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
3. and 11. and 15. And the Church of Galatia erred in being carried away to another Gospel and in joyning the Ceremonies of the law with grace in justification Gal. 1. and 3. And what will ye say when the heresie of Arrius who denied Christ to be the Son of God equal to his Father spread its self so far that it is testified by Theodor. hist. Eccles lib. 2. Hier. dial contra Lucif cap. 7. in chron Athanas Epist de Synod Alim Seleu. that the Bishops of the whole world became Arrians that the whole world did grieve and wonder at it self that it was become an Arrian What will ye say unto all the Christian Churches of the East Grecia Asia and Africa Churches planted by the Apostles I mean not now of them that have professed Mahometism but of them that admits the Scripture acknowledges Christ their Savior who have their ordinar succession of Patriarks and Bishops as well as your Church of Rome hath who in number far exceeds these Churches which acknowledges your Pope to be the head of the Church For first yours is but in Europe except ye will claim to the New-found land and not all Europe for all the Churches in Greece which is a great part of Europe acknowledges not your supremacy Now take the Greek Churches from you next the Reformed Churches in Scotland England Germany Denmark France Zeland Holland and other places which have gone out of Babel which are all in Europe your number will not be many that acknowledges your supremacy And next take all Asia and Africa from you which is the two parts of the world your number will be smal in comparison of these that are against your supremacy Now all these detests your supremacy as tyranny and the worship of Images your transubstantiation in the Sacrament the Communion under one kind the single life of Priests Either therefore ye must grant that the greatest number of Christian Churches have erred and doth err or else that your Roman Church doth err and your supremacy yea your Religion which depends upon your supremacy is the head of heresie But it may be ye will say that all other Christian Churches may err but that it is only proper to your Church not to err First therefore let me ask at you what can be the cause of that singular priviledge which the Church of Rome hath beside all other Churches which ever have been is or shal be Yea above Adam when he was in his integrity for he erred yea above the Angels for they remained not in the truth Jude 6 Above the Patriarcks Abraham Isaac and Jacob yea above Aaron and the Church in the wilderness above the Church under the Law yea above the Apostles and Peter himself before Christs suffering in the time of his suffering after the resurrection after the receiving of the holy Ghost for they erred in all these times Yea above the Christian Churches that have been founded by the Apostles as well as yours that had the promise the covenant the service of God once in as great purity as ever yours had that have their ordinar succession their antiquity their vocation ordinar as well as yours hath unto this day Great surely must be that priviledge given unto the Church of Rome that hath exeemed her from error others having erred What is then your prerogative above all other Churches I know that ye will say because of Peters chair that was there wherein the Popes sits after him First then if Peters chair hath such a prerogative that the Pastors who sits in it and the Church that cleaves to it cannot err I think surely the Lords chair which was at Jerusalem which was called the Temple and seat of God and Moses chair wherein the Scribes and Pharisees sate should rather have that prerogative to free the Churches and Pastors sitting in these chairs from erring yea the Church which the truth it self Jesus Christ founded whom he taught with his own mouth and among whom he was crucified should with far greater right claim to that prerogative But since all their seats have erred for the Temple became a den of thieves the Scribes and Pharisees that sate in Moses chair condemned the Lord of glory and Jerusalem it self cryed out Crucifie crucifie him And the Christian Church gathered there are long since far from the way of salvation So that if neither the chair of God nor Moses freed the Church of the Jews from erring nor the chair of Christ freed the Christian Church there gathered from erring How then can Peters chair have this prerogative above them all as to exeem that Church and Pastors that sits therein from possibility of erring What is this but to prefer him before them all whose seat hath a priviledge that neither God nor his sons nor Moses seat had O high blasphemy to be detested and abhorred of all Christian hearts But let us see if it hath this prerogative which they ascribe unto it or not And first if it could have exeemed any from erring should it not have exeemed himself especially from erring But as it hath been shown he erred Acts 1.6 Gal. 2. therefore it cannot exeem neither his successors not yet the Church that acknowledges them from erring Secondly if it had exeemed any Church from erring should it not have exeemed the Church of Antiochia especially for surely Antiochia hath better right to claim to this prerogative then your Church hath For first it was Peters first seat Next the Scripture bears witness to it that he was there Gal. 2.11 But neither was Rome Peters first seat nor is there so much as a syllab in all the Scriptures to prove that ever Peter was in Rome But suppose Peter was there for we will not examine this now whither is this prerogative not to err given to your head that is to the Popes or to the body that is the people or to both If ye say to the head as ye do indeed then what will ye answer to your own Writers and Fathers to your own Councils and Popes to your own Canon Law affirming that Popes may err and be hereticks and should be deposed and are deposed when they are manifest hereticks as hath been proved before And what will ye say to your Popes that have been hereticks indeed one of them an Arrian another an Eutychian the third a Nestorian the fourth a Montanist the fifth deposed as an heretick the sixth denying that the souls of the children of God saw Gods face while after the resurrection the seventh denying life everlasting and others giving themselves over in the hands of the Devil for the Popedom others repelling and abrogating the decrees of their predecessors others such monsters and beasts so cruel to the dead and to the living that your own friends calls them monsters and affirms of one of them that the Devil shot him through while he was abusing another mans wife and so died without repentance Dare you
Reader to set down here the particular sayings of every one of them And if ye had formed your arguments out of them I should have formed my answer by the grace of God to every one of them And thus much concerning your ground and the proofs of it Now I come to that which ye gather of it SECTION IV. Whither the Church of Rome be the only true Church and the Reformed not true Churches OF this we collect that our Church must be the only true Church and not theirs because ours hath never been interrupted nor hath failed in any substantial point of faith and Religion since Christ and his Apostles dayes and theirs hath done To confirm this I say that M. John nor no Minister in Scotland can be able to assign to us the circumstances of all mutations and changes in Religion That is to say 1. The author who first began our Religion 2. The time when it was begun 3. The place where it began 4. The true Church who said against the same 5. The matter it self which was changed or begun 6. Nor the faithful number from whom they departed All these things we shal assign to their Religion and that since Christ and his Apostles 1. The first auâ—hor of their Religion albeit not in all things was Martin Luther an Augustine Frier 2. He began his Religion in the year of God 1517. 3. He began the same in Saxony in the countrey of Almanie 4. The Church of Rome Italie France Spain Scotland England Denmark Sweden Pole a great part of Almanie with the east and west Indies which were the true Church said against him 5. The heads of Religion which he first said against were Pardons He affirmed that man was only justified by Faith He denied the Supper of our Lord to be a sacrifice c. 6. He departed himself from all the Christian Churches in Europe in the Indies and other places and therefore he had no predecessors of his own Religion as we read in the Apologie of the English Protestants that he and Zuinglius were the first that came to the knowledge of the Evangel and therefore none immediatly before them Then seeing that there was none of his profession in the earth before him immediatly neither visible nor invisible he and his could not be the Church of Christ for it hath ever stood and never failed no not the space of one day universally because our Savior saith I shal be with you every day to the consummation of the world M. John Welsch his Reply As to your collection the form of it must be this That Church only must be the true Church that hath never been interrupted nor failed in any substantial head of faith and Religion since Christ and his Apostles But say ye yours is such and ours not Therefore your Church is the true Church and ours not The proposition I grant But all the controversie lyes in the probation of your assumption Yea in stead of proving ye say it is not possible to me nor to no Minister in Scotland to assign to you the circumstances of all mutations and changes in your Religion as the person time place c. And then ye attempt to assign all these circumstances of our Religion upon the which ye conclud the falsehood of it So we will first see how ye prove your own and then see how ye disprove ours Indeed this argument of yours is of such account with you that there are not many of your Writers but they have set it as it were in the vant-guard of their host and among the greatest of their strengths and bulwarks for to uphold their ruinous Babel So Hammilton and Hay in their demands to the Ministers of Scotland so Campion so Duraeus Scotus against Whitaker in his defence so your Rhemists upon the 28. of the Acts and on 1. John 2. and so Bellarmin lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 5. Whereby it may be seen of what account this argument of yours is in the judgement of your Church But to answer to your argument first I say If there be no mutations or changes in your Religion since Christ and his Apostles then your Religion and doctrine will be one with that which is set down in the Scripture of God For you will not deny I hope but the Scripture doth sufficiently testifie what doctrine and Religion was in Christs and his Apostles dayes And so let it once be put in the ballance of the Scripture and tryed thereby and then I hope it will soon be made manifest how far it is changed So and you dare M. Gilbert let once your Religion be set upon the pannel and let it once have an assise of the Scripture and then the plea will end I hope Next I say it will not follow We cannot assign all the circumstances of changes in your Religion Therefore your Religion is uncorrupted For it suffiseth if we can prove the first only that is the matter or doctrine it self which is changed and that by comparing it with the Scriptures of God suppose we could not assign all the rest of the circumstances of the mutation as the time place author c. for the changes of many things are most notorious and yet all the circumstances of the change thereof not known We say then it is not needful to seek the beginnings and circumstances of the decays and corruptions in your Church when the corruption and change it self is so manifest by comparing your doctrine with the written Word of God that it cannot be denyed For will you say that he who is deadly diseased is whole and sound because I cannot tell you the first article of time the place and first occasion of the disease When it is manifest that a city is full of misorder and confusion will ye say that ye will not believe it to be so unless you know the first beginnings and progress of these misorders If you saw a ruinous house would ye say Prove me and tell me all the circumstances of the change of it otherwise I will not believe it Will ye deny that a ship could be drowned unless it were told you all the circumstances of the change of the leck where through it drowned If any found a man fallen in a pit shal he not believe that he is fallen whom nevertheless he sees to be there unless it were told him when and by whom he was cast into the same Even so will ye not believe or will ye hinder all others to believe that your Church and Religion is ruinous consumed rotten dead drowned and full of misorder heresie and confusion unless the first beginnings of these changes can be told you We say therefore it is sufficient to prove the ruine and consumption of your Church and Religion if by comparing your doctrine with the truth of God in the Scripture we make evident the direct opposition betwixt them suppose we could not assign all the circumstances of the change of
condemned in the Scripture I deny that For Antichrist and his Kingdom are not so old as the Scripture and yet the Scripture condemned it For not only condemns it present heresies but also the heresies that was to come And seeing Papistrie is that Antichristian Religion as shal be made manifest by Gods grace therefore it hath the express condemnation of it in the Word of God The form therefore of it no wayes will make it impossible to be proved As for the next thing that I prove nothing bu offers very fair I answer it was not my purpose then but I hope ye shal have a proof now of that which I offered then As to the third then that I can say nothing to your argument which ye would hâ—ve the Reader to mark When I read this I marked this that ye would earnestly have the Reader perswaded of the invincibleness of your argument and my inability to answer But what bring ye with you to perswade him of the same Your reason is because I have not answered it Will this follow I have not suppose it were so as ye say therefore I cannot It will not follow I have not answered I cannot answer to it But as you have a new Theology so have you a new Logick But said I nothing to your argument What is not answered sufficiently in the same Your argument was the antiquity of your Religion and continuance of it from Christ by a lineal succession never interrupted c. and the novelty of ours My answer was Yours was not institut by Christ nor his Apostles in his Scripture as ours was and yours was gain-said in the chief points by the testimonies of the Fathers the first six hundred years and the principal points of our Religion confirmed by sundry of their testimonies Thirdly yours was that Antichristian apostasie that the Scripture fore told should come and in the hight of your tyranny and Idolatry was gain-said by many before Martin Luther and ours was professed by sundry before him whose names I set down all which I offered to prove and now shal do by Gods grace Now you say this is no answer But is that no answer that cuts the very throat of your Religion if it be verified and invalidities your argument that it do never stand up to under-prop your Religion again For that Religion which is not instituted by Christ in the Scripture whose main foundations is gain-said by the testimonies of sundry of the Fathers of the first 600. year which is Antichristian and which was gain-said by the Saints that they persecuted and slew hath not the continuance from Christ by a lineal succession never interrupted nor spoken against by a true Church till Martin Luthers days This I am sure ye will not deny But your Religion is such as I offered then to prove and now have in some points and shal in other some points by Gods grace The which if it be verified then I hope ye will not deny but that your Religion hath neither antiquity continuance nor succession from Christ till Martin Luthers dayes And that Religion cannot be newly forged and invented since Martin Luthers dayes which hath the warrant and institution of it in the Scripture c. This you cannot deny But our Religion is such as then I offered to prove and now have done in some points and shal do in other some points by Gods grace Therefore our Religion cannot be newly forged and invented c. but is the only true Religion So that this answer if it be proved doth sufficiently vindicat our Religion from novelty Now if this be no answer to your argument then I say no more but ye will answer it the sooner And because ye formed your own argument your self in your answer to me and I have answered to it else therefore I will now insist no further upon it And as for your lineal succession of Bishops it will come in question afterward therefore I omit it now SECTION V. Concerning the Judge of Controversies namely whither GOD speaking in the Scripture be Judge of Controversies Maister Gilbert Brown AS for the written Word it is true that it is a most faithful witness and it be not corrupted to Christ and his Church as our Savior testifies himself John 5.39 of the which opinion there is sundry Protestants chiefly young Merchiston in his discourse upon the Revelation in the 21. proposition and other places 2. Cor. 3.6 John 6.63 But that it ought to be Judge to decide all controversies in Religion M. John hath no Scripture for the same It is the holy Ghost that must be Judge and the holy Writ must bear witness thereto For this cause the holy Ghost was given to the Church by the Father and the Son that he might teach it all truth John 14.25.26 This holy Ghost gives judgement by the Pastors of the true Church as he did by the Apostles and Priests at the Council of Jerusalem It hath pleased the holy Ghost and us saith the Apostle Acts 15.19.28 and so he hath ever done since the beginning of the Church when it was troubled with heresies and false doctrine as the Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon M. John Welsch his Reply You first here decline the Scripture as Judge to decide all controversies in Religion And you are not the first that have done this but all your Roman Clergy with you And suppose there were not another thing to make the consciences of men suspect your Religion that it is not found in the book of God yet this is a great presumption that ye give out of it your selves For what may all men think of the same but that if ye were perswaded in your conscience to justify your Religion to be from Jesus Christ in his written Word ye would never decline the judicatorie of it and the declining of the same is an evident demonstration that ye are privy to your selves in your own consciences that it is not from God in his written Word But wherefore say I that ye are privy to your selves of this Ye have made it known to the world by your confession in your own books that many of the chief points of your Religion controverted between you and us which ye maintain have not their original beginning nor authors in the Scriptures but in your unwritten traditions So Petrus a Soto a Papist of great name confessed He calls all these observations Apostolick traditions whose beginning principium origo author cannot be found in the whole Scriptures in his book against Brentius And then he reckons out a number of the chief and principal heads of their Religion saying Of the which sort are the oblation of the sacrifice of the altar the invocation or prayers to Saints the prayer for the dead the supremacie of the Pope of Rome the consecration of the water in baptism the whole sacraments of orders matrimonie pennance confirmation and extream unction the merits of works
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
he may of right dispense against right that he may make righteousness of unrighteousness and that he may deliver as many souls out of Hell and Purgatory and place them in heaven as pleaseth him Extra de translat Epist Canon Quanto in textu glossa Clement 6. in Bulla he needs no Masses to be said for him Either therefore these sentences that are spoken of him are false or else all Masses said for him are superfluous Eightly if the Mass be one with the Supper then as the Supper was only instituted for the living and not for the dead and therefore our Savior in the Supper commands To take eat drink and to do it in remembrance of him which the dead cannot do so these Masses should not be for the dead And for what dead are these that these Masses are said If they say for them that are in Heaven or Hell I answer the one needs them not and they are unprofitable for the other If they say for them that are in Purgatory I answer this Purgatory is but their own invention to draw water to their own mill and to enrich the Popes treasures for the Scripture makes no mention of it Ninthly their Masses that are said for them that are absent as for the prisoners for them that sail and are in their voyage c. makes it manifest also that the Mass is not one with the Lords Supper for it was instituted not to them that were absent but to them that were present For in the Supper they are commanded to take eat and to drink in remembrance of him which the absent cannot do Indeed it is true that these that are present at the Mass do eat and drink as little as they that are absent the only vantage they have is to be beholders of the Priest eating and drinking all himself alone and of these vain and juglers tricks of the Priest in saying of his Mass which the absent cannot see Tenthly how can their Priests please God in saying Mass for him of whose soul it is doubted seeing it cannot be said with faith and whatsoever is done without faith the Apostle saith is sin Rom. 4.23 And this doubting as James saith cannot stand with faith James 2 6. therefore this Mass of theirs for his soul of whom there is doubt cannot please God But what is all their Religion but conjectures and opinions and doubtings Eleventhly is their Masses for the pest tempest fury fire and all afflictions and maladies as well of man as of beast which containeth intolerable and vile idolatry for every Mass hath his own Saint to be a Patron according to the subject thereof and every Saint hath his own office Against the pest the Priest saith the Mass of S. Sebastian and S. Roch for they are the Patrons and defenders against it after the custom of the Pagans who honored Apollo and Esculapius by feasts and sacrifices for to be saved from the contagion of the same Against the tempest they say the Mass of S. Bernard S. Graith S. Barbe and others in stead of Jupiter which the Pagans worshipped Against the rage or fury they say the Mass of S. Hubert who is the Patron of hunters and dogs as the Goddess Diana was the Patron among the Pagans Against the fire they say the Mass of S. Antony for they make him the Patron of it and they say it is a greater oath to swear upon the arm of S. Antony then when one swears by the Name of God For a woman with child they say the Mass of S. Margaret in stead of Diana and Juno which the Pagans worshipped for women with child For a horse they say the Mass of S. Eloy or S. Antony yea for a poor wifes hen if it be sick or lost And for their pigs they have the Mass of S. Antony Alanus de sacrific Euch. cap. 32. But first what blasphemy is this to have their recourse to Saints hee or shee to obtain of them or by their merit or intercession health in sickness c. and such like things which are only in Gods hands to bestow For it is he only that sends health and sickness fair weather and foul weather and so forth Next the Lords Supper was not instituted to be a charm for such diseases of man or beast or for the fire pest tempest c. but for the remembrance of Christs death So that if there were no more abuse in the Mass but these two things it is sufficient to make all men to abhor such abominable idolatry The twenty and one abuse is their mixing of parcels of the Scripture with their abomination and idolatries in their Mass after the manner of those who go about to impoyson any who mix their poyson with some good food that it may be the less suspected Or rather as the Magiciens and Charmers doth who mixes with their devilish practises parcels of the Scriptures of God and makes those to serve for their devilish purposes which was appointed to Gods honor So are all the places of Scripture which are read and sung in their Mass they are brought forth not for the truth but against the truth for their idolatry and abomination and this they have done that their idolatrie may be less suspected by the simple Next what warrant have they to prefer the Gospel as they call it to the Epistles in standing up at the reading of the Gospel and sitting at the reading of the Epistles seeing they are both inspired of God and they both contain the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the Apostle testifies Rom. 1.1 and 2.16 1. Cor. 4.15 Thirdly the Gospel and Epistles were appointed not to be sung and chanted in the Church as they do but to be read and interpreted for the Psalms and other Hymns in the Scripture are ordained for that use Fourthly seeing the Scripture which is read and sung in your Mass is read and sung in an unknown language as all the rest of your Mass is done to what purpose doth it serve And what is it but a mocking of God and abusing of the poor people The twenty and two abuse is their wax candles which they have burning in the time of their Masses in the fair day light mocking as it were thereby both God the Author of all light and the light of the Sun And to what purpose can they serve to burn in the day light when the Sun is shining but to bear witness against them in the great Day that in the midst of the noon-day they groped in darkness and that they have put out the light of the Gospel that should have shined in their hearts What shal I speak of the rest of your ceremonies which are superstitious idle carnal and Jewish In attire like them for as their Priests were clad in an Ephod a Myter a broidered coat a girdle a breast-plate and a robe Exode 28.4 So with you your Priests must have an Amice an Albe a girdle a fannel whereof some
bound to lay down our life one for another much more to ware out for him such things as may serve for the comfort of this life in such an extremity And the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. John 3.16 is not to supererogat as ye take it but to ware out further expenses So your blindness is gross in this And as for that of David in praising God night and day so often he was so far from thinking of himself that he had done more then the Law required of him that he never thought of himself that he had fully obeyed the Law And therefore how often prays he in that Psalm that the Lord would open his eyes to understand the Law and give him grace to perform the same Psal 119.12.17.18.27 And in other Psalms he saith My sins are mo then the hairs of my head Psal 40.12 And if thou mark iniquity who can stand Psal 130.3 And therefore this was no work of supererogation And if you knew M. Gilbert but the Lord hath blinded you either the perfection of the Law of God or our inability to perform it or the unsearchable love and kindness of God which hath obliged us to mo duties then ever we are able to do For when we have done all which is commanded us yet we are but unprofitable servants you would be so far from defending these your works of supererogation that ye would abhor and detest this doctrine SECTION XIX Concerning Christs descending into Hell Master Gilbert Brown THirteenthly our doctrine is that Christ our Savior according to the soul descended to the Hells as we have in our Belief And this was the doctrine of the Apostles for S. Peter saith That God hath raised him up loosing the sorrows of Hell according as it was impossible that he should be held of it Acts 2.24 And this he proves by the Psalms of David Behold thou wilt not leave my soul in hell saith David nor give thy holy One to see corruption Psal 16.10 This same is the doctrine of S Paul also And that he ascended what is it but because he descended also first into the inferior parts of the earth He that descended the same is he also which is ascended above all the heavens that he might fill all things Eph. 4.9.10 Ye see in these and all the rest of our doctrine wherein they differ from us that the touch-stone beares witness to us and proves ours only to be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and not their denying thereof Master John Welsch his Reply Bellarmin grants that we all agree that Christ after a certain manner descended into hell but the whole controversie is of the sense and meaning of it We say that he suffered the pains of hell in his soul upon the cross and lay under the bondage of death and was held captive in the grave which in the Hebrew is called SCHEOL which signifieth sometime hell in the Scripture and sometime the grave for the space of three days and in this sense we grant he descended into hell and in this sense it is taken in our Belief But your doctrine is That he descended locally into hell according to his soul first to give to the souls of the Fathers essential blessedness and to deliver them out of that prison and bring them to heaven Bellarm. lib. 4. de Christo cap. 16. And this we say is neither the meaning of that article of your Belief neither yet hath it so much as a syllable in the whole Scripture to warrant it And as for the article it self Bellarmin confesses that this article was not in the Creed with all Churches as he proves there by the testimonies of Ireneus Origen Tertullian and Augustin who all exponed the Creed And Augustin exponed it five times and yet never mentions this article And Ruffinus an ancient writer testifies That this article was neither in the Creed of the Roman Church nor of the East Churches And also it is not in the Nicene Creed which is more then 300. years after Christ And Perkins a learned man in his exposition of the Creed affirms that threescore Creeds of the most ancient Councils and Fathers wants this clause Whereby it is most clear that this article was not put in at that time when the rest of the articles were gathered together but hath crept in since and that more then 300. years after the days of the Apostles For Augustin lived in the 400. years and the Nicene Creed was more then 300. years after Christ And yet because it hath continued a long time and hath been received by the consent of the Churches of God and doth also carry with it a fit understanding and sense as hath been spoken therefore it is to be retained but not in that sense as ye expone it For first if this local descension of Christ according to his soul into hell were true and that it were an article of our Faith as ye say then the four Evangelists which are the sworn pen-men of the history of his death and resurrection and especially Luke who as he saith himself Luke 1 3. intended to make an exact narration of the same who also did amply set down the same with all the circumstances thereof they would not have omitted it being a special article of our Faith if your doctrine be true seeing the end of their writing as John saith was that we might believe and by believing have eternal life John 10.31 But they never mention it as your selves cannot deny Therefore it cannot be that he locally descended into hell Secondly the Scripture makes it plain that Christs soul was in Paradise at that time with the thief For he saith unto him This night shalt thou be with me in Paradise Luke 23.43 For this cannot be meant of his God-head for it is every where neither of his body for it was in the grave Seeing therefore his soul was at that time in Paradise it could not be in hell except you will say that Paradise and hell are both one which I suppose ye will not say Thirdly if the souls of the Fathers were not in hell then Christ descended not thither For ye say That he descended thither for that effect to deliver them Bellar. lib. 4. de Christo cap. 16. but they were not in hell but in heaven which our Savior calls Abrahams bosome where Lazarus was betwixt the which and hell the Scripture testifies there is a great gulf Luke 16.23 therefore he descended not locally into hell Fourthly some of your own learned Doctors have seen this error of yours and have gone from it as Durandus by name who affirms in 3. distinct 22. quaest 3. That Christs soul descended not to hell in substance but in vertue and proves it by reasons And last of all you are at such variance among your selves concerning this point that some of you affirms That Christs soul suffered pain in hell when it was there as Cajetan in
blasphemous reason of yours Martin Luther is the author of our Religion For now your are inforced to grant the contrary that infinit numbers have taught the same doctrine before him The truth is too strong for you M Gilbert that compells you to grant the thing that ye would wish with all your heart the people never knew it But comfort your self M. Gilbert for the truth will be victorious at the last and your darkness dayly more and more will be discovered Indeed the least stroke that ye can give for the defence of your Pope is to call them all hereticks who have spoken against him For I grant the Pope and his Clergy is not such fools as being their own Judges to condemn themselves and to justifie them who not only have taught it but also sufficiently did prove it and many thousands sealed with their blood that he was the Antichrist and his Church Babel But with them they have the Son of God and the Apostles Paul and John hereticks for they also did condemn his idolatry and tyranny and errors But whereabout now will ye contend M. Gilbert Ye say whether their doctrine be heresie or not I would you and your Church would stand upon this and give over all your other contentions while this were first proved Whether their doctrine in so far as they agree with ours and ours in so far as it dissents from yours be heresie or not that is be against the Scripture or not the which if you would do then I hope our contention would soon be ended But for as fast as you run to this now you will flee from it as fast again when we desire to have yours and our doctrine tryed by the Scriptures which of them is heresie and consequently whether ye or we be hereticks And therefore you ever refuse to let your doctrine be tryed by the Scripture but run to your pretended antiquity and successions Councils and lying miracles and many other vain starting-holes like a wild Fox when he is hunted out of one hole he flies to another and dares never abide the fair fields And mark their craft Reader when we affirm that our Religion hath Jesus Christ to be the Author of it in the Scriptures as we offer to prove the same ye refuse this tryal by the Scriptures and say That Martin Luther invented our Religion and we had none that professed it and taught it before him When we again reply That we had sundry of all sorts many hundred years before him even when your Kingdom was at the hight and produces their names they not being able to deny it they slip from that again and say They contend not whether there was such that taught such doctrine or not but they contend whether that was truth or heresie so they run from one starting hole to another But I will ask you M. Gilbert if it be proved that this their doctrine was not heresie will you contend any more then Shal the plea cease then Will you ever slander our Religion of novelty in saying Martin Luther was the first that began it and we had none who professed before him But you will say This you have not proved It is true I had not proved it then but now I hope I have proved it sufficiently that your Popes are the Antichrist and your Rome Babel which was one of the principal heads of the doctrine which ye taught and sundry others also Disprove you it if you can M. Gilbert Master Gilbert Brown But he saith They preached the same Religion that he preaches c. Let M. John name any of these his Doctors that he will abide at in Religion and I shal let him see that he was not of his Religion in all things For that is the thing that we say That albeit M. John and his brethren have renewed many old condemned heresies of hereticks yet they were not of their Religion in all things And therefore this that M. John calls the only truth was never professed in all heads as it is now in Scotland before in no Countrey no not by any one man let be by a number which thing M. Robert Bruce grants himself in his Sermons in these words And God hath chosen a few hearts in this Countrey where he hath begun his dwelling place for God dwells now in the hearts and consciences of his own by his holy Spirit And surely so hath he dwelt with 〈◊〉 these thirty years in such purity that he hath not done the like with any Nation in the earth he hath not remained with any Nation without error and heresie so long as he hath done with us c. So God dwelt in no place without error and heresie the space of thirty years while now in Scotland Master John Welsch his Reply But you say they dissent from us in some things and is not of our Religion in all things Whereunto I answer That suppose this were true yet it will not follow but that they are of our Religion seeing they and we do agree in the main foundations thereof For we have learned to call them brethren which do hold the foundation as the Apostle saith suppose they have built hay straw or timber upon the same Otherwise if ye will be content to be measured with that same measure wherewith ye measure us if you will have none to be accounted of your Religion but these only that profess with you in all things as your Church doth now then not only by your reason shal ye want the Lord Jesus his Apostles the primitive Church as ye do indeed and that not only in the first six hundred years but long after till the thousand year and long after that also to be of your profession because not only the weightiest points of your doctrine have not their original in the Scripture and are unwritten traditions by the testimony of some of your selves but also sundry points of your Religion have been brought in after these dayes being unknown in the former ages as your selves will not deny and I have proved in some heads in the other part concerning the Mass Yea you shal want all the Fathers by this reason of yours For there is not one of them but they have their own errors which ye your selves will not defend and the most part of them are with us against you in many things which you cannot deny and that which is more ye shal want almost all the general Councils except three or four and many of your own Popes Doctors Bishops Cardinals and Jesuits for not only have some of them had errors and some of them been hereticks by your whole confessions but also some of them have been with us in some points against you as I have proved before so that I need not repeat them now As for example Pope Gregory affirms That the books of the Macchabees are Apocrypha Lib. 19. cap. 16. in morali And so have sundry others of your Clergy as
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
plainly as you thought Were you afraid that the hearts of men should have skunnered with this your doctrine if ye had been as plain in your writ as ye are in your own judgement Next I say you have the Lord in his written Word as contrary to this your doctrine as light is to darkness For as to the first the Scripture testifies plainly that we are dead in sin John 5.25 Col. 2 13. Eph 2.1 And that the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God Rom. 8.17 and therefore we have need to be born again John 3.5 that is to receive a new life ere ever we can be able to enter into the Kingdom of God and that it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do Philip. 2.13 and that of our selves we are not sufficient to think any thing as of our selves 2. Cor. 3 5. and that all the imaginations of mans heart is only evil continually Gen. 6 5. Where then is there any place left to free-will And as to the second the Scripture saith Eccles 7.20 There is not a righteous man in the earth who doth good and sinneth not therefore no perfect keeping of the Law And who may say my heart is clean and I am pure from sin Prov. 20.9 If no man may say so then no man can keep perfectly the whole Law And by the works of the Law no flesh is justified in his sight Rom. 3.20.28 therefore no flesh is able perfectly to keep the Law for if he could keep the Law he would be justified by the Law But the Apostle saith that no flesh can be justified by the Law therefore none can keep the Law And therefore the Scripture saith Rom. 8.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Law is impossible because of the weakness of the flesh For the which cause the Son of God took on him our nature to fulfill this impossibility of the Law And James calls the Law a yoke which saith he neither we nor our fathers were able to bear Acts 15.10 If they said that they could not bear it that is perfectly obey it who obtained a higher measure of grace then ever any since did what shal we then say of all other men after them And what arrogancy and presumption is this in these of the Roman Church to say and to bear others in hand that they are able to bear that yoke which the Apostles was not able to bear And JESUS CHRIST hath taught us to pray dayly Forgive us our sins Matthew 6. which needed not if we were able to keep the whole Law And beside the plain testimony of the Scripture every mans own doleful experience tells them of their manifold and continual sinning What a damnable doctrine is this then which blinds their eyes so far that neither they see nor feel the inward corruptions of their own heart within them rebelling against the Law of God nor yet the perfection which the Law of God requires Now to the testimonies of Scripture which ye quote And first that in the 19. of Matthew If you would enter into life keep the Commandments I answer The same is to be said to you who seek for life righteousness by the works of the Law Keep the Commands But that are ye unable to do or any man else except the man the Lord Jesus as hath been proved and as unable as this young man was to whom it was said at the last It is as impossible to him to go into heaven as to a camel or cable rope to go through the eye of a needle But ye will say Wherefore then would our Savior Christ have commanded him to keep the Commandments if he would have life I answer Not because he was able to do it but to bring him to a conscience of the breach of it For by the Law as the Apostle saith cometh the knowledge of sin Rom. 7.7 And to cast down that presumption that he had of himself that he had observed and kept the Law that in conscience of sin he might be brought to seek for life eternal in Christ Jesus only And lest ye say that this is my exposition therefore hear what the Apostle saith Gal. 3.10.14 As many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse for it is written Cursed is every man that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them and that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident Now this is spoken not only of the Jews but of the Gentils that believed in Christ Jesus and were under grace Upon the which I reason thus If as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse and no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God then no man is able to get life eternal by keeping of the Law and so this young man to whom Christ gave his answer neither had kept nor could keep the Law but the first is said by the Apostle therefore the second is true Next the Law requires a perfect obedience with all the heart with all the understanding and thought and strength unto all the commandments and that continually Matth. 22.37 Luke 10 17. Mark 12.31 So that James saith He that breaks one is guilty of all James 2.10 And the Law doth pronounce them accursed That continues not in the doing of all things c. Deut. 27.16 in this perfection Now who is he that is come out of the loins of Adam except only the Lord Jesus who hath continued in the perfect obedience of all things without the breach of any in thought word or deed Are you able or hath every one of your Roman Churches performed or is able to perform this obedience that the Law requires Seeing therefore that none is able and this young man neither had performed not yet was able to perform this perfect obedience to the Law therefore of necessity it must follow that our Savior gave him this command Keep the Commandments c. not because he was not able to keep them but to bring him by the Law to a conscience of the breach of them As for the rest of the Scriptures which ye bring in they are easily answered John 14.15 24. If ye love me keep my Commandments c. And he that loves me not keeps not my word c. I grant the Lord hath commanded obedience to his Commandments And I grant they that loves him keeps them and all the children of God loves him and begins also obedience to all his Commandments But yet as their love is not in that perfection which the Law requires with all their heart with all their understanding and with all their strength so their obedience is not in that perfection And nevertheless the perfection of their obedience is forgiven being covered with the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ and through him is acceptable in his presence and of him also shal be
crowned with a crown of glory suppose freely And to prove this If any had obeyed the Commandments perfectly then surely the Apostles Paul James John Peter should have done it For they loved him in as great and greater measure of love then ever any since did And our Savior testifies of them to his Father That they have kept his word John 17.6 But the Apostle Paul testifies of himself Rom. 7 That he did not the things he would but the thing that he hated that he did and to will was present with him but to perform he found it not and he saw a law in his members rebelling against the law of his mind and leading him captive unto sin And John saith of himself and of all men 1. John 1.8.9 If we say we have not sin we make him a lier and the truth is not in us And himself twise would have worshipped an Angel Rev. 29.10 and 22.8.9 contrary to the Law Deut. 6 1. And James saith That in many things we offend all James 3 2. And Peter to whom our Savior said thrise If thou love me keep my laws went not with a right foot to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2.11 12. Therefore none is able perfectly to keep them We see then there is a keeping of the Commandments and a keeping of them in perfection The first common to all the faithful suppose not in an equal measure The second only possible to Adam ere he fell and to the Saints in that Kingdom As for the 11 of Matthew Take up my yoke c for my yoke is sweet and my burden light And the 1 John 5.3 his commandments are not grievous I answer Our Savior and his Apostles calls his commandments light sweet and not heavy not because the perfection of the Law is possible to any to perform in this life but first because the Lord Jesus hath taken away the curse of it and also requires not of us that perfection which the Law requires under the pain of the curse of the Law if it be not satisfied And because he by his Spirit renews the hearts of his own and makes them able with joy to begin that obedience so that what they do they do it not upon constraint as being under the Law but willingly for the love of Christ and they delight in the same according to the law of their mind as the Apostle speaks of himself Rom. 7. But yet within they find a law in their members rebelling against the law of their mind leading them captive unto sin So in these respects are his commandments called light and sweet But Acts 15 the Apostles calls it an unsupportable yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear And Romans 8 it is called impossible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3 20. and 7.14 c. Gal 3.10 As for Philippians 4.13 where the Apostle saith He is able to do all things by him that strengthens him The Apostle speaks not here of his ability to perform the Law in that perfection which the Law requires For he hath testified the contrary both of himself and of all others as hath been said But only this that through him he is able to sustain all sorts of condition both to abound and to be in scarcity to be full and to be hungry This is not my exposition but the Apostle so expounds himself in the former verse so that I wonder upon what show ye could quote this testimony As for Philip. 2. it is true the Lord worketh in his own both to will and to do but yet it follows not that they are able perfectly to obey the Law For if that measure of grace had been wrought in any it had been wrought in the Apostles but not in them as hath been shown and that by their own testimony therefore in none else Next what can be more clear for the overthrow of your Free-will then is this place of Scripture If the Lord work in us both to will and to perform then we are not able to will of our selves that which is acceptable to God As for the examples which ye cite of Noah Abraham Job Zacharias and Elizabeth David Ezechia Josia Juda and Asa and these whom the Lord reserved to himself pure from the Idolatry of your Antichristian kingdom fore-spoken there They walked indeed in integrity and sincerity in the commandments and ways of the Lord and therefore have received a good testimony and report of Gods Spirit in the Scripture all which we grant unto you But that they answered the law in that perfection that it requires the Scripture which hath registred their walkings and their own testimonies will gain-say it Noah fell in drunkenness Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith Rom. 4. which is a most sure argument that he fulfilled not the law Job saith If I would affirm my self to be righteous my own mouth would condemn me Job 9 2 3.20 Zacharias believed not the word of the Lord spoken to him by the Angel therefore was striken dumb Luke 1.20 David fell in adulterie murther and provoked the Lords anger by numbering the people 2. Sam. 12 and 24. and he saith of himself My iniquities are more in number then the hairs of my head Psal 40.13 And in another place If thou mark iniquity O Lord who can stand Psal 130.2 And enter not in judgement with thy servant for no man living shal be righteous before thee Psal 143.2 Ezechias heart was lifted up 2. Chron. 32.25 Josias harkened not unto the words of Necho according to the word of the Lord. Asa put his trust not in the Lord his God but in the King of Syria 2 Chron 16.7 The like is to be said of these whom the Lord did reserve to himself in the midst of the kingdom of darkness that they did keep the commandments of God but not in that perfection which the law required For they were not more righteous then the Prophet Esay and the Apostles were But the Prophet saith That we are all unclean and all our righteousness is as a menstruous cloth Esai 64. And the Apostle saith In many things we sin all James 3. And Augustin saith All the commandments of God are accounted to be done when that which is not done is forgiven ad Bonif lib. 1. cap. 7. And in another place Epist 60. For the want of love it is that there is not a righteous man in the earth that doth good and sinneth not And Ambrose saith in Gal. 3. The commandments of God are so great that they are impossible to be kept And Jerome saith in Gal. 3 Because no man can fulfil the law and do all things that is commanded And Bernard saith Cant. serm 5. The commandments of God cannot nor could not be fulfilled of any man And Chrysostom saith in Gal. 2. No man hath fulfilled the Law And Thomas one of the chief pillars of your own Church writes in Gal 3. lect
4. That it is impossible to fulfil the whole Law and Vega a Papist saith lib 11. in consil cap 20 That venial sins are properly against the Law Upon the which I reason He that daylie transgresses the law fulfills not nor is not able to fulfil the law for to fulfill the law and transgress the law are contrarie but your own doctrine is that no man can keep himself at least from venial sins and Vega as hath been said saith that venial sins are against the law Therefore if your selves speak true no man is able to fulfil the law I conclud therefore that this doctrine of yours is contrarie to the doctrine of Jesus Christ and his Apostles set down in the Scripture and also contrarie to the doctrine of the Fathers and contrarie to the doctrine of the most learned and chief Doctors of your Roman Church And this for the second point of your doctrine SECTION VIII Whither a man by his Free-will may resist the will of GOD. Master Gilbert Brown THirdly Our doctrine is that man of his Free-will may resist the will of God which is contrary to their doctrine ratified by Act of Parliament in the year 1560. And also against their Psalm book of Geneva Yet our doctrine is the doctrine of Christ For Christ said to them of Jerusalem How oft would I have gathered together thy children but you would not Matth. 23.37 And S. Steven Ye stiff-necked and of uncircumcised hearts and ears ye alwayes resist the holy Ghost as your fathers your selves also Acts 7 51. The same was the faith and belief of the Apostle S. Peter saith Our Lord is not willing that any perish but that all return to pennance 2. Pet. 3.9 And S. Paul hath Our Savior God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth 1. Tim. 2.4 This was the doctrine of the Prophets before Psal 5.5 Ezec. 18.23 and 33.11 Now then if God wills that all men should return and yet all men doth not the same whereof proceeds it but of their Free-will which will not work with the will of God Therefore our Savior saith in sundrie places If thou wilt enter into life keep my commands If thou wilt be perfect go and sell all that thou hast Matth. 19.17 He that will follow me let him deny himself Luke 9.23 Master John Welsch his Reply As for this third point of doctrine I cannot wonder enough what ye mean by it For have you sold your self so far to untruth and lying that for to bring the truth of God which we profess in hatred you will father on us that doctrine which never so much as once entred into our thoughts let be to teach it or write it Did you think when you writ this that the truth of it would never come to light Or thought you that ye regarded not to be controlled of lying at the last so being that for a season ye might make our Religion to be more abhorred through your calumnie But frost and falshood as they say will never have a fair hinder end If you mean then by resisting the will of God a voluntary disobedience and repining against the Spirit of God and his revealed will in his Word as the testimonies which ye quote here imports Then I say there was never man of our Religion that professed taught or writ the contrary and ye will not find a syllable neither in the Confession of our Faith confirmed by the Act of Parliament neither in our Psalm book to the contrary For our doctrine is flat contrary to this to wit that man of his Free-will resists that that is good and chooses the contrary So ye fight here with your own shadow And if ye mean any other thing set it down in plain termes and I hope by his grace it shal be answered So I cannot wonder enough what ye mean to write and subscribe so manifest an untruth Now surelie M. Gilbert I think it had been greater wisdom to you to have saved your own credit and not for a little hatred to our Religion to have blotted your self with lying and untruth for ever I would pray thee Christian Reader if thou wilt not credit me read our Confession thy self and I hope thou shalt wonder with me what the man meant in subscribing so manifest a calumnie This for the third point SECTION IX Concerning Transubstantiation and Christs real and substantial Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Master Gilbert Brown Fourthly Our doctrine is that our Savior gave his true flesh and very body and blood under the forms of bread and wine to be eaten of his Disciples at his last Supper and that to be received by their very mouth And this I say by the written Word is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Christ saith John 6.51 And the bread which I will give you is my flesh for the life of the world And at the latter Supper Take ye and eat ye this is my body And Drink ye all of this For this is my blood of the New Testament which shal be shed for many unto remission of sins Matth 26.27.28 And in S. Mark This is my body and this is my blood of the New Testament which shal be shed for many Mark 14.22.24 And S Luke saith This is my body which is given for you and this is the calice of the New Testament in my blood which shal be shed for you Luke 22.19.20 This same is the doctrine of the Apostles For S. Paul saith This is my body which shal be delivered for you and this calice is the New Testament in my blood and whosoever shal eat this bread and drink the calice of our Lord unworthily he shal be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. And after For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgement to himself not decerning the body of our Lord 1. Cor. 11.24.25 27.29 And in the chapter befo e The calice of benediction which we do bless is it not the communication of the blood of Christ And the bread which we break is it not the participation of the body of the Lord 1. Cor. 10.10 M. John Welsch his Reply I come now to the fourth point of your doctrine your Transubstantiation and real presence The first ye quote is the 6. of John And the bread which I will give is my flesh c. This makes nothing for your real presence For first our Savior speaks not here of that sacramental eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in this sermon which was not instituted a year after that For he speaks here of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood without the which there is no life So our Savior testifies in the 53. verse Except ye eat saith he the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you But your selves grants that men may be saved without that sacramental eating therefore
it is not of that which he speaks here Secondly he speaks of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood which whosoever so doth hath eternal life to themselves so our Savior Christ promises in the 54. verse But your own doctrine is that the reprobat eats and drinks Christs body and blood in the Sacrament and yet have no life in them therefore he speaks not here of that sacramental eating Thirdly if he speak here of the sacramental eating as you say then your Church not only hath erred foully but also hath been and is the cause of the condemnation of your people these many years because you give them not his blood to drink And our Savior saith not only Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man but also except ye drink his blood ye have no life in you And this reason was so effectual that it hath moved sundry of your own Doctors as Jansenius and Tapperus with sundry others to expone this place not of the sacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ but of the spiritual eating and drinking of him by faith For they did see that it behoved them either to forsake this place as not making for them and grant that it speaks not of the Sacrament or else to confess that their Church hath erred and through this error hath been the cause of the damnation of many in ministring the Sacrament but under one kind And because you say if our expositions vere removed from the Scripture they would ferve for you whom therefore will you credit in exponing of this place If our Savior hear then how he expon s this eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in the 35. verse I am the bread of life he that cometh unto me shal not hunger and he that believes in me shal never thirst So when we believe in Christ we eat him and when we come unto him which is only by faith we drink him So Augustine also expones this place Tractat. 25. in Johan cap 6. Tract 26 de doct Christ lib. 3 cap. 16. Believe saith he and thou hast eaten Clement Alexandrinus lib. 1. Padago cap. 6. and Hieronymus in Psal 147. and Bernard supra Psal 90 vers 3 all expones the flesh and blood of Christ figuratively And if ye will credit none of these then I hope ye will not discredit your own chief Doctors who affirms That this place is not meant of the Sacrament but of the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ by faith As Biel Cusanus Caiâ—tanus Hesselius and Jansâ—nius cited by Bellarm lib 1 de Eucharist cap. 5. And if ye will reply that many others of the Fathers have exponed this place of the Sacrament then Janfenius and Tapperus two Papists will answer you That they did it only by way of application unto the readers and hearers to stir them up to the often receiving of the Sacrament So this place can serve nothing for your Transubstantiation for it speaks not of the Sacrament but of his suffering upon the Cross for the away taking of our sins and the purchasing to us of eternal life The next place ye quote is the words of the institution as Matthew Mark Luke and the Apostles rehearses them Your argument is this Christ calls the bread his flesh and so Paul and the wine his blood therefore the bread is changed in his body and the wine in his blood the outward formes of bread and wine only remaining This is the chief and principal ground of your real presence and Transubstantiation Whereunto I answer First there is not a syllable here that tells us that the substance of the bread and wine is transchanged in the body and blood of Christ unless ye will expone this word is my body for it is changed in my body which is a monstrous exposition for both it is contrary to the native signification of the word est Est Fieri sunt contraria that signifies to be alreadie for to be already and to be in a change are contrary as also it hath not the like form of speach in the whole Scripture to warrant it from the first of Genesis to the last of the Revelation Bring one instance if ye can And Augustin saith in Genes quaest 117. in Psal 105. supr Num. quaest 95. The solution of a question should be warranted by some example of the like speach in the Scripture the which you are not able to do Therefore your exposition is without warrant Next I say by what Art of reasoning can you gather this doctrine out of these places of Scripture Christ saith of the bread This is my body and of the wine This is my blood Therefore the outward formes of the bread and wine only remains but the substance of them is gone Never such an inkling in all these texts of this doctrine of yours Thirdly this interpretation and doctrine which results upon it is false and that for these reasons First because it is plainly gain-said by the Scripture Secondly because it destroys sundry articles of our Faith and many blasphemous absurdities doth follow upon it Thirdly it destroys the nature of the Sacrament And last of all is utterly repugnant to the words of the institution My argument then is this That interpretation and doctrine which is gain-said by the plain testimony of the Scripture which destroyes the articles of our faith and the fundamental points of our salvation which hath many absurdities following upon it which overthrowes the nature of the Sacrament and last of all which is contrary to the whole institution must be false blasphemous and erroneous This cannot be denyed but your interpretation of these words This is my body c. and your transubstantiation which ye gather upon it is such Therefore it must be erroneous c. My assumption I prove thus First your interpretation is gain-said by the plain testimony of the Scripture Your interpretation is that there remains no true bread nor wine in the Sacrament but the substance of it is changed But Matthew Mark Luke and the Apostles all four testifies That Christ took bread brake it and gave it to his disciples And lest ye should say that it was true bread and wine before the consecration but not after the Scripture saith plainly 1. Cor. 10.16 that it is bread which we break and bread which is eaten and the fruit of the vine which is drunken in the Sacrament The Apostle saith The bread which we break c. And as oft as ye eat this bread c. Whosoever shal eat this bread c. And let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread c. And our Savior saith that after he had given the cup and they had drunken of it From henceforth shal I not drink of the fruit of the vine with you c. Therefore true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament contrary expresly to your interpretation Secondly That your
And what is the cause that ye cannot understand the doctrine of your own Church which acknowledges a spiritual eating of Christ by faith both by the Word and by the Sacrament also de consecr dist 2. cap. Ut quid I had never have thought that ye had been so far blinded of the Lord. But I leave you to the Lord. Let the Christian Reader now judge whether our doctrine or yours be the invention of mans brain and which of them have their warrant out of the written Word of God M. Gilbert Brown And further I say of these words This is my body which shal be delivered for you 1. Cor. 11.24 which is a true proposition and therefore this must follow But there was no body delivered for us but the natural body of Christ therefore it was his natural body that he gave to his Disciples to be eaten Then if it were his natural body it was not natural bread As Saint Ambrose expounds the same Let us prove saith he this not to be that that nature formed but that thing which the blessing hath consecrate and greater strength to be in blessing then in nature for nature it self is changed by blessing He hath the same more amplie in the fourth book in the 4 chap. de Sacramentis Maister John Welsch his Reply First I answer the words of the Apostle is not as ye cite them here which shal be delivered but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is broken and in the present time and so in Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is given so you are not faithful in translating this place of Scripture both contrary to the Greek and Syriak copies Upon the which I reason thus this proposition is true This is my body which is broken for you so the Apostle saith but Christs body was not broken then really for not a bone of him was broken at all as the Scripture testifies Exod 12. and the Scripture saith John 19. and all men confesses that he suffered but once so only his sufferings are signified then by the breaking of the bread in the Sacrament here so as Christs body was not broken then really that is suffered but his suffering only signified by the breaking of the bread so his body was not given really and corporally to be eaten but only signified Secondly I say it is true that Christs natural body was delivered to the death for us but yet it will not follow upon this that it was his natural body which he gave to them to be eaten corporally for his natural body was really delivered to death for us and it was but given to them spiritually to be eaten You must coyn a new Logick M. Gilbert ere you can make these two stick together and the one necessarilie to follow upon the other For by that same reason you may as well conclud that Christ gave his natural body to be eaten corporally in the word for he gives himself to be eaten in his word as well as in his Sacrament 2. John 6.35 Bellarmin grants this also lib. 1. de Eucharist cap. 7. and also he gives that same body to them in the word which was delivered to death for the self same Christ is offered and received as well in the word as in the Sacrament So from his bodilie death to a corporal eating of him it will not follow And further by that same reason you may as well say that the Fathers before Christ under the Law did eat Christs body corporally for they ate that same spiritual food and drank that same spiritual drink in their Sacraments which we do now in ours So the Apostle testifies even that self same Christ his body and blood which was delivered to the death and yet it will not follow that they did eat his natural body c. As for Ambrose it is true he so speaks but he expones himself in that same chapter while as he saith Before the blessing another form or thing is named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified If the bread then signifie the body of Christ it is not changed in his body And because of this holy use to signifie the body of Christ Ambrose saith That the nature is changed by blessing and that this is his meaning his words following will declare it where he saith Shal not the words of Christ be of force to change the form of the elements In that same sense Ambrose saith the nature of the elements is changed in the which he saith the form of them is changed for he affirmeth both there But ye will not say I suppose unless you will overthrow your transubstantiation that Ambrose means that the form of the elements is changed in substance but only in use and signification for you say the forms remains therefore you must also grant that Ambrose means not by the change of nature the change of the substance of them but only the change in the use of them from a common use to a holy use And because it may be you will delay to subscribe to the truth of our doctrine until you hear the sentence and judgement of the Fathers Therefore I will set them down here Tertullian saith contra Marc. lib. 4. This is my body that is a figure of my body Chrysostome saith in 1. Cor. cap. 10. What is that which the bread signifies the body of Christ Theodoret saith dialog 1. and 2. The bread and wine is signs and figures of the body and blood of Christ And he saith Our Savior in the institution of the Sacrament enterchanged the names and gave to the sign or symbol the name of his body and these mystical signs of these holy things whereof are the signs Unto the which he answers Are they not signs of the body and blood of Christ Hieronymus saith in Mat. 2.6 That Christ by taking of the bread which comforts the heart of man representeth the truth of his bodie Cyrillus saith ad Euop Matth. 11. Bas Liturgia Nazian in orat 2. de Pas funere Gorg. Our Sacrament avoweth not the eating of a man Basilius and Nazianzen calls the bread and wine in the Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figurs or signs of the body of Christ Cyprian saith lib. 1. ep 6. ejus contra Adima cap. 12. Psal 3. The Lord called bread made of many grains his body and wine made of many grapes his blood Augustin saith Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body while as he gave but the sign of his body And he calls it the figure of his body and blood And their Canon Law saith de conseer dist 2. cap. Hoc est The heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is called after a manner the body of Christ while as it is but the Sacrament of his body And the Gloss there saith The heavenly bread that is the heavenly Sacrament which represents truly the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly I omit
own heads as may be seen in our Psalm books Whereunto I answer If ye respect the matter contained in our thanksgiving it hath the warrant of the Scripture and so in that respect it is not our own invention If ye respect the authority we are taught and commanded by our Savior both by his example for he gave thanks and also by his commandment Do this to do the same And so in that respect it is not our own invention If you respect the end it is Gods glory which is the proper end of all thanksgiving If ye will respect the form of this thanksgiving to wit the words and order wherein it is conceived I say it is left indifferent to the Church of God to form their prayers and thanksgiving so being the matter end and authority of the using of them publickly have their warrant out of the Word of God So seeing the authority to give thanks and the matter also of our thanksgiving and end thereof is set down in the Word and seeing the Lord hath left it free to the Church of God concerning the outward form of the same the Scriptures not determining it which your self I hope will not deny For your Canon hath many forms of prayers and thanksgiving in your Mass which after that form and order is not set down in the Word of God Therefore you injury the Lords Spirit and his Church who calls our thanksgiving our own invention As to the third concerning blessing which you distinguish from thanksgiving and saith we have blotted it out of our Scots Bibles and put thanksgiving in the room thereof and so you say we want that part First then I will ask you Did not Luke and the Apostle Paul set down the whole form and the chief points of the institution of that Sacrament I suppose you will not deny it for it were too plain an impiety for you to say that either Luke the sworn pen-man of Gods Spirit or Paul who said I have received of the Lord that which also I have delivered unto you 1. Cor. 11.23 that either of these had omitted the history of the institution of this Sacrament a principal point thereof but either this blessing is one with thanksgiving or else they have omitted a principal point thereof for neither of them makes mention in these places of blessing but only of thanksgiving therefore it is one with thanksgiving Secondly I say either the whole three Evangelists and the Apostle Paul in setting down the institution of the Sacrament of the Supper omits a chief thing to wit the blessing of the cup which I suppose ye will not say or else the blessing of the cup is one with thanksgiving for the Apostles Paul Luke makes no mention at all of blessing but only of thanksgiving and the two Evangelists Matthew and Mark makes no mention of the blessing of the cup but saith that after or also he took the cup and when he had given thanks c. therefore they are one Thirdly if ye will credit one Evangelist exponing another whereas Matthew and Mark have this word and he blessed Luke and Paul have these words And he gave thanks And whereas Matthew and Mark have this word blessing after he took the bread they use the word thanksgiving after he took the cup to signifie that they are both one And therefore if ye will believe Scripture exponing Scripture they are both one Yea what will you say to Bellarmin who saith lib. 1. de sacram Euchar. cap. 10 That some Catholicks contends that both the words to bless and to give thanks in the Scripture signifies one thing and therefore they interpret thanksgiving blessing So if you will credit your own Catholicks they are both one here And whereas you say that both in the Greek and Latin they signifie diverse things I answer Indeed it is true that sometimes they signifie diverse actions as blessing Numb 6. for the petition of a blessing But yet sometimes also blessing is taken in the Scripture for thanksgiving as both I have proved in these places as also if ye will deny there is many places in the Scripture for the contrary as Luke 1.65 Eph. 1.3 1. Pet. 1.3 And whereas you say that in Mark they signifie two distinct actions I have proved before they are both one And last of all I say if by blessing you mean the words of the consecration this is my body which is broken for you c. as Bellarmin affirms lib. 4. de sacram Euch. cap. 13 that the Roman catechist so expones it and the Theologues commonly teaches the same then I say we want not that chief point for we rehearse the words of the institution So howsoever the word blessing be taken either for thanksgiving or for the sanctification of these elements to an holy use by prayer which is comprehended in the thanksgiving or for the words as ye call them of the consecration we have always this blessing in our cōmunion And as for your hovering and blowing of the words of Christ over the bread and calice with your crossing and charming them after the manner of Sorcerers with a set number and order of words and signs your hiding it your rubbing of your fingers for fear of crums your first thortering and then lifting up of your arms your joining and disjoyning of thumb and fore-finger and sundry other vain and superfluous ceremonies and curiosities which you use in blessing of the elements they have neither command nor example of Christs institution and action and the Apostles doctrine and doing in the Scriptures of God Now as to the fourth giving or offering up of the body and blood of Christ to his Father by the faithful We confess a giving to his Disciples which you call afterward a communicating But for another giving that is as you expone it an offering up of his body and blood to his Father we utterly deny it as a thing not so much as once mentioned in the whole institution but contrary to the same and Antichristian and therefore we utterly abhor it and detest it as an invention of your own as Antichristian as idolatry as abomination as that which derogates from that blessed only one sacrifice whereby he offered up himself once upon the cross never to be offered up again as the Scripture testifies Heb. 25. And Bellarmin saith plainly lib. 1. de missa cap. 12. 24. That this offering up is not expresly set down in the words of the institution and that it cannot be easily discerned And as for the fifth a communicating we have it and that not only of the bread and wine as ye here imagine but of Jesus Christ God and Man his very flesh and blood and all his blessings by faith spiritually seeing therefore we have all these points which are requisit in the institution a lawful Minister thanksgiving blessing giving and communicating therefore we have the true institution of Christ in the
Sacrament And because in this your abominable sacrifice of the Mass as hath been said there is no communion For the Priest takes all And because you affirm the personal and corporal presence of Christs flesh and blood in your sacrifice and the corporal eating and drinking of it which is Capernaitical and more then carnal contrary to the Scripture contrary the nature of a Sacrament contrary the truth of Christ his humanity and contrary the Articles of our Faith of his ascension sitting at his right hand and there remaining till his returning in the last day all which your sacrifice of the Mass and transubstantiation in your communion overthroweth Therefore you have not the true institution of Jesus Christ according to the Scripture I might end here but because ye account the sacrifice of your Mass most heavenly and the principal part of the worship of God and we account it a most abominable idolatry therefore I will set down some arguments against the same whereby if you will you may perceive the abomination of it First I say all lawful sacrifices have the express testimonies of the Scripture to warrant the institution of them to be of God But your sacrifice of the Mass hath no express testimony of the Scripture whereby it may be made manifest that it is instituted of God therefore it is not lawful What now will you say to this The proposition you cannot deny for our Savior saith In vain worship ye me teaching for doctrine mens commandments Matth. 15.9 And Jeremie reproves the Jewes that they would not walk according as the Lord commanded them but according to their own will Jer. 7 24. And the Apostle condemns all voluntary Religion Col. 2.23 Therefore this is most certain that that Religion or sacrifice which hath not express Scripture whereby it may be made plain that it is instituted of God is not lawful For all that is done without faith is sin Rom. 14.23 and faith hath only the Word of God to lean to Rom. 10.17 And dare the creature be so bold as to appoint a mean to worship God without the warrant of his will in his Word Now to the assumption what can you say to it Bring me an express testimony out of the Scripture that God hath instituted your Mass and take it to you Yea if it be instituted in any place of the Scripture it is instituted in the last Supper for this you grant your selves But there is not a syllable in the whole institution that Christ offered up himself in a sacrifice in the same as hath been proved and Bellarmin the learnedest of your Church confesses plainly that the Evangelists have not said expresly that Christ offered up himself in the Supper in a sacrifice Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa cap. 24. And therefore others of your own Religion Petrus a Soto in his book against Brentius Lindanus lib. 4. Panopliae Papists of great name have reckoned the sacrifice of the Mass among the traditions which have not their beginning nor author in the Scriptures So then by your own confession the sacrifice of the Mass hath not express Scripture to warrant it yea it is a tradition which hath neither the beginning nor author of it in the Scriptures of God And I would ask this question of you What can be the cause wherefore the typical sacrifices and all the rites and ceremonies thereof is so expresly set down in the Scripture of the Old Testament which you will not deny and this sacrifice of yours which ye account more excellent then all these not to have been expresly set down in the New Testament neither the sacrifice nor the rites and ceremonies thereof yea not so much as the very name of it Is the New Testament think ye more obscure then the Old Testament which is absurd to say Shal the Old Testament be clear in setting down the sacrifices and all the rites thereof which is but the shadow And should not the New Testament have been at the least as clear in setting down the sacrifice of the New Testament which ye affirm to be the Mass if it were such What an absurd thing is this Christian Reader assure thy self the Lord Jesus would have dealt as lovingly and plainly with thee in setting down the sacrifice of the Mass in the New Testament if ever he had instituted such a sacrifice as he was in setting down the sacrifices of the Old Testament But thou may assure thy self and thy conscience may lean unto it since he hath not so much as once expressed it in all the New Testament therefore he hath never appointed it Secondly I say in all the places of Scripture wheresoever the Apostles speaks of the sacrifices which Christians should offer up they ever speak of spiritual sacrifices and never speak of this external sacrifice of the Mass They never remember of this their sacrifice of the offering up of Christ in the Mass Look throughout the whole New Testament and thou shalt not find this as namely in these places Rom. 12. Heb. 1â— Phil. 4. Rom. 15.1 Pet. 2. Rev. 5. Are you and your Mass Priests more wise then the Apostles are Whither should we then think and speak as they spake and thought or as ye would have us They never spake of your sacrifice of the Mass and bring one instance if ye can therefore neither should we We will believe them rather then you Thirdly that doctrine which is expresly gain-said by the Scripture must be false This you cannot deny But this your doctrine concerning the often and dayly offering up of Jesus Christ his body and blood in sacrifice in your Mass is expresly gain-said by the Scripture For the Scripture saith in sundry places That he hath once offered up himself never to offer up himself again Heb. 10.10 By the which will we are sanctified even by the offering up of Jesus Christ once made 11. And every Priest standeth dayly ministring and oft times offereth one manner of offering which cannot take away sin 12. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sin sitteth for ever at the right hand of God 10. For with one offering hath he consecrated for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 9.24 Christ hath entred into the very heaven to appear now in the sight of God for us not that he should offer himself often c. 28. So Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many Heb. 7.27 Christ died once when he offered up himself Seeing the Scripture therefore affirms so plainly that Christ once offered up himself and you affirm that in your abominable sacrifice he offers up himself often since the Scripture saith the offering up of Christ is once only ye say it is often in your Mass therefore this doctrine of yours is plain against the express sayings of the Scripture For suppose ye will have an unbloody offering up of Christ yet the Scripture only acknowledges this bloody offering up of himself
that Christ cannot be offered up often because then he must die often then this doctrine of yours is against the Scripture that saith Christ may be offered up often and yet not die often But if you will say this is spoken of that bloody sacrifice I grant that and I say the Apostle knew not nor never spake of another sacrifice and therefore your doctrine is vain that would have another sacrifice then ever the Apostles in the whole Scripture have made mention of And I say thirdly this distinction of yours cannot stand with your own doctrine for if there be a true sacrifice of Christ properly in your Mass as ye say then his blood must be truly shed and he must truly die for this is the nature of all such sacrifices for sin as Bellarmin grants it lib. 1. de missa fol. 725 saying If there be not a true and real slaughter of Christ in the Mass then is not the Mass a true and real sacrifice And also In all true real external sacrifices the sacrifice must be a thing sensible and must be made holy of a prophane thing as Bellarmin confesses and these conditions he requires in the definition of the same but this I hope ye will not say of Christ for he is holy always and is insensible in your sacrifice and cannot be slain again therefore properly there can be no true sacrifice of Christ in your Mass by your own doctrine To conclud this then For these causes we reject this abomination of your Mass First because Christ cannot be offered up in a sacrifice but he must die also as hath been proved and the Scripture testifies that he hath once died and all Christians confesses it Secondly because the death of Christ is a sufficient satisfaction for our sins and so we need not that he should be offered up again to satisfie for the same Thirdly because the Spirit of Christ and faith by the outward means of the Word and Sacraments and censures is a sufficient mean to apply him to us and so we need not the sacrifice of the Mass for that end Fourthly because Christ only is the Priest of the New Testament who hath no successors and whose Priesthood cannot pass from one to another because he lives for evermore and he only can be sacrificed by himself and therefore he only can offer up himself which he hath once done upon the cross Fifthly because the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is perfect and the vertue of it indures for ever and it cannot nor should not be reiterat Sixthly because the Scripture propones Christ now sitting in glory at the right hand of his Majesty and not under the forms of bread and wine in your sacrifice And seventhly because it is but the devise of man wanting God to bear witness to it in the Scripture repugnant to that only one sacrifice of his upon the cross abolishing the fruits of his death and passion turning the Sacrament of the Supper in abominable idolatry causing men to worship a bit of bread as the Son of God And last because it spoils men of the fruit of the Sacrament Therefore in all these respects it is abominable to be detested and in no sort to be communicated with Unto this I will adjoin some testimonies of some of the ancient Fathers whereby it is manifest what their doctrine and judgement was concerning this point Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 1. Paedagog cap. 2. in strom who was near the Apostles days saith We sacrifice not at all unto God meaning with a real and external sacrifice but we glorifie him who was sacrificed for us And then he subjoins what kind of sacrifices they offered up to God to wit a sacrifice spiritual of themselves of prayer and of righteousness And upon what altar to wit upon the altar of our souls with the parfume of their prayers Justinus Martyr saith in Tryphon in expos fidei I dare saith he affirm that there is no other sacrifice perfect and acceptable to God but supplications and thanksgiving And he saith That Christians have learned to offer up these sacrifices only Tertullian saith advers Judaeos That it behoves us to sacrifice unto God not earthly but spiritual things so we read as it is written A contrit heart is a sacrifice to God Origen saith in Epist. ad Rom. in homil 2. in Cant. lib. 8. contra Celsum The blood of Christ is only sufficient for the redemption of all men what need then hath the Church of any other propiciatory sacrifice And as for the sacrifice of Christians he saith They are their prayers and supplications It was a common reproach wherewith the Christians were charged by the Pagans three hundred years after Christ that they had no altars unto the which their common answer was That their altars were a holy soul not corruptible altars but immortal altars If then the Christians had no material altars the first three hundred years after Christ as Clemens Alexandrius lib. 7. Strom. Origen ibid. contra Celsum Minutius Foelix lib. 2. 4. and Arnobius do testifie therefore it must follow they had no external sacrifices nor Masses all that time so there was no Masses the first three hundred years after Christ seeing there was no altars Epiphanius saith contra Marc. haeres 42. 55. That God by the coming of Christ hath taken away all the use of sacrifice by that one sacrifice of Christ Athanasius saith in orat 3. contra Arrianumâ— That the sacrifice of Christ once offered up hath accomplished all things and remains for ever and that he is a Priest without succession The same saith Basile in Isaiae cap. 1. And he saith further There is no more question of a continual sacrifice for there is but one sacrifice which is Christ and the mortification of his Saints Because it were over longsome to set down the sentences of the rest therefore I will only quote them Irenaeus lib. 4. cap 34. Cyprianus de baptismo Christi Athenag in Apolog. pro Christianis Lactant. lib. 6. cap. 26. Euseb de demonst lib. 1. cap. 6. lib. 3. cap. 4. Greg. Nazianz. in Pasch orat 2. Euseb Nissen de coena Domini Chrysost advers Judaeos orat 4. in Joh. homil 17. ad Heb. homil 13. homil de cruce spirit 3. in Matth. hom 83. ad Heb. hom 26 hom 17 hom 7. Cyrillus lib. 1. contra Julianum ad Hebraeos homil 11. Ambrosius ad Hebâ— cap. 10. ad Theod. Epist 28. in Epist ad Rom. cap. 12. Hieronymus in Isaiam cap. 1. in Psal 26 49 50. Augustinus de fide ad Petrum Diacon cap. 2. de Trinitate lib. 4 cap. 1. 14. in Psal 49. de civitate Dei lib. 10. cap. 4. 6 Idem de tempore I would desire M. Gilbert to read the same And if he will believe them I am sure he will leave off to be a
Mass-Priest any longer for they all agree in this that the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross hath accomplished all the sacrifices of the Old Law and that the vertue of it is everlasting and therefore should not be reiterat and that the sacrifice of Christians are not propiciatory but only spiritual Seeing therefore the sacrifice of the Mass was so long unknown to the Church of Christ it remains now that we show by what degrees it crap in For as after the going down of the Sun darkness comes not in immediatly but there is a twi-light before the darkness come even so after the bright stars of the primitive Church had ended their course in process of time and piece and piece first the third part of the Sun Moon and Stars were darkened till at the last the bottomless pit was opened and that great darkness came up as the smoak of a great furnace that darkened both the Sun and the air Out of the which this great abomination of the sacrifice of the Mass did proceed For Bertram who lived between the 800. and 900. years after Christ saith Our Savior hath done it once in offering up himself for he hath once offered up himself for the sins of the people and this oblation is always celebrat every day but in a mystery And he saith That once oblation of Christ is handled every day by the celebration of these mysteries or Sacraments in the remembrance of his Passion Bertram de corp sang Dom. in Heb. 7. There he oppones a real sacrifice to a mystery and Christs sacrifice once made to a dayly commemoration or remembrance of his suffering Haymo such like reckoning out the sacrifices of Christians he calls there The praises of the believers the penitence of sinners the tears of supplications their prayers and alms Haymo in cap. 5. Ose in cap. 2. Abac. Malac. 1. Theophilact who lived in the 900. year after Christ he saith in Joan. cap 81. That there is but one sacrifice and not many because Christ hath offered up himself once And he saith in another place ab Heb. cap. 10. Christ hath offered up himself once a sufficient sacrifice for ever and we have need of no other sacrifice to wit propiciatory And Anselm who lived in the thousand year of God and after he saith That which we offer every day is the remembrance of the death of Christ and that there is but one sacrifice not many for it hath been once only offered up And again Our Lord saith he bade take eat not sacrifice◠and offer up to God Anselm◠in Epist ad Heb. cap. 10. So this was the doctrine of the most learned who lived a thousand years after Christ that Christ offers up himself but once and that sacrifice was sufficient and everlasting and the sacrifices of Christians are spiritual and the Sacrament which they called sometimes a sacrifice was a commemoration of Christs one sacrifice once offered up upon the cross But from thence unto this time this abuse and sacrifice of their Mass crap in but by diverse degrees and by the concurrence of many causes SECTION XI Concerning the Degrees and Means whereby the Sacrifice of the Mass crap in First I will set down the estat of the publick worship of God in the primitive Church the first three hundred or four hundred years after Christ and then the means and degrees whereby this abominable Sacrifice crap in FIrst it is manifest that in the primitive Church the Communion or Sacrament of the Lords Supper was ministred ever week once upon the Lords day and in some place it was ministred every day as appears by these Authors Justin Martyr in Apolog. 2. Tertull. apolog Aug. de consecrat dist 2. cap. Quotidie And therefore Ambrose who lived in the three hundred age exhorteth to a dayly receiving of it Ambros lib. 5 cap. 4. de sacrament Next from the Communion was excluded◠first these who were not sufficiently instructed in the grounds of Christianity who were called Catechumeni that is catechised and instructed by questions and answers Next these who had not ended out their repentance◠and satisfaction to the Church who were called Poenitentes that is penitents And thirdly these who were possessed with an evil spirit who were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All these after that the first prayer the reading of the Scripture the sermon and the rehearsing of the Creed at the which they were present were ended they were commanded by the Deacon to retire themselves and to depart out of the Assembly or Congregation that place might be given to the faithful who was to cōmunicat in these words Ite missa est that is Go your way depart And from this first came the word Mass in the Church of God and this Bellarmin confesses lib. 1. de missa cap. 1. that the word in Latin is called missio or dimissio or missa and in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Pagans used that same word after their sacrifice was ended in Apule l. 11. de metamorph And the abuse easily growing in the frequent using of this word it came to pass by time that all the worship of God as the first prayers the singing of the Psalmes the reading of the Scripture the preaching of the Word the rehearsing of the Symbole which was performed in the Assembly before the dimission of these who were catechised was called Missa Catechumenorum As Bellarm. confesses lib. 1. de missa cap. 1. And the rest of the worship of God which was done after their departure to the demission of the faithful as the celebration of the Supper c. was called Missa Fidelium Conc. Valent. cap. 1. Bellarm. ibidem Alcuinus de officijs Eccles cap. de celebratione Missa So then this word Mass which the Church of Rome ascribes now unto their pretended sacrifice came first from the demission or skailing of the people as they call it from the Lords service and was never heard of in the Church of Christ nor read of in any Author Hebrew Greek or Latin for the space of 400. years almost after Christ And Jerome who lived in the year 422. and was an Elder in Rome who writ so many volumes made no mention of this word Mass at all For that Commentary of the Proverbes which is ascribed unto him where mention is made of the Mass is not his See Marianus Victorius Reat in praefat in 8 tom operum Hier. For beside other things there mention is made of Gregory who lived almost 200. years after him And Ambrose makes mention of it only once S. Augustin twise or thrise for all the volums which they writ if these book be theirs For Erasmus in his censures upon the sermons de Tempore saith that many of them are found under the names of others Authors savors little either of Augustines learning or phrase See James Gillotius in praefat ad Ambros And that neither of them in the
And to Bellarmin who saith the Church instituted them lib. 2. de missa cap. 13. and so referrs the institution of them not to CHRIST in his written Word but to the institution of the Church and to your own Doctors and Canon Law and Writers who ascribes the institution of them to your Popes and others of your Church as I have proved before O M. Gilbert What a preposterous love is this that ye bear to your abominable sacrifice that ye are not ashamed to write that the very ceremonies of it hath their warrant in the same holy Word and that contrary your own general Council of Trent and all your learned Doctors and Writers I think ye thought that we had never read your ceremonies or never known them that ye write so boldly of them Shal the Council of Trent say they are instituted by the Church by Apostolical traditions which your Church confesses are not written in the Scripture And yet are not you ashamed to say they have their warrant by the Scripture and so openly to contradict the doctrine of your own Council of Trent I will say no further but surely either they err in this point or else ye and if they err then the general Church may err and hath erred and so one of your main foundations is gone Choose you whither you will take this blot to your self or let it fall on them But because ye account this Mass of yours most heavenly and ye vaunt that ye only have in your Church that heavenly action and because it is the chiefest point of your service and worship which ye give to God in your Church and also because ye so impudently affirm that the ceremonies thereof hath their warrant out of the Scripture Therefore I will discover here as shortly as I can the abominations absurdities blasphemies idolatries vain idle superstitions Jewish and Ethnick ceremonies of the same that poor folks be not deceived any longer therewith For certainly for as heavenly as ye think it is I dare affirm that it is nothing else but a very sink and filthy closet of all abominations idolatries and horrible blasphemies So that as it is said in the Proverbs of the vertuous woman that many women have done vertuously but thou surmounts them all Prov. 31.23 So it may be said of the Mass Many services and worships devised by man have been idolatrous blasphemous and abominable but this sacrifice of the Mass brought in the Church of God by Antichrist in idolatrie abominations and blasphemies surmounteth them all so that the like of it hath never been before it nor never shal be after it For beside the fore said abuses that it is a will-worship instituted by man that it hath corrupted the Sacrament of the Supper which was given us to assure us of the grace of Christ and hath turned it in a sacrifice and that a propitiatory sacrifice and meritorious not to the Priest only but to the beholders also and not to the present only but to the absent and not only for the living but for the dead that it hath abolished the death of Christ and the vertue of that one sacrifice and that it hath spoiled Christ Jesus of his Priesthood and communicated it unto others beside these intolerable abuses it abounds and overflows with other intolerable abominations As first their altars in their Mass whereon they think they sacrifice the Son of God and therefore in the beginning of their Mass the Priest saith And I will go in into the altar of God whereby they renew either Judaism or Paganism for their material altars was a part of the Ceremonial law of the Jewes which was abolished by the death of Christ and Numa Pompilius 700 years before Christ ordained that the Ethnick Priest when he went about to offer sacrifice that he should draw near to the altar This entry of the Mass is said to be the ordinance of Pope Celestin the first about the year of God 426 And because the Priests take the altars for the Table whereon the Supper is celebrat which he confounds with the abominations of the Mass also because M. Gilbert said he was minded to prove the ceremonies of the Mass by the Scripture therefore I will ask him and his fellow Priests these few things concerning their altars First where read they that Christ did ever institut in the New Testament that the Table of our Lord should only be of stone and not of timber or any other mettal as their altars whereon they chant their Mass must be according to their law Dist 1. cons cap. Altaria si non Secondly where read they in the New Testament that the Table of the Lord should be consecrated with oyl and chrism with a sprinkling of water mixed of wine and salt of ciphers of holy water at the four corners of the same at the middle part and that none may do this but a Bishop if a Clark do it that he be degraded and if one of the Laicks do it that he be excommunicat Canon Non alij What folly is this that a Priest hath authority as they think to sacrifice the Son of God yet he may not powr a little oyl upon a stone That the Bishop compass the altar seven times singing the 51. Psalm Thou shalt wash me with hysop c. prophaning the truth of God And there to bury the relicks of some Saints put in a little shrine with three grains of incense that God for their cause may hear the prayers and accept of the sacrifice offered up upon that altar And then anointing the table of the altar with oyl and singing Jacob erected up a stone c. Where I say read you these in the New Testament that Christ commanded these things to be done to the table of his Supper which ye do to the altars whereon ye say your Masses And such like where read you that none should chant their Masses but on such altars as are consecrated And such like that your altars are not lawful where there is not found the bodies or relicks of some Martyrs Canon Placuit ut altaria Such like that ye dedicat your altars whereon ye chant your Mass to others then to Christ as unto the Virgin Mary Peter and other Saints departed And such like that the Priest should kiss the altar often and namely when he approaches unto it carrying the calice Hath Christ commanded this Hath the Apostles used them Hath the Scripture made mention of them What think you will you answer to God when it shal be said to you Who required all these things at your hands And wherefore also transgress ye your own law in having mo altars then is necessary seeing by it ye are commanded by express terms that superfluous altars be destroyed Canon Eccles vel altaria To conclud this then with Ambros in Epist ad Heb. cap. 8. 10. As our sacrifice saith he which is no other thing but our prayers and thanksgiving
old heresie in the very time of the Apostles Maister John Welsch his Reply As for this calumny of yours the tryal of it will come in afterward therefore I refer the answer of it to that place And whereas you say that you know not whom I call Fathers either your malice makes you to dissemble your knowledge in this or else palpable must your ignorance be And where you say that Ireneus Cyprian c. and the rest of the holy Fathers are no ways with us against you and that I will not be able to prove it I have not only proved that already in sundry heads of our Religion but also that sundry of your own Popes Cardinals Doctors Bishops Councils and Canon Law have been with us in sundry points of our Religion which we profess against that which ye profess And as for that example of justification by faith only which ye cast in which is one of the chief grounds of our Religion This I will prove both by the Scripture and by the testimonies of the Fathers of the first six hundred years Our doctrine then concerning Justification is this That as our sins was not inherent in Christ but imputed to him 2. Cor. 5 21. which was the cause of his death so his righteousness whereby we are accounted righteous before God is not inherent in us but imputed to us and therefore the Scripture saith that he is made of God unto us righteousness 1. Cor. 1.30 Next the only instrument that apprehends and as it were takes hold of this righteousness of Christ is a lively Faith which works by love and brings forth good fruits so that neither is Faith an efficient or meritorious cause of our salvation for only Christs death and righteousness is that but only an instrument to apprehend the same Neither is every Faith this instrument but only that living Faith which I have spoken of so that true Faith is never without the fruits of good works no more then fire is without heat and yet neither are our works nor the work of Faith it self the meritorious cause of our salvation but only Christs death and righteousness Neither are the fruits of this lively Faith the instrument to apprehend and take hold of Christs righteousness but only Faith it self This then is our doctrine which is so plainly confirmed by the Scripture that he must be exceeding blind that seeth it not The places to confirm the same are these Rom. 3.28 We conclud that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were justified by works then hath he wherein to rejoyce but not with God Ephes 2.9 By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of your selves for it is the gift of God not by works that none should boast And Phil. 3.9 I have counted all things loss that I might win Christ and might be found in him not having my own righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God through faith And again Tit. 3.5 Not by the works of righteousness which we had done but according to his mercy he saved us Seeing the Scripture so expresly removes all works both of nature and of grace both going before Faith and following after it and therefore the Apostle saith We are not saved by the works of righteousness which we had done and of all men even of those who were justified already and sanctified as Abraham Paul and the Ephesians were from our justification and salvation as the causes thereof therefore we are only justified and saved by a lively Faith apprehending the righteousness of Christ Secondly the Scripture not only removes works as we have said from the cause of our Justification and salvation but also ascribes it to Faith as in these places John 3.16 Whosoever believeth in him shal have eternal life And Luke 8.48 Thy faith hath saved thee c. And again Ephes 2.9 We are saved through faith And Rom. 4.3.4.5 Man is justified by faith And Rom. 3.26.28.30 God shal justifie circumcision of faith and incircumcision through faith And Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness And lest ye should say the Scripture hath not by Faith only read the 8. of Luke and 50. verse where our Savior saith to Jairus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only believe and she shal be saved Therefore Faith is the only instrument to lay hold on the promise of God And lest ye should say this was not a justifying Faith I answer This Faith which Jairus had was that same Faith which the woman with the bloody issue had but her Faith not only healed her body but her soul also Luke 8.48 which Bellarmin grants lib. 1. de justif cap. 17. pag. 84. our Savior testifieth saying Thy faith hath saved thee c. therefore this is a justifying Faith also Secondly seeing the Faith of miracles justifying Faith is both one in substance with your Church as Bellarmin c. 5. l. de justif the Rhemists annot in 2. Cor. 12. say if it be a greater work to work miracles as they say then to be justified therefore if only Faith suffice to obtain miracles as Bellarmin grants lib. 1. cap. 20. pag. 97. why should not Faith only be also sufficient to justifie For if it suffice for the greater work much more for the less Thirdly the Scripture ascribes our Justification to grace and not to works and so oppones them that the one cannot stand with the other in the matter of our Justification We are justified saith he freely by grace and not by works Rom. 3.24 And to him that worketh the reward is imputed not according to grace but to debt but to him who worketh not but believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly his faith is imputed to him for righteousness Rom. 4.4 And in another place If it be of grace it is no more of works or else were grace no more grace but if it be of works it is no more grace or else work were no more work Rom. 11.6 Seeing therefore our Justification is only of free grace and grace if the Apostle be true cannot stand with works therefore our Justification is not by works or else it were not of grace and so not at all and so the foundation of our salvation were overturned I hope therefore this our doctrine of Justification is plainly warranted by the Scripture Now to the Fathers because ye say it cannot be proved by them they speak as plainly as we do Origen hath these words in epist ad Rom. cap. 3 And the Apostle saith that the justification of faith only sufficeth solius fidei so that he that believeth only is justified suppose no work be fulfilled of him Hilarius Canon 8. in Matth. saith For only faith justifieth fides enim sola justificat Basilius in homil de humil saith This is a perfect rejoicing in God when a man vaunts
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
it no heresie to fast on the Lords day more then other dayes both to stir up our repentance and to make us more meet to holy and spiritual exercises because it is not contrary to the Word of God As for Leo his Epistle it is wrong quoted for it should be Epist 91. and their fasting on the Lords day is not like ours for they fasted on the Lords day because they believed not that Christ was a true man as Leo in that same place testifies which you will not say your self that we do for we acknowledge him to be a true man As for the 13. heresie of the Pepusians and Collyridians their doctrine was that women might be Bishops and Elders and might use these publick functions as these places which ye have quoted testifie which is not our doctrine but rather yours who permit women to baptize in case of necessity That they denyed Orders to be a Sacrament there is no such thing to be found in these places which ye quote here As for the 14. heresie of the Pelagians if they denyed that these who were accused of any scandalous offence and guilty thereof should make their confession of it to God his Ministers and the Congregation for to take away the offence of it then they erred and our doctrine and practise condemn this but if they denyed the absolut necessity of your auricular confession then is it no error because there is no such thing commanded in the whole Scriptures of God Now as for the testimony of Boëtius I have not seen it As for their second heresie concerning Baptism they taught as Augustin reports in that place That Baptism was not needful to children because they were born without original sin as they taught which is an heresie indeed but this is a calumny to ascribe it to us for we teach that children are born in original sin and so should be baptized And surely this heresie rather agrees to you who teach that Mary was not born in original sin and therefore she needed not to be baptized As for the last of the Donatists denying the order of Monks I answer First your Papistical and idolatrous Monks are far different from these which Augustin and Chrysostome defended and these of the primitive Church Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 2. de indulgentijs For first they were bound to no prescript form of dyet apparel or any thing else by solemn vowes of wilful poverty and perpetual continency as yours are Next the former Monks remained in the order of privat men and laicks and had nothing to do with Ecclesiastical charges which was afterward broken by Pope Boniface the fourth anno 606. But yours are not so they have Ecclesiastical charges and are more then privat men And last of all suppose their kind of life was mixed with some superstition for the envious man soon sowed the popple among the good seed and the mystery of iniquity began soon to work yet their Religion was not defiled with Idolatry worshipping of Images prayers to Saints opinion of merit the sacrifice of the Mass and other abominations wherewith your Papistical Monks are defiled Next I say these Monks and religious Orders of yours have not their foundation within the four corners of the Scripture of God Master Gilbert Brown These and many the like new renewed heresies by the Ministers was old condemned heresies in the primitive Church of the former hereticks as testifie the ancient Fathers and therefore this is a true argument What ever was heresie in old times is heresie yet and the defenders thereof hereticks as they were of old But these former heads that I have set down with many the like was heresies in old times and the defenders thereof hereticks as testifie the ancient Fathers Therefore they are heresies yet and the defenders thereof hereticks Master John Welsch his Reply Now here was all the cause Christian Reader that made M. Gilbert so oft to cry out of us that we renewed old condemned heresies whereof some are such as we our selves condemn and some are such which do better agree unto themselves then unto us And some heresies he forceth upon us which we never taught nor maintained and some are such which are not heresies indeed but agreeable to the Scriptures of God So that if we err in these suffer us to err with Jesus Christ and his Apostles Now to answer to your argument which ye bring What ever was heresie in old times is heresie yet and the defenders thereof hereticks I answer If ye define heresie to be an error obstinatly maintained against the Scriptures of God I grant your proposition But if ye define heresies in general to be whatsoever any one Father or Doctor or some more have rebuked as an heresie then I deny it for sundrie of the Fathers have maintained errors themselves against the Scripture and have accused some doctrine to be heresies which have been agreeable to the truth of God which you will not deny I hope For if you would I could prove it both of the Fathers Councils and your own Popes Now to your assumption But these former heads say ye which ye have set down with many the like was heresies in old times and the defenders thereof hereticks as testifie the ancient Fathers I answer That some of these are heresies indeed and we abhor and condemn them more then ye and some of these as falsly laid to our charge and some of these are not heresies indeed but agreeable to the Scripture And therefore your conclusion falls not upon us who have renewed no old condemned heresies and therefore is not hereticks And where you say many other like I answer It is true they are like for they are both calumnies and horrible untruths and lies as these have been whereof one day ye shal make answer to the great God that judgeth the quick and the dead But the pit which you digged for others you have fallen in it your self For certainly in this you do as thieves do who the better to eschew the crime of theft which is justly laid to their charge and that they may the more easily escape in a fray do cry out and shout out upon others Common thieves common thieves Even so do you for these crimes whereof ye are guilty your selves you falsly charge us with SECTION XXVI That the Church of Rome hath renewed and maintaineth old condemned Heresies THat all men may see that not we but the Church of Rome hath renewed and doth maintain old condemned Heresies I shal not do as you have done to us that is either to lay to your charge such heresies as ye maintain not or such things to be heresies which are not heresies indeed which ye did to us But in this I will deal sincerely with you faining nothing neither of them nor of you 1. Simoniani worshipped the Image of Simon and Selene whose heresie they followed Ederus in Baby pag. 5. so do your religious Orders worship the
God his majesty that he ascribes not to himself as God willing shal be proved afterward in the third mark of the Antichrist So that Aventinus saith of the Pope He who is the servant of servants is the Lord of Lords and he desires to beas though he were God He speaks great things as if he were God He changeth the laws establisheth his own He reaves he spoils he deceives he slayes that man of perdition whom men use to call Antichrist speaking of the Pope in whose fore-head the name of blasphemy is written I am God I cannot err So what is this else but a horrible mocking both of God and man to stile him the servant of servants seeing he hath lifted up himself so far above both God and man So then to conclud this as Goliah his own sword slew himself so the reason which ye bring to defend your Pope from being the Antichrist doth most evidently convict him to be the Antichrist He may justly be called the Antichrist who under pretence of the Vicar of Christ and the servant of servants is Monarch and Lord over all this you cannot deny Because the Scripture describes the Antichrist to have two horns like the Lamb to sit in the Temple of God to have a golden cup and yet to speak like the Dragon to be adversary to God and to lift himself above all that is called God Rev. 13. and 17. 2. Thess 2. But so have the Popes of Rome done as it hath and shal be proved by their own doctrine and practise and which you cannot deny Therefore he is in very deed that Antichrist which was to come And this for your first reason Master Gilbert Brown Secondly S. Paul in describing of the Antichrist tells that he shal be but one the son of perdition 2. Thess 2.3 Now then if there shal be but one chief Antichrist whether is this present Pope he or some other before him For every man knows that there have been mo then 230. Popes as all the Writers of their lives restifie They cannot all be Antichrists for that repugns to S. Paul who hath put him in the singular number And if M. John will follow the Word as he saith he doth where will he find that there shal be many chief Antichrists and not one only For that place of S. John where he saith That now are there many Antichrists 1. John 2.18 can no wayes be understood but of the fore-runners of the great Antichrist For at that time M. John will grant himself that the great Antichrist the son of perdition was not begun Master John Welsch his Reply Your second reason is the Antichrist is but one singular person The Popes have been many therefore they are not the Antichrist I deny your proposition for there lyes all the controversie We say the Antichrist is not this Pope or that Pope a certain person but we ascribe this name to the whole seat and the succession of your Popes We say the body the Kingdom of your Roman Church whereof your Popes are the heads is that Antichrist which was to come So if you prove that the Antichrist should be but a particular person and not a body a Kingdom a seat and succession of men that are adversaries to God and to Jesus Christ I will grant you have sufficiently cleared your Pope from being Antichrist But content your self M. Gilbert this ye will never prove by the Scripture and therefore ye must let your Popes be accounted the Antichrist still And if this reason of yours be good the Antichrist is one certain person therefore the Popes because they are many are not the Antichrist wherefore I pray you shal not this also be good The Vicar of Christ is one certain man but the Popes are many therefore they are not Christ his Vicar What difference I pray you is there between the one and the other And if ye will say the Vicar of Christ is not one singular man but a succession of many in one office why will ye not also grant that the Antichrist is not a singular man but the succession of many in the self-same impiety So either choose you whether will ye grant that the Antichrist is not one singular man but a succession of many or else that the Popes are not Christ his Vicar For the one ye must do if this reason of yours hold forth But how do ye prove that the Antichrist is but one singular person You say that S. Paul tells that he shal be but one How would ye have cryed out if I had fathered such a falshood upon the Spirit of God as you do here But let such be far from me You say S. Paul calls him the son of perdition and puts him in the singular number therefore ye say the Antichrist shal be but one singular person I fear ye take pleasure to deceive the simple with such silly reasons Our Savior saith That a good man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the treasure of his heart brings forth good things Matth. 12.35 And he saith The Sabbath was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for man and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man for the Sabbath Mark 2.27 And also he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man shal not live of bread only Luke 4 4. Also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man of God may be made perfect 2. Tim. 3.17 And For it behoves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop or over-seer c. Here are the same phrases of speach they speak all of a man in the singular number with that same Greek article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaks here in describing the Antichrist and yet I suppose ye will not be so ignorant or impudent as to say that our Savior and the Apostle speak of one singular person in these places So what warrant have you to gather that here which you dare not gather out of the like phrases of the Scripture If then in these places there is not a singular man understood suppose they speak of a man in the singular number it will not follow that the Antichrist must be one singular person because the Apostle speaks of him as of one man in the singular number for the phrases are all one But the first ye must grant therefore the next will follow Secondly in the 16. of Matthew 18. our Savior saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon this rock I will build my Church he speaks here in the singular number with the same article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Apostle speaks of in describing the Antichrist Now let me use this same argument against your Popes that they are not this rock upon the which the Church is built as you say as you have used here to prove that he is not the Antichrist This rock upon the which Christ promised to build his Church is but one singular person because our Savior puts him in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
upon this rock But your Popes of Rome are not one singular person but many Therefore your Popes of Rome are not this rock upon the which Christ promised to build his Church What difference is there between your argument for the Pope and this argument against the Pope seeing both are grounded upon the like phrase Choose you then M. Gilbert whether will you have the Antichrist not to be one singular person but a succession of many Or will you have the Popes not to be the rock whereupon the Church is built For the one ye must Thirdly I say the Apostle Paul saith speaking of the Antichrist That the mystery of iniquity is begun even now to work 2. Thess 2.7 And John saith This is the spirit of that Antichrist which ye heard was to come and is even now present in the world 1. John 4.3 And the Apostle saith The Lord shal destroy him with his presence 2. Thess 2.8 And your doctrine is that he shal not come while the end of the world Now what a monstrous man will you make him whose spirit was in the dayes of the Apostles and who must continue till the end of the world if the Scripture be true a man of fifteen hundred years of age already Is this credible Or are you able to perswade men that have but the least drop of reason left in them and believe the Scripture that the Antichrist should be but one singular man since the Scripture saith that his spirit was present in the world and his iniquity even then began to work in the Apostles dayes that is ◠1500. years since and he shal continue to the end of the world Fourthly is it possible that one singular person can perform all these things which either the Scripture or your own doctrine tell he shal do For the Scripture saith He shal resemble the Lamb with horns He shal speak like the Dragon He shal do all the power of the former Beast He shal make all men to worship the beasts image He shal make all both rich and smal c. to receive his mark c. so that no man shal buy or sell but he that hath his mark c. so that all Nations shal be drunken with the wine of her fornication Rev. 13 and 14. and 17. and 18. And your doctrine is that he shal build the Temple of Jerusalem which the Turks have now in possession that he shal destroy Rome that he shal abolish all Religion and all the outward ceremonies thereof that he shal conquer and overcome the strongest Empires in the earth and be Monarch of the whole world Bellarm. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. and Rhemists annot upon 2. Thess 2. and Sanderus in his demonstrations Now is it likely or can it be that any one mortal man is able to perform so great and so wonderful things Was there ever yet any King Emperor or any other creature under heaven that ever performed so great and wonderful things and specially in so short a time as ye assign to your imaginary Antichrist as of three years and an half That one city of Troy kept all the Grecians for the space of ten years almost besieging it before they could overcome it The Temple of Jerusalem was seven years in building by Solomon who had riches and wealth above all the Kings in the earth who had an hundred fifty three thousand and six hundred workmen for the same 2. Chron. 2. That great Conqueror Alexander with whom no Monarch is comparable neither in power nor happy success was not able to conquer all Asia the space of ten years which was the fourth part of the world And shal we think that a miserable Jew by the help of their scattered people being an enemy to God and all good men shal be able to overcome that great Monarchy of the Turks against whom all the power of Christendom hath not prevailed not only to overcome them but also to overcome all the Empires and Kingdoms in the earth and to restore the city of Jerusalem and build the Temple again from the foundation and abolish all Religion both true and false except his own For this is the doctrine of your Church concerning the Antichrist and that in so short a time as three years and an half as you ascribe unto him Who will believe you M. Gilbert Will any Turk Christian or Jew himself believe that any one man suppose his age were never so long and his person never so strong can be able to accomplish and perform so many and so wonderful things as your own doctrine affirms shal be done by the Antichrist So this doctrine of yours that the Antichrist shal be but one singular person can neither stand with the Scripture nor yet with your own doctrine concerning the Antichrist Fifthly as partly hath been proved this is the common phrase of the Scripture in the person of one to understand a multitude And therefore Daniel in the describing of the Monarchies he compares them to sundry beasts in the singular number to a Lyon a Bear a Leopard c. and yet by them was not signified one certain person but a succession of Kings in the self-same Kingdom and therefore the Antichrist is likened to a beast to signifie a Kingdom and succession of persons in that Kingdom Rev. 13. Tertullian calls the Antichrist A City which prostituts its self to fornication to wit spiritual de resurrectione carnis Ambrose in Apoc. 17 calls the woman clad with purple who is Antichrist the city of the Devil Augustin calls that beast which is the Antichrist the ungodly and body of the wicked who fights against the Lamb a people contrary the people of God which joyntly with their head is called the Antichrist an heretical Church which is called Babylon Nonnulli non ipsum Principem sed universum quodammodo corpus ejus id est ad eum pertinentem hominùm multitudinem simul cum suo Principe hoc loco Antichristum intelligi volunt Homil. 10. in Apoc. homil 13. de civitate Dei lib. 18. cap. 2. lib. 20. cap. 19. Gregory a Pope saith in moralibus lib. 33. cap. 26 The beast is a multitude of them who preach the Antichrist And Thomas a Papist saith The beast which is the Antichrist is a body and so not a singular person And the ordinar Gloss saith The head and the body together make the Antichrist And Hugo a Cardinal calls him an university or commonality So not only the Scripture and reason but also the testimonies of these Fathers and some of your selves concurr all in this that the Antichrist is not a singular person but a body an estat a succession So I hope the Reader hath seen nothing either by Scripture or by reason alledged by M. Gilbert wherefore the Pope may not be the Antichrist Master Gilbert Brown Thirdly S. Paul saith He shal be an adversary and is extolled above all that is called God or that
the sins of others What is this else but to make themselves in a part Saviors of themselves and Saviors of others also Yea what is this else but to make themselves God For who can satisfie the justice of God but God himself Thirdly as it hath been proved before Christ offered up himself once by shedding of his blood upon the Cross never to be offered up again which hath purchased an everlasting redemption the which is the only ground of mans salvation How they have overturned this by their abominable sacrifice of the Mass and their sacrilegious Mass-Priests I hope hath been proved sufficiently before so that they have both evacuat the vertue of the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in setting up another sacrifice for the redemption of souls And also they have spoyled him of the dignity of his Royal Priesthood in joyning unto him collegues and fellow-Priests to offer up himself dayly in their pretended sacrifice Fourthly as they spoyl him of his Priesthood so do they spoyl men of that redemption righteousness and salvation which his death hath purchased both in the fountain matter and form thereof The Scripture testifies that the only fountain and efficient cause of our salvation is Gods free love and grace 2. Tim. 1.9 Tit. 2.11 Eph. 1.5 and 1. John 3.16 They teach That an infidel by the works of preparation as they call them even done without faith may procure and merit Gods favor Masuenda in disput Ratisb cum Bucero Scholast And also they joyn with the grace of God mans free-will as a party worker with it as though God did not renew it being corrupted or repair it being perished but only relieve it being weak and raise it up being faint by the which they abolish if the Apostle speak true Rom. 11.6 and 4 5. the grace of Christ for if our salvation be of grace it is not of works and if it be not of works then it is not of grace and so not at all As to the matter of our justification the Scripture ascribes it only to Christ his obedience and his death Rom. 5.19 They by the contrary suppose they grant that Christ hath fulfilled the Law and perfectly satisfied God yet they teach that this righteousness of Christ is not our righteousness by the which we must be justified but they place it in our own works and in our own merits And of this comes the third that whereas the Scripture testifies that this righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us by faith Rom. 4.22.23.24.3.5.6.7 They acknowledge not this imputation but placeth the form of our justification in the merit of our works and so they spoyl man of righteousness and salvation For Bellarmin saith lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 2. That the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is not required to our justification And the Council of Trent Can. 10. Accurseth them who say that we are justified justos formaliter per Christi justitiam by the righteousness of Christ. And as they have spoyled Christ of the first part of his office of his Priesthood so do they spoyl him of the second part thereof which consists in his intercession in joyning with him innumerable Intercessors and Mediators as well of Angels as of Saints departed at whose hands they seek all manner of grace which is only proper to Jesus Christ to give and that not only for the vertue of the merits of Christ but for their own merits and intercession Every Parish almost among them had their own Patron and every malady disease or calamity their own Saint or Angel to run to And as their doctrine hath robbed the Lord Jesus of his Priestly dignity and man of the benefit of eternal life purchased to him by the same so have they robbed him of that glory and worship that is due unto him in plucking away his glory from him and giving it unto creatures 1. As unto Angels and 2. Unto Saints departed and especially unto the Virgin Mary 3. Unto their relicks 4. Unto images of the Trinity of the Saints of the Cross 5. Unto things consecrated as water oyl c. 6. And unto the Sacrament of the Eucharist unto whom they give that worship which is only due unto God as prayer worship vows sacrifices c. So that if they may be justly called the Antichrist whose doctrine spoyls Christ of the office of his mediation and man of his salvation purchased thereby and God of his due glory which man is bound to give him for his creation and redemption and sets up other Saviors and Mediators other Priests and Intercessors beside him and teaches another way of mans salvation then he hath taught and worship other Gods then the God that made heaven and earth and after another manner then he hath commanded Then I say the Popes of Rome may justly be called and is in truth the Antichrist and adversary to God For they are guilty of all this abomination And because I know that the poor and ignorant people and these that are blinded with the strong delusions of that man of sin will not believe these things of him and of his Church but as Thomas said of Christ Unless I see the print of the nails and put my finger in the print of the nails and put my hand into his side I will not believe Even so unless they see their idolatry and grope it as it were with their hands they will not believe it therefore I am compelled for their conviction and information that none of them that is ordained to salvation perish to let them see their idolatries and to make them to grope their abominations and that by their own Books For I shal not speak here beguess for that were great foolishness to alledge here any other thing then that which is written in their own Books seeing he hath promised to give an answer lest he should challenge me of lying of them I protest therefore Christian Reader that I shal forge nor fain nothing of them but shal only set down those things which are to be found in their own writings And first in their service and Mass Book secundum usum Anglicanum Horae beatae Mariae suffragia c. printed anno 1520. they pray to the Archangels and Angels to defend them in battel to defend them that none condemn them to keep both their soul and body from godless desires and from unclean cogitations to keep their mind from pollution to confirm them in the fear and love of Christ Secondly they pray to the Saints departed That by their merits and intercession they may be defended from all evils obtain all gifts and get eternal life Yea they seek of them Defence in this world from all evils and everlasting life And they pray to God the Father that by their merits and intercession they may be delivered both soul and body from Hell fire and may obtain through their merits faith patience and everlasting life So not only they
That which is offered is ordained to a true real and voluntar destruction But Christ now being glorified cannot be changed and utterly destroyed therefore he cannot be sacrificed if your selves speak true or else as oft as he is sacrificed in your Mass he is utterly destroyed which is blasphemy Seventhly the Scripture saith Where there is remission of sins there is no more offering Heb. 10.18 That is all external propiciatory sacrifice ceases but remission of sins is already obtained by the death of Christ as the Scripture testifieth Heb. 1.3 and your selves will not deny Therefore there needs no more oblation of Christ in your Mass for the same Eightly the Scripture saith That without shedding of blood there is no remission Heb. 9 22 But in your sacrifice of the Mass there is no shedding of blood as your selves grants For ye call it an unbloody sacrifice therefore by your sacrifice of the Mass there is no remission of sin Further the Scripture acknowledges no other Priest of the New Testament but Christ only These Priests saith the Apostle to the Hebrews 5. and 7. speaking of the Priests of the Old Testament were many because death hindered them to indure but he speaking of Christ because he abides for ever hath an everlasting Priesthood which cannot pass from one to another So Christ is the only Priest of the New Testament Now if it be true which you say that Christ is offered up in your Mass and that by your Mass-Priests then are there mo Priests of the New Testament then Christ which is plain against the Scriptures What will you say to this That Christ is the principal Priest of the New Testament and yours are secondary Priests and under him by whose ministery he offereth up himself to God But first was not the Priests of the Old Testameâ—t only secondary Priests This you will not deny seeing their sacrifices were figurs of his and their Priesthood figurs of his Priesthood But the Apostle oppones the Priesthood of Christ not to another principal Priesthood but to the Priesthood of men which was but secondary and saith it cannot stand with that secondary Priesthood in the Old Testament therefore it cannot stand with your Priesthood of the New Testament And the reason which the Apostle alledges will not only serve to exclud the Priests of the Old Testament that was but secundary Priests also but also all other sacrificing Priests whatsoever of the propiciatory sacrifice of the New Testament For the reason is because he bides for ever and hath a Priesthood which cannot pass from one to another which will serve as well against your Mass-Priests as against them For they are mortal as the Priests of the Old Testament were and his Priesthood cannot pass from one to another as it might have done among the Priests of the Old Testament and also doth among your Priests For to what purpose should your Priesthood and sacrifice serve seeing Christ his sacrifice hath fulfilled all the types of all the sacrifices of the Old Testament If you say to signifie Christ his sacrifice to come as theirs did then that is false for he is sacrificed already But if you say to signifie and represent his sacrifice already done then I say what needs him to be sacrificed again for that purpose For the Word and Sacraments doth represent him sufficiently and so your Mass needs not to represent his sacrifice And if you say it represents his sacrifice then I say it is not one with that sacrifice of his upon the cross which you will be loath to grant For your Church saith that it is one with that in substance And I say further if your will say with Bellarmin lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. That this place of the Apostle only excluds absolutly the multiplication of Priests in the same dignity and power with Christ that then they exclud yours also For if you offer up the same sacrifice which he offered up then you have the same power and dignity which he had But this you say you do For it is no matter of the difference of the manner since the sacrifice is one Seeing therefore Christ God and Man which ye say ye offer up in your Mass is of that same dignity which he was of when he was offered up upon the cross and seeing the equal dignity of the sacrifice makes the equal dignity of the Priest that offers it up therefore sacrilegious are your Mass-Priests and excluded here by the Apostle And thirdly I say this is a vain distinction of yours of principal and chief Priest and secondary Priests For this is the nature of this sacrifice of Christ that it cannot be offered up by none but by himself And fourthly if your Mass-Priests be but Ministers in this sacrifice and Christ the principal as you say who offers up himself by you then I say as ye offer up Christ as instruments for your sins and the sins of the people it should follow that Christ offers up himself in your Mass by you for his own sins and the sins of the people But this is blasphemy and expresly gain-said by the Scripture Heb. 7.27 And last of all I say seeing as your Church saith Christ his sacrifice in the Mass is one with that sacrifice upon the cross therefore as Christ offered himself upon the cross without the ministery of secondary Priests so should he be offered up in your Mass without the ministery of the same or else it is not one with that So your Mass-Priests are no wayes to be called secondary Priests to Christ except in that respect that Judas with the band of men of war and hie-Priests were the instruments and ministers of Christ his taking death and crucifying even so you are the instruments and ministers of the crucifying of Christ dayly in your Mass so far as in you lyes and in this respect keep ye your style of Mass-Priests And because they have a common distinction in their mouthes of a bloody and an unbloody sacrifice For they affirm that sacrifice of Christ upon the cross to be bloody and that sacrifice of him in the Mass to be unbloody Therefore I will take away this refuge and vain starting-hole from them And first I say this distinction of theirs of a bloody and unbloody sacrifice of the self same thing that is sacrificed wants all warrant in the Word of God For there is not so much in the whole New Testament as a syllable that tells us that there is a proper sacrifice of Christ which is unbloody and you are never able to bring one instance to the contrary Secondly I say it is repugnant to the Scripture Heb. 10.10 11.12.14 for the Scripture only acknowledges such a sacrifice of Christ as is joined with his death as hath been proved before See Heb. 9.24.25 Not that he should offer himself often for then should he have suffered often since the beginning of the world Now if the Apostle his argument be true