not to God but to the Disciples And he gave it to the Disciples you alledge here two givings the one to God which is your own invention whereof the Scripture makes no mention the other to the Disciples which is the form of a Sacrament and not of a sacrifice for a Sacrament is given to us a sacrifice to God So all the grounds of your sacrifice of the Mass is two the one is your devised transubstantiation so one error leans upon another the other is not the words of Christ And he gave it to his Disciples but your own words and your own exposition only And he gave or offered up himself then for them These are your own words and not the words of the holy Ghost So this sacrifice of your Mass hath not the words of Jesus Christ as Matthew Mark and Luke have set them down to be the ground of it but only your own words and your own interpretation For how dare ye be so impudent as to affirm that Christ gave it twise once in an offering for his Disciples and another time in a Sacrament to his Disciples seeing we will believe Matthew Mark and Luke the sworn pen-men of the holy Ghost who say only he gave it to his Disciples as a Sacrament and makes no mention at all that he gave it to God as a sacrifice Do you think the Lord will never take an account of you for such a manifest lie of the Son of God of his Scripture of his Apostles and holy Writers who writ it they all saying He gave it to his Disciples and you affirming beside that giving to them that he gave it that is offered it up for them O sinful man Who will venter the salvation of his soul upon so smal a threed yea upon so impudent a lie as ye make of the Son of God O repent or else you shal one day feel the fierceness of the Lords hot wrath and indignation upon your soul and carcass for evermore Leave off therefore to be the cause of the damnation of souls for you deceive them and makes them believe that this monstrous abomination of your Mass hath Jesus Christ to be the Author of it while it hath not so much as a syllable in the whole institution that gives so much as an inkling of it Are you wiser then the wisest of your generation Bellarmin who for all the arguments that he brings never so much as once gives an inkling of this your argument For he thought it was too plain a lie to affirm a double giving here out of the words of the institution and too absurd an exposition to expone He gave that is he offered it up And therefore he hath no such reasoning for his sacrifice of the Mass Yea that which ye think is plain out of the institution that Christ offered up his body and his blood in the Supper he saith That the action of offering cannot be easily distinguished and separated from the other actions which was done joyntly there together by the words of the institution Bellar. lib. 1. de missa cap. 12. fol. 669. And more plainly he saith That the Evangelists have not expresly said that Christ offered up himself unto the Father in the Supper lib. 1. de missa cap. 24. fol. 706. This is a plain speaking Now your sacrifice of the Mass hath no express warrant out of the institution of Christ if you will believe him whose controversies are allowed by the Pope to be printed But it may be ye thought that this your doctrine would have been swallowed up without further tryal therefore you regarded not what you writ You have stoln your self in such credit with the simple among you who are deceived and blinded by your lies that ye are not ashamed to be plain enough in speaking untruths lies of the Word of God But the Lord will recōpence this one day But now to return to the rest of the words of the institution as ye rehearse them And last of all ye say He gave his body and blood to his Disciples to be eaten He gave it spiritually and they did eat it spiritually and he gave them Sacraments of his body and blood the bread and wine corporally to them and they did eat them corporally suppose for a spiritual use and end For that which he gave they did eat he gave the bread and wine therefore it was bread and wine which they did eat and drink And therefore the Apostle saith plainly For whosoever shal eat of this bread c. 1. Cor. 11. He calls it bread that is eaten And our Savior saith Verily verily from henceforth shal I not drink of the fruit of this vine with you Matth. 26.29 That which he gave his Apostles to drink corporally in the latter Supper was the fruit of the vine so the Evangelists saith But Christs blood was not the fruit of the vine therefore it was not his his blood which they corporally drank but wine which was the fruit of the vine-tree I go forward And when he had done this ye say He cōmanded his Disciples that is the lawful Pastors of the Church to do the same for the remembrance of him to the end of the world That is true that which he did here he commanded to be done by his Disciples to the end of the world but never a syllable
Sacraments the Lord hath instituted are publick and not privat but this Sacrament of yours is privatly ministred therefore not a true Sacrament Sixthly all the Sacraments of the New Testament should be ministred by them who have the preaching of the Gospel concredited unto them and not by privat Christians But Innocentius the first a Pope saith in his Epist 1. cap. 8 Private men may minister this in their own and others necessities as also Thomas Waldensis a Papist And yet the Council of Trent accurses them that so say Therefore it is not a Sacrament Seventhly Pope Innocent in that same Epistle cited before calls it but genus Sacramenti a kind of Sacrament therefore it is not properly a Sacrament But you are more bold to call it a Sacrament Eightly all the Sacraments of Christ have their warrant from the written word But Petrus a Soto in his book against Brentius calls this a tradition which hath not the warrant in the written word therefore it is not a lawful Sacrament of Christ And as to your argument That it hath an external form of anointing with oyl of an internal grace which is remission of sins I answer this form or ceremony was extraordinary as I proved before annexed to a miraculous gift of healing The which seeing it is now ceased the ceremonie also should cease And this promise is not made to the anointing if ye will believe the Apostle but to the prayer of faith The prayer of faith saith the Apostle shal save the sick And whereas ye say that we make him a Mediciner only for the bodie in this and not for the soul we answer That this ceremonie as sundrie others was only annexed to the extraordinary gift of healing of the bodie and was not seals of grace And yet with the health of the bodie the healing of the soul was oftentimes joyned as our Savior saith to the paralytick man Thy sins are forgiven thee take up thy bed and walk Matth 9 28. Now whither these be our vain subterfuges or clear grounds out of the Scripture let the Reader judge And whereas ye call us new men let them be new and most recent whose doctrine is most new But as hath and shal be proved by Gods grace our doctrine is not new but Jesus Christs in his Old and New Testament and yours devised since Therefore this title of noveltie most justly belongs unto you This for the sixth point of your doctrine SECTION XV. Concerning Imposition of hands and whither it be a Sacrament Master Gilbert Brown SEventhly our doctrine is that when our Priests which are the only lawful Ministers now adayes are called to that function receives the imposition of hands with the grace or gift of the holy Ghost because it is the doctrine of S. Paul in these words Neglect not the gift or grace that is within thee which is given thee by prophesy with the imposition of priesthood And therefore must be a Sacrament because it hath an external form which is the imposition of hands of an external grace which is the gift given by the same And for this cause a John Calvin himself admits it to be a Sacrament albeit in their Confession they call it a bastard Sacrament of the Popes and detests the same although b Melancthon hath the contrary a Institut lib. 4. cap. 14. sect 20. item lib. 4. cap. 19. sect 28. b In locis com edit 1543. de num sacrament M. John Welsch his Reply As for the seventh point of your doctrine concerning the imposition of hands in the ordination of the lawful Ministers of the Church of Christ because it is a ceremony which hath the foundation of it in the word of God and was practised in the primitive Church as in the ordination of Timothie here and others and is profitable both to put the Pastors in mind of his calling that he is separated of God for the discharge of the same and also the people that they embrace him as one sent of God to them therefore we both acknowledge it and practise it But that either the gift of the holy Ghost is inseparably joyned with it or that it is a Sacrament of the New Testament properly as you affirm that we deny As to the first the gift of the holy Ghost is not inseparably joyned with it First because that is injurious to the Lords free grace which is not bound to any instrument let be to a ceremony And also he speaks against experience for how many I pray you do receive imposition of hands who receive not a new grace and gift of the holy Ghost among you Miserable experience these many ages both doth testifie it and also one hath testified the same saying Our Priests do lay the word of blessing upon many but in few followeth the effect of that blessing Ex veteri Testam quaest 109. inter opera Augustini And certainly if any gift of the holy Ghost is joyned with this ceremony it should be an ability to preach the Word For that is the principal part of the office of the Minister of the Gospel But how many thousands are they among you in your Church who have received this imposition of hands and yet as unable to preach the Gospel as asses are And last of all what needed that tryal and examination so straitly commanded in the Scripture which ought to be had of them that are to be ordained if the holy Ghost were ever inseparably given with the ceremony For wherefore is this tryal and examination And wherefore is Timothy so straitly charged to lay his hands suddenly on no man but because it is only the holy Ghost who enables The which also should be well known unto his Church ere they presume to testifie the calling of God to them For if it were true that ye say that the gift of the holy Ghost were joyned with the imposition of hands inseparably then the Apostle should rather have commanded Timothy 2 Tim. 5.22 to lay his hands upon many in respect of the need that the Church stood in of all men rather then to have discharged him And as for the place of Paul which ye cite here Despise not the gift c. this serves nothing for your doctrine For if first the gift given to Timothy which the Apostle speaks of was extraordinary and so ordinarily doth not ever follow the ceremony 2. It is not ascribed here to the ceremony of imposition of hands but unto prophesie which is given thee by prophesie whereby it was revealed to the Church of the ability of this man And so if there be any prophesies that go of you in your Clergy that the holy Ghost is given to you then ye may claim unto the same but I think ye will not say that such like prophesies go of you therefore ye cannot claim to this testimony 3. Timothy is exhorted to keep that worthy thing concredited unto him through the holy Ghost 2 Tim. 1.14 It was the
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
Antichrist is called an adversary that is opposed and contrary to God and that not in life only but in doctrine Religion and government and that not in one point only but almost in all the substantial points thereof The which mark the Popes of Rome bear and that not only in their lives but also in the whole substantial points of Religion And to make this clear besides that which hath been spoken we shal compare the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the government of his Kingdom set down in the Scripture with the doctrine of the Popes and the manner of their government that the contrariety of them may be known so that it shal be seen that cold is no more contrary to heat and black to white then Papism to Christianity and the Religion of the Church of Rome to the Religion of Christ Jesus The doctrine of Christ stands especially in these two things in the knowledge of his person and in the knowledge of his offices And therefore the Apostle saith I desire to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified 1. Cor. 2.2 And Christ himself saith It is life eternal to know thee to be the only true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ John 17 3. The doctrine of the Popes of Rome overthrows both And first to prove this concerning his person the Scripture testifies that Jesus Christ is conceived of the substance of the Virgin Mary and that he hath but one true body made of the seed of David and of the seed of the woman Rom. 1.3 Gal. 4. 4 and not many and that he is like unto us in all things except sin Heb. 2.17 The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that Christ Jesus his body is made of the bread and wine in the Sacrament their doctrine makes him to have as many bodies as there is bits of bread in the Sacrament and not to be like his brethren in all things except sin Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharistia fol. 399. Pope John 22. lib. orat in scr antidotarius animae for his brethren can be but in one place at once with their own due proportion visibly But their doctrine of Transubstantiation makes him to be both in heaven and earth at once in heaven visibly in earth invisibly in heaven with his own quantity and proportion in earth without his natural proportion and not in one place of the earth only but in innumerable places thereof at once so that this main foundation of mans salvation without the which there is no eternal life concerning the truth of Christs manhood made of the woman is utterly defaced and overthrown by the doctrine of the Popes of Rome in making him to have infinit bodies not made of the feed of the woman but of bread and wine or at the least made of two diverse substances And as they overthrow the doctrine of his person so they overthrow the doctrine of his offices His offices are three a Prophet a Priest and a King which are all overthrown by them As he is a Prophet he hath revealed his Fathers whole will unto his servants John 1.18 and hath left it in register in his latter Testament and hath forbidden to add empair or to alter the same Deut. 4.2 and hath pronounced a wo a curse unto them that adds empairs or alters the same Rev. 22.18 Gal. 1.8 and that because it is sufficient to make a man wise unto salvation and to make the man of God perfect unto every good work 2. Tim. 3.15.16 and because it is pure and perfect and easie to all them that will understand it Prov. 8.9 Psal 19.8.9 13. 119. But they have many wayes corrupted this Testament of Christ by mingling and adulterating the same First in that they give divine authority to the Books called Apocrypha which are humain Concil Trident. Sess 4. Next in receiving and commanding others to receive traditions with equal reverence and affection with the Scripture Thirdly in their corrupt Latin translation which they have made authentical which some of themselves confess have missed sometimes the meaning of the holy Ghost Bud. annot prior in Pandect Andrad lib. 4. Arias Montanus Tom. 8. Bibl. Reg. in praefat Fourthly in joyning with the Commandments of God their own commandments and that not as things indifferent but as necessary to salvation Concil Trident. Sess 6 cap. 10. Fifthly in condemning all sense and meaning of the holy Scripture but that which they hold themselves Sess 4. Last of all in quarrelling the Scripture of imperfection obscurity and ambiguity calling it dead and dumb like a nose of wax They therefore who have altered added and corrupted the Testament of Jesus Christ confirmed by his death which he hath left in writ for to instruct his Church in all things and to make her wise to salvation and perfect to every good work doth spoil the Lord Jesus of his Prophetical office But the doctrine of the Church of Rome hath done so Ergo they spoyl Jesus Christ of his Prophetical office Thirdly they are no less sacrilegious and injurious to his Priesthood His Priesthood stands in two things First in purchasing unto us by the vertue of that one sacrifice once offered up upon the Cross an everlasting redemption Next in making continual intercession for us with his Father Heb. 9.11.12 15.24.25.26.27.28 the which both are overthrown by the doctrine of the Church of Rome As to the first it is overthrown many wayes as first our Savior saith That his soul was sorrowful unto the death and that he swat drops of blood Matth. 26.37.38 and he sent up strong cryes and supplications with tears in the dayes of his flesh Heb. 5.7 Luke 22.44 and therefore he thrise upon his knees prays That if it had been possible that cup might be removed from him Matth. 27.39 And upon the Cross through the sense and feeling of that wrath he breaks forth in that complaint My God my God why hast thou forsaken me All which do testifie that he suffered more then a common death to wit the terrors of the wrath of God which was due to the sins of all the elect But the doctrine of the Church of Rome ranverseth this doctrine of our salvation and teacheth that Christ suffered not the wrath of God upon his soul which if it be true then Christ hath not payed our debt sufficiently for our debt was not only the natural death of the body but the wrath of God upon the soul and therefore the Scripture saith The soul that sinneth shal die the death Ezech. 18.20 Secondly the Scripture testifieth that Christs death and blood is a sufficient ransom for our sins and a sufficient satisfaction unto the justice of God Heb. 10.10.14 John 19.28 1. Tim. 2.6 1. Pet. 2.24 1. John 1.7 They by the contrary joyn to his satisfaction the satisfactions of men both in this life and in the life to come in Purgatory and that not only for their own sins but for